With the Democratic-led impeachment effort falling flat with voters (according to many polls), House Democrats and the liberal media seemed to be setting the groundwork for their next anti-Trump production: Impeachment 2: Electric Boogaloo. That’s right, during Monday’s Erin Burnett OutFront on CNN, fill-in host Kate Bolduan and her assorted liberal guests kicked around the idea of impeaching President Trump for a second time. This time on “obstruction of justice” charges.
“Tonight, House Democrats saying they’re open to impeaching President Trump again,” Bolduan announced after a commercial break. “The House counsel pushing for testimony from former White House attorney Don McGahn in federal court-- in a federal court filing today, arguing his testimony critical as it could lead to new articles of impeachment.”
After pretending to huff about the idea, Bolduan turned to CNN crime and justice reporter Shimon Prokupecz to make the argument for House Democrats. “It’s really about precedent. Right? For Congress, this is all about being able to get information that they believe they are entitled to and, in fact, some federal judges [agree],” he explained.
Prokupecz also noted that Democrats wanted McGahn’s testimony so they could dredge up Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report (click “expand”):
So, there are two things going on here. The first thing is that the Judiciary Committee, which has been looking into the entire Russia investigation, also the obstruction of justice, the extension of the Mueller investigation. They still want the Don McGahn testimony. They still want Don McGahn to come in and testify.
Obviously, for Don McGahn he doesn't want to do that. He's waiting to hear how the courts ultimately decide. But what makes him so important is that he is one of the most prominent witnesses in the entire Mueller investigation, certainly as it related to the obstruction issue. He spent 30 hours with Mueller. So, there is a lot of information that they think that he could provide.
“And the other thing is that they want this information because they say that it could help them in their process,” he added, “certainly their impeachment because they say this shows that the President – his past and previous interactions certainly when it comes to influence from foreign countries and also the obstruction issue, and so they're saying they need this information.”
Returning to her panel, Bolduan joked that Washington Post congressional reporter Karoun Demirjian’s “head is going to fall off with the idea of articles of impeachment coming forward.” That’s unlikely, since Demirjian was one of the five Post reporters who gathered after last week’s impeachment votes and wished everyone a “Merry Impeachmas.”
Bolduan also spoke with “impeachment expert” and constitutional law professor Corey Brettschneider, who enthusiastically voiced his support for another round of impeachments against the “criminal president.” “Look, I think we absolutely need another article of impeachment on obstruction of justice. Mr. Mueller outlined ten instances in the report, of obstruction of justice,” he proclaimed.
Adding, “So, to my mind it’s not only that they can do it, they're obligated to do it. Because given the DOJ policy, this is the only way to hold the President account for obstruction of justice and ten instances that were outlined, including one involving McGahn.”
This is CNN, home of the impeachment obsessed.
The transcript is below, click "expand" to read:
CNN’s Erin Burnett OutFront
December 23, 2019
7:28:49 p.m. EasternKATE BOLDUAN: Tonight, House Democrats saying they’re open to impeaching President Trump again. The House counsel pushing for testimony from former White House attorney Don McGahn in federal court-- in a federal court filing today, arguing his testimony critical as it could lead to new articles of impeachment. This comes as the Justice Department is arguing the court should stay out of the fight as impeachment is already going on. Shimon Prokupecz is out front with much more on this. First off, folks are going to say, “a second impeachment, are you serious,” but what is this all about?
SHIMON PROKUPECZ: It’s really about precedent. Right? For Congress, this is all about being able to get information that they believe they are entitled to and, in fact, some federal judges – And this is why this is now in the appeals process, have sided with Congress saying that the President is not immune from the scrutiny that members of Congress have put him now -- that he's under now, because of the investigations in Congress.
So, there are two things going on here. The first thing is that the Judiciary Committee, which has been looking into the entire Russia investigation, also the obstruction of justice, the extension of the Mueller investigation. They still want the Don McGahn testimony. They still want Don McGahn to come in and testify.
Obviously, for Don McGahn he doesn't want to do that. He's waiting to hear how the courts ultimately decide. But what makes him so important is that he is one of the most prominent witnesses in the entire Mueller investigation, certainly as it related to the obstruction issue. He spent 30 hours with Mueller. So, there is a lot of information that they think that he could provide.
And the other thing is that they want this information because they say that it could help them in their process, certainly their impeachment because they say this shows that the President – his past and previous interactions certainly when it comes to influence from foreign countries and also the obstruction issue, and so they're saying they need this information.
This is all now, obviously in the appeals court. We'll see. They do say, Kate, as you point out, that, listen, if there is information they could get regarding McGahn, that they could use that could potentially lead to more articles of impeachment, they would do that, politically I don't know if that is going to happen. But certainly the lawyers for Congress are suggesting that that could possibly happen.
BOLDUAN: Shimon, it’s good to see you. Thank you so much.
All right, everyone is back with me. Cory, you got-- I don't know, Karoun’s [Demirjian] head is going to fall off with the idea of articles of impeachment coming forward. But before that happens, what do you think of this? That the House says they need McGahn’s testimony because it could lead to new information that could lead to more articles of impeachment. I mean, really?
COREY BRETTSCHNEIDER: Look, I think we absolutely need another article of impeachment on obstruction of justice. Mr. Mueller outlined ten instances in the report, of obstruction of justice. And the only reason why he didn't file criminal charges against the President is because there are Department of Justice memos that say, wrongly in my opinion, you can't indict a sitting president.
But Hamilton and others who supported that idea of immunity – it was a controversial idea even at the founding. People disagreed with it. His point was that the reason for the immunity is that impeachment has to come first. That it is a constitutional obligation to remove a criminal president so that he or she then could be tried after removal from office. And the assumption is, of course, that would happen.
So, to my mind it’s not only that they can do it, they're obligated to do it. Because given the DOJ policy, this is the only way to hold the President account for obstruction of justice and ten instances that were outlined, including one involving McGahn.
BOLDUAN: Fascinating!
(…)
