Tag: impeachment

The Impeachment Process: Politics, Procedure and Next Steps

The US House of Representatives is set to vote this week on impeaching President Donald Trump, and the impeachment vote is expected to pass.  This will set the stage for the next step in the impeachment process;  the third-ever Senate impeachment trial.

We thought this would be a good time to recap the steps in the impeachment process to better understand, procedurally, how the impeachment case against President Trump reached this point, and what is expected next.  Also, we wanted to dig into some of the issues which have been brought up as problematic by the Republican minority in the House related to the impeachment process and the structure of the House hearings.

Jeffrey S. Robbins, a litigation partner at the Boston offices of Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, served as Chief Counsel for the Minority (the Democrats) for the United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and Deputy Chief Counsel for the Minority for the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee during its 1997 investigation into allegations of fundraising improprieties by the Clinton-Gore Administration during the 1996 presidential campaign.  Mr. Robbins was kind enough to share his expertise on past congressional investigations to help sort through some of the procedural issues raised and help us understand if the process, so far, has proceeded in a usual manner.

NLR: Impeachment is a three-step process, beginning with an investigation in the house and then a vote on articles of impeachment, then a trial in the Senate. What kind of evidence is the House looking for during the investigation stage prior to voting on articles of impeachment?

Robbins: The House committees are looking for the strongest quantum of evidence possible that the President engaged in conduct which amounts to an identifiable “crime,” since a conservative reading of the Constitution holds that some form of crime, at least, is necessary for impeachment.

House Republicans have complained about the limited access to closed-door House impeachment investigation and depositions leading up to the House’s impeachment vote should all be public and the transcripts should be released. Access to the House’s investigative hearings has been limited to members of the three House committees involved– Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Oversight, and Reform which have a majority of Democratic House Members but Republican committee members can participate in the investigation and question the parties being deposed. Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said private sessions are needed to prevent witnesses from hearing each other, the same protocol used by prosecutors in criminal investigations.  House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., called Schiff a liar and a partisan leading a witch hunt and that the venerable Intelligence Committee has become the partisan Impeachment Committee.

NLR: How much of the House’s investigation needs to be in the form of public hearings?

Robbins: There is no Constitutional requirement that impeachment hearings be public or private, but as a practical and a political matter, it is obvious that impeachment hearings need to be conducted in public; after all, building public support for impeachment is a sine qua non (an essential condition) of a vote to impeach, let alone a vote to convict. On the other hand, there is nothing remotely nefarious about what the Minority refers to as “closed door” depositions; Congressional investigations routinely utilize depositions, by definition closed to the public, as a device to ascertain which witnesses have relevant evidence and what that relevant evidence is, in order to assess the strength of a “case” and to more effectively organize any public hearings associated with the investigation.

Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said private sessions are needed to prevent witnesses from hearing each other. House and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said “I can’t even go down there and read the transcript,” alleging that Republicans have not been allowed to cross-examine the hearing witnesses, which is not accurate.

The reality is that Republicans have participated in each deposition, but their role is limited by the Democratic committee majority. Both Republicans and the Democrats get equal time to ask questions.  Forty-seven Republicans from the Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight Committees have been allowed to attend and participate in the depositions.

NLR: What actually goes on in Congressional hearings? What is the timeline between the hearings and the public testimony?

Robbins: From personal experience, I can tell you that the preparation to question witnesses in a Congressional investigation is an intense process, made all the more intense by the volume of material that has to be consumed in order to question effectively and by the shortage of time within which to consume it. Here, for example, there is a steady drumbeat of witnesses being called for deposition on only a few days’ notice to all concerned, and then only a week or so between the deposition and the public hearing. The process is made more intense by the fact that there are other staff lawyers, and Members, and communications experts, all of whom quite properly want to weigh in on the thrust of the questioning, the messaging of the questioning, and the like.

