July 27, 2019

"... a legal maneuver that carries significant political overtones..."

Ah, the subtle humor of the NYT.

I'm reading "Raising Prospect of Impeaching Trump, House Seeks Mueller’s Grand Jury Secrets/In a court filing, House Democrats said they need access to secret grand jury evidence because they are weighing whether to recommend impeaching President Trump":
The House Judiciary Committee on Friday asked a federal judge to unseal grand jury secrets related to Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation, using the court filing to declare that lawmakers have already in effect launched an impeachment investigation of President Trump.

In a legal maneuver that carries significant political overtones, the committee told a judge that it needs access to the grand jury evidence collected by Mr. Mueller as special counsel — such as witness testimony — because it is “investigating whether to recommend articles of impeachment” against the president.

“Because Department of Justice policies will not allow prosecution of a sitting president, the United States House of Representatives is the only institution of the federal government that can now hold President Trump accountable for these actions,” the filing told the judge, Beryl A. Howell, who supervised Mr. Mueller’s grand jury.

Referring to the part of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to impeach and remove a president, the filing continued: “To do so, the House must have access to all the relevant facts and consider whether to exercise all its full Article I powers, including a constitutional power of the utmost gravity — approval of articles of impeachment.”

With the filing, the committee’s chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, was attempting to sidestep the debate raging inside the Democratic Party over whether the full House should hold a vote to formally declare that it is opening an impeachment inquiry. By declaring that his committee was in effect conducting such an inquiry, he was heading off a politically difficult vote in the committee or the full house to pursue impeachment....
... in effect...
Democrats hope that Judge Howell will agree that their request for the grand jury material falls into the same legal category as a Nixon-era precedent under which the committee gained access to Watergate evidence. But there is a difference that could matter: In 1974, the full House had voted to declare an impeachment inquiry opened.... [And] the Watergate prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, and his grand jury obtained a judge’s permission to send the evidence they had gathered to the House Judiciary Committee, which was already formally conducting an impeachment inquiry into Nixon. [And] the Nixon Justice Department did not object to letting lawmakers see the materials.

In the current case, the committee is trying to get the material on its own. Attorney General William P. Barr has declined requests by Mr. Nadler to join the committee in petitioning the court....

One complication is that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently issued a ruling with a narrow view of when courts may let outsiders see grand jury information. It limited the criteria to an explicit list of exceptions that does not say anything about sharing such material with Congress.

But in making the ruling, the appeals court judges addressed the fact that their predecessors had permitted the Nixon-era Judiciary Committee to see such material. The court decided that the Watergate-era step had been lawful because it could be interpreted as falling under an exception authorizing disclosure of grand jury material “in connection with a judicial proceeding.” The idea was that impeachment, which culminates with a trial in the Senate, is effectively a judicial proceeding.

For that reason, whether Judge Howell agrees that the Judiciary Committee is conducting an impeachment investigation could determine whether it gets the material.
I would expect Judge Howell to say that the full House needs to vote to open an impeachment inquiry before the question of fitting that exception arises and, on that basis, to avoid the constitutional question. It sounds as though the court of appeals in that case that narrowed access to grand jury information was trying to craft an exception that would explain the Watergate case, which already existed. Here, the committee is trying to enlarge the exception to include other things that are — as the Times puts it — "in effect" conducting an impeachment investigation.

It doesn't seem that judges that have been taking a narrow view of access to grand jury information would take an opportunity to construe the exception broadly, especially when the request comes from political actors who are declining to attempt to do what would bring them directly within the exception: vote to open a formal impeachment inquiry.

They're asking the judge to take over where they could act and have chosen not to. Courts should stay out of politics when they can, and this is an example of political actors using a court to do what they lack the political will to do for themselves.

Of course, everyone can see that they won't take a vote because they know they will lose.

111 comments:

gilbar said...

70% percent of Americans Don't Want impeachment?
Too GOD Damned Bad! We're Democrats! We don't care what the people want!

tim in vermont said...

“is the only institution of the federal government that can now hold President Trump accountable for these actions,” “

What actions?

We don’t know, it’s a fishing expedition, you never know if you are gonna catch something big or get skunked, you konw that judge!

Lincolntf said...

Nobody, least of all Democrats in Congress, believes that Trump has done anything impeachable. But having been proven wrong about virtually everything that would ensue in "Trump's America", they are reduced to appealing to the lowest common denominator of the Left, whether they be bomb-throwing Antifa dorks or people who get their News from MSNBC, and "impeachment" talk gathers that audience/voter bloc.

