Impeachment in The Courts – HJC vs DOJ Appellate Arguments Scheduled for November 12th…

There is an important granular aspect to the validity of the House impeachment process that few are paying attention to.  If the HJC loses this case in the DC Appellate Court, it means there is no constitutional foundation recognized to the “impeachment inquiry.”

Without the constitutional recognition of the judicial branch then: (a) Pelosi/Lawfare have to restart the process with a genuine House vote; or (b) the ongoing impeachment process will have no recognized constitutional standing; and (c) the Senate could ignore any House impeachment vote, cast without recognized constitutional standing.

BACKSTORY: On October 25th DC Judge Beryl Howell granted the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) request for legal authority to receive 6e grand jury material underlying the Mueller report.

Additionally, and most importantly, within the Howell decision she officially recognized the HJC effort was predicated on a constitutional impeachment process.  In essence Howell’s opinion granted the HJC with “judicial enforcement authority.”

The DOJ moved to appeal the decision and requested a “stay” pending appeal.  Judge Howell rejected the DOJ “stay” motion.

The DOJ then appealed to the DC Court of Appeals.  A panel of three judges issued an “administrative stay”, blocking enforcement of the Howell ruling while the appeal was reviewed.  The DC Appellate Court has now scheduled the arguments within the appeal.

Right now; and considering the House voted on a ‘resolution’ to support Nancy Pelosi’s unilaterally decreed “impeachment inquiry”; and due to the lack of structural specifics within the constitution surrounding the impeachment process; I would put the odds at 50/50 the House Judiciary Committee could win this case.

It is critical that AG Bill Barr sends his best constitutional lawyers to defend the interests of the executive branch in this appeal.  The DOJ has a solid constitutional argument to make; and if they end up losing the decision the verbal arguments will be a key factor in whether the Supreme Court would take up the issue (after en banc appeal exhausted).

The HJC objective is simple.  They seek judicial enforcement authority for their subpoenas so their targets cannot legally refuse to give testimony; and by extension the constitutional premise of the House process is affirmed.

The premise for both fronts: (1) document subpoena 6e material, and (2) testimony from White House Counsel Don McGahn, is predicated on penetrating a constitutional firewall that exists within the separation of powers.

Under existing SCOTUS precedent, the White House can be compelled to deliver Executive Branch documents and testimony so long as an official legislative branch impeachment process is underway.

Judge Beryl Howell was the first person in the judicial branch to recognize and accept the HJC position that such an official impeachment process was ongoing.  At the heart of this appeal is that recognition.

If the DOJ can successfully argue the House has not followed the traditional and constitutional process that authorizes impeachment investigation; and allows the HJC to penetrate the separation of power firewall; it will be a major blow to the Lawfare scheme.

A ruling in favor of the DOJ would invalidate the narrative of the House.

A ruling in favor of the DOJ would also allow the Senate to dismiss any results from Schiff and Nadler’s investigation, because their process would not be predicated on constitutional provisions for impeachment.

In short, this is a pretty important ruling.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Deep State, Dept Of Justice, Impeachment, Legislation, media bias, Nancy Pelosi, President Trump, Supreme Court, Uncategorized, USA. Bookmark the permalink.

245 Responses to Impeachment in The Courts – HJC vs DOJ Appellate Arguments Scheduled for November 12th…

  1. johnathanc says:

    It astonishes me how much we spend in taxes supporting a sea of corrupt weasel lawyers. Washington is full of them

    Liked by 23 people

    • Ray Runge says:

      The cost of real estate in DC and the proximate suburbs is astounding. After one realizes the core of the economic engine is bribery and corruption, the exorbitant budgets that DC pumps out behind closed doors begin to make sense.

      Liked by 20 people

    • markone1blog says:

      Sometimes I think that the sea should be full of them.

      Liked by 5 people

      • amazed treetop downlooker says:

        YES…GREAT rhought, markone1blog….send them all to Atlantis…let ‘em work on some kind of self-salination, or global warming, or cooling, or salting kind of thingy….whatever….DEEP under, where DEEP-STATERS are used to being already 😁 …probably shouldn’t expect OR let ‘em return with their report for, O, say…50 years or so !

        Liked by 1 person

        • Dutchman says:

          I go along with sending them to the bottom of the ocean, although it WOULD be polluting.
          But no breathing apparatus, as you seem to be implying, by saying they could ‘work’ on ,…something.

          What do you call 10,000 Buerocrat deep-staters, at the bottom of the ocean?

          A GOOD START!

          Liked by 3 people

      • JunkerGeorg says:

        Add 90% of our public university faculty/admin to that bottom of the ocean. That would be a better start.

        Liked by 4 people

    • Grassleysgirl/Breitbartista says:

      The country is full of them!! And Judicial activists as well.
      The Progressives have been shredding the Constitution for generations.
      Academia has subverted it by removing Civic education.

      Liked by 9 people

    • Grassleysgirl/Breitbartista says:

      The country is full of them!! And Judicial activists as well.
      The Progressives have been shredding the Constitution for generations.
      Academia has subverted it by removing Civic education.

      Like

    • mopar2016 says:

      And the DC machine has been on strike since 2016.
      Talk about taxation without representation.


      Liked by 9 people

      • amazed treetop downlooker says:

        May we add the last, best “bullet” (sic) point:

        auditioned for admission to the circumcervical snug hempnoose club … candidate successfully completed adequate prerequisites to soon join the “drop/tug/snap/blue buhBYE club, i.e…

        “Traitors’ Hall of Shame” !

        Like

      • The Third Man says:

        Ciaramella is Fielding Mellish (Woody Allen in “Bananas” (1971).
        Nerd !

        Like

    • Pew-Anon says:

      Makes you wonder about paying taxes.

      Liked by 3 people

      • WSB says:

        Yes, it does.

        Like

      • Austin Holdout says:

        Whenever I read about “when are we all going to descend on DC with our pitch forks”, I think it wonder it it wouldn’t get a lot more attention if we organized a “Taxation Without Representation” national tax strike. I’ll keep my pitch fork sharp too.

