You Will Anyway

Unlike a typical trial, the upcoming impeachment trial of President Donald Trump won’t establish facts or put an end to investigations about the Ukraine scheme at the heart of this case. Given that new allegations and evidence continue to emerge, a new investigation will be necessary.

[...]

As it stands now, there is little doubt Republicans are prepared to vote against removing Trump from office—which is why Democrats want to shake things up with witnesses they haven’t had the opportunity to interview, like former national security adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

But the fact that months of congressional inquiry into Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine is almost certain to end in acquittal does not mean that Congress’ work is done. So much of the story of the Ukraine scheme at the heart of Trump’s impeachment still is not public that Congress is obligated to resume its inquiry regardless of the outcome in the Senate.

[...]

[Lev] Parnas made sweeping claims, such as his assertion that Trump was “aware of all of my movements” and that Attorney General William Barr was “basically on the team.” These are provocative and damning assertions. But how does Parnas claim to know all of this?

While there is good reason to be skeptical of these allegations, Parnas provided a trove of notes, texts and other evidence that demand further investigation.

[...]

This isn’t the only new evidence to come to light since Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives. A few weeks ago, Just Security published unredacted versions of emails that show the internal resistance in the administration to Trump’s scheme to withhold aid as well as an apparent effort to abuse processes established in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to cover up that resistance.

[...]

[T]he Senate trial is not the ideal vehicle to conduct an investigation of this matter, even if Senate Republicans sincerely wanted to get to the bottom of it. In a typical trial, jurors are carefully selected to ensure they don’t know anything about the case or have an interest in the outcome. In the impeachment trial, the “jurors” know a lot about what Trump did and many have a personal stake in the outcome of the trial.

[...]

Congress can’t investigate as well as a professional criminal investigator could, but lawmakers made the most of the tools they had during the recent impeachment inquiry. There is no reason why they couldn’t continue their work.

The House impeachment inquiry was limited in time by the purpose of its work. If the House spent months fighting in court every time the Trump administration withheld documents or ordered witnesses not to appear, impeachment wouldn’t happen until after the 2020 election. But a subsequent House investigation could fight in court to obtain that evidence, establishing important legal precedents and ensuring that misconduct is not hidden from public view.

  Renato Mariotti @ Politico

Of course there is the problem of Mitch McConnell packing the courts.

[Trump's] strategy of withholding all documents and witnesses successfully delayed and limited Democrats’ investigation and may have contributed to their failure to remove him from office. But by obstructing their investigation, he ensured that new evidence would continue to emerge. As those new leads come to light, the House should be poised to follow them until the full truth is known.

Agreed, although I don't think Nancy Pelosi will do it.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.