Jersey Fled said...

Umm ...

Don't they have to impeach him first?

First rule of holes: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

brylun said...

How will a judge appointed by a Democrat rule on a matter that carries significant political overtones?

Tank said...

Nicely explained.

I wonder if it will be explained this way (this well) anywhere else, or would that not fit the narrative?

Ralph L said...

Or a political maneuver with a legal fig leaf.

Still looking for the pony in the nothingburger.

Michael K said...

Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

David Begley said...

The Dems are so, so delusionally obsessive about Impeachment. Move on!

The grand jury material will not help them. They just want to leak lies and defame people.

The Dems are headed to an epic and historic defeat in 2020.

Quayle said...

They have to impeach him so they can find out what bad things he did.

rhhardin said...

Overtones make the instrument. Otherwise everything would be a pure sine wave tone.

Ralph L said...

Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation

They don't care about I's and II's investigations?

Jersey Fled said...

Democrat judge will order the release.

DOJ will refuse.

Up the court chain we go.

Trump wins in the end.

Nancy really needs to get control over these fools. I've lost track of how many times they've swung and missed starting with the recalls, etc.

Lucy and the football comes to mind.

gilbar said...

Don't they have to impeach him first?

as Jersey points out, the Judicial part is THE TRIAL, which happens in the Senate
Seems to me that
A) the House would have to vote to 'look into impeachment'
B) the House would have to vote FOR IMPEACHMENT
C) THEN, the House could start to make their case to the Senate

It's like they're saying, "we want to take a case to the Grand Jury, to try to get an indictment. We don't have Any evidence, BUT! the fact that We WANT to take a case to the Grand Jury gives us probable cause to compel testimony.
There HAS to be a pony in there, somewhere!

Kevin said...

Isn’t any oversight activity technically an investigation into whether the President should be impeached?

A competent judge will see that “in effect” is always in effect.

gilbar said...

Doesn't that fact that Trump had the audacity to run, MEAN that technically an investigation into whether the President should be impeached is 'in effect'?

rehajm said...

Nancy really needs to get control over these fools

Maybe not. Dems are abandoning any attempts to capture a squishy middle and appealing to a, uh, 'new' kind of voter. They need votes not just from the fools, but also from those with no background in the workings of the American political and legal system.

Well, background in the American political system anyways...

Kevin said...

The “Mueller” Report didn’t contain enough evidence to open impeachment proceedings.

Mueller’s own testimony didn’t add anything that helped.

They’ve only got 93 votes in the House.

Game over.

alanc709 said...

How any sentient person could vote to re-elect any of these buffoons is beyond my comprehension.

tomaig said...



"It doesn't seem that judges that have been taking a narrow view..."



Please excuse my pedantry but wouldn't this be clearer and less...clunky if it was:


"It doesn't seem that judges who have been taking a narrow view..."

Sebastian said...

"The Dems are headed to an epic and historic defeat in 2020."

Helped by the Althouses of America?

I mean, as sticklers for legal propriety, proponents of serious competence, and opponents of the politics of excitement, they will logically, as mere endorsement of sanity, refuse to vote for any Dem for the foreseeable future, right?

rehajm said...

Please excuse my pedantry

NYT fired the editors. They're not interested in semantics from the pedantic.

AllenS said...

If the next act from the Dems resembles the Mueller fiasco, the grand jury will probably contain info about how the Clinton team misled everyone.

Jersey Fled said...

Trouble is that there are something like 40 House seats that were won by Democrats in 2018 that were previously held by Republicans, many by razor thin margins. And many of these Democrats essentially ran as Republicans; fiscally conservative, pro military and law enforcement, socially moderate, etc. Feeding the hard left with stuff like this leaves these people out in the cold.

You don't win national elections by pandering to your loony left fringe and ignoring everyone else. There are just not enough of them, regardless of "demographics". Add in the fact that Trump's approval among Hispanics is at 50% on several polls, and even black males are showing him more love, and you come up with a losing formula.

I personally feel that the 2020 is already lost for the Democrats, absent an economic crash or a bad war, and Trump knows it and is acting like it.

iowan2 said...

