I had sent my member of Congress — also Democratic Caucus vice-chair — a comment and made a phone call, supporting impeachment. Her response is below.
tl;dr: “We’re doing lots of investigation.” The widely-held impression is that they’re going slowly and timidly. So make of this what you will.
Dear Mr. Blandy, Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about impeaching President Donald Trump. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on this issue and would like to give you an update.
This week, Representative Al Green brought up Articles of Impeachment on the House floor. A motion to table the resolution – effectively ending its consideration – was brought to a vote. I think we should consider every possible tool to hold this lawless President accountable, which is why I opposed that motion. T he American people deserve answers, and no tool, including impeachment, should be taken off the table in our efforts to follow the facts.
While I believe President Trump has committed impeachable offenses, impeachment is a process, not an outcome. I also believe the GOP Senate when they say that there is no evidence that could be brought to light in an impeachment inquiry that would result in them convicting and removing the President from office. That is why I support the strategy of aggressively using the courts to enforce subpoenas and document requests that have been issued by the House as part of our fact finding. My goal is to expose the facts for the American people without emboldening the President with an “exoneration” in the Senate.
The Democratic House has launched dozens of investigations into the administration’s numerous ethical and legal violations, including investigations into the President’s financial dealings with Deutsche Bank, the accuracy of his tax returns, his nepotistic misuse of security clearances, and his campaign’s willingness to benefit from foreign election inference. We have held hearings, issued subpoenas, and taken this administration to federal court in pursuit of the truth. The most prominent investigation into the administration, however, was the Special Counsel investigation conducted by Robert Mueller. Although incomplete, Mr. Mueller’s report that was release in April found that President Trump repeatedly tried to sabotage the Special Counsel investigation, pressuring members of his staff to help him end the investigation. The report also detailed a litany of lies members of the administration, including the President, told to the press and the public. Critically, the report did not exonerate the President on charges of obstruction of justice. Mr. Mueller will be testifying in front of two Congressional committees next week, and I will be carefully assessing next steps after his testimony.
We must aggressively move forward with these investigations until we have fully exposed the President’s violations of the law and brought to light all of this administration’s corruption. The House is committed to seeing these investigations to their completion, and I will continue to do everything in my power to hold this President accountable.
Again, thank you for voicing your concerns, and please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I may be of assistance. Also, you can stay up to date on my work for the 5th District by following me on Facebook , Twitter , and my official website .
Sincerely,
Katherine M. Clark
Member of Congress
thegreenmiles says
Sent this letter to the New Bedford Standard Times yesterday:
It was extremely disappointing to see Rep. Bill Keating vote against opening an impeachment investigation into President Donald Trump. When Robert Mueller released his report this spring, he all but implored Congress to investigate the president, citing Justice Department policy tying his hands against criminally indicting a sitting president. But instead, Congress has abdicated its constitutional role as a check against this clearly corrupt and likely criminal president.
Trump could be impeached for a range of offenses. He’s violated the Constitution’s emoluments clause in using his office to personally profit, including taking payments from foreign governments. He broke campaign finance laws by secretly paying off porn star Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about their extramarital affair. And he’s obstructed justice by firing officials leading investigations of his activities. Trump’s impulsive and erratic behavior also raises serious questions about his fitness for office and if he should be allowed to hold sole control over America’s nuclear arsenal.
Failing to impeach Trump for his crimes sends a loud and clear message that the law doesn’t apply to him, and he’s clearly seizing the opportunity to reach shameful new lows of hate and racism in recent days. Unless Congress finds the courage to impeach Trump soon, I fear for how much lower we’ll have to watch him go, and how many more innocent people and children he’ll be able to hurt.
Christopher says
Problem is, as far as I can tell Rep. Green didn’t actually draft articles relating to impeachable offenses.
SomervilleTom says
Here is the text of Mr. Green’s resolution (emphasis original):
It is my understanding that in Mr. Nixon’s case, a formal impeachment investigation was begun prior to the introduction of Articles of Impeachment. The Articles of Impeachment against Mr. Nixon were therefore informed by the results of the impeachment investigation.
We should do the same now. In my view, Mr. Green’s resolution was inadequate and I agree with the vote against it.
I’m dismayed by the inaccurate reporting that this vote was to oppose an impeachment investigation. It was not. The House voted against a premature and inadequate impeachment RESOLUTION.
pogo says
The Green action was not a call to open an impeachment investigation, it was to jump ahead to impeach Trump. Big difference. And the resolution was solely based on Trump’s racist comments and not the many instances of obstruction of justice, which a investigation would have outlined (if not, game over).
