General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: No vote!! [View all]LTG
(215 posts)The legal argument being made is that absent a rule allowing the Speaker to simply declare that an official impeachment inquiry has begun on her own authority, the courts must rely on established House custom. The custom for the most recent commencement of Presidential impeachment inquiries has been the passage of such a resolution by vote of the House. The court will defer to the rules and procedures established by Congress governing impeachments. But the administration will argue that such things are created through the vote of congress.
If the hearings being held are oversight in nature the an assertion of executive privilege is legally defensible and its applicability to a particular witness and line of questioning must be determined by the court, upon suit being brought by the committee. If the court finds that is indeed an impeachment inquiry this exemption narrows substantially, but does not completely disappear.
After the court rules against the administration is when legal sanctions start applying. Any attempt at compelling testimony through the exercise of inherent contempt would be met by motion to the federal courts long before the trial of the contemnor could be held by the House.
Each step puts things off a little longer. A single victory in court for the administration could alter some public opinion on obstruction. And we know there are more friendly judges n the courts now than before.