It's good explanation of the facts and applicable law. IANAL, and I think I understand the principles. To a lay person, the huge hole in Nadler's request, rests in the fact that there is no impeachment underway. Impeachment carries a constitutional definition, and a constitutional defined process. Nadler is not on the same page, book, or library, as impeachment. Impeachment is a political process. Nadler has not executed that political process.
Next. The information of the "Meuller" report is governed by the Special Counsel statute. That law gives The AG the soul power of how much, if any of that document is revealed, it is at the discretion of the AG. My question to the lawyers. How would a judge overrule the law that governs the report of the Special Counsel statute?

I also take exception with Nadler stating that the federal govt needs to hold the President accountable. The House Judiciary committee is not the federal govt. Impeachment has nothing to do with the federal govt. Impeachment has to do with the people holding the president accountable.
If a Judge truly understands whats going on, the Judge would rightly conclude that in less than 15 months the people will make their decision. A judge should not be short circuiting the will of the people.

gilbar said...

and since, an impeachment inquiry has been 'in effect' since Jan 2017; The House a 'legal right' to President Trump's tax returns, too; right?
I mean, that's How It Works, isn't it? If the Authorities open an inquiry into someone, the fact that that inquiry 'in effect' gives the Authorities Complete Power to Any Evidence, real or imagined.
In Fact, if an impeachment inquiry is, 'in effect'; Doesn't that fact 'in effect' give those Authorities power to remove President Trump from power, and replace him with Queen Hilary?

Hagar said...

There is a vast difference between getting access to grand jury testimony that appear relevant to an impeachment process already under way for legitimate reasons, and requesting access to such testimony in an otherwise irrelevant case in order to go dumpster diving on the off chance they can find something in it to impeach the President for.

Narayanan said...

Democrats want Power over People!

Which Means for them Government needs to be Unitary rendering separation of powers contemptuously moot.

Trump is road bump on that project.

Impeachment is bulldozer available to them in USA toolshed.

Allows them to look American in manner.

Bay Area Guy said...

Fat Nadler and the House Democrats are a disgraceful lot. They have wanted to impeach Trump since Jan 20, 2017, because they devastated by the unexpected 2016 election results and never accepted Trump as President.

They've been flailing about ever since.

Hagar said...

This is still about overturning the 2016 election by fair means or foul.

narciso said...

Entirely:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-mueller-was-trying-to-hide-11564094510

rhhardin said...

Don't overlook the imp in impeachment.

Hagar said...

The Constitution is not a machine that will go of itself.
In the end we are dependent on the character of the individuals we elect to uphold it.

narciso said...


In review:

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/07/the-week-in-pictures-mueller-time-edition.php?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=sw&utm_campaign=sw&fbclid=IwAR2zFs0fXEbfPjizDfGdx_QDxyLL81EOMiGQpqqEKFCAs1fQBh--JAueUpQ

Big Mike said...

To repeat. Impeachment requires 218 affirmative votes. There are 235 Democrats. I have seen various figures for the number of Democrats who hold their seats from districts that went for Donald Trump in 2016, but it appears to be around forty. Pelosi and Hoyer can afford to lose no more than 17 out of that 40, and by the way the Democrat’s Blue Dog Coalition — their “moderate” caucus — has 27 members all by itself. Pelosi nightmare number 1: impeachment comes to a floor vote and fails to carry.

Pelosi was able to twist enough arms in November 2009 to push Obamacare through, and twelve months later the result was a wipeout that saw the House not only flip, but the Republican edge over the Democrats reached historic levels. Pelosi nightmare number 2: impeachment passes, and sends her back to minority status.

And if the House votes out a bill of impeachment? The House impeaches, but the Senate tries. The Republicans have 53 senators; for Trump to be removed from office they can afford to lose as many as 19 in an impeachment trial, which isn’t going to happen, and even that assumes no Democrat defects, which also isn’t going to happen.

I get why the Squad pushes impeachment — they’re fundamentally stupid people. Why others, like Nadler, soldier on is harder to understand.

RNB said...

"And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?"

stevew said...

"How any sentient person could vote to re-elect any of these buffoons is beyond my comprehension."

Especially the folks that agree that Trump should be impeached, given the incompetence they've so far displayed in getting Trump.

Seeing Red said...

SCOTUS took the bullet for the rogue FLSC in Gire v Bush.

It looks like they’re going to have to do it again.

mikee said...

Sorry, no fishing licenses sold by the court. Either begin impeachment proceedings, in which case the committee might, maybe, get to unseal grand jury testimony (but probably not), or quit playing around like you have any reason to proceed.

Howard said...

If Trump innocent, the disclosures are sure to be exculpatory.