        Liked by 4 people

        • Pew-Anon says:

          Short answer: Yes. Much more. I don’t buy the argument that insists upon defining activism exclusively in terms of physical demonstration. That’s what the left does. We have other means of activism at our disposal that are far more powerful than marches and the like, if we would collectively choose to use them.

          Like

  2. Michael Kunz says:

    More than ‘pretty important’ I’d suggest, Justice itself will be ill served if this is not stopped.

    Liked by 15 people

    • swimeasy says:

      Sure sounds that way Michael. Current court makeup includes 4 Obama and 2 Trump appointees which makes me nervous.

      I know ristvan is deservedly en route to spend Thanksgiving with his family, but wonder if there are others who could provide more details on the leanings of this court?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Ripper1960 says:

        Rogers appointed by Clinton in March of 1994, Griffith is a Bush appointee in June 2005 and Rao was appointed by Trump in March 2019.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Ripper1960 says:

          The current construct of the entire U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, comprises 17 Judges. Appointments are, Trump-2, Obama-4, George W. Bush-1, Clinton-3, H.W. Bush-2, Reagan-4 and believe it or not Carter-1. As to the assignment of the case, Rao, being a Trump appointee, has record of a solid constitutional standing. Rogers has shown in the past to be one that favors a rather loose constitutional belief and interpretation, living type vice an originalist. Griffith is the deciding vote in this case, based on his bio, he was Senate Legal Counsel of the United States from 1995-99. In that capacity, he represented the interests of the Senate in litigation and advised the Senate leadership and its committees on investigations, including the impeachment trial of President Clinton. He clearly has the experience necessary in deciding a case such as this. He will ultimately be the one deciding this case with an opinion based in logic and originalist constitutionalist leanings instilled by Brigham Young University Law School.

          Liked by 10 people

          • Randy Taketa says:

            That was very informative . Thank you for your concise input.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Lee Moore says:

            The originalist position is that while the House has the sole power of Impeachment, it has ZERO ancillary or related powers to issue subpoenas, or any compulsive powers against third parties in connection with investigating whether to impeach, except as provided for by federal statute law, as permitted by the Necessary and Proper Clause.

            In other words, whatever powers the House has, to go get evidence from unwilling witnessess, must be already there in statute. Nothing can be assumed to emanate mysteriously from Constitutional penumbrae. The power to Impeach does not of itself grant the power to compel witnesses or seize evidence. Such powers may be Necessary and Proper to execute the power of Impeachment, but if so, they must be duly enacted into law first.

            No doubt there are actual statutes which will assist the House, but I suspect that a chunk of their case will rest with the Nixon era precedents which are largely inventions, plucked from judicial rear ends.

            However the DC Appeals Court is bound by SCOTUS precedent and so I suspect this old judge made law will have to be taken into account, at the DC Court level.

            But on appeal SCOTUS can tip all that nonsense in the dumpster.

            Liked by 3 people

    • swimeasy says:

      Sure sounds that way Michael. Current court makeup includes 4 Obama and 2 Trump appointees which makes me nervous.

      I know ristvan is deservedly en route to spend Thanksgiving with his family, but wonder if there are others who could provide more details on the leanings of this court?

      Like

  3. The question becomes whether AG Barr will send his A team or will he allow some C team flunky with no experience to handle this.

    Liked by 7 people

  4. Ellis says:

    SCOTUS will end up deciding which will drag this out even longer.

    Liked by 2 people

    • dallasdan says:

      This is very concerning.

      Roberts may be giddy with thoughts of voting with the libs to scuttle the DOJ appeal so he may preside over the President’s impeachment trial. It would be the highlight of his legal career, and a wonderful opportunity to deliver payback for the twitter beat down the President gave him.

      IMO, an impeachment trial in the Senate keeps getting closer to reality.

      Like

  5. 335blues says:

    Unless I’m missing something, if the marxists win this argument, then every time the house is held by one party and the executive is held by the other the house can then unilaterally impeach every time.
    The senate may not convict, but the executive will constantly be impeached.
    This will certainly cause a Constitutional crisis.
    But, since one objective of the marxist democrat party is to destroy our Constitution and its
    guarantee of rights, the purpose of their charade is likely to effect those outcomes:
    constant crisis, and destruction of our Constitution.

    Liked by 27 people

    • Grassleysgirl/Breitbartista says:

      I think the Constitution has been in a Crisis for sometime.

      Liked by 12 people

      • GP says:

        Hi Grassley-yeah, Id say so…for about 100 years.

        We have Trump-that’s it. Kinda like having Brady as your QB but the rest of the team are preschoolers.

        Looking at this long term, they are winning- and we let them do it. That’s the truth-it hurts, but that’s the truth.

        Liked by 3 people

        • The Deplorable Tina says:

          Hi, GP – And we only get Trump/Brady for 4 or hopefully 8 years. If he doesn’t get re-elected and have time to cement his changes in his next term with a Republican Senate & House, then we are doomed and will go back to the same old thing with the Democrats on steroids & puberty blockers. I am afraid for our country.

          Liked by 2 people

          • The Third Man says:

            It’s all on the line in 2020. Everything.
            Even if Trump is reelected 2024 may be hopeless with all the alien invaders, freaks, rinos…
            It’s really bad.
            The mountain states, traditionally solid red, going blue.
            Others on the razor’s edge.
            Í left many years ago, never to return, but,
            still have family and friends in USA.
            I never could have imagined what happened to my country.
            A half negro Indonesian put us over the edge by strategically distributing 3rd world detritus through the country. (Somali mayor in Maine now)
            Obama lives large, very large.

            Liked by 2 people

    • Zorro says:

      The Democommunists don’t care about constitutional crisis because they know they are close to a totalitarian takeover after which the constitution is irrelevant.

      Liked by 3 people

    • matchov says:

      works the other way also. which is why we have a judicial ruling to enforce a LEGAL inquiry. WE have 3 branches of government, AND we legal recourse to cjhecks and balances. There is no way Ex. Privilege is going to cover this “drug deal”.

