[9th Reuters]-The US White House has announced that President Trump will refuse to cooperate in opposition-democratic-led impeachment investigations. It is cited because it is fundamentally unfair and infringes on Trump's legal rights.
White House Legal Counsel Pat Sipolone recommended in a letter to the House Democratic Party leadership that Trump's lawyer should be granted access to witness investigations and evidence.
According to legal experts, impeachment is not a lawsuit but a political procedure, so the House has broad authority to set the basic principles of investigation. However, if Mr. Trump's lawyer can be involved in some form, public opinion will be gained and the impeachment investigation will be more externally fair.
In the following, Mr. Trump's position and the history of impeachment procedures are shown, and whether the current investigation really hurts Trump's constitutional rights.
<What Mr. Trump wants>
Mr. Sypolone criticized the House's impeachment investigation that he did not allow Mr. Trump even the most basic right to protect himself from a constitutional point of view and a fairness of past impeachments.
Mr. Trump should be given the right to access evidence, examine witnesses and have his lawyer attend the hearing, and each committee will be obliged to disclose evidence in favor of Mr. Trump. Mr. Sipolone claims. The Republican lawmakers must also be allowed to collect evidence to defend Mr. Trump by issuing a subpoena and refute the Democratic party.
The White House also pointed out that the investigation was illegal because the impeachment investigation was not passed at the House of Representatives. Some Republican lawmakers have repeatedly expressed their views.
The House Democrat leadership has not responded to Mr. Sipolone's letter so far. However, several executives have truncated the letter because it is a painful and confusing action that does not prevent impeachment.
<What happened in the past impeachment>
The impeachment against Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon gave some of the legal protections sought by the White House.
For example, Mr. Nixon's lawyer was allowed to object to the evidence and testify during the impeachment investigation. However, Nixon resigned in 1974 before the impeachment was formed.
Mr. Clinton, 25 years later, was granted the same rights. Mr. Clinton was approved for impeachment in the House of Representatives, but the Senate rejected it.
In either case, the House passed an impeachment survey at the plenary session. The only other subject of impeachment was Andrew Jackson in 1868, when no such vote was held.
<Is the impeachment against Trump unconstitutional>
Several experts believe that it is not unconstitutional.
Prof. Frank Brown (law) at the University of Missouri guarantees the freedom to set basic rules in the House for impeachment investigations.
Mr Brown, says no House vote is required, the House is not obligated to add Mr. Trump's lawyer to the investigation, and Mr. Trump has no legal basis to insist that he investigate in his preferred manner .
Mr. Trump also often relies on courts to take remedies, but this time there is no such option.
Michael Stern, a former lawyer at Congress, pointed out that federal courts, including the Supreme Court, do not hear the legal justification of impeachment investigations. “There is no court turn in this procedure,” he explained.
However, experts agree that giving Mr Trump basic protection and having his lawyer participate in the investigation will increase the fairness of the procedure. Washington lawyer Ross Gerber showed the Democratic Party that it was politically wise.
Gerber cautioned that the public might question the legitimacy of impeachment if proceeding without providing standard legal protection in the US legal system.