Francisco D said...

SCOTUS took the bullet for the rogue FLSC in Gire v Bush. It looks like they’re going to have to do it again.

Yup. This needs to play out so future Presidents don't have to put up with this bullshit.

The Democrats are really scared of Trump. Really scared.

Wilbur said...

“To do so, the House must have access to all (sic) the relevant facts and consider whether to exercise all its full Article I powers, including a constitutional power of the utmost gravity — approval of articles of impeachment.”

It's really kinda' simple.

The House committee already has access to all of the relevant facts. It has subpoena power and can question every witness that appeared before the Special Prosecutor or Grand Jury. They assumedly already know what these witnesses said. Yet they choose not to.

Francisco D said...



You know that is bullshit, Howard.

If the SC and his team of Democrat partisans couldn't find anything, does anyone think the congressional hacks will? They are just looking for dirt to embarrass Trump. Failing that, they will make shit up.

Matt Sablan said...

"If Trump innocent, the disclosures are sure to be exculpatory."

-- Why do you think that this matters? Just because going through someone's mail, email and phone records might prove exculpatory doesn't mean you get to search their records. You need probable cause, and you need to be able to show you could reasonably expect to find what you're looking for where you want to look. Since grand juries have NOT indicted Trump, it isn't reasonable that you'd find proof of a crime in what the grand jury has. You know what you might find? Something you could use to slime or shame or embarrass someone. Which is *why these things are sealed.*

Matt Sablan said...

Also, remember the "Romney pays no taxes" lie. It doesn't matter if they don't find any thing damning if they're willing to lie about what they find or misrepresent what they find, the damage can be done, as it has been done to several people, like happened to Ted Stevens. He died before they could be held to account for lying about what they found out, but the damage was done. Things that are meant to be secret should stay as such unless there's a very good reason not to.

Congress can call witnesses and subpoena people. They have the Mueller report. They have multiple indictments out on Russian nationals and companies -- one that has even offered to show up to court until Mueller asked for a pass after all. They're not hurting for information and do not NEED to unseal this.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

"...United States House of Representatives is the only institution of the federal government that can now hold President Trump accountable for these actions..."

A circular argument. Presumes Mr. Trump has committed actions (unspecified) for which he now must be made accountable.

"Impeachable" actions are different from criminal acts; generally whatever the House votes as being impeachable, not narrowly defined in some criminal code.

Impeachment is not a conviction, rather a referral to the Senate for action. Punitive action by the Senate is limited to removal from office and exclusion from future office of public trust.

chuck said...

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.


Immanentize Mother Goose!

Phil 314 said...

We’re going to find that pony!

gspencer said...

. . . because it is “investigating whether to recommend articles of impeachment” against the president.

The Court, "On an impeachment inquiry the malfeasance, or alleged malfeasance, of 'high crimes and malfeasance" would be so obvious that even Helen Keller or Ray Charles could see it. That the House believes it must search under stone after stone, despite coming up short time after time, is clear indication nothing's there. DENIED."

Michael McNeil said...

As Andrew McCarthy wrote months back about what he considered to be the unlikely possibility that the House would go to court in any attempt to force release of the grand jury testimony that was excised from the published Mueller Report: [quoting…]:

But let’s pretend that the House was not too embarrassed by the patent partisanship of its contempt vote; let’s pretend lawmakers went to court.

The first thing a judge would point out is that what Congress is demanding that Barr do is illegal – namely, disclose grand jury material to Congress. In Wednesday’s circus of a hearing, Chairman Nadler pointed out that there was a time when federal prosecutors would have joined with Congress to seek a court order permitting disclosure. Yes … but what Nadler conveniently neglected to mention was that this was before last month, when the D.C. Circuit federal appeals court – whose jurisprudence controls the dispute between Congress and the attorney general – decided McKeever v. Barr.

That case holds that a court has no authority to order disclosure unless it is pursuant to an exception to grand-jury secrecy explicitly spelled out in Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (which governs grand jury matters). In the old days that Nadler was talking about, there was a theory in the law that a court has residual “supervisory” powers over the grand jury that empowered judges to order disclosure outside Rule 6(e). McKeever rejects that theory.

District judges in Washington are bound to follow McKeever. So a court could not order disclosure. Then there is the other embarrassing point a judge would make. Rule 6(e) is Congress' own law. Meaning Congress has the power to amend it. Any judge would, therefore, have to ask House Democrats, “While you were doing all this ranting and raving and holding the attorney general in contempt, have any of you fine lawmakers proposed a two-line amendment to Rule 6(e) that would authorize disclosure to Congress in special counsel investigations?”

