Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Hill GOP abandons constitutional heritage and Watergate precedents in defense of Trump

Hill GOP abandons constitutional heritage and Watergate precedents in defense of Trump

Both Team Nixon and Team Trump called their respective inquiries a "witch hunt," a "lynch mob" and a "kangaroo court."

Tasos Katopodis/Stringer/Getty Images

Hughes is a research specialist at the University of Virginia.

Once, not so long ago, congressional Republicans were impeachment's constitutional stalwarts.

They stood up for the House's "sole power of impeachment," a power granted in the Constitution, including the right to subpoena witnesses and evidence. Even when the president under investigation was a Republican. Even when the Republican political base threatened to turn against them.

But that was when the president was Richard Nixon, not Donald Trump.

With the Senate trial about to get started, a look back is in order.


I wrote a book on the origins of Watergate, so I get asked a lot how Trump's impeachment inquiry compares with Nixon's.

Much remains the same, especially the partisan attacks. In 1974, as today, Republicans complained that the impeachment inquiry was too secret, too leaky and a violation of presidential rights. Both Team Nixon and Team Trump called their respective inquiries a "witch hunt," a "lynch mob" and a "kangaroo court."

There is one vital difference between then and now.

In 1974, when the president defied some impeachment subpoenas, many congressional Republicans said that that was, all by itself, an impeachable offense.

Yet in December, not a single House Republican voted for the second article of impeachment, charging Trump — who has defied every impeachment subpoenas, with obstruction of Congress.

In 1974, many House Republicans defended the impeachment subpoena power at great political risk.

In January of that year, Nixon told House Republicans, "I'm going to fight like hell" against impeachment.

His first move was to invoke "executive privilege" to justify his refusal to turn over evidence, like his secretly recorded White House tapes, to congressional investigators.

A key House Republican, Edward Hutchinson of Michigan, firmly drew the line. The ranking minority Republican on the Judiciary Committee, he said the doctrine of executive privilege "in an impeachment inquiry must fail."

The committee's Republican counsel, Albert Jenner, agreed "100,000 percent." He warned that if the president resisted a subpoena, "the committee could exercise its judgment and include the action in its consideration of whether articles of impeachment should be brought."

In February 1974, the full House backed the committee up, granting it the power to subpoena anything and anyone up to the president himself. The vote was bipartisan, 410 in favor, and only 4 Republicans opposed.

In another bipartisan move, the Judiciary committee voted 33 - 3 in April 1974 to subpoena Nixon's tapes. The Senate minority leader, Republican Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania, warned that failure to comply would put the administration in "grave danger … with serious consequences possibly leading to impeachment."

While today's Republicans complain that the House didn't leave it to the courts to decide whether the president has to comply with its subpoenas, in May 1974 only six of the committee's 17 Republicans voted to punt the issue to the courts. As Jenner put it earlier that year, "No court in the land has the power to review House and Senate actions on impeachment."

The committee voted 21 - 17 in July 1974 to impeach the president for subpoena defiance. Two Republicans voted with the Democratic majority. Nixon resigned in August before the full House had a chance to vote.

This bipartisan – nonpartisan – history is one that today's congressional Republicans have erased and replaced.

Testifying in December as a Republican witness before the Judiciary Committee, law professor Jonathan Turley called the constitutional principle that the House decides the evidence and witnesses required for an impeachment inquiry an "extreme position."

But that position was endorsed by eight committee Republicans (and 20 Democrats) when they wrote this to Nixon in May 1974: "Under the Constitution it is not within the power of the president to conduct an inquiry into his own impeachment, to determine which evidence, and what version and portion of that evidence, is relevant and necessary to such an inquiry. These are matters which, under the Constitution, the House has the sole power to determine."

This view was mainstream, not extreme, and retains majority support by Americans today.

To justify the current congressional Republican position that the House should let the courts decide its subpoena powers, Turley, a professor of constitutional law, gave a comically inaccurate account of legal history.

According to Turley, the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon told the president, "'We've heard your arguments. We've heard Congress' arguments. And you know what? You lose. Turn over the material to Congress.' You know, what that did for the Judiciary Committee is, it gave this body legitimacy."

There are three problems with Turley's history: First, the Supreme Court did not hear Congress' arguments, since Congress never took the matter to court. The case of U.S. v. Nixon was pressed by the Justice Department's Watergate special prosecutor. Second, the court did not order Nixon to turn over his tapes to Congress, only to the special prosecutor; therefore, third, the decision could not add anything to the House Judiciary Committee's legitimacy.

Turley's is partisan history for partisan purposes. It enables one party to abandon principle and precedent while accusing the other of doing the same.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Click here to read the original article.

The Conversation

Read More

The Watchdog That Won’t Bark – How FEC Dysfunction Threatens Democracy
a close up of an american flag on a piece of paper
Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

The Watchdog That Won’t Bark – How FEC Dysfunction Threatens Democracy

The American people are being asked to trust a democracy that is, at its core, unguarded.

Right now — in the middle of a national election cycle — the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has just three active commissioners out of six. That makes it legally unable to act on violations, issue rules, or even respond to urgent questions about election law. It’s not just gridlock; it’s institutional paralysis — and it’s happening on purpose.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s Use of Tariffs Is Another Sign of Democratic Decay

dollar bill reimagined with President Trump's picture

Trump’s Use of Tariffs Is Another Sign of Democratic Decay

Until recently, tariffs had the sound of something from the nineteenth century. The famous Senator Henry Clay was so enthusiastic about them that, in 1832, he designated the protection they afforded “the American System.”

At that time, Clay argued that the “transformation of the condition of the country from gloom and distress to brightness and prosperity, has been mainly the work of American legislation, fostering American industry, instead of allowing it to be controlled by foreign legislation, cherishing foreign industry.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump-Backed Texas Map Redraw Puts Hispanic Voters in Spotlight for 2026 Elections

Republican Elephant lassos Texas

Trump-Backed Texas Map Redraw Puts Hispanic Voters in Spotlight for 2026 Elections

“We have an opportunity in Texas to pick up five seats. I got the highest vote in the history of Texas, as you probably know, and we are entitled to five more seats, President Donald Trump told CNBC’s Squawk Box.

In a dramatic escalation of partisan warfare over congressional control, Texas Republicans—backed by President Trump and the White House—have unveiled a new congressional map designed to flip five Democratic-held seats and solidify the GOP’s narrow House majority ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Doubles Down on Maduro’s Arrest
File:Nicolás Maduro, president of Venezuela (2016) cropped.jpg ...

Trump Doubles Down on Maduro’s Arrest

In a dramatic escalation of U.S. pressure on Venezuela, President Donald Trump has doubled the reward for information leading to the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro—from $25 million to a staggering $50 million. The move, announced by Attorney General Pam Bondi, positions Maduro among the most-wanted fugitives in the world and intensifies Washington’s campaign to hold him accountable for alleged narco-terrorism.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, Maduro will not escape justice and he will be held accountable for his despicable crimes,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said Thursday. Bondi described Maduro as “one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world,” citing his alleged ties to criminal organizations like Tren de Aragua, the Sinaloa cartel, and Cartel de los Soles.

Keep ReadingShow less