By Hal Brown, MSW, Retired psychotherapist
“Like a fox guarding the henhouse” or “Don’t let the fox guard the henhouse” is an idiom that is used to point out to somebody that his/her action invite disaster.
If you assign somebody a duty and doing so put that person into a position where he or she then can exploit the situation for his own benefit then you let the fox guard the henhouse. What is more: not only can that person exploit the situation, he/she likely will – like the fox who can’t help himself looking at all those yummy chickens. Reference
I hate to get my hopes up. However bringing justice back into the department of government which has the word in its name could begin today when the House Judiciary Committee begins to hold its hearing own how politics, read this as Donald Trump through William Barr, influenced the DOJ.
I don’t think there is even a remote chance that Donald Trump could be impeached again unless he is reelected. However William Barr has made himself an overripe target.
I think that the House should initiate formal impeachment inquiries into William Barr because he violated his oath of office, the very Constitution he was sworn to protect, and committed unlawful acts himself. If you recall one of the reasons Nancy Pelosi was criticized by other Democrats for moving slowly on authorizing the formal impeachment inquiry of Donald Trump was that doing so gave the House increased investigative power.
Consider this from a May 21, 2019 Lawfare article: What Powers Does a Formal Impeachment Inquiry Give the House?
As the confrontation escalates between the House of Representatives and the White House over the production of documents, the appearance of witnesses and compliance with congressional subpoenas, so too have calls for Democrats to initiate impeachment proceedings. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi continues to push for further investigation of the president rather than an impeachment inquiry, while some members of her caucus and its leadership team and several candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination appear more willing to begin impeachment proceedings.
There are a number of different ways to frame the decision that House Democrats must make as they move forward. First, impeachment is a fundamentally political phenomenon: A wide range of political goals and motivations bear on whether individual, elected members of Congress see it as an appropriate path. The aggregation of those preferences, as filtered through party leaders with agenda-setting power, may or may not lead to the opening of an impeachment inquiry. Another framing focuses on the question of whether Congress has a responsibility to pursue impeachment, conveyed by the portion of the oath members take that requires them to “faithfully discharge the duties of the office.”
A third framing, which we address here, is a more practical one: whether, for the purposes of carrying out further investigation, the House’s hand would be strengthened significantly if it initiated impeachment proceedings. Continued
This is also addressed in this Just Security article from May 28, 2019: How Impeachment Proceedings Would Strengthen Congress’s Investigatory Powers.
According to published reports, Speaker Nancy Pelosi doubts there is any practical value to opening a formal impeachment inquiry regarding President Trump. She toldone group that “she was unsure that opening [such an] inquiry would help Congress obtain any more information than it was already getting from its investigations.” Supporters of this view cite the House’s recent quick victories in two cases involving Trump’s private financial records as evidence her approach is working.
While it is true that the House has substantial powers of inquiry apart from impeachment, there is little doubt that initiating impeachment proceedings would strengthen its investigatory position considerably. Historically the House’s impeachment powers are integral to its status as the “grand inquest of the nation.”*James Wilson, a framer of the Constitution and one of the original justices of the Supreme Court, explained in his 1791 Lecture on Law that the House’s role in impeachment derives from the law of England, where “[a]n impeachment is … a presentment to the most high and supreme court of criminal jurisdiction, by the most solemn grand inquest of the kingdom.” Because the House’s function in impeachment is judicial in nature, it implies the same authorities to obtain evidence as enjoyed by a court. As an 1843 House report stated: “The House has the sole right of impeachment … a power which implies the right of inquiry on the part of the House to the fullest and most unlimited extent.”
At a nuts and bolts level, a resolution establishing an impeachment inquiry enables the House to bestow on the Judiciary Committee special authorities for purposes of its investigation.
Depending on what comes out in the Judiciary Committee hearing I think that if there is just cause clearly demonstrated through testimony and evidence (there’s the word “just” again) opening an impeachment inquiry on William Barr should be strongly considered.