In a Wednesday meeting with House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler and other Democrats who have been on the front line against Donald Trump’s congressional obstruction, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, “I don’t want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison.” But even though sending Trump to prison requires that he first be put out of office, Pelosi continued to resist calls to begin an impeachment inquiry.
Until the last two weeks, Nadler had been one of the Democratic leaders who had joined Pelosi in trying to downplay the possibility of impeachment. However, after the White House refused to turn over documents, moved to place the entire Mueller report under executive privilege, and repeatedly ordered current and former staffers to defy congressional subpoenas, Nadler asked Pelosi for the freedom to begin an inquiry in his committee. According to Politico, he made a second request on Wednesday, seeking the power such an inquiry would provide to get around most claims of privilege.
But Pelosi continues to insist that “strong public support” and “bipartisan backing” are needed before any impeachment proceedings can begin—a position that ignores the possibility that opening an inquiry may be exactly what’s needed to generate that widespread support. As with so many recent meetings, this one appears to have ended with Pelosi declaring that “all options are still on the table,” but that she still prefers to see Trump unseated in the next election and left to face potential prosecution.
The meeting followed statements from Nadler that he was “confident” that Robert Mueller will appear to testify before his committee. While Nadler stated that he was still willing to subpoena Mueller if needed, his repeated assertion that Mueller would appear “soon” suggests that negotiations are progressing with the now former special counsel. The sticking point in these negotiations appears to be how much of his testimony Mueller is willing to deliver in public. Mueller has stated that he was willing to deliver an opening statement, then move behind closed doors for questioning. But according to Nadler, “We’re not willing to do that. We want him to testify openly. I think the American people need that. I think, frankly, it’s his duty to the American people, and we’ll make that happen.”
It’s only been a week since Mueller made an unexpected personal appearance that galvanized viewers and kicked the possibility of impeachment into high gear. A widely-viewed appearance before the committee could raise that energy even higher—and the best way to do that is to make his appearance the first round in an impeachment inquiry.
An impeachment inquiry is not an impeachment. It’s an investigation to determine whether an impeachment is warranted. Should nothing new surface in that investigation, and should the inquiry fail to generate the broad support Pelosi claims is necessary, the whole matter could be dropped without even getting a vote in committee, much less on the House floor. As with most things concerning impeachment, both chambers of Congress have broad latitude in how they conduct the business. Pelosi could create a special committee, or let Nadler carry out the opening phase within Judiciary. However, Republicans seem to be in agreement that congressional subpoenas issued during an impeachment inquiry would carry additional weight with the courts when it comes to compelling testimony or producing documents related to an investigation of the executive.
The whip list of Democrats publicly calling for an inquiry has been growing. Leaders such as Nadler, Finance Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters, and House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern are on that list.
Should Trump be voted out in 2020, it seems almost certain that he will face charges related to tax fraud, bank fraud, violations of election law, and his misuse of his “charity” foundation. But that will not be the same as a genuine investigation of Trump’s actions in the campaign and the transition period, and in the White House. Some facts can only come out through the oversight authority of Congress—the authority that Trump is defying.
Left unsaid, but strongly hinted at, in the special counsel report on the 2016 election is that Trump’s attempts at obstruction noted in part 2 of that report are responsible for the failure to charge a broad conspiracy in part 1. That is, Trump didn’t just obstruct the investigation; his obstruction was successful in preventing the special counsel’s office from uncovering the evidence necessary to bring a charge. With Trump’s refusal to testify, other members of his family and staff refusing on Fifth Amendment grounds, and an unknown quantity of records destroyed, the Trump campaign dodged a bullet. With a successful cover-up.
If there is no impeachment inquiry, then there will be no action against Trump’s obstruction. Not his obstruction of Mueller. Not his obstruction of Congress. And what he is hiding in both cases will almost certainly never be brought to light.