Of course, the answer is no. That is because Nadler & Co. do not really want the grand jury material. They want to try to make Barr’s refusal to disclose it look like Watergate.

Congress is not going to court. And it is not going to seek help from the executive branch. It will keep the contempt gambit in its own playpen and hope people won’t notice that it’s a cynical game.

[/unQuote]

Hagar said...

The framers intentionally made impeachment a difficult process. In order to be removed from office by the legislative branch, the President, or other official being charged, must be found guilty of such open and notorious misconduct that it cannot be ignored.
Impeachment is not to be invoked fr minor missteps or "process" crimes.

BarrySanders20 said...

Thinks I, Nadler is getting information from someone on Muellers former staff (like Weissmann) that there is politically useful info in the grand jury testimony that never made it into the report.

Howard said...

Francisco: no I don't. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, it works perfect like fiber. No man over 50 likes a colonoscopy, but the clean bill of health is worth it.

AllenS said...

Howard said...
No man over 50 likes a colonoscopy, but the clean bill of health is worth it.

This coming Tuesday for me.

Leland said...

No man over 50 likes a colonoscopy, but the clean bill of health is worth it.

When you force any person to have a colonoscopy against their will; you have committed assault. Why do you support assaulting people?

Ken B said...

Howard
You think that if Sneezey is innocent any revelations will be exculpatory. But why does the justify revealing stuff about Grumpy, Sleepy, Doc, or Dopey?
How does your reasoning not justify a house inquiry into AOC's finances, or Tlaib's record with children, or Pelosi's driving record?

Francisco D said...

Francisco: no I don't. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, it works perfect like fiber. No man over 50 likes a colonoscopy, but the clean bill of health is worth it.

Howard,

Are you suggesting that you have your head up your ass?

Or do you want to stick your head up Trump's ass, just to see if there is a problem?

You have every right to stick your head up your own ass, but not up someone else's ass, no matter how you try to justify it.

Kevin said...

No man over 50 likes a colonoscopy, but the clean bill of health is worth it.

Sounds like enough of a rationale to round everyone up and force a scope up their ass.

Then we can work on the under-50 crowd.

They may object, but we’ve decided it’s worth it.

Ray - SoCal said...

This would work with the usual GOP Squish...

"They came in the same old way"

>That is because Nadler & Co. do not really want the grand jury material. They want to
>try to make Barr’s refusal to disclose it look like Watergate.

I'm surprised the Democrats still have not adjusted to Trump not acting like the usual GOP Squish. Trump uses Alinsky Rules, just like the Dems.


And what amazes me, is Trump is still standing, and the Dems and their allies credibility is being destroyed by Trump, with his push back.

~ Gordon Pasha said...

It appears that the Democrats have been channeling the shade of Lavrentiy Beria. They should try reading Coffin v US (1895).

Hagar said...

In the case of President Andrew Johnson, Senator Ross voted against his own party because he felt that, as repulsive as Johnson was to him personally, Johnson's offence had merely been to disagree with the Republican Party leadership of the time, which he was entitled to do.

For Nixon and Clinton, the underlying crimes might be considered mere peccadilloes, but there were no doubts that real crimes had been committed in the cover-ups.
In Nixon's case the Republican Senate leadership told him they could not ignore that, and he would have to go.
In Clinton's case, the Democrat Senate leadership decided that perjury in a personal civil suit did not constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors," and the impeachment effort failed.

Matt Sablan said...

Eh, if Democrats believed that confession was good for the soul and that sunlight was the best disinfectant, Obama would have been impeached when he fired the IG years ago. He wasn't, so they don't. I have no reason to believe that the sudden "honest men have nothing to fear from government inspection" is anything more than a convenient bludgeon to beat the side they dislike.

Kevin said...

“If you’re innocent, you have nothing to fear,” is the motto of every police state and dictatorship.

That’s because before they look they’ve already decided your guilt.

Hagar said...

And the President is the nation's chief law enforcement officer; the Attorney General just works for him.

rcocean said...

"No man over 50 likes a colonoscopy"

Mine went like a charm. Out like a light, and woke up in the Hospital bed where they told me my results. Wife drove me home. The Bad part was not eating solids for two days before.

rcocean said...

