SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Rudy Giuliani speaks to members of the media during a White House Sports and Fitness Day at the South Lawn of the White House May 30, 2018 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Law Professor's Advice to House Democrats: Arrest Rudy Giuliani
"The House arresting someone would be explosive and clearly should not be undertaken lightly. But the very explosiveness of it would be a way for the House to signal the seriousness of White House obstructionism to the public."
Oct 10, 2019
Faced with an intransigent White House unwilling to cooperate with an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump's pressuring of the Ukrainian government to investigate his political rival former Vice President Joe Biden, the House should take aggressive action including arresting Rudy Giuliani, a law professor argues in a column for The New York Times Thursday.
"If necessary, the House should be willing to have these fights."
--Josh Chafetz, law professor
"The answer is unlikely to be found in a courtroom," writes law professor Josh Chafetz.
The White House has repeatedly refused to answer subpoenas and on Tuesday afternoon, as Common Dreams reported, announced in an eight page letter that the administration will flatly refuse to cooperate in the inquiry, a move that could set up a constitutional crisis.
"There is no legal basis for Trump's position," NBC analyst Katie Phang said on Twitter Tuesday. "Hard stop."
House Democrats need to think outside the box, Chafetz argues.
"The House should instead put back on the table the option of using its sergeant-at-arms to arrest contemnors--as the person in violation of the order is called--especially when an individual, like Rudy Giuliani, is not an executive branch official," Chaftez writes.
Chafetz acknowledges that the move was extreme, but said that the net benefits of taking things to that level would outweigh the possible negatives of such an action and allow for the House to open the door to other punitive actions seen as less radical.
"The House arresting someone would be explosive and clearly should not be undertaken lightly," says Chafetz. "But the very explosiveness of it would be a way for the House to signal the seriousness of White House obstructionism to the public."
On Thursday, Common Dreams reported that two associates of Giuliani's were arrested for campaign finance violations due to their contributions to Trump in 2016 and 2018.
A number of legal observers endorsed the theoretical framing of Chafetz's piece while urging readers to manage expectations.
"The idea of doing nothing, and letting congressional subpoenas become voluntary, is likely far more dangerous in the long run."
--Seth Masket, University of Denver
"An aggressive strategy might work in Congress's favor, or it might backfire," tweeted George Mason University politcal science professor Jennifer N. Victory. "We cannot underestimate the importance of public reaction for providing legitimacy to government actions when we're in uncharted water."
University of Denver professor Seth Masket said he saw the logic in that but inaction could prove more costly.
"Agreed that this is a risky strategy, but the idea of doing nothing, and letting congressional subpoenas become voluntary, is likely far more dangerous in the long run," said Masket.
In his conclusion, Chafetz recognizes the pitfalls of an aggressive approach, but posits that taking such an action is necessary given the administration's behavior.
"In the end, whether the House wins that fight, like whether it wins a fight over arresting a contemnor, would be a function of which side best convinces the public," writes Chafetz. "But President Trump is deeply unpopular, and the public supports impeachment. If necessary, the House should be willing to have these fights."
FINAL DAY! This is urgent.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just hours left in our Spring Campaign, we're still falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Faced with an intransigent White House unwilling to cooperate with an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump's pressuring of the Ukrainian government to investigate his political rival former Vice President Joe Biden, the House should take aggressive action including arresting Rudy Giuliani, a law professor argues in a column for The New York Times Thursday.
"If necessary, the House should be willing to have these fights."
--Josh Chafetz, law professor
"The answer is unlikely to be found in a courtroom," writes law professor Josh Chafetz.
The White House has repeatedly refused to answer subpoenas and on Tuesday afternoon, as Common Dreams reported, announced in an eight page letter that the administration will flatly refuse to cooperate in the inquiry, a move that could set up a constitutional crisis.
"There is no legal basis for Trump's position," NBC analyst Katie Phang said on Twitter Tuesday. "Hard stop."
House Democrats need to think outside the box, Chafetz argues.
"The House should instead put back on the table the option of using its sergeant-at-arms to arrest contemnors--as the person in violation of the order is called--especially when an individual, like Rudy Giuliani, is not an executive branch official," Chaftez writes.
