House Case #3, McGahn Subpoena Ruling Will Be Delivered Monday November 25th…

There are three current court cases that touch upon whether the House “impeachment inquiry” is following a constitutional process.

♦The first case is the House Oversight effort to gain President Trumps’ tax returns as part of their impeachment ‘inquiry’ and oversight.  That case is currently on-hold (10-day stay) in the Supreme Court; outcome pending.

♦The second case is the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) effort to gain the grand jury information from the Mueller investigation.  The decision by DC Judge Beryl Howell was also stayed by a three member DC Appellate court.  Oral arguments were November 12th, the decision is pending. [Depending on outcome, could also go to SCOTUS]

♦The third case is the HJC effort to force the testimony of former White House legal counsel Don McGahn.  Issue: subpoena validity.  The HJC has asked for an expedited ruling. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has announced she will deliver her ruling on Monday, November 25th:

WASHINGTON DC – […] “The Judiciary Committee anticipates holding hearings after HPSCI’s public hearings have concluded and would aim to obtain Mr. McGahn’s testimony at that time,” the committee wrote, referring to the impeachment inquiry hearings led by the House Intelligence Committee. “Thus, there is an urgent need for final resolution of the matter now pending before this Court.”

The House’s letter to federal Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in Washington points out that it is considering impeaching Trump for obstruction of justice, for which McGahn would be a key witness since he spoke to special counsel Robert Mueller for the obstruction investigation, and for lying to Mueller, after testimony at Roger Stone’s criminal trial raised questions about Trump’s written answers to investigators about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Jackson said she will rule by the end of the day Monday. (read more)

The issue at stake is whether the legislative branch can penetrate the constitutional firewall which exists within the separation of powers.

Remember, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on any ancillary case that touches upon the validity of the House impeachment process.  The Supreme Court has not ruled on any case that touches the impeachment “inquiry”.

In addition to the Trump Tax Case (SCOTUS now), there are two other cases from the HJC where they are attempting to use the framework of a constitutional impeachment process as the underlying authority for their endeavors.  Those cases are: (1) the Grand Jury  material from the Mueller investigation (DC Court of Appeals); and (2) The Don McGahn subpoena case.

If the House loses the Tax case in SCOTUS or either HJC case in appeals or SCOTUS it will likely mean there is no constitutional foundation for 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.

Over the next ten days the status of each case will start to play out in the courts.

This entry was posted in 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dept Of Justice, Impeachment, Legislation, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, propaganda, Supreme Court, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

148 Responses to House Case #3, McGahn Subpoena Ruling Will Be Delivered Monday November 25th…

  1. mopar2016 says:

    Business as usual.

    Liked by 27 people

  2. Tiffthis says:

    I’m a little slo, but is the McGahn issue over the fact that he (McGahn) didn’t obey a “conveyed subpoena” or “subpoena schedule”- and that’s somehow obstruction? If so how can any judge take up that case?

    Like

    • Greg1 says:

      Any democrat leaning judge can and will take up such a case if they can help get President Trump impeached. Now, whether SCOTUS sees it the same is another issue, but the activist judges in DC seem mighty devout to their cause of anything for democrats.

      Liked by 14 people

    • All Too Much says:

      You are talking about “subject matter” jurisdiction.
      Interesting question, which, I think, Sundance discussed, with different words than mine, several weeks ago, when these sham subpoenas first came up. I would like to see the pleadings and whether the White House raised the issue in responding. Research time, I guess.

      Liked by 2 people

      • All Too Much says:

        This touches on it

        “The judiciary would likely upend her House committee “official impeachment inquiry” scheme, just as D.C. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell recently did to Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler for “gaming the system“. Speaker Pelosi’s unilateral decree for an “official impeachment inquiry” without a House vote will not pass court review.”

        https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/05/nancy-pelosi-is-grubering-the-american-electorate-on-impeachment-committee-requests-aka-subpoenas-constructed-to-manufacture-obstruction/

        Liked by 13 people

        • VoteAllIncumbantsOut says:

          I keep asking myself….

          Why would the Democrats who know they have absolutely nothing regarding impeachment continue down a path of destruction?

          Here is what I believe…

          They are in so deep now they can’t turn back and god forbid it goes to the senate and actually comes out during the hearings that corruption runs rampant on both sides of the isle, this would destroy both parties involved.