Althouse gives excellent reasons why the Judge should rule against the Democrats. But as we know, that means nothing. Look at the Bullshit the Liberals and Roberts came up with to destroy the Census question.

Look at the insane "Travel Ban" ruling or the recent ruling against The Wall funding by the District Court and Court of Appeals. The law is sometimes followed but mostly the Left-wing Judges are just making shit up to hurt Trump or push their liberal agenda.

rcocean said...

Once again when the R's in charge they REFUSE to do any real investigation of the D's. People like Gowdy cry about "Reaching across the aisle" - Ryan stonewalls and delays, and nothing gets investigated and if there's a hearing its a dog and pony show. And there's always a "Maverick" on TV crying that the R's should ashamed of themselves.

Then when the D's get in charge, its full steam ahead. They ignore the R's and don't give a fuck what they say. Subpoena's come flying out of Nadler's ass on a daily basis and EVERY D is on board.

traditionalguy said...

Nadler is a snake.He wants to produce a weekly TV Show called Hyped Congressional Hearings seeking out mythological crimes that possibly ever involved a Trump supporter.And the more damage he does to the innocent the prouder of his power he is.

ga6 said...

Back to my youth as a young copper in Cook County, Illinois: "well there is not enough to show probable cause at a preliminary hearing; there is not enough to get any grand jury to indict; so-- I know-- we will go for a direct indictment!" Not a direct quote but close enough from a State's Attorney...

Again I say as I have here for the past five years or so "never trust a Fed"

Ray - SoCal said...

100% Agree

The Trump Presidency has been enlightening.

Basically Trump ran against both parties, and won.

Aswan Scandal is one that blows my mind that lack of action by the GOP. It's mind blowing how this got buried, and Ryan allowed it.

Spygate, it's slowly dripping out. Judicial Watch is doing good work, but is being blocked. Conservative Treehouse has had great analysis.

Confirmations are still being slow walked, they are a little bit faster, but still very slow. McConnell would force more through, buy making the Senate work Fridays, etc. but he is not. My guess is the same issue with Senate confirmations for Administration appointees, but I have not found a way to track these. Wikipedia has a Trump Judge Count, which is updated. 131 so far, 50 in process (going back over a year since nominated) and another 50 or so with no nominations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

>rcocean said...
>
> Once again when the R's in charge they REFUSE to do any real investigation of the D's

William said...

They have come rather reluctantly to this conclusion, but, the Democrats have decided that; as the nation's top law enforcement official, it will be necessary for the the President to wear a body-cam at all times to ensure that his interactions with the public are on the up and up. Some exceptions will be allowed for reasons of privacy, but Nadler claims that it is absolutely imperative that all of Trump's interactions with his family and all of his golf games be recorded. There have been credible reports that Trump cheats at golf and this is the only way to know for sure. Schiff feels that the body cam should be worn even in intimate moments with Melania. How otherwise can we be sure that he is not guilty of rape or mansplaining.....If Trump were truly innocent, he would welcome this chance to prove it.

TJM said...

I thought Fatty Nadler would have waddled over to the Hemlock Cafe for a drink by now. Stuck on stupid

Sam L. said...

The Dems are feral dogs gone mad. To which I say, "Break out the beer and popcorn!", while they bite themselves to death.

Andrew said...

@Lincolntf,
If Trump were to constantly refer to the "dorks of Antifa," I honestly think that would improve matters.

Trolls4Hire said...

No collusion! No obstruction! Complete exoneration! What is there to fear? Don’t be such snowflakes.

Big Mike said...

Correction: Jersey Fled is right. Forty is the number of seats flipped to Democrats in 2018. The number of districts where Trump won in 2016 but a Democrat in 2018 us thirteen.

wendybar said...

I think Elijah Cummings should keep HIS big mouth shut...Where is the MEDIA??? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/rep-elijah-cummings-denies-that-wifes-charity-poses-conflict-of-interest-tax-violation

tcrosse said...

"No man over 50 likes a colonoscopy"

The colonoscopy is easy. The prep is a bitch.

Gk1 said...

"Of course, the answer is no. That is because Nadler & Co. do not really want the grand jury material. They want to try to make Barr’s refusal to disclose it look like Watergate."

What this guy said. Jerry Waddler wants to be shot down in court and comfort his demented party with "We woulda found something but the system is against us" The issue will be if they get a judge who doesn't know what the play is and allows this nonsense to escalate to the SCOTUS.

Trolls4Hire said...

The court will lend some muscle to the House. Subpoenas shouldn’t scare anyone, just ignore them.

