'Constitutionally Defective': Trump White House Refuses to Cooperate With Impeachment Inquiry
Several lawyers were quick to criticize the move, saying the administration is trying to shut down the only process available to hold a president accountable for misconduct.
October 08, 2019 at 06:15 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The White House on Tuesday said it will not participate in the U.S. House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry, calling it an unprecedented and dangerous path and an attempt to undo the results of the 2016 presidential election.
The eight-page letter signed by White House counsel Pat Cipollone said there is no legitimate basis for the inquiry and that it violates the due process and separation of powers clauses. The letter said the committees currently handling the inquiry have failed to ensure President Donald Trump's right to see evidence, cross-examine witnesses, make objections to the examination of witnesses or evidence, and to respond to evidence and testimony.
"We hope that, in light of the many deficiencies we have identified in your proceedings, you will abandon the current invalid efforts to pursue an impeachment inquiry and join the president in focusing on the many important goals that matter to the American people," the letter said.
House Democrats began their impeachment inquiry after a whistleblower flagged allegations that Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate political rival Joe Biden and his family and then allegedly tried to cover up the call.
A senior White House official claimed to reporters on a call shortly after the letter's release that the legal arguments are "grounded in a precedent."
"This is really a situation where the president has an obligation to protect certain principles and not to engage in a process that we believe is constitutionally defective," the official said.
But prominent legal experts were almost immediately dismissive of the claims made in the letter.
"Trump Administration: The reason why a sitting President can't be indicted is because the Constitution expressly creates an alternative, political process for presidential misconduct. Also Trump Administration: That alternative process is too political and entirely illegitimate," Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, tweeted.
The White House's move Tuesday is sure to set up more litigation as House Democrats seek to compel the release of information. Top Democrats have also signaled that they may fold efforts by the Trump White House to stifle the impeachment inquiry into potential articles of impeachment.
A federal judge on Tuesday questioned U.S. Justice Department attorneys over their position that the House could not get redacted grand jury materials from special counsel Robert Mueller's report.
In a hearing Tuesday, Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell of the District of Columbia, pointed to past decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that found impeachment does constitute a judicial proceeding, one of the few instances a court can allow the release of grand jury materials, as potentially forcing her hand in ruling for the House in its bid to get the information.
House general counsel Douglas Letter argued it wasn't necessary for the chamber to hold such a vote at this time.
Letter acknowledged that a full House vote may have been held at this stage of other presidential impeachments, but that it wasn't the case in the impeachments of other individuals, like judges.
Read the letter:
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump, ABC News Settlement in Defamation Lawsuit Includes $1M in Attorney Fees For President-Elect
Trump, ABC News Settle Defamation Lawsuit Before Depositions
Trump-Appointed Judge Presides Over NASCAR Antitrust Dispute Under Case Reassignment
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Ben Brafman Reflects on Nearly 50 Years as a Defense Attorney
- 2Upstate Judge Resigned Amid Probe Into Excessive Bail, Derision of Litigants, Judicial Conduct Body Says
- 3Judges Association and NY State Bar Frown on Hochul's Veto of Bill to End Retirement Penalty for Judges Who Die in Office
- 4Justices Pass on Service Providers' Challenge to NY's Broadband Rate Caps
- 5$50M Settlement Obtained in Class Suit Over Defective Artificial Turf
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250