          But why continue over the top with these witnesses destroying every ounce of their building blocks…

          I believe this is designed purposefully so they can weasel their way out of the deep hole they are all in. They need what, 17 or 18 votes that don’t stray to move it to the senate?

          In order to hide the corruption and continue their evil ways, they can’t afford this moving into a full blown impeachment hearing so I believe they need to play the game they always seem to play, take a vote and sacrifice 17, 18, 19, or more Democrats to claim they fought a great battle but lost to save face.

          Otherwise senate will dismiss this on having no evidence grounds (Can’t afford exposure). Putting aside they hate Trump and want him out, they are not stupid people and so they must know the consequences of what they are doing.

          I have a tough time believing this is for political reasons, more and more Americans see right through this so why continue?

          I guess I’ll find out soon enough but this question keeps nagging me.

          Liked by 5 people

          • John Rawls says:

            That’s the 64 million dollar question.

            The Lawfare site lays out the impeachment case:
            https://www.lawfareblog.com/story-impeachment-depositions-tell

            The case is so flimsy.

            Was Giuliani getting too close to the truth about Ukrainian corruption? A bunch of US aid disappeared in Ukraine… 1.8 billion vanished.

            https://pjmedia.com/trending/did-biden-save-this-ukraine-firm-responsible-for-1-8b-in-missing-aid-his-son-is-on-the-board/

            Liked by 2 people

            • shirley49 says:

              These poor Politicians have to have some pocket money. Why not steal it from the American taxpayers. Been going on for a long time and finally coming to the surface. I have always wondered how these creeps who get elected are filthy rich after a few years. The Clinton’s and Obama’s ended up with millions as do many Congress critters.

              Liked by 8 people

              • teabag14 says:

                I saw a comment attached to a YT video that was right to this point. The person said that he/she wasn’t interested in seeing the tax returns of a billionaire who became a public servant. He/she was interested in seeing the tax returns of the individuals already in public service who have become millionaires. That one rang true for me. Clearly there is deep, deep rot.

                Liked by 3 people

            • Jederman says:

              Was Giuliani getting too close to s0r0s? He has been active in the Ukraine and likely doing things that require top cover from American pols.

              Liked by 1 person

          • Paint Chip says:

            It’s the spaghetti doneness approach – keep throwing stuff against the wall to see if it sticks, The longer you keep the sham alive, the more likely something, anything, that resonates with the public will be found. They are desperate.

            Liked by 3 people

            • stripmallgrackle says:

              Next year, regardless of any actions taken by the senate, the dems will be able to run against the ‘impeached’ president. And now I know how to find out if my spaghetti is ready. Thanks for the tip.

              Like

            • aarmad says:

              I agree. The dems are going over and over and over the same things. The object is to feed the media the lies they create and to confuse the people. If you put it out often enough, people believe, at least some people. You could kind of see it in yesterdays testimonies. It was so long and so repetitious that the Republicans didn’t even bother to comment towards the end. AND this is just getting started. SO, wear down the Republicans and witnesses, and keep it going and going on forever. Then you have shifty up there continuing his parody every day. He is a liar and a traitorous scoundrel. There needs to be something big to happen to end shifty and the dems. Something in the courts that affect it or something in the testimony! Even then I am sure the dems and media will continue!!!

              Like

          • Ellis says:

            Simple answer is to provide a media narrative going into the 2020 elections. Their candidates are so weak they need all the help they can get. I think the plan is simply to dupe the dupes.

            Like

          • Mark B Smith says:

            The question is whether it is better for President Trump to have an impeachment inquiry in the House that fails to pass, or one that succeeds and goes to a full trial in the Senate. In a Senate trial, all the information that SD has accumulated will be aired in full view of the American people, so that they absolutely know all the details of Spygate, the Soft Coup, Russiagate, Ukraingate and the Unmaskings revealed by witnesses under oath. It is worth any kind of risk to preserve the constitutional republic. It seems to me that a failed house impeachment or worse, a rapid vote in the Senate would hide all the details that Americans need to know about what has been going on in the last 3 years. If the IG report on FISA is not punitive, then at least Americans will know what crimes have been committed behind closed doors.

