House Democrats are defending their snail-like pace in pursuing the unprecedented "level of lawlessness" in the Trump administration. They are "not too wild about incrementalism, but that's where we're at," as Rep. Steven Cohen of Tennessee, a senior Judiciary Committee member, complained.
Here's why they are going so slow, seemingly content to send ignored subpoenas and contempt citations into the ether, they say: "An overstretched team of House lawyers along with Democrats' fear of an adverse court ruling that could have long-lasting ramifications." Not all of them are frustrated with the slow pace, however, and "say they trust Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) to pick the panel’s battles and strike when the time is right." That includes Rep. Hank Johnson, also on Judiciary, who says, "Right now, we're kind of in a wind-up phase. […] When litigation is filed, then the game begins."
Excuses for not having filed litigation are just that: excuses. They don't have enough lawyers, they claim. To which the answer is: reallocate the budget for more and hire outside counsel. It's been done before. They're afraid of drawing bad judges, they say. The answer is to bring several cases—and they've certainly got enough to do that—in the D.C. Circuit, which has not yet been taken over by Trump judges. Wins there would be as significant a check on the administration as they could hope for.
Speaker Pelosi, they all say, has "championed" the foot-dragging, "arguing that methodical and targeted congressional investigations are the best way to hold Trump accountable." Which is all well and good in theory, but Trump clearly isn't reciprocating by feeling accountable. Nothing they've done thus far has encouraged Trump to modify his behavior, or, incidentally, to make any of his Cabinet members behave in less corrupt ways.
The most frustrating excuse these Democrats use, however, is that they are "focused on meticulously building a record of the Trump administration’s resistance to their investigations in order to help persuade a court to rule in their favor and break the White House blockade." They fear "rushing into it" because that "could backfire." How much more freaking resistance from the administration do they need to have a solid case? The record is pretty damned well-established, and another half-dozen ignored subpoenas will just eat up that much more time.
It's hard to come to any conclusion other than that eating up more time is precisely the point. They're either waiting for that silver bullet—Robert Mueller will save them!—or to run the clock out until the election, the strategy Pelosi in particular seems to be settling on. That's a very dangerous game, and a potentially counterproductive one. With Russia by all accounts still actively involved, and Mitch McConnell stonewalling every effort to combat it, and Trump keeping the rabid, racist base at the boiling point, the last thing Democrats can afford to do is discourage their voters. Presenting an increasingly toothless face in opposition to Trump is doing just that.
The reality is, all of this lawyering, all of this case-building, could be happening under the umbrella of an impeachment inquiry. The case could continue to be made, evidence gathered, challenges in the courts built with that new evidence. An actual impeachment inquiry might actually start to peel some of Trump's enablers away. And an impeachment inquiry could give the House enhanced authority and a stronger hand against Trump.
Set aside the standard argument against opening the impeachment process: that McConnell's Senate would just refuse to convict. That's not the current issue. The problem before the House right now is a president continuously and blatantly operating outside the law in multiple ways and flouting the Constitution. That has to be answered, and the House has to bring the case: It is its constitutional directive. If we're truly a nation of laws, if the founding principle that "no one is above the law" means anything at all, Congress has no choice.