Dem House counsel alerts judges more Trump articles of impeachment could come: 'There's no doubt'
Several of US President Donald Trump's immigration policies hvae been blocked in court (AFP Photo/Olivier Douliery)

Doug Letter, the lead counsel representing the House in a pair of cases seeking to compel information and testimony relating to former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, told a federal appeals court on Friday that the House is seriously considering impeaching President Donald Trump again, according to Business Insider.

"That is on the table. There's no doubt," Letter reportedly told a three-judge appellate panel. He also added that his comments had been approved beforehand by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

According to Business Insider, one of the cases is seeking grand jury material from Mueller's investigation, and the other is seeking a court order for former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify before the House Judiciary Committee to answer questions about whether Trump obstructed the Russia probe.

The House has already impeached Trump on one article of abuse of power, relating to his efforts to use military aid to extort Ukraine into announcing an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden's family, and one article of obstruction of Congress, relating to his blanket order to his subordinates to refuse to cooperate with congressional subpoenas.

But there has also been speculation that the House could also impeach Trump for obstruction of justice related to the Mueller probe. The special counsel report detailed ten potential episodes of obstruction of justice, including an incident where Trump unsuccessfully ordered McGahn to fire Mueller, and another where he ordered McGahn to write a memo "for our records," stating that no such order to fire Mueller had ever been given.

The House decided not to draft articles of impeachment surrounding this incident. But as Letter's remarks in federal court make clear, once they obtain more evidence surrounding the McGahn matter, that question could be revisited.