If it all ends up in the Courts...?

[kentuck]

Would it be resolved before the election?

And which Party would it most likely help?

In my opinion, the Courts would stick with precedent and agree that the Congress has the power of oversight of the Executive Branch and should have access to all documents and witnesses requested.

Would Trump ignore judicial review? If he did, what would be the recourse??

If Nadler were to take to court all those that refuse subpoenas to testify, how long would it take to get a judgement? Would the Courts rule in his favor?

Should the Democrats continue trying to get the White House to cooperate or should they just hold them in contempt of Congress and let the Judicial Branch settle it? The sooner the better?

[manor321]

1. Inherent contempt

The House can, independently of anyone else, grab someone to bring them before the full House for a trial. If convicted by the House they can be imprisoned (or fined I assume) until they comply.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34097.pdf

[StarfishSaver]

2. How would that work in practical terms.

How would the House go about "grabbing" and imprisoning a U.S. Attorney General?

[manor321]

3. It would be a little tough :) But they should grab McGahn or Lewandowski first

I don't care about Barr. We need to hear from Mueller, McGahn, Lewandowski, Annie Donaldson, etc.

[kentuck]

4. I think it may be that the Courts are the only ones that can save our democracy.

There is a gridlock between the Executive and Legislative Branches that cannot be broken, it appears?

Subpoena, file contempt if ignored, and take them to Court.

I don't see this Congress as capable of doing much more?

[uponit7771]

5. Sargent at arms, my understanding it would shoot straight to USSC though. I would take a lot of

... minerals to do this.

[SCantiGOP]

6. Good luck to the Sargeant at Arms

When he comes up against the FBI agents who provide 24 hour protection to the Attorney General and tells them he is about to throw the AG in the trunk of his car.

[kentuck]

8. Anything goes when there is no rule of law.

[StarfishSaver]

9. My point, precisely

It sounds good to say "if he doesn't comply, they need to throw him in jail" but the people saying haven't thought the scenario through.

Fortunately, the people who are actually making the decisions have and are thinking everything through and are rightly being careful and strategic in their approach

[onecaliberal]

7. Pretty sure it's just a delay tactic. We very well may lose there, even though law is on our side.

[kentuck]

10. If delay is their goal..?

Then Democrats should look at it from a strategic point.

What if Trump wins a second term but Democrats maintain the House?

Would that not be an insurance policy for the second?

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. If Trump continues to commit crimes in 2020 and beyond

Then he can't escape the statute of limitation should he have a second term that ends in January 2025.

[NotASurfer]

15. Except by death

That of course would require exquisite timing of the totality of self-inflicted slow KFC poisoning on his part

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. Opening an impeachment inquiry would make the legal precedents crystal clear

And prioritize and expedite any court rulings.

[kentuck]

13. I would agree this is the way they should go if...

...tht White House continues to say it is over and to ignore all subpoenas.

In a way, it would be a two-pronged defense of the Congress. Use the impeachment process to get the witnesses and documents they need and keep the impeachment process going on until there is a ruling from the Court. Do not impeach until the Court rules in your favor.

[Fiendish Thingy]

14. Yes, I think they should wait until after Meuller testifies, and Barr refuses his subpeona

Opening an inquiry in late May/early June should make for a nice, evidence-gathering summer...

[PufPuf23]

16. Has it occurred to you that opening the impeachment investigation before

Mueller testifies will result in more complete and straightforward testimony by Mueller?

Making an impeachment investigation formal in a positive sense gives Mueller more leeway to be open and complete in testimony and in a negative sense also forces Mueller to be more complete and straightforward.

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. Can you clarify how an impeachment inquiry "forces" Meuller to be more complete & straightforward?

All who testify to Congress are required by law to be truthful and not be misleading.

My rationale for opening an impeachment inquiry is to utilize the long standing judicial precedents that compel the release of documents in a timely fashion without delays.

[kentuck]

18. To be honest, it would probably be best to get a court ruling before the testimony?

...if possible?

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. There are long standing court rulings regarding impeachment inquiries

Most everything else is on a case by case basis, that's why I support opening an inquiry to use existing, long standing legal precedent to defeat the run-out-the-clock strategy Trump is using.