In the hearings, according to the Wall Street Journal, Adam Schiff opens with remarks and then invites a Republican counterpart to do the same.  Each party receives a block of time to ask questions, and a timekeeper keeps track and moves the proceedings along.  Rep. Mark Meadows (R., N.C.), told the Wall Street Journal that each party gets equal time.  “There is a clock, with a timekeeper,” he said.  Other Republicans, including Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania have been attending the hearings regularly.  Besides Mr. Schiff, Reps. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, Eric Swalwell of California and Gerry Connolly of Virginia have been attending for the Democrats.  Eventually, the committee voted down party lines to advance the impeachment proceedings.

Complicating the evidence-gathering process is the lack of cooperation from the White House, including Trump administration officials defying subpoenas.  Per Adam Schiff, the White House isn’t cooperating and is defying several subpoenas, which Schiff predicted would be considered obstruction and additional evidence “of the wrongfulness of the President’s underlying misconduct.”  When the House Leadership unveiled the articles of impeachment on December 10, 2019, they first focused on the Trump’s pressuring of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden before the 2020 election by delaying a White House meeting and $400 million in US Security Aid, but the second focused on the obstruction related to the investigation into his misconduct.

NLR: What are the consequences if a witness refuses to testify at a hearing, or otherwise ignores a subpoena? 

Robbins: Under law, there are to be consequences to refusal to testify or disobedience of a subpoena to produce documents, in particular, contempt findings that are appropriately enforced by federal courts.

Mr. Schiff, accused by House minority Whip Steve Scalise of “…trying to impeach a president of the United States… behind closed doors,” pointed out that the president’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, pled guilty to lying to Congress out of loyalty to the president, and was recently sentenced to three years in prison as a result. Still, the White House has consistently refused to cooperate with the inquiry, citing executive privilege as justification to keep those subpoenaed from actually appearing under oath. Citing executive privilege is a not-uncommon tactic to prevent disclosure of goings-on at the top end of the executive branch, but it doesn’t always work well for those using it, and the privilege itself remains a cloudy legal concept.

NLR: What privileges, if any, can a witness assert?

Robbins: With respect to privileges, there are, of course, the “Big Three”: the attorney-client privilege, the Executive Privilege, and the Fifth Amendment. When those privileges are invoked, as a practical matter they are beyond being challenged, except in extreme circumstances, and for the purpose of this impeachment proceeding, where the time constraints are what they are, if they are invoked their invocation will effectively block disclosure of evidence.

There have been many examples of witnesses invoking their Fifth Amendment rights to avoid answering questions in Congressional hearings.  One prominent example is the case of Lt. Colonel Oliver North in the hearings around the Iran-Contra affair during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

NLR: If the House votes to ratify the articles of impeachment, the Senate will hold a trial.  Who acts as a prosecutor in this instance, and who acts for the defense?  How is that determined?

Robbins: Since the House is the indicting authority, it will choose who presents the case for removal to the Senate. It will in all likelihood be one or more members of the House.

By way of reference, for President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial in 1868, an impeachment committee was made up of seven members of Congress, led by Thaddeus Stevens.  President Bill Clinton’s impeachment featured a team of thirteen House Republicans from the Judiciary Committee.

NLR: Why does the Supreme Court get involved in impeachment proceedings, and what is their role?

Robbins: As for the role of the Supreme Court, it is the Chief Justice who presides over the trial, per the Constitution, and it is he who will be involved in those proceedings, and not the full Court—at least this has not occurred in our limited experience with impeachment.

While it may seem plain that the Supreme Court would have a larger role in the impeachment proceedings, that’s not truly the case. The chief justice is, of course, given the power to preside of the Senate trial by the Constitution as a part of the doctrine of separation of powers – as Justice Joseph Story argued – removing the Vice President from Senate leadership to uphold the trial’s impartiality. Should there be a conviction in the Senate, and the convicted president were to try and engage the highest court, SCOTUS has already found that the Senate’s impeachment procedures are nonjusticiable, because of Article I’s designation of the Senate as the “sole power to try all impeachments” (Nixon v United States, 1993).

Many thanks to Mr. Robbins for his time and for helping break down these complex issues during a complicated time.