The goal is Impeachment conviction, not impeachment. Green’s action was a distraction and waste of time.
joeltpatterson says
Yes, it is a resolution (not an inquiry) and it might be premature, but Pelosi is holding people back to the benefit of Barr and Trump, and Al Green is finding whatever opening he can to make the point that Trump is unfit for office and Democratic voters expected much, much more fight from the people they elected to the House.
Christopher says
This response is very similar to the one I received from Lori Trahan, though before Rep. Green’s latest motion.
johntmay says
It is the middle ground between left and right, between liberal and conservative and it lies between the pit of our fears and the summit of our knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Democratic Petrified Zone…
It’s as if I called my local police department and told them that I saw my neighbor’s kid leaving my garage with a case of beer and my son’s new bicycle…and wanted them to investigate…..and in this “Petrified Zone…..the police chief replies, “Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns. While I believe the young man has committed criminal acts, investigation of those crimes is a process, not an outcome. You live in a very large neighborhood and until such time as we have spoken to all homeowners in the area and collected the entire scope of all the articles that this young man may have stolen and make a complete investigation, there is little we can do for you except recommend that you lock your garage.”…..
jconway says
There’s a Simpson episode where Mr. Burns goes to a doctor and finds out he has so many diseases simultaneously that they all counteract each other and none can break through to cause permanent injury. That joke reminds me of Trump. He has so many open investigations against him regarding credible allegations of collusion, corruption, and sexual predation that none of them stick out in the public’s conscience.
Impeachment following the Mueller Report is a way to centralize the attention and finally force Republicans to sink or swim with this President. Collins is already under water for the Kavanaugh vote. McConnell is under water. Graham, McSally, and Tillis are getting out raised by their Democratic opponents. It’s time to take a stand and put everyone on the record.
joeltpatterson says
Count me in as someone disappointed in Rep. Clark’s weak stance, and Pelosi’s recent discouraging words. I am encouraged that Rep. Ayanna Pressly has a vigorous stance on protecting our Constitution and human rights. That said, I recently read a very insightful interview of historian Rick Perlstein (author of Nixonland and Before the Storm.) Perlstein has identified a key belief behind the discouraging stances of Pelosi (and Clark)…
This consensus goal is clearly failing to protect our government from corruption and it is failing to protect the vulnerable children and families who are suffering in the cruel custody of ICE and CBP. Republicans can play Pelosi and Clark and the others for fools as long as they do not agree to the consensus.
Our people and our Constitution deserve better than Pelosi and Clark’s current actions. Rep. Pressly knows that this might take a fight, and Pressly won’t back down. More Democrats need to take their cue from the Squad.
SomervilleTom says
It sounds to me as though your quote is describing white privilege in practice. It is not coincidence that in the two cited issues — slavery and Jim Crow — the victims were black and the people demanding consensus were white. The victims of Trumpist fascism are people of color. The defenders of the consensus that allows and therefore enables Trumpist facism are white.
The desire for consensus, as described here, is a luxury generally available to whites only. That’s why this whole approach reeks of white privilege.
It is not coincidental that the four members of The Squad are black and Ms. Pelosi is white.
pogo says
Oh please, framing this as racial? Sure, this country’s terrible record towards racial issues is a by-product of the founders building a system with a series of checks and balances against the accumulation of power. But is not consensus a requirement of a democratic system? Yes, the frightful truth is the oppression of minority groups–despite the best intentions of many throughout our history.
It’s complicated and using a du jour framing that implies Pelosi’s behavior is rooted in racism, rather than the historical context of dealing with the reality of the Constitution is unfortunate.
SomervilleTom says
The entire meme of a “consensus goal” is pretty much the canonical definition of white privilege. You bet I frame it as racial, because that’s what it is.
The proponents of this “consensus” have always been white. For most of our history, they’ve been white men. Black men and women being crushed under the heel of slavery and Jim Crow don’t have the luxury to wait for “consensus”. Hispanic families fleeing gang violence in their home countries (in many cases, gang violence that is a direct result of centuries of American interference in Central American affairs) don’t have the luxury of waiting for consensus while jack-booted troops of the ICE harass and abuse them under orders from Mr. Trump.
It certainly is complicated, and one of the ways to help cut through that complexity is to appreciate the impact of ethnic identity and power. Wealthy white men and women have different priorities that struggling black men and women.