            Like

          • drdirt_atl says:

            You failed to note that if Pelosi does let it go to the Senate, the President would have unfettered ability to call witnesses. She won’t have a Schiff to stop the questioning. I’m still predicting she’ll suddenly become a patriot that doesn’t want to put the nation thru this.

            Like

          • redthunder238 says:

            I’m convinced they’ve lost their minds. They somehow think this is GOOD for them. It’s really crazy.

            Like

        • The Separation of Powers clause refuses to grant the Legislature any Judicial authority. It makes law, but cannot determine on its own authority that you did or did not break them – only the Courts may do that. Anything along those lines is a Bill of Attainder, and is prohibited. Although the impeachment clause does not require that a criminal indictment has yet been handed down by the Court (lest the Judicial Branch frustrate that power by never issuing one), it does clearly imply that a criminal indictment must be forthcoming or would clearly be expected. It stipulates that the Congress may only remove an officer, and that this removal is not, itself, a criminal charge even though it is the result of Congress concluding that such charges will indeed occur.

          But here, Congress wants to find that the President (fill in the blank). They want to act as a Court of Law. They want to exercise Judicial powers that are not granted to them and which they are therefore also expressly prohibited to assume.

          Liked by 1 person

        • aarmad says:

          OMG I hope you are RIGHT!!!

          Like

  3. There can be no doubt how Jackson will “ rule”…this is pure politics dressed up as a legal ruling …th

    Liked by 19 people

    • bertdilbert says:

      Yeah I actually laughed when I scrolled down and saw a picture of the judge. Sure fired democrat that will find a way… Lawfare is probably instructing her.

      Liked by 4 people

    • sDee says:

      “this is pure politics dressed up as a legal ruling ”

      Indeed. What would leave any of us to believe that the Judical and its appellate system is any different than the mockery of Law, the Constitution and basic human integrity we saw on full display in these impeachment hearings, the DoJ, FBI or CIA?

      The court system too kicks into protect its own. From clerks to judges, it is a big club controlled and compromised by self serving ideologues and other vindictive vermin like Vindman, Schiff, and all those behind the scenes who produced the kangaroo court we we saw on display at yesterday’s impeachment hearing .

      May God forgive us for what we have let fall upon this great land.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Maybe Nancy can ramrod THIS ONE through with her giant gavel if she calls it a “Matter”?

    Liked by 7 people

  5. TarsTarkas says:

    IMO the other two cases will also end up in the Supreme Court.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Brian Baker says:

      This will all be decided by the Supreme Court. Are we going to find out just how compromised Justice John Roberts is?
      If Roberts rules against POTUS, can he be recused from the impeachment trial in the Senate?

      Liked by 14 people

      • All Too Much says:

        SCOTUS is not required to accept a case.
        The Court can decide not to accept a case, in which case the appellate decision stands.
        Maybe Roberts will not be involved.
        Unlikely given the stakes in play here, but not out of the question, either

        Liked by 4 people

        • stripmallgrackle says:

          It would be a good time for SCOTUS to remind Poli-Grip that the Constitution doesn’t allow congress to be its own judicial branch. She needs to run things by the real Juducial Branch first, and her little piecemeal suits for this demand and that demand don’t count. Just sayin’.

          Liked by 3 people

          • stripmallgrackle says:

            She’s torn out as many pieces as she can from the Founding Document. I think she’s ready to bring the kerosene and matches.

            Like

          • shirley49 says:

            It is amazing how we can see how unethical these Dems have been and yet no one has done a thing to stop it.

            Liked by 3 people

            • stripmallgrackle says:

              Kash Patel is suing Politico for defamation, claiming Schiff fed a reporter quotes from unreleased testimony to a reporter that intentionally smeared his reputation. That will take a while, but it’s a start. You’re right, apparently the Constitution’s silence on congressional rules is being taken as cart blanch by the dems, and nobody seems to have the standing or fortitude to challenge them. It’s like judicial activism has gone feral and infested the legislature, but there’s no animal control officer around. Guess the Founders, wary though they were, never saw this one coming.

              Liked by 1 person

              • MA says:

                The Founders knew that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land; that it places constraints on the government; and that all members of Congress take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Just like Congress can’t make laws that are contrary to the Constitution, they likewise can’t make rules that are contrary to the Constitution. Being the supreme law of the land means that no one in government can legitimately do anything contrary to the Constitution. The President is trying to resist giving any legitimacy to the “impeachment inquiry” that denies due process. Now we’ll see what the courts have to say — if they even have any authority to say anything about it.

