EAllusion wrote:It’s a violation of the controlling executive order interpretation of how to execute Congressional legal authorization. Abuse of the classification system in order to conceal politically derogatory information falls within Congressional purview and should be investigated when there is reasonable suspicion, which there is in this case. It should be investigated in an impeachment inquiry when that reasonable suspicion concerns impeachable conduct, which it does in this case. The manner in which the classification system was used to conceal the Ukraine call was an abuse of the public trust. That’s what a high crime is. It is valid and adviseable to see how far that abuse goes given the current state of evidence.Res Ipsa wrote:
If it was a violation of a law passed by Congress, then there would clearly be something to investigate. But is the determination of what goes on the secure server law or is it executive branch policy? If it's just policy, then an investigation would look more like a fishing expedition.
Is there an actual executive order? Or are we talking about practice, custom, or written or unwritten policy?
I disagree with your definition of "fishing expedition." Even bona fide fishing expeditions are based on some kind of evidence. The difference is between the strength of the connection between that evidence and the specific crime being investigated. It's more of a spectrum than a rigid boundary, which is why I said "look more like a fishing expedition." For example, Trump publicly asked China to investigate the Bidens just before a trade dispute negotiation. There is some evidence that he also discussed investigating the Bidens on a call with the leader of China. Requesting the transcript of that call doesn't look like a fishing expedition because it a request for a document that one would reasonably expect to contain evidence of any improper request or pressure from the President.
In contrast, a general request for the transcript of any calls placed on the server is based on a suspicion that the transcript was placed there because Trump did something wrong, but we have no idea what. That looks more like a fishing expedition.
The problem with the current impeachment process is that there is no formal division between the investigation and the evaluation of whether the evidence warrants referral to the Senate for trial. In criminal cases, we have the police investigation and the grand jury/preliminary hearing. In the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, there were special or independent prosecutors that did the investigation. In this case, House committees are doing both. As the term has been used in the past, the opening of "impeachment proceedings" has been a request that the judiciary evaluate the evidence gathered by the independent or special counsel, performing a function similar to a grand jury. The term "impeachment inquiry" has been used as kind of a weasel term - it's never clear whether the "inquiry' means investigation, evaluation, or both. It seems to me to be a mish mash of both, with no clear delineation. (One clearer way of setting this up would be to designate one or two committees as being responsible for the investigation, and the judiciary committee in charge of evaluation. Hearings would be appropriate only by the judiciary committee at the conclusion of the investigation.
As far as the standard for opening a congressional investigation, it may very well be "fishing expeditions" are just fine. Courts have been reluctant to place limits on Congress's oversight powers, and one cannot conduct proper oversight without investigations. But certainly reasonable and articulable suspicion of wrongdoing by the executive branch should justify starting an investigation. I think calling an investigation an "impeachment inquiry" simply because it could lead to the discovery of an impeachable offense is a bad idea. If we are going to use "impeachment inquiry" to refer to the investigative phase of impeachment, then it should be reserved for cases where the House feels there is sufficient evidence to refer to the Judiciary Committee for review. That should be, in my opinion, a higher standard than that to initiate an investigation. That higher standard would be more like probable cause that an impeachable offense has occurred.
The problem I see with adding investigation of all e-mails stored on the server to the impeachment inquiry is that all we have are anonymous sources who say there were other transcripts placed there. That's nowhere near probable cause of an impeachable offense. It certainly is worth investigating, but combining it with an investigation that, from the beginning, involved an impeachable offense makes no sense from a practical standpoint. We don't have the call transcripts, and getting them would take months, if not years. Arguing that withholding them constitutes obstruction of justice would be weak, considering we really can't identify (with the exception of the transcript of the alleged Chinese call) the bad thing Trump was supposed to have done during the call. Contrast that with instructing material witnesses not to testify when we have more than probable cause that an impeachable offense occurred.
The House already has an impeachment case that is strong enough to send to the Senate. It certainly could put that case on ice while it investigated any other calls placed on the server. That would probably result in an impeachment trial in 2021 if Trump is reelected. Trump handed the House the evidence it needed on a silver platter. He won't make that mistake again. Or, it can open investigations into the other transcripts while proceeding with the Ukraine impeachment process. I don't see including that investigation in the impeachment inquiry as a significantly greater deterrent to election cheating than conducting a separate investigation. Either way, it sends the message that Congress is watching. I think whatever marginal benefit there could be is far outweighed by the invevitable delay that combining the two would cause.