Tag: Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch

Democrats to plow ahead with Trump probes post-acquittal

The Hill logoHouse Democrats say even though President Trump was acquitted in the Senate, that doesn’t mean they are going to ease off their investigations into his administration.

Democrats are weighing whether to pursue new leads of possible wrongdoing or press forward with probes that were already underway when an anonymous whistleblower’s allegations last year sparked the impeachment inquiry.

But no matter which route they take, Democrats are confident there is more wrongdoing to be uncovered — it’s just a matter of when and how grave. Continue reading.

Impeachment trial, like much of Trump’s presidency, is unprecedented

Outcome could set new standards for presidential behavior and congressional oversight

President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, like many of his administration’s actions before it, has ventured into uncharted legal territory.

The trial lacks definitive answers on key issues, either from federal courts or the Senate itself, which has fed an undercurrent of uncertainty about what happens next in an institution usually steeped in precedents and traditions.

How the Senate tackles these issues over the coming days — from the bar for removing a president to how witnesses testify at an impeachment trial — likely will set standards for presidential behavior and congressional oversight efforts long after Trump leaves office. Adding to the uncertainty were reports late Tuesday that there were now enough votes to call witnesses, but how many and the manner in which they would be examined or deposed was unknown. Continue reading.

Trump Would ‘Love’ For Sondland To Testify — But Won’t Let Him

Donald Trump said on Tuesday that U.S. Ambassador the European Union Gordon Sondland was a “really good man and great American” and that he only wished he could let him testify before Congress about Trump’s questionable actions with regard to Ukraine.

Trump’s comments come just after the State Department abruptly cancelled a planned congressional hearing with Sondland on Tuesday morning. The ambassador had been scheduled to give transcribed testimony for the House impeachment inquiry about his role in Trump’s growing Ukraine scandal.

House Democrats have since said they will subpoena Sondland for his testimony and related documents.

View the complete October 9 article by Josh Israel on the National Memo website here.

Trump’s communications with foreign leader are part of whistleblower complaint that spurred standoff between spy chief and Congress, former officials say

Washington Post logoThe whistleblower complaint that has triggered a tense showdown between the U.S. intelligence community and Congress involves President Trump’s communications with a foreign leader, according to two former U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

Trump’s interaction with the foreign leader included a “promise” that was regarded as so troubling that it prompted an official in the U.S. intelligence community to file a formal whistleblower complaint with the inspector general for the intelligence community, said the former officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

It was not immediately clear which foreign leader Trump was speaking with or what he pledged to deliver, but his direct involvement in the matter has not been previously disclosed. It raises new questions about the president’s handling of sensitive information and may further strain his relationship with U.S. spy agencies. One former official said the communication was a phone call.

View the complete September 18 article by Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima and Shane Harris on The Washington Post website here.

Trump agency to halt House oversight trips amid complaint over staff behavior

Democrats believe the battle is a proxy fight in a larger war between Subcommittee Chairwoman Betty McCollum, D-Minn., and Interior Secretary David Bernhardt.

HOUSTON — The Department of the Interior has decided to halt its sponsorship of all House trips to various agency sites around the country until a resolution can be found to a dispute over the rules of engagement between congressional staff and the career and political officials who facilitate the oversight visits, according to a senior department official.

The Interior Department oversees the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and several other agencies.

The decision, which had not officially been rendered to Capitol Hill as of early Wednesday evening, was driven by Interior Department chief of staff Todd Willens, according to the official, who spoke to NBC News on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of internal deliberations.

View the complete September 11 article by Jonathan Allen on the NBC News website here.

Nadler tees up post-recess showdown with Trump

The Hill logoHouse Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler is teeing up a post-recess showdown with President Trump as the New York Democrat pushes for impeachment behind the scenes.

Nadler has fired off a wave of new subpoenas compelling former administration and Trump campaign officials to testify shortly after the House returns to Capitol Hill in September.

He’s also seeking to challenge the White House’s claims of executive privilege as he pursues witness testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn.

View the complete August 28 article by Olivia Beavers on The Hill website here.

A brief history of the theory Trump and Barr are using to resist Congressional oversight

The unitary theory of the presidency may be reaching its logical conclusion under President Donald J. Trump. That theory, which is referred to as the unitary executive, holds that presidents have broad, close to unlimited, powers over the executive branch. At its extreme, the theory holds that the president cannot be checked “by Congress or the Courts, especially in critical realms of authority,” as John P. MacKenzie wrote in his book Absolute Power.

The Unitary Executive, as put forward by Attorney General Barr, holds that presidential power over executive branch functions can only be limited by the voters at the next election, or by Congress through its impeachment power. This was essentially the position Barr took in his June 8, 2018 memo to the Justice Department. “Thus, under the Framer’s plan, the determination whether the President is making decisions based on ‘improper’ motives or whether he is ‘faithfully’ discharging his responsibilities is left to the People, through the election process, and the Congress, through the Impeachment process,” Barr wrote. Although Barr does not say it, a president who acted in an improper or faithless way, but who is reelected or who escapes impeachment, could indeed be above the law. Is this really what the Framers intended?

It is first important to recognize that the words “unitary executive” do not appear anywhere in the Constitution, although supporters of the theory claim to be originalists. The first known use of the term occurred during the Reagan Administration, when Attorney General Meese first put the theory forward. It was later used to justify much of President George W. Bush’s War on Terror, including extreme measures like torture in the post 9/11 world. Yet even Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, who advanced the theory during the Bush years by writing the infamous memo enabling the torture of terrorists, recently said in an interview with NPR that “the Constitution grants him [the president] a reservoir of executive power that’s not specifically set out in the Constitution.”

View the complete June 3 article by Donald J. Fraser from the History News Network on the AlterNet website here.