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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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 Hidden Moral Cost of America’s Tariff Crisis

Small business owner attaching permanent close sign on the shop door.

Getty Images, Kannika Paison

The Hidden Moral Cost of America’s Tariff Crisis

In the spring of 2025, as American families struggle with unprecedented consumer costs, we find ourselves at a point of "moral reckoning." The latest data from the Yale Budget Lab reveals that tariff policies have driven consumer prices up by 2.9% in the short term. In comparison, the Penn Wharton Budget Model projects a staggering 6% reduction in long-term GDP and a 5% decline in wages. But these numbers, stark as they are, tell only part of the story.

The actual narrative is one of moral choice and democratic values. Eddie Glaude describes this way in his book “Democracy in Black”: Our economic policies must be viewed through the lens of ethical significance—not just market efficiency. When we examine the tariff regime's impact on American communities, we see economic data points and a fundamental challenge to our democratic principles of equity and justice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

President-elect Donald Trump at Madison Square Garden in New York

Chris Unger/Zuffa LLC/Getty Images

Trump’s First 100 Days Changed the Game – the Next 1300 Could Change the Nation

The country has now witnessed and felt the first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s second term. These days were filled with unrelenting, fast-paced executive action. He signed a record-breaking number of executive orders, though many have been challenged and may be reversed. Working with Congress to pass legislation, though more difficult, leads to more enduring change and is less likely to be challenged in court. While certainly eventful, the jury is still out on how effective these first days have been. More importantly, the period of greater consequence - the months following the first 100 days, which should focus on implementation - will ultimately determine whether the president’s drastic changes can stand the test of time and have their desired impact on American society.

The first months of all Presidential terms include outlining a vision and using presidential influence to shift priorities and change governance structures. The media often focuses on polling and popularity, comparing previous presidents and highlighting public perception of the president's handling of specific issues like the economy, immigration, and national defense. Rasmussen Reports' daily Presidential Tracking Poll now shows 50 percent of likely voters approve of President Trump's job performance, but change has never been popular, and he is unapologetically pursuing it in these first months.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s Immigration Crackdown Spurs Brain Drain of International Talent

Close up of american visa label in passport.

Getty Images/Alexander W. Helin

Trump’s Immigration Crackdown Spurs Brain Drain of International Talent

This article is part of a short series examining the Trump administration’s impact on international students in American higher education. This is the second and final installment of the series, which is focused on F1 student visa-to-citizenship pipelines.

The first part of the series, entitled “Legal Battles Continue for International Students With Pro-Palestinian Views,” was about ongoing litigation against the Trump administration for ideological deportations in higher education.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Bill Spotlight: No Invading Allies Act

United States Capitol building in Washington, D.C.

Getty Images, dcsliminky

Congress Bill Spotlight: No Invading Allies Act

The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.

In response to Trump’s takeover threats, Canadian coffee shops and cafés are rebranding the Americano beverage as the “Canadiano.”

Keep ReadingShow less