Copyright ©2019 National Law Forum, LLC

Executive Immunity and Impeachment: Any Precedent for President Trump’s Strategy?

With the fourth presidential impeachment hearings in our country’s history underway; the National Law Review thought it timely to look at some of the issues related to impeachment; specifically involving executive privilege and how the Trump administration’s invocation of executive privilege and how presidential immunity fits in historically with other impeachments in recent memory.

Sol Wisenberg, a Deputy Independent Counsel from the Starr Investigation, is a white-collar attorney who was written and spoken about the procedures surrounding impeachment and the constitutional law issues in play. He was generous with his time and spoke with the Lead Writer of the National Law Review, Eilene Spear, on executive privilege, recent litigation related to executive privilege, and the ever-present intersection of public opinion, constitutional law, and politics.  Below are excerpts of the conversation, featuring Mr. Wisenberg’s analysis and opinion on the proceedings at hand. This is the second article in this series, the first focusing on comparing and contrasting the Clinton impeachment with the impeachment investigation into President Trump.

ES:  Is it appropriate for Democrats to imply that if a witness in the impeachment investigation refuses to testify that they are trying to undermine the impeachment proceedings?

I mean, look, it’s their show, they are the majority in the House. Adam Schiff came out and said “if you do not appear, then we’ll infer that your testimony would have been favorable to our impeachment inquiry.” Those weren’t his exact words, but that was the essence. Is it appropriate? I would say that it depends on the circumstances. Charles M. Kupperman, President Trump’s former deputy national security adviser, was subpoenaed by House Democrats to testify, but the White House, prior to Mr. Kupperman’s House testimony, said that the President had invoked Presidential Immunity, leaving Mr. Kupperman uncertain about how to proceed.  Kupperman went to the federal district court and basically said: ‘Hey, I’ve got Congress issuing a subpoena and telling me I’m going to be in contempt if I don’t answer. But I also went to the White House Counsel and he’s sent me this letter here saying I’m absolutely forbidden to appear. I want to follow the law. Tell me what to do court.’ I believe he did exactly what you’re supposed to do in that situation. Kupperman’s lawsuit also raised questions about John Bolton’s possible future testimony, as Kupperman’s lawyer, Charles Cooper, also represents Bolton, President Trump’s former national security advisor.  According to CNN, while it remains to be seen if Kupperman or Bolton will ultimately end up testifying, their actions are widely viewed as intertwined, with one source telling CNN that the two men are “simpatico.”

As a purely legal proposition, Adam Schiff’s assertion about inferences to be drawn from refusing to testify or show up is preposterous in Kupperman’s case. The only time a trier of fact is allowed to make a negative inference from the invocation of a privilege is the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and even that is only in a civil proceeding. The Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right not to testify, and the judge and jurors are not permitted to take this refusal to testify into consideration when deciding whether he or she is guilty See Ohio v. Reiner 532 US 17 (2001).   The people who aren’t testifying or showing up at the House are not, so far, taking the Fifth. These are people saying, “I’ve got a constitutional argument or the President does, and that’s why I shouldn’t appear.” But keep in mind that impeachment is a political remedy. If a majority of the House wants to construe a refusal to appear or testify, even on Constitutional grounds, against the President, they are going to do it.

A Bit of Background:

Executive privilege has been asserted frequently by past presidents, though it’s not explicitly written into the Constitution.  George Mason University professor Mark Rozell explained in a 1999 law review article that executive privilege is “the right of the president and high-level executive branch officers to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public.” This power can be used in two circumstances, he continues: “(1) certain national security needs and (2) protecting the privacy of White House deliberations when it is in the public interest to do so.” It’s the second part that is especially valuable, as it allows presidential advisors to freely speak their minds without the threat of a subpoena. The problem is it’s not precisely clear who this privilege covers.

