![\"HouseofRepSeal\"](\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/jonathanturley.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/11\/houseofrepseal.png?resize=187%2C187&ssl=1\")
On Monday, the House Democrats\u00a0filed a brief<\/a>\u00a0that with the Supreme Court that the House was actively pursuing new articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump including \u201cthe possible exercise of improper political influence over recent decisions made in the Roger Stone and Michael Flynn prosecutions, both of which were initiated by the special counsel.\u201d The argument is meant to justify the continued demand for redacted grand-jury material from the now closed Special Counsel investigation into the Russian collusion investigation.<\/p>\nI have long supported the congressional demands for documents withheld by the Trump Administration as well as witnesses, including in my testimony during the House impeachment.\u00a0 The ability to acquire grand jury material turns on whether an impeachment is a \u201cjudicial proceeding\u201d under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 (e).\u00a0 The district court and the court of appeals ruled that it does and that the House is entitled to the material. However, the House is arguing that this request is not moot after the acquittal of President Trump at the Senate impeachment trial.<\/p>\n
Thus, the House is arguing that<\/p>\n
\u201cThe [House Judiciary] Committee\u2019s investigation did not cease with the conclusion of the impeachment trial. \u2026\u00a0The withheld\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>material remains central to the Committee\u2019s ongoing investigation into the\u00a0<\/span>President\u2019s conduct.\u00a0<\/span>If this material reveals new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the articles adopted by the House, the committee will proceed accordingly \u2014 including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The House specified its continuing impeachment inquiry:<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThe Committee\u2019s investigation continues today and has further developed in\u00a0<\/span>light of recent\u00a0events.\u00a0For example, the\u00a0Committee is investigating the\u00a0possible\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>exercise of improper political influence over recent decisions made in the Roger<\/span>Stone and Michael Flynn prosecutions, both of which were initiated by the Special<\/span>Counsel.<\/span><\/p>\n
See\u00a0<\/span>Letter from Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, et\u00a0<\/span>al. to Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Dep\u2019t of Justice (May 8, 2020),<\/span>https:\/\/perma.cc\/799D-2PNY.\u00a0The<\/a>\u00a0Committee has announced\u00a0its intention to\u00a0hold a\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>hearing with the Attorney General\u2014who has failed to appear before the Committee\u00a0<\/span>at any point on any topic during his tenure\u2014on these issues as soon as possible.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The inclusion of the Stone and Flynn cases blurs the line between what is an oversight and an impeachment interest.\u00a0 It is hard to see a credible impeachment claim arising out of either case.\u00a0 The Stone case involves a change in a sentencing recommendation while Flynn involves a motion to dismiss the case entirely. However, both cases garnered criticism long before the actions of the Justice Department and fall squarely within the area of prosecutorial discretion.\u00a0 While the House has strong claims to evidence sought by committees, its claim of a perpetual impeachment are forced and artificial.\u00a0 It also raises the uncomfortable prospect for the Court of a claim of impeachment authority to trump executive privileges and challenges.\u00a0 The position of the House seems to be that we are able to claim the ultimate level of deference in such demands simply because we say that we have seeking a possible impeachment.\u00a0 This concern is magnified by the position of Speaker Nancy Pelosi,\u00a0in long refusing an impeachment vote<\/a>, that she could unilaterally\u00a0trigger such powers in a simple press conference<\/a>.<\/p>\n
I have previously criticized the House for its\u00a0slipshod and abbreviated impeachment<\/a>process.\u00a0 That record could become more relevant in this litigation where justices may generally support the right of the House to such evidence but remain skeptical of the fluid use of impeachment to justify such demands.<\/p>\n
Here is the House filing to the Supreme Court<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n