No Constitutional Crisis

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the claim by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that there is a constitutional crisis. Democrat leaders of the House of Representatives are demanding something that the administration cannot give them – the full unredacted Mueller report. Pelosi and associates are claiming that President Donald Trump and his administration are violating their oath of office and the Constitution of the United States.

            Pelosi tells a good story, but she does not have her facts straight. She may understand the situation but chooses to ignore the true facts and make up some of her own. Nate Madden says that the Constitution does not say much at all about this particular situation. He gives the following facts as reported. 

·         Attorney General Barr released a redacted version of a confidential report on the Mueller report, which he was under no statutory obligation to do.

·         Nadler subpoenaed the full, unredacted Mueller report and its underlying evidence from the Department of Justice.

·         The Department has objected to this, saying that the requested materials contain grand jury information that is protected by section 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

·         That section of the rules says that grand jury information cannot be made public without a court order, which has not been issued.

·         Despite all this, the DOJ has allowed a dozen members of Congress to come and view a less-redacted version in a secure location at the Department.

·         None of the six permitted Democrats have come forward so far to take advantage of that offer.

·         The Department of Justice has reiterated its invitation for Nadler to come view the less-redacted report and work out a compromise in compliance with federal rules.

·         House/DOJ talks fell apart, and House Democrats scheduled contempt proceedings against Barr.

·         In response to the contempt proceedings, the White House invoked executive privilege over the contested portions of the Mueller report.

            Madden continues by explaining that the website for the House of Representatives says, “Constitution says nothing about congressional investigations and oversight.” However, Democrats claim that oversight powers of Congress are “implied by historical understanding of the Founders, who got their understanding of it from Congress’ forerunners in the British parliament.”

            The Democrats make their silly comments even though there is “no specific language in the document that gives Congress the ability to issue subpoenas” or any instructions to the executive branch on how to handle such a situation. The administration is being obedient to law by withholding information from the grand juries, information that cannot be released without a court order. Madden closes with this statement.

And given the nature of the situation, the argument could very easily be made that the executive branch has already more than upheld its constitutional obligations to Congress’ implied oversight powers by its repeated offers to allow leaders from both parties from both chambers to come and view the document, minus the secret grand jury information.

At most, we appear to be looking at a constitutional question – not a crisis.

            It appears that the Democrats are not in this battle for an opportunity to read the Mueller report. Not one of the six designated Democrat leaders in Congress has accepted the offer from the Department of Justice to read the less-redacted report. It appears that the Democrats are simply continuing their fight to get rid of Trump, and they do not seem to care how they do it.