Page:Impeachment of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States — Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives.pdf/214

 and documents during the investigation of "Fast and Furious," a gunwalking operation in which the government arranged for the illegal sale of weapons to drug cartels in order to track their movement. The Obama administration argued that the courts had no authority over its denial of such witnesses and evidence to Congress. In Committee on Oversight & Government Reform v. Holder, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, ruled that "endorsing the proposition that the executive may assert an unreviewable right to withhold materials from the legislature would offend the Constitution more than undertaking to resolve the specific dispute that has been presented here. After all, the Constitution contemplates not only a separation, but a balance, of powers." The position of the Obama Administration was extreme. It was also widely viewed as an effort to run the clock out on the investigation. Nevertheless, President Obama had every right to seek judicial review in the matter.

The subpoena campaign against the Trump Executive Branch began in earnest in September of this year, over a month before the impeachment inquiry had been authorized by the House of Representatives. In a letter to Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, the Committee on Foreign Affairs compelled the production of certain documents from the Department of State. The subpoena issued by the Committee on Oversight and Reform to the White House on October 4, 2019, "compel[led] [the White House] to produce documents set forth in the accompanying schedule by October 18, 2019." Any response less than immediate and total acquiescence, the letter stated, "shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House's impeachment inquiry and may be used as an adverse inference against you and the President." This refrain-a threat by any definition-has accompanied every subpoena issued to the Executive Branch and has needlessly created further tension between the Executive and Legislative Branches. From the commencement of this inquiry-whenever that may be definitively ascertained-the Majority has not been reluctant to voice its goal of impeaching the President.

VI.Conclusion

Before the House of Representatives are two Articles of Impeachment against the President of the United States, Donald John Trump. To these Articles, the Minority dissents. The President has neither abused the power granted to him by the American people nor obstructed Congress. The Majority has failed to prove a case for impeachment. In fact, the paltry record on which the Majority relies is an affront to the constitutional process of impeachment and will have grave consequences for future presidents. The Majority's tactics and behavior—procedurally and substantively—emulate the charade impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, a president impeached because the House of Representatives did not agree with his policies.

If President Nixon's impeachment proceedings are the "gold standard" for presidential impeachment inquiries, these proceedings, in stark contrast, will go down in history as the quintessential example of how such proceedings should not be conducted. The Majority Report and attendant documents will be viewed only as maps to the lowest depths of partisanship that no future Congress should follow. The quicker the Majority Report and the Majority's actions are 18