Former Trump officials’ coming contempt highlights need for Protecting Our Democracy Act | TheHill – The Hill

Seemingly unrelated events this week and next are connected in ways that shed light on a path forward for our democracys future. Yesterday, the House passed Rep. Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffHouse goes after Trump with bill to curb presidential abuses of power Roger Stone to plead the Fifth in Jan. 6 investigation Jan. 6 panel faces new test as first witness pleads the Fifth MOREs (D-Calif.)Protecting our Democracy Act (PODA).Next week, former Trump acting attorney general Jeffrey Clark and former Trump adviser Stephen MillerStephen MillerChristie says Trump, Meadows should have warned him of positive COVID-19 test The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Biden to tackle omicron risks with new travel rules Midterms are coming: Will we get answers on Jan. 6 before it's too late? MORE are scheduled for depositions with the House Select Committee investigating Jan. 6.

Whats the link?

Among PODAs key provisions is one that calls on federal courts to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of civil law disputes over compliance with Congressional subpoenas.

On Dec. 1, the eve of the Committee citing Clark for criminal contempt for having frivolously asserted executive privilege last month, Clarks lawyer wrote the Committee that Clark would re-appear and assert his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent on a question-by-question basis. That appearance will occur on Dec. 16.

Given Clarks prior baseless assertions of privilege, there is every reason to expect a legal fight to arise if Clark asserts Fifth Amendment rights to questions whose answers could in no way incriminate him. The Committee could proceed with its criminal contempt referral, but with Clark having appeared and made claims that may be arguable, the Committee would be well advised to consider going to court to obtain a judgment of civil contempt. That would oblige Clark to answer questions previously stone-walled in bad faith or go to jail until he does.

As for Miller, his appearance is set for Dec. 14. He may followthe now-indicted Steve BannonStephen (Steve) Kevin BannonAppeals court rejects Trump effort to deny records to Jan. 6 panel Jan. 6 panel threatens Meadows with contempt Judge sets July trial date in Bannon case MOREs path and refuse to cooperate, in which case he will be cited for criminal contempt. Or he may follow Clarks new path and take the Fifth. Alternately, having served as a White House adviser to Trump, he may assert a claim of executive privilege that is a more defensible, at least for the time being, than Clarks. In that case, a civil law dispute is sure to occur over former President TrumpDonald TrumpOn The Money Senate risks Trump's ire with debt ceiling deal Bank regulator erupts in partisan split as Democrats go rogue Biden to appear on 'The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon' on Friday MOREs instruction to assert the privilege.

On Dec. 9, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trumps executive privilege claim, as a former president, is invalid because the current president, Joe Biden, and Congress agree as to its compelling need for the evidence in the Select Committees investigation of the Capitol attack.

By now, we are well familiar with Trumps recurring strategy of running out the clock by filing actions aimed at delaying resolution until after the current session of Congress expires, mooting the case. Enacting PODA with its civil enforcement expedition provision would counteract that cynical tactic.

Notwithstanding current Congressional standoffs between the parties, there are reasons to hope for bipartisan support for such measures in the Senate. The current administration is Democratic, and with history suggesting a change of party control in Congress next election, Republicans may be anticipating their committees subpoenas to Biden administration officials.

In the past, resistance to Congressional testimony has not been limited to Republican administrations. In 2017, Republicans themselves proposed similar acceleration of Court actions to enforce Congresss subpoena power.

This correction is just the beginning of PODAs provisions to rein in presidential abuses of power and to root out corruption. As the New York Times put it, PODA is a point-by-point rebuke of the ways that President Donald J. Trump flouted norms.

The bill would help block presidential interference with the Department of Justice via requirements ensuring transparency and accountability for White House-DOJ communications.

PODA would also help protect our elections from foreign interference. The bill requires that political campaigns be informed of the laws prohibiting foreign support and be obliged to report any attempts of such involvement.

Its hard to imagine any reasonable objection to such provisions.

Similarly, the act would prohibit presidential self-pardons and increase transparency around the presidential pardon process.

Again, both parties have reason to support such a measure. While Trump stretched abuse of the pardon power to the near-breaking point, hes not the only one to have abused it. On his way out the White House door, President Clinton famously pardoned Marc Rich, a fugitive indicted for $48 million in tax evasion and for trading with Iran during the hostage crisis, after his ex-wife had contributed generously to the Clinton Library.

While most modern presidents have done all they can to expand executive power, President BidenJoe BidenNicaragua breaks diplomatic relations with Taiwan, recognizes Chinese sovereignty Biden reassures Ukraine's Zelensky of U.S. support amid Russian aggression On The Money Senate risks Trump's ire with debt ceiling deal MORE, to his credit, has collaborated with Congress on PODA measures that he can live with and that would help limit such expansions going forward. That fact, combined with the many provisions that have attracted bipartisan support in the past, opens a unique door for rebuilding the guardrails of our democracy.

And if Senate Republicans eventually use the filibuster to block reforms they have previously sought, that would add one more reason to reform Senate rules to allow for passage of democracy-preserving legislation by majority vote. In any event, yesterdays vote in the House is a critical step toward restoring our Constitutional system of checks and balances.

Dennis Aftergutis a former federal prosecutor.

Read more:
Former Trump officials' coming contempt highlights need for Protecting Our Democracy Act | TheHill - The Hill