      Liked by 2 people

    • matchov says:

      works the other way also. which is why we have a judicial ruling to enforce a LEGAL inquiry. WE have 3 branches of government, AND we legal recourse to cjhecks and balances. There is no way Ex. Privilege is going to cover this “drug deal”.

      Like

    • Jan says:

      You are right and this is the what the Dimms want. If Trump is not re-elected, there will never be another Republican president. No one will be able to stop the communists from destroying our country, our Constitution or taking away our freedoms and the right to defend ourselves with words and guns. Due process has almost totally been destroyed as it is when it comes to Republicans.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Yes! And this highlights a very big Dem advantage: they don’t care if the Country descends into chaos!
      In fact, it is the desired outcome!!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Austin Holdout says:

      But for some reason, the impeachments will only happen to Republican presidents. Only the Dems are willing to stomp all over the constitution.

      Liked by 1 person

    • SWOhio says:

      I just read that the Dems have attempted to impeach every single GOP President since Eisenhower.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Bogeyfree says:

    Will we know in advance of the hearing via any filing or other means who Barr picks?

    Also do we know the three people who make up this appellate court? Are the Rep or Dem appointees?

    Like

  7. Everett Miller says:

    The courts are the most dangerous of the 3 branches. The concept that the 3 are separate and equal has been tossed in favor of a mistaken belief that the “supreme” court has the SOLE power to determine constitutionality. This fallacy is nowhere supported in our Constitution, but rather, EACH branch is subject to The Constitution, not subject to 9 un-elected lawyers.

    Liked by 17 people

    • JackB says:

      Yes. There is nothing in the Constitution that states that only SCOTUS can determine constitutionality

      Liked by 1 person

      • In fact, why would the other branches take an oath to the Constitution if they have no independent understanding and stake in its meaning. That would be like pledging allegiance to a blank check.

        I can’t see SCOTUS essentially trashing their own Impeachment precedent and tradition to facilitate this criminal shit-show.

        Like

        • dallasdan says:

          “I can’t see SCOTUS essentially trashing their own Impeachment precedent and tradition to facilitate this criminal shit-show.”

          When the game is for “all the marbles” and the vote strongly would strongly serve the interests of the Deep State, I can see it going against the President.

          IMO, the seriousness of the impeachment strategy has been either dismissed or underestimated by far too many people.

          Liked by 1 person

          • lolli says:

            dallasdan said:
            “IMO, the seriousness of the impeachment strategy has been either dismissed or underestimated by far too many people.”
            Agree.
            They are not worried about reelection. McConnell proving to the R’s they can backstab our President and still get support. See the Sessions thread. 🙄

            Liked by 1 person

        • foo says:

          You didn’t pay attention to the census case, did you?

          “The census question is constitutional but we won’t let it on this census because ‘orange man bad'”

          Like

      • There’s nothing in it that states that, but there is also nothing in it that states what other entity can decide constitutionality. Therein lies the rub.

        Then, the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave CONgress the power to organize the court… so what have they stretched that little aspect of control into at this point? For corruption is now the question at hand, how corrupt is ALL OF IT in the swamp? All, and everyone?

        Madison vs Marbury states that the court would decide the constitutionality of Congressional actions, does that even matter today? The court, affirming the constitution as the supreme law of the land negates Congress usurpation of said founding document.

        So, back to does that even matter TODAY???

        Time will tell, but imcoupment is a sham of seditious nature, period. Remember, everything shitler did was “legal” too. He made sure of it.

        Liked by 2 people

    • hoghead says:

      You didn’t learn that in any public schools in this country, not in the last 50+ years. (…or was it the last 80+ years…I keep losing track…)

      Like

      • dilonsfo says:

        It has never been taught that way. If there were no one to decide if someone or a branch of government is in violation of the Constitution then who would decide and enforce the violations. There would be no law. That is why the placement of justices on the court is so important. It is common sense that the Judicial branch and ultimately the Supreme Court that has this duty. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law (Constitution). It has always been taught as such. Only Andrew Jackson defied the court with his famous statement regarding the Native Americans is the South was that the court ruled against my decision not lets see how they will enforce it. Jackson rounded the Native American and had them sent to what is now Oklahoma. All other branches have have followed the decisions handed down by SOTUS.

        Like

        • oldumb says:

          A good argument for the supreme court, what POTUS Jackson did was wrong, very wrong.

          Liked by 1 person

          • dilonsfo says:

            I agree with you 100 percent.

            Like

          • OlderAndWiser says:

            olddumb, part of me totally agrees with you.
            The other part keeps chirping at me saying that the ultimate powers are reserved to the people – not for any particular branch of government. So, a President can ignore the SC – but then he faces his true judges: the public, either directly in the next election, or indirectly via Impeachment. If a Congressperson ignores the SC, then the President has authority to enforce the SC’s ruling. And of course if a SC justice goes off the ranch, the Congress can impeach. So, it seems to me that the Separation of powers allows any two of the branches to be a check on the third. And if all three misbehave, then the second amendment comes into play.
            Having said that, it would be almost anarchy if the common people gave the middle finger to the courts.
            I would really love to know what the Founding Fathers thought of this conundrum when they wrote the (best damn ever) US Constitution. Any links to such thoughts by constitutional scholars here would be much appreciated.

            Liked by 2 people

        • mike says:

          Um, the SC was considered to be wrong about Dred Scott, and then shtf …

          Truth is, over 200 SC decisions have been overturned. Perhaps partly wrong on issues more than once. Part of the mess we are in stems from poor, or at least, transformational SC decisions that departed from the Founders’ intent, accumulated over 200 years to yield “our” superDeepState.

          Liked by 2 people

          • dilonsfo says:

            That’s true. Placement of Judges on the court is extremely important. When the Warren Court decided that the Constitution was a “living” document and can be interpreted for the “modern” needs of society it opened the door for the current mess. President Trump is trying to put strict constitutionalist on the Court. But the, you put someone like Roberts on the Court and you are back to that liberal “living” Constitution. In a way, it is presidents and congress who approve these nutty judges who want to change American values.