WK said...

This “In a legal maneuver that carries significant political overtones, the committee told a judge that it needs access to the grand jury evidence collected by Mr. Mueller as special counsel — such as witness testimony — because it is “investigating whether to recommend articles of impeachment” against the president” sounds somewhat like a wine review.....

In a legal maneuver that carries significant political overtones, with subtle hints of bias and fanaticism and an undercurrent of unjustness.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Nobody, least of all Democrats in Congress, believes that Trump has done anything impeachable.

I know plenty of people who think Trump should be indicted and don't understand why it hasn't happened yet. And why shouldn't they think that? NPR reports that 400 DOJ Assistant Attorney Generals have signed a letter saying that the Mueller Report lists clear cut instances of Trump obstructing justice. And the MSM is still peddling the Russian Collusion hoax.

Unknown said...

If you needed any more evidence that the democrat party is the biggest threat to the country, this should ( but won't ) settle it in your mind. So they had a 2.5 year witch hunt, staffed by rabid democrat partisans, investigating a NON-CRIME and the witch hunt came up empty.

But now, we need more dirt, we need sealed grand jury testimony because of politics, pure blatant politics.

The democrat party (and their propaganda arms) is the biggest threat to the future of this country. And I am not being over-the-top.

AlbertAnonymous said...

Hey, you never know. I recall CJ Roberts deciding that congress could adopt legislation with explicit statements that it’s NOT a tax, and the USSC would say that it is “in effect” a tax.

Some day I’d like to read/hear the true story on why Roberts changed his vote. That Scalia dissent clearly read like a majority opinion hastily changed to “dissent”.

Trolls4Hire said...

“I would expect Judge Howell to say that the full House needs to vote to open an impeachment inquiry before the question of fitting that exception arises and, on that basis, to avoid the constitutional question.”

“While many people believe that beginning an impeachment investigation can begin only with a vote of the full House of Representatives, this is not true. Article I authorizes the House Judiciary Committee to begin this process.”

Appears that sharper legal minds disagree.

Hagar said...

If the post Civil War Republicans had been successful in removing Andrew Johnson for disagreeing with them about the conduct of his office, it would have set the United States on the road toward a parliamentary system of government.
Senator Ross did not think the game was worth the candle.

At present the threshold for valid grounds for impeachment lies somewhere between Clinton's perjury in a personal injury suit and Nixon's persistent efforts, in office, to obstruct the investigation of "Watergate."

Francisco D said...

Jerry Waddler wants to be shot down in court and comfort his demented party with "We woulda found something but the system is against us"

Yes. Nadler's desperate quest is to fill the air with bullshit because the hurt is coming for the Democrats who illegally spied on Trump.

Trolls4Hire said...

“Nadler's desperate quest is to fill the air with bullshit because the hurt is coming for the Democrats who illegally spied on Trump.”

Hang the traitors!

Wilbur said...

I wonder if Trump knowingly follows Alinsky's Rules, or if it just comes naturally to him? I suspect much of the initial appeal of Trump comes less from any thought of Alinsky, and is much more rooted in a realization of "Hey! Here's somebody that fights back. Finally!"

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

RNB @ 8:04: "And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?"

A memorable line from a memorable movie, and timely here. Thanks

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

The Mueller Hearing was just a means for the Dems to leak into the public record portions of what should be restricted secret grand jury type information, and to speculate broadly on felonies.

Enough already with dissing the Rule of Law.

Jason said...

Howard:

If Trump innocent, the disclosures are sure to be exculpatory.

#ShitFascistsSay

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Hagar: "At present the threshold for valid grounds for impeachment lies somewhere between Clinton's perjury in a personal injury suit and Nixon's persistent efforts, in office, to obstruct the investigation of "Watergate.'"

Well put. Interesting to note, there is some credible obstruction and other activity by Obama inside the impeachment brackets. Mooted since he is out of office.

Trolls4Hire said...

#ShitFascistsSay

#HangtheTraitors

Yancey Ward said...

There isn't anything in the grand jury testimony more damaging than what is found in the report itself- if there were, Weissmann and his team would have found a work-around to include it. Only the colossally stupid don't understand this.

Yancey Ward said...

