Trump's Procedural Rights Curbed During Impeachment Inquiry, Legal Scholar Says
"The argument was that the president has been denied due process because there's no cross examination going on in the House," Sunstein said. "The first thing to say is that it's not a criminal trial and there's no right in these things to cross examination."
October 15, 2019 at 07:57 PM
6 minute read
Attorneys for President Donald Trump were wrong to think they should have the right to cross-examine witnesses, and call their own individuals, in the impeachment inquiry from Democrats in Congress, prominent legal scholar Cass Sunstein said Tuesday evening.
That was part of Sunstein's comments at an event held by the New York State Bar Association at Fordham University School of Law in Manhattan.
Sunstein, a professor at Harvard Law School, was invited to speak by the State Bar to talk about the legal process and ramifications of impeachment, which has been on the minds of many as Democrats continue their formal inquiry into Trump this week.
Just last week, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone wrote in a letter to Democratic leaders in Congress that they took issue with not being afforded the opportunity to review evidence, cross-examine individuals, and subpoena their own witnesses.
But Sunstein said, during his remarks at Fordham Law, that the Trump administration isn't afforded that right during the impeachment inquiry.
"The argument was that the president has been denied due process because there's no cross examination going on in the House," Sunstein said. "The first thing to say is that it's not a criminal trial and there's no right in these things to cross examination."
That same letter from the White House last week appeared to suggest that the Trump administration would stand in the way of efforts by federal lawmakers to seek participation in their impeachment inquiry by individuals within the executive branch of government.
Sunstein cautioned against any efforts by the Trump administration to block those requests from Democrats, likening that behavior to similar actions taken by former President Richard Nixon during his own brush with impeachment.
"The White House right now … would be well-advised to be very careful about refusing to respond to subpoenas," Sunstein said. "There would be a lot of explaining to do to justify the conclusion that that's not an impeachable offense in the context of an impeachment inquiry."
Sunstein also said that, if the House goes forward with a vote on articles of impeachment against Trump in the future, the Senate would have no option but to hold a trial on those claims. To do otherwise, he said, would be to contradict the intent of the U.S. Constitution.
"The Senate is constitutionally obliged to hold a trial. It can't just say no," Sunstein said. "If the House sees fit to impeach the president, then the Senate seems obliged to do its constitutional homework."
The event was co-sponsored by Fordham Law School and the New York State Writers Institute from the University at Albany.
Sunstein is considered one of the country's leading legal scholars on the process of impeachment, and other areas of constitutional and administrative law. He's currently the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard Law School, where he's also the founder and director of the program on behavior economics and public policy.
He's published several articles and books related to the topic, but has most recently been recognized for authoring "Impeachment: A Citizen's Guide" in 2017. The book provides an explainer of the history and legal process of impeachment.
Aside from his published works regarding impeachment, Sunstein also worked as an attorney-adviser in the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice. During the first term of the Obama administration, he was the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Federal lawmakers returned to Washington, D.C., on Tuesday after a two-week recess during which the impeachment inquiry launched by Democrats has sharply escalated, with a handful of witnesses delivering testimony behind closed doors, and more expected this week.
It's been nearly a month since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, announced a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump after it was reported that he encouraged Ukrainian officials to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, who served on the board of a Ukrainian gas company while his father was in office.
Democrats have suggested that Trump encouraged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden in exchange for continued foreign aid from the U.S. Trump has said a quid pro quo agreement between the two didn't exist, and Zelensky has said he didn't feel pressured.
That information came to light after, earlier this year, an anonymous government whistleblower reported the content of that call to the inspector general of the U.S. intelligence community. A summary of that call was later released publicly, which prompted Democrats to launch the impeachment inquiry.
Republicans have labeled the inquiry as political fodder for Democrats ahead of next year's elections, which could determine which party controls both chambers of Congress, as well as the White House itself.
Among the events scheduled this week in the impeachment inquiry is the testimony of U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, who's expected to tell Congress it was unclear whether Trump was truthful when he said, privately, he didn't intend on a quid pro quo agreement when he mentioned Biden while speaking about foreign aid.
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 AllGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readTrump, ABC News Settlement in Defamation Lawsuit Includes $1M in Attorney Fees For President-Elect
Can Law Firms Avoid Landing on 'Enemy' List During the Trump Administration?
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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