It isn’t just Ms. Pelosi’s behavior, it’s the entire American culture. Virtually everything we see around us positively SCREAMS of racism and white privilege.
jconway says
Is it? Do we need to compromise when our nominees regularly win the popular vote and our issues poll in the 60’s and 70’s? The Senate and Electoral College are both vestigial legacies of the 3/5’s compromise. They were designed to inflate the power of slave states and shut down the democratic debate over the controversial issues that Joel and Rick Perlstein describe.
I’m with you in theory. If we had ab empirically based multiracial and secular Republican Party or conservative movement, we would have room for compromise. We don’t have those things. Even Justin Amash recognizes this now, along with the need for impeachment. Why won’t our leaders whom voters gave a resounding majority in Congress to hold this president accountable?
Christopher says
Almost uprated until you fell into the everything we don’t like in the Constitution is about slavery trap.
jconway says
I’m in the midst of that Douglass bio and he and Lloyd Garrison certainly felt that way. The leading constitutional scholar in the country agrees with me on that too.
Christopher says
I’ve read a lot of Amar. He’s good, and I respect him and I agree with him on a lot, but my understanding as a historian having once read a book of Madison’s notes of virtually verbatim debate leads me to dissent on this one. Because 3/5 influenced the number of Representatives, which in turn influenced the number of electors there is an indirect link, but the electoral system was not created for the express purpose of enhancing the slave power. The “Electoral College” (which I put in quotes because the Constitution does not think of it as a single body despite popular habit to refer to it as such) was designed as a middle ground between popular election, which would have been unwieldy in 1787, and election by Congress, which would have made the President more dependent on Congress than the framers wanted. Keep in mind a couple of other things. The framers largely assumed that the electors would nominate, and the House, with each state getting one vote, would ultimately elect. The Senate was of course about equalizing among the states so in both those cases it really would not matter what proportion of the population was enslaved. There was also not an absolute correlation between size of state and slavery. The big 3 at the time were MA, PA, and VA – a free state, gradual emancipation state, and slave state respectively. Small and midsize states were both free and slave as well. Back to the EC, there was never a requirement that all electors from a given state vote together either. Slavery is totally irrelevant to the Senate. It had an indirect influence on the EC, but it would be wrong to claim slavery was the primary motivator behind adopting that system to elect the President.
Christopher says
I’m probably closer to you than to Pogo in terms of impeach on principle regardless of political consequences, but framing it this way is not the way to win supporters.
SomervilleTom says
I’m reacting to the above “consensus goal” argument and meme.
Naming the white privilege that underlies that argument might not immediately win supporters among whites (especially among those who reject the very existence of white privilege). I suspect that the communities that elected The Squad will react differently.
One consequence of encouraging new voters to join us — especially voters of color — is that we have to be more willing to admit and address our white privilege, more sensitive about recognizing when we display it, and less defensive when it is named for us.
I think we have to move beyond the comfort zone of middle-aged and older comfortable whites (and I say this as a sixty six year old reasonably comfortable white).
pogo says
If you want to call the Constitution as an example of “white privileged”, I’d agree. But it begs the question long debated in our country about the tyranny of the majority. Ironically this legitimate issue that Madison warned about was basardized by Calhoun to decry the majority depriving the “rights” of slave owners to retain their “property”.
Yes the issue of developing consensus as a fundamental requirement of a democracy is complicated (anyone want to disagree with that long term reality?) So to boil it down to a one demensional question centered around race is a bit to simplistic to me.
Christopher says
As Ecclesiastes might say there is a time for consensus and a time for majority rule, but I fail to see the connection between consensus and privilege.
pogo says
This “ideology of consensus” is indeed deeply rooted into our political DNA for better (without it, do you have a democracy?) or worse (the filibuster that perpetuated slavery and segregation).
With regards to impeachment, there is a statutory hurdle of “consensus” requiring 2/3 of the Senate to convict. I assume the goal of impeachment is to get rid of Trump, and not some principled stand to uphold values, even if conviction won’t happen. If you are arguing the latter, a Trump acquital in the Senate will increase his power and appeal, with a real danger of giving him a 2nd term.
So I’m of the opinion that we need a Senate conviction. I don’t need 17 (or whatever the number is) GOP Senators committed to impeachment conviction. But I need to see a crack in their wall before I get excited about pulling the impeachment lever.