                Like

                • stripmallgrackle says:

                  Laws, yes. Article I is pretty clear. Rules of the House? Not so much. That’s the problem, and while impeachment wasn’t without controversy, some did see the potential for partisan corruption of the process, and it did make it into the Constitution with a specific set of rules. What’s happening is a complete dodge of those rules with Pelosi and Schiff seeking precedent setting decisions in the courts. The Constitution doesn’t say they can do this, and it doesn’t say they can’t. If they win, they rewrote the rules that make impeachment Constitutional, separation of powers be damned.

                  Like

              • Rob says:

                “Guess the Founders, wary though they were, never saw this one coming.”

                Sure they did, this is just not over yet.

                Liked by 2 people

                • stripmallgrackle says:

                  I’d like to see Pelosi and Schiff being forced into sending a “letter of subpoena” to proud papa Hunter Biden. It would make a smashing baby shower gift. He might even welcome the chance to take a break from diaper changing and two o’clock feedings. Not that he’d have anything new or explosive to testify about. I mean, he probably doesn’t have any first hand knowledge of the phone call either.

                  Like

        • nobodyspecial1958 says:

          I don’t see this not being taken up by the court. I think they would feel they had no choice. If Ginsburg dies before then, well that would be a real Interesting show to watch, huh? Hanging over all of this is the fisa and other investigations. I’m not so sure any of these judges are at ease with putting their name to something that will make them look like a conspirator in the final conclusion.

          Like

      • Andy Krause says:

        This is a two edged sword for the justices. They can be impeached by the some procedures as the president. The judges have skin in the game this time.

        Liked by 8 people

        • stripmallgrackle says:

          I can hear their famous last words now, “But congress promised.”

          Like

        • The Third Man says:

          God may “impeach” Ginsburg, Ma Bates of the infamous Bates Motel.

          Like

        • nobodyspecial1958 says:

          I am not so sure that we might find out why the supremes have been so quirky especially Roberts. I have heard that Obama wiretapped 157 federal judges including Roberts. If Barr or Durham can turn up some of that info, it would blow the dome off. I believe Larry Klayman was representing an NSA whistleblower named Dennis Montgomery, not sure about the first name, but he took 400 hard drives from the NSA. He turned them over to Comey in return for a promise of a vigorous investigation and no prosecution. Nothing more has been heard from them but I wouldn’t be surprised to see it resurface.

          Liked by 4 people

      • The Demon Slick says:

        I think Nancy has an in on the Mcgahn case. She tried to get that other guy Kuppermans or something to agree to abide by the findings in that case when she withdrew the “subpoena” he challenged in court. And she requested a delay in the scotus case to “prepare arguments”. I believe she has a lefty activist judge on board and wants a favorable ruling first in the Hope’s the other courts will follow the precedent. It’s not going to work but that looks to be her play.

        Like

      • zippy039 says:

        The Senate is not required to even have a justice there, strictly up to them

        Like

  6. I hope she is aware of Bill Barr’s recent speech to the Federalist Society and his well articulated arguments against legislative and judicial overreach into the Executive branch before she rules.

    Liked by 21 people

  7. MDNA I says:

    This is why part of me is wondering if the Ukraine narrative is such that it can live or die in HPSCI, but provide a segue back into Mueller once this hits Hse Jud Cmte

    I can’t think of a better way to put it at this time, but something of the sort is bugging me

    Liked by 3 people

    • MDNA I says:

      If House Democrats truly have given up on “converting” anyone on the other side, on one hand, that’s good; on the other, it means they don’t have to hold back any longer….. if they know they’re probably gonna lose in the Senate they’ll just go for maximum damage

      Liked by 3 people

      • grlangworth says:

        Go for maximum damage. It ensure their self-destruction. Fair Play is still an American value regardless of your politics.

        Liked by 4 people

        • The Devilbat says:

          Fair play yes. The problem is that there are untold millions of people who do not follow politics at all. When the media tells them something, too many of them believe its true. What needs to happen is for President Trump to declassify and release every damning document regarding the scheme to cut short his presidency. His next step should then be to fire every single Obama holdover.

