Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick, a Democrat who represents Southern Arizona’s CD2, came out today in support of an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.
Kirkpatrick had shied away from the “I” word until now (except during a campaign appearance in which she told someone that she would support impeachment) but explained that the Trump administration’s stonewalling of various investigations by the Democrat-held House of Representatives had persuaded her that impeachment was the way to go.
From Kirkpatrick’s comments on the House floor:
After meeting with countless Southern Arizonans, reading the Special Council’s report, and seeing the President and his administration defy Congressional subpoenas, I have concluded that the United States House of Representatives must open an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. Following Mueller’s alarming report, it is Congress’ job to conduct oversight and deliver answers to the American people. Instead, the President has called upon his administration officials to ignore Congressional subpoenas and break the law, not just related to the Special Counsel’s investigation into collusion, but all areas of Congressional oversight — including census hearings, campaign finance violations, family separation, and so many more.
As a Congresswoman, former prosecutor and American citizen, I have a responsibility to stand up for the rule of law and defend our Constitution. This should not be made into a partisan fight or a debate about long-term election strategy, it’s about protecting our democracy. Nobody is above the law, especially not the President.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has dismissed talk of impeachment, instead focusing on the various investigations that the Trump administration has been stonewalling. But as Lawrence Robbins has written in Slate, moving forward with an impeachment proceeding would give Trump’s attorney little room to fight over what records must be turned over:
Crucially, a Senate impeachment trial could not get mired in multiple layers of district court and appellate court litigation. Under Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution, “when the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.” As the “Presiding Officer,” under Senate impeachment Rule V, the chief justice has the power “to make and issue … all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules or by the Senate.” The chief justice likewise has full authority to “direct all the forms of proceedings while the Senate is sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise specially provided for.” According to the Senate rules, it is the chief justice as presiding officer who gets to “rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions.” And while Rule VII permits a member of the Senate to demand a Senate vote on the chief’s rulings, it is difficult to imagine even Mitch McConnell seeking to overrule Chief Justice John Roberts. Indeed, no senator challenged a single ruling by Chief Justice William Rehnquist during the Bill Clinton impeachment trial.
Whatever then happens for any given witness or exhibit, the chief’s rulings are apt to be prompt and efficient. There would be no reams of legal briefing, no extended oral arguments, no endless appeals. The parties would cut right to the chase, and the substance of the Mueller report allegations—not to mention the role of Individual 1 in providing hush money on the eve of the 2016 election—would play out on live TV.
So, for example, if the House impeachment managers call Don McGahn to testify, the White House cannot rush off to court to block his attendance. The president must make his objections to the chief justice, who will issue an effectively unreviewable order on “relevancy, materiality, and redundancy.” Given the central role McGahn played in Trump’s obstruction of justice, it is hard to imagine that the chief justice would restrict him from testifying. So too for most of the key players in Volume II of the Mueller report. And unlike what the Trump administration may do in the face of adverse rulings in the lower federal courts, it seems exceedingly unlikely—even with this president—that the administration would defy a ruling by the chief justice sitting as the presiding officer in an impeachment trial.
National Republican Congressional Committee spokeswoman Torunn Sinclair reacted to Kirkpatrick’s support for impeachment by calling Kirkpatrick “a socialist Democrat whose blind hatred of President Trump impacts her ability to do her job.”
This article appears in Jul 11-17, 2019.
That’s great but do you think you could find the time to start fixing some of the other things you have screwed up? They did the same thing with Bill Clinton, and it has taken more than 20 years to hook him up with the Epstein arrest. Can we accomplish anything else in the interim?
Lest we not forget her quote after the election, November of last year-On working with President Donald Trump, Kirkpatrick said she can work with anyone.
Apparently that wasn’t true.
C’mon Crisis, everyone should know that there is no working WITH tRump. Those who choose to work with him are either licking his boot or they’re being cyberbullied on Twitter with the Twit’s temper tantrums.
My guess is that you’re too busy licking his boot to realise that.
Why waste your time–let him impeach himself. The Democrats haven’t had a plan or a platform since I can remember. Impeachment would be just another excuse to continue to do nothing. And of course you can’t call him out on racism. I have all the Congressional records of your and Gosar’s undoing of the saving of Oak Flat National Forest and Apache Leap from destruction by a foreign mining company.
Obviously Tchump has a criminal mentality and has surrounded himself with pathetic sycophants who, like him, believe they’re above the law. He can and should be held accountable at some point, but I don’t think it’s all that important to do it now, just a little over one year away from an election that could remove him anyway. Hard to believe that Chief Justice Roberts would see this as anything but “political”, whereas Rehnquist was perfectly happy to fry Clinton in his own juices. And there’s no way the Senate will come up with a two-thirds majority to convict him in any event.
Usually I disagree with the craven corporate Dem leadership and their inside-the-Beltway timidity, but in this case, rather than putting Tchump in a martyr role that he would truly relish, I think there are more important fish to fry. With what is by far the most corrupt administration in modern political history, there are plenty of oversight investigations to pursue without getting bogged down in an impeachment circus that will suck up all the oxygen.
And the Dems need to go after Kavanaugh ASAP, before the plausible window for doing so passes. He is the most illegitimate Supreme Court appointment since Thomas. He is a dangerous ideologue with a lifetime tenure who clearly perjured himself dozens of times over the years, including many times during his most recent nomination hearing. He never even would have had the chance to be nominated, let alone confirmed by the narrowest of margins, except that the Republinazis corrupted the system and prevented Obama from making an appointment. Kavanaugh is a serial sexual abuser and an entitled little rich boy punk who thinks the whole world was made for him–i.e., Tchump hired in his own image. At this point, I think it’s far more important and pressing to take down Kavanaugh than Tchump.
If the American electorate cannot muster the civic responsibility to take down Tchump in the 2020 election, well then, they will have the president they so richly deserve.
Go ahead. It’s called political suicide. Remember when the Republicians tried to impeach Clinton
When it was over his poll numbers went through the roof. Why do you think Pelosi wants no part of it?
Comparing Clinton’s sexcapade with Trump’s daily onslaught of dictatorial behavior is not equivalent. Clinton did wrong, but followed the legal process and testified under oath. Trump is far too much a liar and a coward to testify under any oath in any court. Instead, he brays on Twitter, and Twitter is not a place of truth or honor for people like Trump.
The GOP has become the party of crazy support for a mad criminal who will forever hold himself above the laws of the land, the tenets of the US Constitution and, more recently, racism. Defend his remarks and you are guilty right down there with this mean-spirited demon from New York City.
How is that Russia investigation coming along? He is holding the US closer to the Constitution than the open border democrats. Their inaction is treason.
Who is Ann Kirkpatrick?
Bingo!
I wasn’t comparing Trump to Clinton. I merely said that when the Republicans tried to impeach Clinton his approval numbers went sky high. If Democrats underestimate Trumps popularity the same thing will happen.
Oops – can we say ‘face plant’ Ann? Just gave a reasonable Democrate a good reason to primary you next year, and also gave you who-ever-it-ends-up-being Republican opponent arrows for his/her quiver to use against you. Your district is not as liberal / leftist as you might like.
BTW, “Trump is a twitter….”, yes, Clinton testified under oath, and he also LIED under oath. Just sayin’.
go2ski# Try not approaching this group here with facts, they prefer fantasy. Dems have begun to in fight and will lose to Trump next November. And I am enjoying the economic rejuvenation as are many others.