Admittedly, Trump has the upper hand by slow walking everything in court and I doubt (but certainly hope with Mueller this week) we’ll move any GOP Senators. But I can’t support a FALED impeachment effort. What is one person’s flawed goal of trying to build consensus, is another person’s reality about getting 2/3rds in theSenate to convict. The Constitution built the need for consensus for impeachment. Call me old fashion, but I’m not going to take my cue from folks who ignore that reality.
SomervilleTom says
The reality is that impeachment is, like indictment, an accusation. It is an accusation that must be proven, and therefore an accusation that must be supported by evidence. The standard for impeachment is very different from the standard for criminal conviction. There is no requirement for unanimity of the jury, nor is there a requirement to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt.
I think the Congress should be seeking something different from consensus. There was certainly no consensus that Mr. Nixon should be removed from office when that impeachment investigation began. I think Congress should be seeking EVIDENCE.
I think the purpose of an impeachment investigation is to build a strong case supported by evidence, so that even a Republican Senator in a red state can point to the evidence and say to his or her constituents “I saw the evidence. There is no way that anybody who did that can remain in the Oval Office”.
It is foolishness to refuse to even begin an impeachment investigation because a whip can’t find 17 Republican votes. No responsible Senator of either party should vote to remove a President until a compelling case has been made with incontrovertible evidence.
pogo says
Your enthusiasm against the concept of “consensus” contradicts your very last sentence, a sentence I agree with. It is a position that I think is guiding Pelosi’s approach, an approach you seem to disagree with. So I’m confused, do you support Green’s direct call for impeachment, like the “the squad” does based on Trump’s ugly racism? Or do you agree with the sentiment you expressed in you last sentence above regarding having an impeachment investigation?
jconway says
I support a real impeachment investigation not a silly resolution impeaching Trump for racist tweets. Those aren’t impeachable offenses, offensive as they are. Working with our sworn enemies to rig elections and enrich your family business on the taxpayer dime have got to be impeachable once we find enough evidence. We cannot get that evidence without launching hearings.
Christopher says
6 6s for the above comment!
SomervilleTom says
I oppose Mr. Green’s resolution because it ignores the long list of real and very dangerous offenses and behavior of this President and his entire party, and instead focuses on a single media episode.
As I wrote upthread, my commentary here opposes the “consensus goal”. I see no conflict between that opposition and my last sentence. A compelling case made with incontrovertible evidence has nothing at all to do with consensus. In fact, the very reason for relying on incontrovertible evidence is to moot the question of consensus.
When Ms. Pelosi allows the impeachment investigation to proceed, I will be less vocal in opposition to her. I think we’ve wasted valuable time by waiting as long as we have, but if we at least begin the investigation then we’re moving in the right direction.
When a dog in training is slow in obeying a command, the correct response is to reward the desired behavior rather than punish the belated response.
We MUST begin the impeachment investigation. NOW.
jconway says
If we had ranked choice voting and a multiparty system without anti majoritarian systems like the EC and United State Senate, we could have the kind of democratic consensus you think. We’d look like NZ or Germany where multiple parties work in coalitions to get stuff done. We don’t have that kind of system, and until we do, I’d rather play dirty like the GOP does to hold onto power. The idea that we can have consensus when one side is committed to permanently enshrining minority rule to stay in power is a premature surrender of our democracy to the forces that oppose it.
jconway says
We can move GOP Senators out of office by getting them to vote against impeachment in states where Trump’s approval ratings are under water. Which happens to be most of the states where there are competitive Senate and presidential races.
SomervilleTom says
This is why it is so crucial to impeach Mr. Trump early enough in 2020 to force Senate candidates to take a position on the long list of credible accusations that the successful impeachment resolution must have.
It is not necessary to have the Senate vote prior to the 2020 election — it is instead crucial to force them to be public and on the record about the evidence and accusations.
The result will be either enough committed votes to remove Mr. Trump from office even if the vote hasn’t happened yet or a passel of GOP Senators stating on the public record (and therefore repeated countless times in Democratic campaign ads) that they don’t care about the rule of law.
I think that forcing GOP Senators to confront overwhelming evidence of the many high crimes and misdemeanors committed by this President is an excellent way to either change the direction of the Senate regarding Mr. Trump or deliver a Democratic Senate in January of 2021.
Trickle up says
I’m OK with this, IF the investigations move forward with appropriate speed. LIke, now.
Honestly, if we won’t exercise oversight here because protecting our incumbents, how is that different from GOP failures to do the same for the same reasons?