Seriously- Weissmann has this juicy damaging information from someone's grand jury testimony, and throws up his hands and says, "Well, it is grand jury testimony, and I can't include it in no way whatsoever." The world doesn't work this way in politics- Weissmann would have found a way to describe the testimony in the report in such a way that it couldn't be directly tied back to the testimony of a witness- there are literally infinite ways to do this for any clever lawyer. And even lacking imagination, the testimony could just be anonymously leaked to any friendly journolist- illegal leaks happen all the time.

Earnest Prole said...

Writing a law that prohibits disclosure of grand jury testimony, then begging a court to rewrite the law for you?

Francisco D said...

Hang the traitors!

They are not traitors to their cause. I mean your cause, Inga. They are your heroes.

I will settle for short jail sentences and disbarment when applicable.

Bruce Hayden said...

“NPR reports that 400 DOJ Assistant Attorney Generals have signed a letter saying that the Mueller Report lists clear cut instances of Trump obstructing justice.”

I think that you mean Assistant US Attorneys (AUSAs) and not AAGs. Highly doubtful that there are 400 former AAGs alive right now. There are currently about a dozen AAG slots, but the number has grown significantly over the last decade or so. And they usually serve about one Presidential term. Maybe not even 400 since the posts were created. A lot of former AUSAs though. There are currently almost 100 US attorneys,(USAs) and about 10k DoJ attorneys, many of whom are AUSAs. Finding 400 former AUSAs agreeing with pretty much any liberal proposition is like shooting fish in a barrel.

CWJ said...

After reading yesterday's "Inga" post comments, I decided to be alert for liberal/left/progressive arguments that might be intelligently debated. The current post seemed to be tailor made for this. Instead we've gotten either snark and media cut and paste from the "left," or silence. Not to say that there's no counter snark from the "right." but where's the reasoned left hand argument?

eddie willers said...

Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation

They don't care about I's and II's investigations?


One of my favorite anecdotes is about the movie The Madness Of King George. (as it was called in the US)

The British title (from the book) was The Madness of George III. It was changed because they were afraid American audiences would see the title and not go since they had missed the original two movies about George.

That even better than the reporter who announced that Malcolm The Tenth had been shot.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Highly doubtful that there are 400 former AAGs alive right now. There are currently about a dozen AAG slots, but the number has grown significantly over the last decade or so. And they usually serve about one Presidential term.”

I should add that AAGs are Presidentially nominated and Senate confirmed. That means that of the AAGs still alive, roughly half are Republicans, and half Democrats. AUSAs though are civil servants, apparently typically starting at GS-11. That very likely means that there may easily be 5k AUSA Democrats currently working at the DoJ, and 10s of thousands of them who had worked there in the past.

Achilles said...

Howard said...
If Trump innocent, the disclosures are sure to be exculpatory.

Stalin couldn't have said it any better.

These people demand Trump prove his innocence.

You are just terrible people.

Achilles said...

Trolls4Hire said...
#ShitFascistsSay

#HangtheTraitors


Even Inga agrees it is time for consequences.

Hey Skipper said...

[Tradguy:] Nadler is a snake.

Try as I might, I just can't get that mental image to work.

Durgarao said...

Top 10 Best DSLR Cameras Under 50000 in India 2019

Seeing Red said...

It seems Sgt. Schultz Mueller didn’t bring in the ratings hoped for.

Drago said...

There is a rumor that an intern from the DOJ snuck over to congress with secret copies of the Grand Jury testimony but Nadler inadvertantly unhinged his jaw and swallowed the intern whole along with the GJ testimony.

This was just before Nads Nadler swallowed a small rodent while slobbering over and licking a glossy photo of Hope Hicks.

Michael K said...

Once again when the R's in charge they REFUSE to do any real investigation of the D's. People like Gowdy cry about "Reaching across the aisle"

Gowdy was a huge disappointment. He mouthes off on TV but did nothing in the House.

Michael McNeil said...

Writing a law that prohibits disclosure of grand jury testimony, then begging a court to rewrite the law for you?

Just so. Although it was an earlier House which wrote that law, the present Democrat-dominated House could easily, as Andrew McCarthy noted above, pen a 2-line piece of legislation amending that law, adding an exception which also authorizes release of grand jury testimony to Congress when requested by a single chamber of same.

I suspect that the Senate and President would acquiesce in passing such a bill — yet the House fails to proffer it.

Thus proving that it really is all politics, no substance.

Skippy Tisdale said...

"“Because Department of Justice policies will not allow prosecution of a sitting president, the United States House of Representatives is the only institution of the federal government that can now hold President Trump accountable for these actions,”"

What actions? No one ever says. Ever.