Politico: How Donald Trump’s DOJ gave Biden a major assist in the coming impeachment probe

[Wandering Monk]

'In January 2020, the Donald Trump-led Justice Department formally declared that impeachment inquiries by the House are invalid unless the chamber takes formal votes to authorize them.​

​

That opinion — issued by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel — came in response to then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to launch an impeachment inquiry into Trump without initially holding a vote for it. Not only is it still on the books, it is binding on the current administration as it responds to Tuesday’s announcement by Speaker Kevin McCarthy to authorize an impeachment inquiry into Biden, again without a vote.'​

​

[W]e conclude that the House must expressly authorize a committee to conduct an impeachment investigation and to use compulsory process in that investigation before the committee may compel the production of documents or testimony,” wrote Steven Engel, then the head of DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, backing the Trump administration’s rejection of subpoenas from the Democratic congressional investigators.​

​

“The House had not authorized such an investigation in connection with the impeachment-related subpoenas issued before October 31, 2019, and the subpoenas therefore had no compulsory effect,” Engel, a Senate-confirmed Trump appointee, concluded in his 54-page opinion.​

​

...McCarthy, at the time, also called the impeachment inquiry illegitimate. (He had pledged as of a week ago to hold a vote if he were to go down the same path with Biden before scrapping one on Tuesday.)​

​

How Donald Trump’s DOJ gave Biden a major assist in the coming impeachment probe

The department’s 2020 opinion around Trump's impeachment trial could place some serious constraints on House Republicans now.

www.politico.com

Well, now...this is getting interesting.

 

[F1fan]

The republicans pursuing this nonsense is all theater. I suspect they would be happy to hit roadblocks because then they can claim the "deepstate" is preventing the impeachment inquiry, The disinformation is the point, they don;t want legitimate process. How many moderate voters are going to read headlines and think Biden is corrupt, like Trump? If the MAGAs have to do an actual impeachment it will be a joke. Comer gets interviewed and asked about evidence against Biden and admits he has none, but he still thinks he's guilty of something.

 

[Viker]

In other words, no evidence no inquiry. They have no evidence to proceed. Wishful thinking doesn't count as evidence.

 

[SomeRandom]

Can y’all help out a non American here??

See the Indictment charges against Trump are always presented to me as very serious legal issues. Both from American and indeed international sources.
But if you can just shove one at your political opponent for a bit of showmanship. Is it very serious? Or does it depend on the outcome?

I’m sure there will be nuances to this.
But ultimately I’m afraid I’m a tad confused

 

[Wandering Monk]

Can y’all help out a non American here??

See the Indictment charges against Trump are always presented to me as very serious legal issues. Both from American and indeed international sources.
But if you can just shove one at your political opponent for a bit of showmanship. Is it very serious? Or does it depend on the outcome?

I’m sure there will be nuances to this.
But ultimately I’m afraid I’m a tad confused

Impeachment is not a legal process, but a political process.

Indictments on the other hand are LEGAL charges which can have civil or criminal penalties.

 

[SomeRandom]

Impeachment is not a legal process, but a political process.

Indictments on the other hand are LEGAL charges which can have civil or criminal penalties.

So like Trump got Indicted (and I think impeached, judging by the news) and Biden only got impeached.
Is that correct?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So like Trump got Indicted (and I think impeached, judging by the news) and Biden only got impeached.
Is that correct?

Trump was impeached twice. Though it is a political process an impeachment is roughly equivalent to an indictment. The House is the body that can impeach a President. It manes that he has been formally charged. A trial is then held in the Senate where a 2/3 majority is needed to find a person guilty.

In Trump's first trial after the first impeachment the Republicans had control of the Senate. They did not even allow any evidence to be presented. In the US when there is an obviously biased court that makes only one verdict possible, regardless of the innocence or guilt of the person involved that is called a "kangaroo court". It must ben a Australian thing At any rate all of the Republicans voted "not guilty" and he was let off as a result. In the second impeachment the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate. Evidence was presented and a few Republicans voted guilty, but not enough. So even though a majority voted guilty he was "innocent" because it was less than 2/3.

Biden has not even been impeached yet. He definitely won't be found guilty even if he is since there does not appear to be any evidence of him doing anything wrong.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

The DOJ has zero say over the impeachment process

 

[Subduction Zone]

The DOJ has zero say over the impeachment process

So you disagree with Donald Trump. You might be right.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

So you disagree with Donald Trump. You might be right.

If that’s what he said then yeah he would be wrong

 

[Subduction Zone]

If that’s what he said then yeah he would be wrong

The rule that is being discussed was started during his administration. He used it to try to argue against submitting to investigation for his crime in asking the Ukraine to launch an illegal investigation into Joe Biden.