            Liked by 1 person

    • Reserved55 says:

      In all my limited reading on the Founders, the Judicial Branch was the lesser Branch. In my lifetime the Roe decision which made law out of thin cloth, is when the Judicial became superior.

      It’s time for the Trump Administration to tell the Robes to pound sand.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Burnt Toast says:

      I know of no oath to support the SCOTUS.

      It is always the Constitution.

      Like

    • WSB says:

      But in reality the judicial branch is the weakest. Executive Branch has tools.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Dutchman says:

      Actually, I would say the Congress is inherently the “most dangerous”; you can have a Tyranny by committee, just as easily asa tyranny of one, or 9.

      The founders recognised this, which is,why they created TWO houses of Congress, to try to further divide up the power.

      Legislation; writing the laws (or FAILING to write the laws, as in example, on immigration) is an awsome power, in itself.
      The power of the budget (or, again NOT to budget), along with the power to confirm (or not confirm) executive appointments, down to the subcabinet level, means the executive departments don’t work ‘for’ the POTUS, they work for CONGRESS. Oh, and add in the abuse of their ‘oversite’ function, to make the control complete.

      “I control whether your Department gets funding, and how much, whether those above career, civil service are appointed, and, I can call you up before the cameras, for “hearings” to make you look bad; I OWN you.

      And, Senate,ALSO confirms Judges, and has the power to IMPEACH Judges.

      So much for “Seperation of Powers”; Congress has gradually and systematically expropriated an inordinate amount of power.

      We don’t have an “Imperial Presidency”; we have an “Imperial (Tyrannical) Congress. Until there wings are seriously clipped, our problems will continue.
      They have expropriatedthe IC, thru the gang of 8 and SSIC, they control foriegn policy, and Trade agreements, except in certain circumstances; look at,USMCA.
      Its being held up, by CONGRESS.

      The courts are a secondary power, and have been controlled by Congress, as the administration has.
      Its all about Congress,..THATS where all the corruption centers.

      Liked by 3 people

  8. Jackson says:

    But now they HAVE had a vote of the full House. That seems to make that part of the case moot.

    Still at issue is the violation of Grand Jury secrecy, which may be why the courts are still interested in the case.

    The idea that the judiciary is going to nit-pic the full house resolution seems extremely unlikely to me.

    The House has wide latitude to set their own rules and procedures.

    Liked by 1 person

    • walt39 says:

      They’ve had a full vote but it was to INVESTIGATE, not to IMPEACH. They voted on something safe, not on the real deal. They have no more power than they had a year ago.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Reserved55 says:

      No they have not formalized impeachment procedings. The vote they took was to “formalized” the same sh*tshow they were already doing. Thus the lawsuit.

      Liked by 3 people

    • kjj says:

      Your first sentence depends on the way the resolution was worded. It was worded very specifically to avoid creating an impeachment proceeding, so I wouldn’t bet on that..

      As to the rest of your post – nit-picking is kinda what judges do. And the House’s powers to set House rules does not extend to giving their opinion of the Constitution supremacy over the other branches.

      Two things are known for sure. First, the House can issue an actual impeachment according to whatever rules they set. Second, after an official vote of the full membership on a resolution creating an impeachment investigation, they have some limited access to powers normally reserved to the other branches.

      The uncharted territory is vast here. Can the House issue internal rules that invoke those powers in different circumstances? Does a resolution purporting to recognize a condition that does not actually exist create that condition?

      Liked by 1 person

    • TwoLaine says:

      “But now they HAVE had a vote of the full House. That seems to make that part of the case moot.”

      No, the vote was on the processes of their impeachment “inquiry”. It was a head fake to pretend appease Rs, nothing more.

      Liked by 2 people

      • dallasdan says:

        Do you anticipate that Dems would change their vote to “No” if the word “inquiry” was changed to “impeachment”?

        Liked by 1 person

        • TwoLaine says:

          I believe they previously voted for impeachment 3 times and it failed each time.

          This time Nitwit Nancy wants to give certain DIMs cover to not take a vote until flim flam artist sh1t for brains can pulll the wool over their eyes with his house of cards star chamber inquiry. She’s hoping it also brings along some Rs too.

          Liked by 1 person

    • 335blues says:

      The vote was in the wrong committee.

      Liked by 1 person

    • WSB says:

      They never had a formal House vote on Impeachment. This was a trick. They only had a vote on inquiry. The Constitution is very clear that there must be an entire House body vote to Impeach.

      Liked by 3 people

  9. Magabear says:

    i noticed earlier today that Schiff & Co. backed down on getting a court decision that a former administration official asked for in order to appear or not in the dimms basement interrogation cell. Me thinks they really don’t want the courts involved in this witch hunt……..unless it’s that Amy Berman nitwit in NY.

    Liked by 7 people

    • 335blues says:

      They don’t want the GOP to have equal rights to call and question witnesses.

      Liked by 6 people

    • Grassleysgirl/Breitbartista says:

      Inquiry or INQUITITION ?

      Liked by 1 person

    • sundance says:

      Yes, they wanted to avoid a loss.

      Liked by 10 people

      • jx says:

        That seems to be a tacit admission that they know the hearings have not been vested with authority.

        Liked by 2 people

      • LouisianaTeaRose says:

        Am I wrong to surmise that withdrawing that subpoena was directly related to lack of judicial authority they could only claim with a majority vote in the House? Same thing with Beryl Howell’s ruling likely being overturned because of above? And therefore, until they vote in their Authority, which would give the President powers of subpoena/discovery/appeal, they are SOL? And until then, the President can have as many scoops of ice cream on his extra-large piece of chocolate cake as he wants while he reminds the Nance that she ain’t the only person who can have their chocolate and eat it too?

        Liked by 3 people

      • Magabear says:

        Every person called to testify before the dimms inquisitors that’s not part of the lawfare cabal should do what Kupperman did. Would be very telling watching Schiffty say “oh, nevermind” everytime one of his targets asks a judge for clarity.

        Liked by 3 people

    • WSB says:

      They were afraid of the judicial outcome, IMHO.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Parker says:

    Lawyers make quarrelers like usurers make beggars.
    Pharisees, brood of vipers, white washed sepulchers.
    Face it folks, DC is nothing less than a den of iniquity.

