More High Crimes and Misdeeds–While Trump Costs Americans Billions & More

November 2019

CAC’s impeachment analysis for The New Republic The December issue of The New Republic will feature an in-depth analysis on impeachment co-written by Constitutional Accountability Center’s Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod and President Elizabeth Wydra. The two-part piece, titled The First Magistrate in Foreign Pay and High Crimes, details constitutional violations committed by President Trump as well as historic commentary on how the Framers intentionally drafted the Constitution to prevent corruption in the office of the presidency.“Indeed, the Constitution’s entire system of checks and balances was aimed, at least in part, at preventing the corruption of our nation’s leaders.But the Framers also determined that these checks alone were not sufficient. Instead, the ultimate check on an abusive president lies in Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution: ‘The President … shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’ By empowering the Congress to remove the president for ‘abuse[s] or violation[s] of some public trust,’ they enabled the people’s representatives to render a verdict that a president was abusing his public office to such a degree that allowing him to remain in it posed a danger to the republic.”

We are on the brink of a constitutional moment for the ages. It’s clear Trump’s treatment of the presidential office is not in alignment with what the Framer’s envisioned for our nation’s executive power. Selling out national security and compromising democratic integrity are clear violations of our Constitution and public trust. As the impeachment investigation proceeds in the coming weeks, CAC will continue to advocate for accountability and the preservation of our republic. On December 9, CAC President Elizabeth Wydra will present oral argument in our case on behalf of Members of Congress for President Trump’s violation of the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause. Join us in the fight for justice.

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP — The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit considered whether the House Oversight Committee can subpoena documents related to President Trump’s and his businesses’ finances from Mazars USA, LLP, a financial accounting firm. The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s order and held that Mazars must comply with the Committee’s subpoena.  U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, decided October 11.Blumenthal, et al. v. Trump — CAC is representing Members of Congress in a lawsuit to hold President Trump accountable for violating the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause. CAC filed an appellate brief for the plaintiffs in the D.C. Circuit. Eight amicus briefs were filed in support of CAC.  U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed October 22, oral argument scheduled for December 9.Pitch v. United States — CAC filed an amicus brief supporting historian Anthony Pitch in his efforts to obtain records of witness testimony from a grand jury investigation into the Moore’s Ford Lynching of 1946, which one court called “the last mass lynching in American History.” The 11th Circuit is considering whether courts have inherent authority to release historically significant grand jury materials, and we argue they do. As we argue in our brief, the tradition of maintaining the secrecy of grand jury proceedings is not absolute, and courts have regularly disclosed grand jury materials in appropriate circumstances throughout American history.  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, oral argument held October 22.In re: Application on the Committee on the Judiciary —The United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether to approve the House Judiciary Committee’s request for portions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report, and other related documents, that the Department of Justice has withheld from the Committee based on grand jury secrecy rules. The district court granted the Committee’s application and ordered the Department of Justice to disclose redacted portions of the Mueller Report and underlying grand jury materials. The Court held that it could disclose these materials under Rule 6(e) because the term “judicial proceeding” includes impeachment proceedings, and the House of Representatives is currently engaged in an impeachment inquiry.  U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, decided October 25.Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition v. Trump — CAC filed an amici curiae brief in opposition to the defendants’ motions for partial summary judgment in the district court in this case which considered whether President Trump can lawfully divert funds that Congress has appropriated for other purposes for the construction of a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, filed November 4.Allen v. Cooper — This case considers whether Congress validly eliminated state sovereign immunity for copyright suits in the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA). CAC filed a brief arguing that Congress’s cancelling state sovereign immunity in the CRCA falls well within Congress’s power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment “to enforce” its substantive guarantees through “appropriate legislation.” U.S. Supreme Court, oral argument held November 5.County of Maui v. Hawai‘i Wildlife Fund —This case considers whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit for the discharge of a pollutant from a point source to navigable waters, even if the pollutant travels through an intermediary like groundwater on the way from one to the other. CAC filed an amicus curiae brief in support of four Maui-based nonprofits in which we argued that the Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibits the pollution of navigable waters from any point source without a permit, regardless of whether the point source delivers the pollutant directly.  U.S. Supreme Court, oral argument held November 6.Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California; Trump v. NAACP; and McAleenan v. Vidal —The Supreme Court considered whether the Trump Administration’s decision to end the Obama Administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy is reviewable and, if so, whether the decision violated the law. CAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of current Members and bipartisan former Members of Congress in which we argued that DACA was a lawful exercise of executive discretion. In our brief, we further argued that the Trump Administration’s decision to terminate DACA on the ground that it was unlawful violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a law that prohibits agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” U.S. Supreme Court, oral argument held November 12.

On October 30, Elizabeth Wydra joined Representative Jackie Speier on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews to discuss the latest developments in the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.On October 20, CAC President Elizabeth Wydra was quoted for ABC News on Trump’s proposed decision to host the G7 summit at his Doral Miami resort.“By treating the G7 summit like a commercial for his businesses, inviting foreign governments to line his pockets and hold their next meeting at his Doral, FL golf course next year, he mocks the Constitution he swore to uphold.”On October 22, Elizabeth Wydra’s remarks in response to Trump’s Doral G7 Summit proposal were published by CNN.“Wydra said that the results are ‘predictable’ and that ‘foreign officials flock to the President’s hotels and resorts, paying up to hundreds of thousands of dollars for celebrations and blocks of rooms.’”On October 24, CAC Appellate Counsel Ashwin Phatak published an op-ed in Slate on President Trump’s firing of Marie Yovanovitch and removal power granted by the Constitution.“Although Pompeo is correct that ambassadors, like other high-level national security and foreign affairs officers, do serve at the pleasure of the president and can be removed by him without cause, Pompeo is wrong about what that means for the impeachment inquiry. A misuse of the removal power can still be grounds for impeachment, and Congress may discover just such an abuse of that power here.”On October 31, Elizabeth Wydra appeared on BBC World News with Laura Trevelyan to discuss the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.

CAC’s Work With Members Of Congress As Friends Of The Court by Elizabeth B. WydraThe role of Congress in our three-branch system of government is increasingly in the spotlight, as the investigations into President Trump’s impeachable offenses intensify. While the process of impeachment follows a path set out in the Constitution—whereby Congress may act as a check on the executive or judicial branches when officials commit treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors—Members of Congress often interact with those two branches of government in far lower-profile ways, as well. (See more)

CAC has a new online show! The #PurpleChairChat will feature commentary on CAC’s latest cases and the issues we care about. Check out our latest episode with President Elizabeth Wydra and Appellate Counsel Dayna Zolle, where they discussed DACA and other recent #SCOTUS cases. Tune in!