DeGette, Neguse Reach Tipping Point on Impeachment

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Lafayette)

As the Denver Post’s Justin Wingerter reports, two members of Colorado’s Democratic delegation in Congress, Reps. Diana DeGette and Joe Neguse, have decided after deliberation that the evidence laid out in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation warrants the commencement of impeachment hearings against President Donald Trump:

As impeachment talks again ramp up among congressional Democrats, U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse said Tuesday it’s time to open an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

Neguse, a Lafayette Democrat, had publicly been mum on impeachment since release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report April 18. He broke that silence in a tweet Tuesday.

“The findings detailed in the special counsel’s report, and the administration’s pattern of wholesale obstruction of Congress since the report’s release, make clear that it is time to open an impeachment inquiry,” the freshman congressman said.

Colorado Independent:

“The facts laid out in the Mueller report, coupled with this administration’s ongoing attempts to stonewall Congress, leave us no other choice: It is time for Congress to officially launch an impeachment inquiry against the President of the United States,” DeGette wrote on Twitter…

DeGette’s and Neguse’s comments came as other House Democrats who have been wary of impeachment also stepped up pressure to take that route following McGahn’s refusal to testify. One House Republican, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, has also called for Trump’s impeachment.

“For quite some time now, the administration has been engaged in a wholesale obstruction of Congress in terms of its ability to conduct oversight and conduct its investigatory work,” Neguse told The Colorado Independent in a brief interview on Capitol Hill Tuesday.

At this point it is clear to most people paying attention that the Mueller report was very far from the “exoneration” the Trump administration has insisted from the beginning it represents. The report exhaustively details ten incidents in which the President almost certainly committed obstruction of justice, only deferring from calling these incidents crimes due to the inability to bring criminal charges against a sitting President. The inability of the Justice Department to criminally charge the President also means Trump can’t clear himself of any conclusive allegations in the report, leaving an unresolved crisis that arguably can only be addressed by Congress in an impeachment proceeding.

While it’s clear that support for impeachment hearings in the House is growing, the end result depends on a number of factors. The highest hurdle, of course, is persuading Senate Republicans to take action against a sitting President from their own party. But for the present in the House, impeachment hearings are more than a political stick to beat the opposition with. The Trump administration’s continuing obstruction since the Mueller report’s release means impeachment hearings could be the only way to get to the truth–regardless of whether the Senate has the political will to convict.

The one thing we can say for certain is that history’s verdict will be much more than the words “no collusion.”

65 Shares

9 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

    Apparently our stable genius can only concentrate on one thing at a time? 

    Trump abruptly ends infrastructure meeting with Democrats after Pelosi says he is ‘engaged in a coverup’

    [T]rump said, adding that he can’t work on infrastructure “under these circumstances.”

  2. RepealAndReplace says:

    When the House impeaches, does the Senate have an obligation to conduct a trial or is it optional?

  3. VoyageurVoyageur says:

    Very good question and the constitution doesn't answer it.  House has "sole power" to impeach and Senate sole power to try the resulting case.  However, I saw a list with the outcome of all impeachments and found no case where Senate refused to act.

    There have been 19 impeachments by the House, i.e. Majority votes. In the Senate there were seven acquittals, eight convictions and three dismissals. One case, Nixon’s, ended with no further action after he resigned.

    Tradition, if nothing else, indicates the Senate must act on a sucessful impeachment by the House. But that action can take the form of dismissing the impeachment/indictment, as it has three times.

    In those cases, however, the dismissal followed the resignation of the target, a U.S. Senator or judge.. Likewise, no further action was taken against Nixon after he resigned, though the case was not formally dismissed.

    • RepealAndReplace says:

      The constitution does say that the chief justice presides over the Senate when the president is impeached (for obvious reasons).

      I'm wondering if the House votes to impeach and appoints managers, could Roberts should up, take the gavel, recognize the managers, and then swear the senators in like a judge empaneling a jury?

      Otherwise, I fear that McConnell will Garland the impeachment resolution and refuse to allow the House managers access to the floor.

      • VoyageurVoyageur says:

        I don't think that is a reasonable fear, R&R.  Republicans win the vote 46-54 — all Rs and Manchin — and take a victory lap.  Trump's approval hits 50 percent for first time and he's got a good shot at re-election.

        Why wouldn't Mitch take that gift if Ds are dumb enough to give it?

  4. itlduso says:

    I understand the Dems hesitancy to start impeachment proceedings only on the basis of obstruction of justice charges.  "Working together" with the Russians to help Trump and hurt Clinton should certainly also lead to impeachment articles.  But, to date, the Mueller report offered thin gruel in that area. 

    Yet, there were 10-12 criminal investigations that were spun off by Mueller.  What is their status?!?  How many years does it take to file charges against "Individual 1" in the porn star payoff case?  How long does it take to uncover money laundering?  etc., etc.  Those types of criminal charges would make impeachment more inevitable.

    Justice delayed is justice denied.  Indeed.

  5. DavieDavie says:

    As much as *rump has lowered the bar on presidential conduct and political discourse, he (and the GOP) have raised the bar for impeachable offenses (ironically in part due to their calls to impeach Hillary on Day 1, had she won the election).

    Such is the nature of action/reaction in this, our partisan divide.

  6. RepealAndReplace says:

    As surprising as it is to see that DeGette and Neguse – two Dems who represent D+27 districts – support impeachment, I'm more interested in what Ed Perlmutter and Jason Crow have to say about the issue. Has either taken a position yet?

  7. kwtreemamajama55 says:

    An impeachment investigation will begin this year, and the Speaker is going to have to jump out in front to "lead" it. It's the only remedy we have when the President and his cohort are defying  or corrupting the judicial branch of government. The American people elected all those fired-up Dems to be the check on Presidential power that Congress is Constitutionally supposed to be.

    Congress must open impeachment investigations at the same time as all of the other investigations and all of the other legislative work they are doing. It's not an "either / or" choice. Walk and chew gum they can, pressure the Mad King they must.

    It's what the framers put into the Constitution as the last resort against a corrupt executive. Pelosi's prayers are nice – but don't mean squat.

     

     

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.