    Liked by 2 people

    • That it is Parker, the district of criminals are the swamp, along with the international banksters that own them and the willing scum burrowcrats among them it’s all one big crap shoot as to what will eventually happen with this imcoupment garbage.

      There is no way on earth to know what these criminal traitors will try to pull next.

      Unless you’re President Trump, who must have some MAGA people in key locations as he is always a few steps further along then “them”.

      Yep.

      Like

  11. dufrst says:

    This is the whole ballgame and the thing I am keeping my eye on and undoubtedly what Trump and Barr are singularly focused on. Everything else up until this ruling is just a game. The Dems want access to the grand jury info and Don McGahn as Sundance noted. Without that, they have no impeachment rationale that would be acceptable to the American people.

    If AG Barr/Trump lose, then it should go to the Supremes (not sure if they will take the case, but they should), where I wonder how Judge Roberts would rule? I am definitely not a legal person, but I remember the ruling Roberts had on the Census, where the executive branch seemingly had all authority to include a question about citizenship. Yet, the court ruled that they had to explain why they decided to change the question, even though such a question had been included in the census before.

    Probably unrelated, but using that logic, would Roberts similarly rule that the Dems would have to explain why they have embarked on an impeachment process of the president different from what had been done for Nixon and Clinton? The Dems say they have complete authority to do whatever process they want and that this process has been used to impeach judges. It will be interesting to see how Roberts decides and if he’s consistent in his judicial logic, since it’s highly likely he will be the deciding vote.

    I pray this fails and Trump wins. It will force a vote on impeaching the president based on hearsay of partisan and a phone call who’s transcripts have been released for all to see! That will be the vote to end all votes literally for many Dems. I don’t think they will have the courage to cast that vote.

    Liked by 2 people

    • JL says:

      It’s only the whole ballgame if the 6(e) material has something criminal in it.

      Do you think Andrew Weissman would have passed on the opportunity to damage the President by not charging or mentioning something criminal in the Mueller Report?

      Me neither.

      Liked by 3 people

      • 335blues says:

        The material you cite was purposely written to be as damaging as possible.
        It was always the plan to get a marxist obama judge to release it.

        Liked by 3 people

        • JL says:

          I agree it was always the plan to initiate impeachment as an election strategy. Dems were depending on Mueller to give them the fuel. Those plans changed on July 24th, when Mueller “testified” and left the Russia!/Obstruction construcion as a smoking hole in the ground.

          That’s why the events of the *next day*, the July 25th Trump/Zelensky call became the new Russia!

          It’s going to be hard to get a real court to agree that an impeachment proceeding opened in the context of Ukraine, should have access to protected unrelated Grand Jury material that was given in an unrelated case, months or years prior. I don’t think the grand jury statutes were designed to give fishing expeditions access to the Constitutionally protected lives of the innocent.

          Liked by 3 people

        • kjj says:

          No, that was Plan B. The original plan was for the acting-AG to release it without a challenge. Barr stepping in and making it known that he was going to be following the actual law wrecked that plan. We are where we are now, 6 months later, because Plan A was thwarted.

          Liked by 4 people

      • TarsTarkas says:

        It’s all about the optics. They want to persuade a majority of voters that Orange Man did something Bad to support the narrative that Orange Man needs to be removed. I think they want to draw this out in order to keep Trump from running for reelection because they don’t feel they can win 2020 (Sorry, Bloomberg & Her Odiousness just won’t cut it). It’s similar to how they took down Nixon, keep hammering away until people say, ‘by golly, they’re yelling so much maybe there’s something to it!’ They are playing with fire. A removal by specious means based on specious assertions will not be tolerated by a lot of people. Don’t demand we play by the rules when your rules are we always get to win.

        Liked by 2 people

      • BiitterC says:

        If there was nothing in the 6e materials, would the Dems be so hell bent on getting it?

        Like

  12. JackB says:

    If the Appellate court ruled in the favor of DOJ Wouldn’t Nancy then just have the Dem majority to vote on another impeachment inquiry resolution? She could use the Clinton impeachment template or something else since there’s nothing in the Constitution that specifies exactly how an impeachment inquiry should be held.

    Why is Nancy going through this sham? She has the votes to impeach Trump for anything. Is there a standard for what the resolution ought to be?

    Like

  13. JL says:

    There is a flaw in Judge Howell’s ruling. This is what must be exploited. impeachment is a political process, where there is no right to due process.

    6(e) materials can be released by a Court to facilitate a “judicial proceeding” or event “preliminary to” a judicial proceeding.

    A judicial proceeding, or action prelimnary to, is inherently *apolitical*. Lady Justice wears a blindfold.

    6(e) materials, by statute, are not to be exploited politically. People affected by incredibly invasive grand jury proceedings, who are not accused of a crime are PROTECTED.

    Liked by 11 people

    • JL says:

      Every single entity recognized as a Judicial Proceeding in the precedent cited by Judge Howell, was an entity that granted due process to the accused.

      Zero of the entities cited by Judge Howell were in the legislative branch, or denied due process to the accused, or were inherently political in nature.

      That’s why I think the DOJ will prevail.

      Liked by 4 people

  14. hawkins6 says:

    “The three judges who issued the temporary stay — Patricia Millett, Nina Pillard and Robert Wilkins — are all appointees of President Barack Obama.” (Politico)

    Is this the DC Court of Appeals’ counterpart of the all Dem Weissmann/Mueller Dream team or not?

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Bogeyfree says:

    If we assume the DOJ loses and they take it to the SC, how could the highest court in the land not take this case as it would set a precedent of executive office abuse FOREVER!

    By ignoring it they ensure a never ending Constitutional crisis and also IMO the beginning of another civil war.

    Like

  16. vrajavala says:

    Judge Merrick Garland is presiding judge of Appelate Court. Anyone remember who that is?

    Liked by 2 people

  17. NYMinuteman says:

    WHat’s the difference between a lawyer and a hooker?
    A hooker will stop screwing you once you’re dead.