In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), the Supreme Court addressed a subpoena duces tecum during the Nixon impeachment process to produce documents, including full copies of the Watergate tapes which contained meetings between President Nixon and others indicted in Watergate situation or had ties to the Nixon administration.  President Nixon did turn over edited transcripts of some of the conversations included in the subpoena. Before the Supreme Court, Nixon claimed he had an absolute executive privilege to protect communications between “high government officials and those who advise and assist them in carrying out their duties.” The Supreme Court held presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial did not override the needs of the judicial process on the grounds of a generalized interest in confidentiality.  The large difference is that the Nixon case involved the subpoena of documents, the Trump impeachment subpoenas addressed above involve subpoenas for live testimony only.

Also, in U.S. v. Nixon’s majority opinion, Chief Justice Burger stated, “[n]either the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.” The immunity claimed by both President Trump and other presidents comes from the position of the executive branch as a co-equal branch alongside the judiciary and legislative branches.

ES:  What do Executive Privilege and Absolute Presidential Immunity cover and do they  apply to people other than the president?

Executive privilege is invoked in the name of the president, but it can cover any executive officer. It is a privilege recognized by the Supreme Court. Presidential immunity purports to cover anyone who works in the White House, or the Executive Office of the president. The theory is that Congress can no more summon a White House employee to appear than it could summon the president.  One reason officials like Kupperman are seeking clarification is that executive privilege and presidential immunity in impeachment proceedings are not open and shut issues. Every president at least since Nixon has claimed immunity–for himself and his key White House aides–from even having to show up in the House or Senate to answer questions, claiming that White House employees are in the same position as the president and are immune from having to appear. This doctrine makes me shake my head a little, and, as noted, is far from settled law in the courts.

No court has ever accepted the absolute immunity argument, to my knowledge. Only one court has ruled directly on it, and that was in the George W. Bush administration. Committee on Judiciary v. Miers 575 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D.D.C. 2008) addressed a House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena to Harriet Miers, former Counsel to President Bush, seeking to compel her to produce documents and to appear and testify about the forced resignation of  U.S Attorneys, and that court ruled against the White House. In the Harriet Miers case, federal district judge John Bates stated “there is no judicial support whatsoever” that a president’s advisers have absolute immunity from testimony, and that such a view “would eviscerate Congress’ historical oversight function.” But the case was settled and has no precedential value, except in Bates’ court. I think the opinion is of some significance, however, because Bates was a Bush appointee and in general a strong supporter of executive privilege.

ES:  Is there any type of immunity from testimony that may apply if executive privilege isn’t applicable? 

There are other forms of privilege that might come up.  I suppose somebody could take the Fifth, you can take the Fifth right in front of the House committee. So that’s always available. There’s attorney-client privilege. To be precise; this idea that if you work at the White House–and are therefore in the same shoes as the president–you don’t even have to show up, that’s technically not executive privilege. That is a presidential immunity argument based upon the separation of powers.  For example, you could put that to a judge and the judge could throw it out, say there is no such thing, and the court rejects that doctrine. Then the individual could go over to Congress and get asked a question, and he could claim executive privilege and he would be completely within his rights.

The Obama administration took the identical position with David Simas, an employee in the Obama White House, that President Trump did in the case of Kupperman and former White House Counsel Don McGahn.  Simas was head of the Office of Political Strategy and Outreach and was subpoenaed in relation to Congressional oversight of Hatch Act compliance. White House Counsel W. Neil Eggleston asserted executive immunity, defying a subpoena from House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa.  His letter referenced the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion, saying: “The Executive Branch’s longstanding position, reaffirmed by numerous Administrations of both political parties, is that the President’s immediate advisers are absolutely immune from the congressional testimonial process.” There are examples in every administration, and each party wants to find examples where the other party did the same or a more extreme version of what they are trying to do because people forget and people are partisan.

ES:  That said, how do politics impact the perception of a President’s claim of executive privilege?