Chafetz acknowledges that the move was extreme, but said that the net benefits of taking things to that level would outweigh the possible negatives of such an action and allow for the House to open the door to other punitive actions seen as less radical.
"The House arresting someone would be explosive and clearly should not be undertaken lightly," says Chafetz. "But the very explosiveness of it would be a way for the House to signal the seriousness of White House obstructionism to the public."
On Thursday, Common Dreams reported that two associates of Giuliani's were arrested for campaign finance violations due to their contributions to Trump in 2016 and 2018.
A number of legal observers endorsed the theoretical framing of Chafetz's piece while urging readers to manage expectations.
"The idea of doing nothing, and letting congressional subpoenas become voluntary, is likely far more dangerous in the long run."
--Seth Masket, University of Denver
"An aggressive strategy might work in Congress's favor, or it might backfire," tweeted George Mason University politcal science professor Jennifer N. Victory. "We cannot underestimate the importance of public reaction for providing legitimacy to government actions when we're in uncharted water."
University of Denver professor Seth Masket said he saw the logic in that but inaction could prove more costly.
"Agreed that this is a risky strategy, but the idea of doing nothing, and letting congressional subpoenas become voluntary, is likely far more dangerous in the long run," said Masket.
In his conclusion, Chafetz recognizes the pitfalls of an aggressive approach, but posits that taking such an action is necessary given the administration's behavior.
"In the end, whether the House wins that fight, like whether it wins a fight over arresting a contemnor, would be a function of which side best convinces the public," writes Chafetz. "But President Trump is deeply unpopular, and the public supports impeachment. If necessary, the House should be willing to have these fights."
Faced with an intransigent White House unwilling to cooperate with an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump's pressuring of the Ukrainian government to investigate his political rival former Vice President Joe Biden, the House should take aggressive action including arresting Rudy Giuliani, a law professor argues in a column for The New York Times Thursday.
"If necessary, the House should be willing to have these fights."
--Josh Chafetz, law professor
"The answer is unlikely to be found in a courtroom," writes law professor Josh Chafetz.
The White House has repeatedly refused to answer subpoenas and on Tuesday afternoon, as Common Dreams reported, announced in an eight page letter that the administration will flatly refuse to cooperate in the inquiry, a move that could set up a constitutional crisis.
"There is no legal basis for Trump's position," NBC analyst Katie Phang said on Twitter Tuesday. "Hard stop."
House Democrats need to think outside the box, Chafetz argues.
"The House should instead put back on the table the option of using its sergeant-at-arms to arrest contemnors--as the person in violation of the order is called--especially when an individual, like Rudy Giuliani, is not an executive branch official," Chaftez writes.
Chafetz acknowledges that the move was extreme, but said that the net benefits of taking things to that level would outweigh the possible negatives of such an action and allow for the House to open the door to other punitive actions seen as less radical.
"The House arresting someone would be explosive and clearly should not be undertaken lightly," says Chafetz. "But the very explosiveness of it would be a way for the House to signal the seriousness of White House obstructionism to the public."
On Thursday, Common Dreams reported that two associates of Giuliani's were arrested for campaign finance violations due to their contributions to Trump in 2016 and 2018.
A number of legal observers endorsed the theoretical framing of Chafetz's piece while urging readers to manage expectations.
"The idea of doing nothing, and letting congressional subpoenas become voluntary, is likely far more dangerous in the long run."
--Seth Masket, University of Denver
"An aggressive strategy might work in Congress's favor, or it might backfire," tweeted George Mason University politcal science professor Jennifer N. Victory. "We cannot underestimate the importance of public reaction for providing legitimacy to government actions when we're in uncharted water."
University of Denver professor Seth Masket said he saw the logic in that but inaction could prove more costly.
"Agreed that this is a risky strategy, but the idea of doing nothing, and letting congressional subpoenas become voluntary, is likely far more dangerous in the long run," said Masket.
In his conclusion, Chafetz recognizes the pitfalls of an aggressive approach, but posits that taking such an action is necessary given the administration's behavior.
"In the end, whether the House wins that fight, like whether it wins a fight over arresting a contemnor, would be a function of which side best convinces the public," writes Chafetz. "But President Trump is deeply unpopular, and the public supports impeachment. If necessary, the House should be willing to have these fights."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.