    Schiff and his team of Constitution-abusing ambulance chasers need to be stopped by the wisdom of the Courts. If Congress wants to impeach the President, then do it in fair and open process – none of this “controlling the narrative” bullshit.

    In all my many years, this is the single most despicable thing I have seen. Turning our Democratic process into a tyranny controlled by oily partisans elected in tiny liberal districts. The will of the People must prevail.

    Liked by 4 people

  18. JL says:

    In other words, a process where the accused has no right to due process, cannot be considered a “judicial proceeding” or an event “preliminary to”.

    Liked by 12 people

  19. Walt says:

    Let’s remember why we’re here: The people’s most immediate representatives in Washington — that is, the HOUSE of Representatives — are unwilling to take a vote to actually initiate the impeachment process. If they took that vote and it passed, there’d be no question of the validity of subpoenas, of the Senate having to try whatever articles eventually were voted, or any of that. The process now in play – a vote to hold ‘an investigation’ — is needed ONLY because the Democrats don’t think most voters back what they’re doing and are afraid that quite a few of them would lose their seats in 2020 if they voted to really go ahead.

    In other words, many House Democrats don’t believe they have a case. They’re willing to pursue it for smear value but not actually put themselves on the line.

    Liked by 7 people

  20. Madglobal says:

    Rogers-Clinton; Griffith-Bush; Rao-Trunp.

    Like

  21. Deplorable Canuck says:

    Lord, I never thought I would ask any prayer in favour of the DOJ these days, but if it be your will please let them win this ruling, and let the Democrat led impeachment effort fall into utter ruin!

    In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
    Amen!

    Liked by 7 people

  22. John Hyland says:

    Each side gets 15 minutes?! I can hardly excuse myself to go to the restroom in 15 minutes.

    Liked by 2 people

    • dallasdan says:

      Barring a bombshell being exploded in either 15-minute segment, each of the judges has very likely already decided the verdict. The 30 minutes is for show.

      Liked by 2 people

  23. Ditto: “How much taxpayer dollars must we actually waste on a pinte-ante judge who has never read the US Constitution?”

    The actual Founders of our Constitution understood European history extremely well, and one of the foremost principles that they seized upon was so-called “maladministration,” still on-the-books and therefore still-a-problem in British courts. They were also very mindful of “writs (or bills) of attainder,” and the associated “corruption of blood.” And so, they expressly prohibited them both.

    Furthermore, they carefully devised “separation of powers.” While they granted the Legislature the sole prerogative to make laws, they simultaneously denied that Branch the power to enforce them. And then, they fully-intended to impose upon this same Branch a limitation upon their Impeachment powers: that they may only exercise these powers in the presence of an offense that they are not permitted to ‘find.’

    And so … the delicate Constitutional framework stands. Now, shall we permit a two-bit Obama-apointee to speak now for the Supremes?

    Liked by 3 people

  24. bulwarker says:

    I think whoever Barr assigns to this matter will also show us how seriously he’s tackling the department’s overall corruption. He’s either all in on protecting the office of the president and upholding the rule of law, or he’s doing the bare minimum to keep up appearances and merely protecting the institution.

    Liked by 12 people

  25. Bogeyfree says:

    I wonder what Lindsey was talking to Barr about in there private Capitol meeting yesterday??

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ma McGriz says:

      Good question.
      Lindsey seemed more animated than usual in an interview afterward.

      Liked by 1 person

      • beach lover says:

        He was very dismissive of the current goings on in the Schitshow. Said he wasnt reading anything since it was such a farce.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Ma McGriz says:

          Good.

          I went the same direction when this freak show debuted, and stopped my usual daily practice of scanning various news sites. I knew what was coming, so I’ve just opted out. Some of the pearl clutching and eeyoring here is more than enough to keep me reminded of what I’m not missing ‘out there.’

          The House and its tree-dwellers make certain it shows up here if it’s something relevant or worth knowing.

          Like

  26. inrecordtimes says:

    You can bet that this whole game plan was “story boarded” by the lawfare group a long time ago. They were simply waiting for the dominoes to be aligned in continuity to tip the next block.

    Liked by 2 people

    • sundance says:

      I agree…. I also consider that any SCOTUS intervention (agreement to hear the final appeal) could predicate grounds for Lawfare to recuse any justice that ruled against their Impeachment Managers in a Senate Hearing.

      Say the court rules 5-4 to support the HJC, (four scotus justices ruling against them) if the Chief Justice is one of the four, the House Managers could request recusal of Roberts in favor of a justice who ruled in their favor.

      How about that for a Lawfare created conundrum.

      Liked by 3 people

      • JL says:

        Don’t forget Ginsburg. She has chickens on the loose that still need to come home to roost.

        Interview July 7, 2016 with Associated Press

        Asked what if Trump won the presidency, Ginsburg said: “I don’t want to think about that possibility, but if it should be, then everything is up for grabs.”

        Interview July 8, 2016 with New York Times

        “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.

        Referring to something she thought her late husband, tax lawyer Martin Ginsburg, would have said, she said: “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”

        Interview July 11, 2016 with CNN

        “He is a faker. He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that ….

        “At first I thought it was funny,” she said of Trump’s early candidacy. “To think that there’s a possibility that he could be president ….

        “I think he has gotten so much free publicity ….

        “Every other presidential candidate has turned over tax returns.”

        I think there’s a strong case to be made that she must recuse herself from any impeachment case involving Donald Trump that comes before the Supreme Court.

        Liked by 7 people

        • WSB says:

          Ha! There’s a message. And there seems to be something about New Zealand. Did the cabal believe they could steal away to these islands? Just because we have no extradition agreement? Funny how this keeps coming up.

          These slimy creatures sure do leave a trail, no?

          Like

      • WSB says:

        Bull! Oh, screw them! That would be a judicial coup…I guess no matter what. More judicial gymnastics?

        Oh, and these justices only offer opinions, correct? Who watches the Supremes?

        Like

      • Do stop thinking about tomorrow says:

        He is the final say whether he recuses himself. Since the Constitution demands his presence he would not recuse himself. That would in it self create a constitutional crisis.

