"If the situation does not move politically, it will end up in the courts"

"Treason", "civil war", "bogus tribunal" … The escalation continues in the United States between Donald Trump and his opponents of the Democratic Party
in the Ukrainian case.
The White House on Tuesday expressed its refusal to cooperate with the ongoing investigation into a
possible impeachment procedure against the US president.

On the side of the White House, these investigations conducted by the democratically elected members of the House of Representatives on the Ukrainian affair are in his eyes neither legitimate nor impartial. The US executive argues that there is no formal vote in the House to trigger this process – which is not mandatory to launch an impeachment inquiry. The State Department prevented US ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland from testifying in Congress "in a totally biased bogus court".

The Democrats fought back on Tuesday night with an injunction demanding that he testify on October 16 and present documents that the State Department refuses to deliver.

20 minutes asked Nicole Bacharan, historian and political scientist, specialist in American politics and society, and author of World according to Trump (Ed Tallandier), on the position of the American executive and the possible recourse of the Democrats.

Is it Donald Trump's right to refuse to have the White House cooperate in the investigation with a view to impeachment proceedings against him?

It is, and it is not at the same time, because this question is not clearly settled either by the Constitution or by the law. The Constitution gives Congress the right to "impeachment" and thus the right to control the ethics of the government. Congress is thus entitled to ask for documents and call witnesses. If the White House does not want to cooperate as it does now, it can legally defend itself in the name of the separation of powers – although it does not matter because the power of the Congress is superior to its own – name of the real need for a government to have some degree of secrecy in its operation to be effective and in the name of the privilege of the executive.

We are in a political and legal struggle. The House of Representatives is right to talk about abuse of power pusic The White House has decided to lock all witnesses summoned and refuses to submit all requested documents. If the situation does not move politically, it will end up in court at one time or another.

Is bringing the case to court the only possible recourse for Democrats?

Yes, because if it was an ordinary witness who refused to appear, they could have brandished a weapon, that of "contempt of Congress", which is punishable by imprisonment. Today, we are in a situation where it is the White House, the boss of the United States ambassador to the European Union, who forbids him to testify. So it is not the ambassador who is implicated but the White House. And this question has not been resolved by the Constitution.

What could happen in the next few days?

If there was a clear legal path, I could point it out to you without difficulty, except that in this case we are in a troubled area where every piece of paper, every conversation, every request from the House will make the subject of an absolutely fierce battle. I imagine that one day or another, it will go to the Supreme Court and it will decide in favor of the president. The aim of the White House for the moment is to block everything, but it will not last until the presidential election. Democrats can not wait because the media space is occupied by this business, they have trouble campaigning.

The Trump administration published the transcript of the phone call made to the Ukrainian president, thinking "it is better to give the impression that there is nothing to hide and that this interview is not very serious, so we will show that we have nothing to reproach ourselves for. But it did not go as planned. There are really questionable things in this phone conversation. Then the executive opts for reverse tactics and cries out for partisan, unconstitutional investigation and witch hunting.

Is this an unprecedented step in the history of American politics?

It's not totally new. The standoff over the executive's privilege to refuse to deliver documents is constant. As we saw with President Richard Nixon, all possible documents were blocked but not witnesses, until the day it turned out that the Supreme Court would decide in favor of Congress and force the President to give his magnetic tapes. At that moment, he knew everything was in jeopardy, so he resigned before we got to the serious things of impeachment.
The procedure against Bill Clinton had begun in relation to a civil suit for harassment brought by Paula Jones against the US president. Bill Clinton refused to be heard as a witness, arguing that it would prevent the government from running and the proper functioning of Parliament. And that went to the Supreme Court, which stipulated that it did not interfere with the functioning of the government.

Will Donald Trump's policy be more fragile?

Donald Trump is down badly now. He is playing the political game, screaming in front of his constituents that he is fighting and that the bad democrats want to trample the vote of the American people. He is in political propaganda somehow. But he does not convince much, opinion polls are not in his favor. Even when Clinton was under investigation and impeachment, almost 70 percent of Americans did not want to remove him.

The Kiev prosecutor's office will reopen cases concerning the firm where Joe Biden's son worked. Can that play for Donald Trump?

First, this case weakens Joe Biden. It may be slander, but any slander, there are traces. It is true that his son received $ 50,000 a month to participate in the board of directors of a gas company. This figure raises suspicion even though it does not directly concern Joe Biden. As Ukraine is not a model of judicial exemplarity, we will wonder if these investigations are very honest.