Once again, it depends on the circumstances. In the context of an impeachment inquiry with an unpopular President and an opposing party in charge of one or both branches, politics can affect absolutist doctrines fairly quickly. Look at Nixon again.  In April 1973, before the Senate Watergate Committee hearings began, he vowed that his aides would not testify. Nixon’s Attorney General, Dick Kleindienst, told Senator Ed Muskie,  “You do not have the power to compel me to come up here if the President directs me not to, and even if you would attempt to compel me, I would not come here.” If the Senate didn’t like it, Kleindienst smirked to Senator Sam Ervin, “you have a remedy, all kinds of remedies: cut off appropriations, impeach the President.” That was in April. By May 22, with public opinion starting to move against him, Nixon completely capitulated. Ervin called Nixon’s bluff, referring to his broad claims of Executive privilege as“executive poppycock.” Nixon didn’t have Trump’s political power. He had short coattails and both houses of Congress were in Democratic hands. Trump is stronger with his House and Senatorial base, and his party in control of the Senate, so he can pull off that attitude for now. But again, attitudes and public opinion can change quickly, and we’ve already seen the needle move a little bit in terms of public opinion in the last week alone.

You also have the issue of aides, former aides, and Executive Branch officials who simply ignore Presidential directives not to appear or testify. This happened to Nixon, as people like John Dean and Jeb Magruder finally started telling the truth to DOJ Prosecutor Earl Silbert, and ultimately to Ervin’s Watergate Committee. It is happening to Trump now with some State Department and DOD officials–and at least one mid-level OMB employee–talking to the House. I believe this is how Madison and some of the other Framers expected things to play out. It is checks and balances at work. It is one thing to have a nice little formalistic theory of executive privilege or presidential immunity. It is quite another to try to enforce it in the real rough-and-tumble world of politics.

Many thanks again to Mr. Wisenberg for his time, insights and perspective.

Copyright ©2019 National Law Forum, LLC

Clinton’s Impeachment Compared to the Trump Proceedings: Conversation with Sol Wisenberg, former Deputy Independent Counsel during the Starr Investigation

With the Trump impeachment proceedings getting ready to start this week in the House of Representatives, we thought it would be interesting to take a look back at the Clinton Impeachment.  The catalyst for President Clinton’s impeachment was the Starr Report.  Independent Counsel Ken Starr presented to the House of Representatives a case for impeaching President Bill Clinton on 11 grounds, including perjury, obstruction of justice, witness-tampering and abuse of power.  The sexual relationship between the president and former White House intern Monica Lewinsky formed the basis of the lying under oath and obstruction of justice charges.  The lying under oath charge stemmed from the Clinton v. Jones civil lawsuit, which included President Clinton’s inaccurate grand jury testimony about a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Solomon L. Wisenberg played a pivotal role in the Clinton Impeachment as a Deputy Independent Counsel during the Starr investigation. Mr. Wisenberg’s grand jury questioning of President Bill Clinton was submitted by independent counsel Kenneth Starr with his report to the House of Representatives as part of the Clinton impeachment proceedings.

Mr. Wisenberg has more than two decades of experience with complex federal white-collar crime investigations and jury trials and is currently the co-chair of Nelson Mullins White Collar Defense and Government Investigations practice.  He is a sought after analyst and routinely appears in a variety of media providing commentary and answering questions on federal white-collar investigations, impeachment, public corruption under the Hobbs Act, bribery and fraud, Foreign Corrupt Practice Act violations and other intricate legal issues.

Mr. Wisenberg was kind enough to take time out of his schedule to talk with the National Law Review on the upcoming Trump impeachment proceedings and how they are similar and different from the Clinton impeachment.

The Starr Report played a central role in the Clinton impeachment proceedings; producing the perjury and obstruction of justice charges stemming from the Clinton v. Jones civil action.

In the Clinton v. Jones sexual harassment lawsuit, Ms. Jones’ attorneys included questions about Monica Lewinsky and President Clinton’s behavior with other women to show a pattern of improper behavior with women by Clinton to bolster Ms. Jones’ sexual harassment claims.

Additionally, Ms. Jones’ attorneys sought to show a pattern concerning President Clinton’s actions in covering up various inappropriate interactions with women.