        Liked by 1 person

      • emeraldcoaster says:

        Of course members of the SCOTUS are exempt from the codes of conduct that pertain to judges—mere mortals. Justices decide their own recusal fate. As for a Senate trial, the Constitution stipulates “the Chief Justice shall preside”.

        Like

  27. mikebrezzze says:

    Any two digit IQ simpleton knows this whole charade isn’t legit, it’s all bs

    Liked by 2 people

  28. 335blues says:

    Somebody needs to investigate who is bankrolling the lawfare group.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Brian Baker says:

    Impeach Judge Howell.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. candyman says:

    Judges nominated by: Clinton, Bush, Trump

    Like

  31. roddrepub says:

    We have to stop this. I also heard today that if the FISA abuse report comes out it will give the Dems a big black eye. Guess we’ll see.

    Like

  32. KAG2020 says:

    Someone please explain to me how the DOJ on one side is still fighting against Flynn and other white hats, while on the other side they are fighting against the House Dems and other black hats. Shouldn’t the DOJ be consistently on one side or the other?

    Liked by 2 people

  33. Joemama says:

    Wow! Sundance, you are incredible! This story is absolutely huge and nobody but you is covering it. Where would we get the real news, if you weren’t delivering it?

    Thank you.

    My prayers to you, your family, your team and all CTH enthusiasts.

    Liked by 3 people

  34. SAM-TruthFreedomLiberty says:

    Big Sundance!

    Liked by 4 people

  35. cboldt says:

    The recent House vote complicates this case. The House has invoked its impeachment power, and delegated it according to the terms of H.Res.660 (House Report 116-266).
    Even though the investigation process is lopsided and unfair, it exists. Congress has no legal duty to operate fairly or to treat the public fairly, or to treat the president fairly.
    The substance of this case is Grand Jury 6(e) material contained in the Mueller undertaking.

    Docket for Nadler Application for GJ/Mueller Material : Case 1:19-gj-00048

    DOJ argument is that Grand Jury 6(e) is not pierced by impeachment investigation. This argument remains relevant if an impeachment inquiry (even an unfair/unbalanced one) is passed by the House.

    Like

    • Brian Baker says:

      Regarding H.Res 660 (House Report 116-266):
      Nancy Pelosi: “It’s Not an Impeachment Resolution”

      Liked by 2 people

      • cboldt says:

        She’s right. It is a resolution authorizing investigation for the purpose of deciding whether or not an impeachment resolution should be pursued.
        The predicate for the investigation is the total BS leaker report, which is what distinguishes it from things like the Starr report, criminal convictions (judges) and judicial house cleaning (Hastings).

        Liked by 2 people

    • jx says:

      660 authorized continuing an existing investigation. When was the investigation authorized?

      Liked by 2 people

      • cboldt says:

        I don’t see the misleading “already authorized” language as rendering the resolution void. That part is just face saving, to the extent the public accepts it.
        Congress is a farce is many ways. This is just one more example. Clown show, both chambers. For that matter, the entire federal government, courts included, is way out of constitutional boundaries. House of cards. Lies built on lies.

        Liked by 1 person

    • linda4298 says:

      I thought no one on Trumps team went before the grand jury.

      Like

      • cboldt says:

        Trump cooperated fully with Mueller. The only hitch there is that Trump did not agree to sit for a deposition, and Mueller accepted answers to written questions.
        That said, I don’t know if any “Trump people” were involved in questioning under GJ proceedings.
        Also, it is absurd to argue that Trump obstructed justice in any way; just as it absurd to suggest that his treatment of Biden/Ukraine, or Ukraine in general is untoward in any way whatsoever.
        There is no reasoned or rational way to argue with people who persist in advancing absurdities. Ignore them or put them out of power. When absurdities are allowed to control, as it does now, the government itself is untenable and should be rejected.

        Like

  36. For the record, I don’t think the House will impeach. I think Nanzi had to promise a vote that comes up just short in order to get the votes for the sham “Inquiry”. Oh, they’ll keep going for a while to try to beat up the president, but they’ll find a way out, appeasing the mobs they have incited while saving face –and trying to salvage their own jobs. Its Failure Theater–don’t ask how I know.

    I do not believe Palsi will foolishly hand this over to Mitch. It’s kinda’ like Trump’s taxes; he sent them to Obama’s IRS for eight years. If there was something, you would have seen it long ago. They’re grifters, but grifters can count.

    Liked by 3 people

  37. Joemama says:

    “In short, this is a pretty important ruling.”

    The fact that only 15 minutes of oral argument are allowed to this absolutely huge matter of constitutional law, does not bode well. The decision has already likely been made on the basis of politics.

    The tree of liberty is thirsty.

    Liked by 2 people

  38. Steve says:

    The DC Appellate court will punt.

    Like

  39. Joemama says:

    It is always darkest before the first light of morning. I think that it might get even darker before the dawn, but I believe that good will prevail.

    I have no choice but to believe that, because if we don’t prevail, every one of us will be destroyed by the deep state. They will have access to the databases, will unmask us and destroy every one of us and our extended families.

    Either we win or it is all over. It won’t happen instantly, but it will happen. They have six ways to Sunday to destroy you if they have access to the NSA databases.

    Like

  40. Rynn69 says:

    (a) Pelosi/Lawfare have to restart the process with a genuine House vote; or (b) the ongoing impeachment process will have no recognized constitutional standing; and (c) the Senate could ignore any House impeachment vote, cast without recognized constitutional standing.

    (a) I highly doubt the House will ever cast an impeachment vote before the election. I may be in the minority here, but I do not even think that is an option they are going to consider before 2020.
    (b) Isn’t this already a given? Without bipartisan representation by vote in such a monumental action as impeachment, it is not constitutional.
    (c) The Senate SHOULD ignore the House impeachment vote, but The Turtle has already signaled he would take it up only at this point.

    Seems to me that if there ever were reason for a judicial decision on this – it would be from the SCOTUS. And SCOTUS has already ruled on precedent that it must be an official impeachment proceeding. Seems as if it will just be kicked up to there?

    Liked by 3 people

    • cboldt says:

      The whole coup attempt, or pretty much any government proceeding, is supposed to be accepted by the people as “fair.”
      For example, appointment of a SC is done for the puprose of putting an impartial person in charge of a politically-charged issue, and that “appearance of impartiality” is the point and justification. So what does the DOJ do? It (Rosenstein) appoints a partisn hack who hires partisan hacks to attack the target. What appearance of impartiality? Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?
      Same with impeachment.
      That the people continue to put up with this joke of a government is a sign of public flaccidity.
      Rome didn’t fall in a day.

      Liked by 2 people

      • TwoLaine says:

        It is not, and has never been, a coup attempt. It is a coup. Period.

        They hamstrung and hijacked our gubt with a totally illegitimate SC investigation for over two years, and through a mid term election to favor themselves.

        They highjacked a Supreme Court nomination with false and ambiguous farcical and salacious accusations, one after another, and still attack this man and his family on a daily basis. If you search for the name Kavanaugh on the innerwebs it’s unbelieveably ugly, all slanderous and without merit.

        They made our 1st AG recuse himself from their illegal investigations and invasion of his privacy, his Oath of Office and more. He was rendered neutered for purposes of canning or monitoring their illegal operations.

        They have highjacked Congress and completely disregarded the urgent and ongoing business of We The People for a faux impeachment. Nothing we need is getting done. Just a lot of flappin’ gums and gnashing of teeth, and plenty of tube time for all, and they will run this out as long as they can, because they can.

        And now, Turtle tells our President to shut up about the Senators or he will be impeached. Is he also telling him to silence the IG Reports too, because that will implicate many Senators I would guess.

        Like Lee Smith said in his recent American Thought Leaders interview, this is a “paper coup”. There are no tanks, no guns, no armies, except for at Mike Flynn, Roger Stone, Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort’s houses, there is just paper. It was all done with words and paper and a stinking and totally corrupt and compliant media.

        Like

  41. Dennis says:

    If Pres. Trump is impeached, this impeachment will not be the last !
    VP Pence will be next.
    The Rinos will never again be anything but slaves to the left.
    Even all judges will need to rule as POTUS Nancy expects or they will be impeached too.
    Whoever is the enemy of the left who can be impeached, will be.

    Surely anyone with half a brain can foresee all this.
    (Remember, “We have to pass this to find out what’s in it”).
    Therefore ALL the powers involved now, will need to MAKE A CHOICE !!! And,

    Wrong choice will likely, ultimately, mean WAR.

    Like

    • Brian Baker says:

      Don’t expect it to stop there. If their partisan impeachment plans are successful, the Dems will start thinking about judges, i.e. Kavanaugh. At a minimum, they’ll use the threat of impeachment as leverage to influence decisions.

      Like

  42. FairTaxGuy60 says:

    This ruling will never go our way as usual. Don’t get your hopes up.

    Like

  43. TheUnknownPatriot says:

    It is sooooo important that Trump is re-elected. I’m sure the democrats would love nothing more than to be able to impeach Kavanaugh and replace him with a leftist judge. That is why they were so adamant on taking Trump out when he was elected. So they could put leftists in the Supreme court.

    With all of the garbage the lawfare group have come up with, imagine what they would come up with if the supreme court were liberal? Makes me shudder to think of it. We MUST get Trump re-elected. Controlling the House and Senate would be great too.

    Like

  44. rayvandune says:

    “If the DOJ can successfully argue the House has not followed the traditional and constitutional process that authorizes impeachment investigation; and allows the HJC to penetrate the separation of power firewall; it will be a major blow to the Lawfare scheme.”

    Thus the significance of Schiff today trodding upon his dick, by:
    1. Specifying the format of questions the Repubs may ask,
    2. Forcing the Repubs to justify witnesses called,
    3. Requiring witnesses be identified within 48 hours, and
    4. Blatantly making this up as they go along!

    Liked by 1 person

  45. NJMAGA says:

    For political purposes, Obama and his Marxist cronies weaponized the IRS, DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA and State Dept. and got away with it. Not one person had a problem with them doing any of this except Rodgers while we hung on to false hope that there were “white hats’. There weren’t any.

    Now, we’re watching them weaponize impeachment right in front of our eyes with half the country cheering them on, and again, no one is stopping them. They are now so radicalized and with zero morals or ethics, that I can’t imagine what has to happen to stop them at this point. If it’s even possible.

    Liked by 2 people

  46. Bill Dumanch says:

    We have the authority, it’s Article V .
    Framework was placed there FOR US,as those old dead white dudes
    ********KNEW*******
    These events would occur.

    They READ their Bibles.

    Liked by 2 people

    • 1 Observer says:

      Glad you brought this up Bill. I always thought it was states only but it’s both chambers 2/3r too (note 2/3 of “those present”, just like the Senate impeachment vote). Anyways, what if there is mass migration inside the country, leading to concentrations of left and right…one could say it may be happening now. I’m thinking of that red 2016 map. So it would follow that Article 5 could actually work. No doubt the Fed gubmint will attempt to beat the hell out of the first state sticking its head up but interesting nonetheless.

      “Article V provides two methods for amending the nation’s frame of government. The first method authorizes Congress, “whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary” (a two-thirds of those members present—assuming that a quorum exists at the time that the vote is cast—and not necessarily a two-thirds vote of the entire membership elected and serving in the two houses of Congress), to propose Constitutional amendments. The second method requires Congress, “on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states” (presently 34), to “call a convention for proposing amendments”.[5]”

      Apologies for the wiki : (
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

      Like

  47. Vicus says:

    “DC Court of Appeals”

    We’re f**ked.

    Like

  48. parleyvous says:

    Hire Sydney Powell

    Liked by 1 person

  49. foo says:

    The subpoena being fought over is not impacted by the house vote in question.

    If it were, it would be an EX POST FACTO law, which is bold-faced unconstitutional.

    It doesn’t take a JD or passing the bar to understand this.

    Any attorney who fails to make this argument as a “back-stop” to any more aggressive cases is clearly “throwing the fight”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s