Do you think the impeachment prosecutors for President Trump will introduce elements from the Mueller report to show a pattern of behavior to bolster any criminal acts and any obstruction of justice case related to the withholding of aid to Ukraine?

Mr. Wisenberg: I think there’s no doubt that they will. I’ve heard some Democratic Congressmen talking about it and it’s very clear that they feel the obstruction portion of the Mueller report has not been given sufficient attention. So I’d be shocked if it does not constitute one of the articles of impeachment.

The Supreme Court in Clinton v. Jones held that a sitting president is subject to civil suits in federal court, this lead to President Clinton being deposed and perjuring himself and being impeached by the House of Representatives, on grounds of perjury to a grand jury and for obstruction of justice.

xxxx

If President Clinton was able to be deposed while in office, why are President Trump and other members of his administration, such as Mick Mulvaney, claiming immunity?

Mr. Wisenberg: Trump didn’t ever formally claim immunity, because Mueller never pressed the point. Keep in mind, Clinton vs Jones just said the president is not immune from suits while he is in office. Even President Clinton didn’t take the position that he could never be sued. President Clinton’s position was just that he didn’t have to answer lawsuits brought while he was the president, and the Supreme Court ended up saying yes you do, you don’t have that absolute immunity. But the Court also said that there needs to be respect and accommodations for the responsibilities of the office, for the president’s schedule, time, privacy, all of that kind of stuff.

However, in the Lewinsky criminal investigation where we sent President Clinton a grand jury subpoena after he ignored six of our requests to appear, we ended up withdrawing the subpoena. We did this because President Clinton’s attorney said if you withdraw the subpoena, he’ll sit for grand jury testimony. Clinton’s inquiry involved grand jury testimony, not just a deposition.  So the constitutional issue involving the President’s right to defy a grand jury subpoena for testimony alone was never tested there. I think it would’ve been an interesting issue, because Clinton did not want to be in a position where the president is being subpoenaed or responding to a subpoena, and he certainly didn’t want to be in a position of going to federal court to block the Lewinsky Grand Jury’s subpoena.

So that’s how it was worked out, and we don’t know what would have happened if he would have challenged our subpoena in court. There’s actually a case that came out in 1997. It’s the controlling law in the DC Circuit.  The Office of Independent Counsel that was investigating Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy wasn’t asking for testimony in that case. In the In Re Sealed Case, 121 F 3d 729 (1997). the issue was asking for documents and it’s actually a fairly high standard to be able to force the president to respond to a grand jury subpoena. I believe it’s quite possible that Mueller didn’t press the point because he might not have won under the test laid out for Mike Espy, even if he was just seeking testimony. Every case is dependent upon the particular facts.  And because Mueller already had been given a tremendous amount of relevant information, he may have not wanted to push it, as it’s not at all certain that he would’ve won. So not only would it have been a lengthy process that would have delayed the Mueller investigation, but Mueller may not have won on the issue. It’s not that President Trump was behaving inconsistently with the ruling in Clinton vs Jones. It’s that Mueller never forced Trump to make a choice.

Special Counsel Mueller declined to subpoena President Trump, as Mueller told the House Intelligence Committee that it looked highly unlikely that they would obtain an in-person interview with Trump and because of the perceived need to wrap up the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.

xxxx

Do you think Mr. Mueller’s strategy of not forcing President Trump to either testify, fight the subpoena in the courts or defy the subpoena will weaken the prosecutor’s ability to use the Mueller report in the impeachment process?

Mr. Wisenberg: Oh God, no. I mean, not at all. The report is what it is. The obstruction portion of the report (I should say alleged obstruction, because even Mueller doesn’t say that Trump criminally obstructed justice) is what it is. The obstruction portion of the Mueller report is based on witness testimony.  I don’t think there’s going to be much dispute about what happened. And apparently now the House of Representatives has the grand jury backup for the Mueller report’s witness testimony. President Trump has questioned some of Don McGahn’s factual statements, but McGahn was hardly alone in detailing the President’s efforts to stymie Mueller.

The dispute would be on the suggestion that the President criminally obstructed justice. I don’t think he did on the known facts, and the only episode that is even a close call on this was when President Trump allegedly asked Don McGahn to sign a document for the White House’s records denying he’d been told to fire Mueller. I think from the Democrats’ perspective they were waiting and waiting and waiting for the Mueller report and it was a dud. The Democrats blamed Bill Barr, I think, unfairly. The Democrats tried to hold testimony on the Mueller report and, it didn’t get anywhere, again, because of all of the claims of executive privilege and related doctrines. Now that they’ve got impeachment authority in Congress the Democrats are in a much stronger position.  They can say now, any area of inquiry is allowed under our Constitutional power to conduct an impeachment inquiry.

xxxx

Based on President Clinton’s conflicting testimony, Mr. Starr presented a case that President Clinton had committed perjury. Do you think President Trump’s frequent public statements, though not under oath about the Russian interference in the 2016 election and the alleged quid pro quo in the withholding of aid to Ukraine will be used in the impeachment proceedings?

Mr. Wisenberg:  The Democrats can use anything they want if they think it is valuable to them. The Democrats might say President Trump’s frequent commentaries can be construed as non-hearsay party admissions under the Federal Rules of Evidence in any proceeding brought against President Trump. Also, where somebody is accused of criminal wrongdoing and says something about the specific accusation that turns out to be false, this can be used against him as a false exculpatory statement.   So, I see no reason why they can’t consider anything they want to consider.

To answer your specific questions about President Clinton, President Clinton lied under oath in the Paula Jones civil rights lawsuit deposition thereby obstructing justice.  The federal district judge presiding held President Clinton in contempt of court. President Clinton is the only U.S president ever held in contempt by a federal judge. Additionally, President Clinton had his secretary retrieve and remove gifts Monika Lewinsky had in her possession, when the gifts were subpoenaed in the Jones civil suit. President Clinton used a White House employee, his secretary Betty Currie to obstruct justice in a civil rights lawsuit.

There are some people who say private conduct,  even if it’s criminal, should never be impeachable and that we should not be concerned with private conduct. And there is some historical support for this position in writings by the framers and stuff like that. But President Clinton did more than that. He used a White House employee in order to hide items under subpoena. That’s textbook obstruction.

xxxx

If President Trump’s impeachment prosecutors are able to demonstrate that alleged withholding of aid to Ukraine is a criminal act, do you think it will be easier to prove intent in an obstruction of justice case?

Mr. Wisenberg:  No, I don’t think so. I don’t think that helps them on obstruction of justice unless something new related to the Ukraine business comes out, but all he did was to say it’s a perfect call. Right? I think that if you were to somehow prove that this was a campaign finance violation or, or some kind of a crime, it might be a little bit easier to get a few more votes, but I don’t see anything yet that gets them the votes they need to convict President Trump in the Senate.  I understand some people believe that putting the phone call transcript on a separate server was obstruction, but that sounds weak to me.

GOP Senators will point out that President Trump was elected, and we’re a representative democracy. We’re going to hold an election in one year. They will say it’s not right to remove him because of Ukraine. Even if they think, as Senators, that it was a mistake.

I think it is going to take something really dramatic for there to be a shift. Either a dramatic shift in public opinion based on the live testimony or just something new coming out, some new scandal to move the needle on that.

To answer your question, if somebody were to somehow to prove without question that President Trump knew he was violating the law when he made the call, that may be meaningful. And that revelation again moves the needle maybe, but you can’t ignore the politics.

Take a look at the situation with President Clinton. There was no real question in anybody’s mind that he perjured himself and that he obstructed justice, but that didn’t all of a sudden make the Democrats in the Senate vote for removal. I don’t think any of them did. The Democrats during the Clinton impeachment and removal proceedings acted very similarly to how the Republicans are acting now.  You can’t ignore the politics.

Many thanks to Mr. Wisenberg for his time and answers to our questions.

Copyright ©2019 National Law Forum, LLC