          Liked by 3 people

          • stripmallgrackle says:

            Independents are stereotyped as open minded. I saw an article on Breitbart today about a poll targeting independents on impeachment. The writer touted the drop in support for Pelosi, but drilling down, it became clear that strongly oppose and strongly support is about even among indies. I was a bit shocked by that statistic. I would have expected a majority of non-aligned, non-ideological voters to see Poli-Grip’s pre-ordained outcome for what it is. Nothing she’s done yet is consistent with “letting the evidence lead where it will”.

            Liked by 1 person

            • stripmallgrackle says:

              And she lied in 2018 about not impeaching. I don’t think independents like being lied to anymore than anyone else does.

              Like

            • Justin Green says:

              The only interesting statistic is the number of polls that overestimate support for impeachment. And we haven’t seen that study yet. And won’t until next November.

              Like

          • chipin8511 says:

            Trillions $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ @stake there will be no fair play.. A Senate trial will expose both sides I dont truly think they want that…?

            Liked by 1 person

    • mushroom says:

      Same.
      It seems everything is about opening up the 6e Grand Jury testimony?
      Get the courts to legitamize the impeachment inqury so they have an avenue to get access to this?
      They spent 2 years of non-stop investigating and came up with weak sauce Mueller report. But they were designing an obstruction case. Is the 6e material the key?

      I just have a feeling these crooked lawyers with the deep state intel have information to really damage PDJT, but they can’t access it without courts opening the door.

      Or they really are just fishing away. ???

      I know Sundance talked about 6e but don’t remember.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Judge Jackson is an incompetent 0bama resistance activist hack who already was overturned after making a bad ruling trying to hinder the president from doing his job.

    No question whatsoever how she’ll rule on Monday.
    _____________________

    Court overturns blocking of Trump’s workforce orders

    https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2019/07/16/Court-overturns-blocking-of-Trumps-workforce-orders/5211563299296/

    Liked by 9 people

    • Clivus- one picture of this judge is worth more than 10,000 words if you get my drift.

      Liked by 13 people

    • Thanks for the link to the article. Interestingly the DC Circuit overturned Judge Jackson’ ruling on the case (a federal labor union matter) in grounds that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The circuit noted that statute specifically defined the appropriate jurisdiction as the Federal Labor Relations Authority. So, the case had no business being filed in federal District court much less actually ruled on by a District judge. It’s like Groundhog Day.

      Liked by 1 person

      • As a man thinkth says:

        Makes you wonder WHO assigned the filing to judge Jackson to start with?

        Like

        • Despicable Me says:

          Ostensibly, there is a defined rotation of available judges. However for court watchers it is not difficult to figure out the rotation and simply wait (or hurry up) to file a case when you know a sympathetic judge is next up in the pipeline.

          Like

  9. EggsX1 says:

    Isn’t this a foregone conclusion that Jackson will rule in favor of the house dems and it will be appealed to the Supreme Court? It comes down to whether the SC will take it up.

    Its always better to win the case rather than rely on appeal, but President Trump’s cases always end up with those ‘not Obama’ judges that John Roberts loves so much.

    Liked by 5 people

    • billrla says:

      EggsX1: Not only a foregone conclusion, but also, baked-in; a slam-dunk; a sure thing; and despite obvious certainty, quite likely.

      Liked by 3 people

    • BoreMole says:

      After our government is re-formed (as I just don’t believe its current incarnation can keep going much longer like this) – I’d like to see some rules that boot a judge out of the chair if their record is frequently overturned. If you cannot get in line with the rule of law rather than your feelings as the guide for your decisions, you cannot continue to be in the judiciary.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. MAGADJT says:

    I can’t imagine SCOTUS would see it’s way clear to vote to force a WH Counsel to violate attorney confidence over something like this.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Elle says:

    So if there is no constitutional foundation for these hearings, does that mean that all of the lying under oath, insubordination, spying and sedition that has been exposed is not actionable? Any chance they will say the information was illegally obtained and can not be used in future trials?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Maquis says:

      Without judicial recognition of a Constutional foundation the House cannot enforce their faux-supoenas and the Schiff Show will collapse. This relates only to the House impeachment schemes.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Elle says:

        I’m wondering if the coup plotters could be giving it up in a trial that has no judicial recognition in order to claim some sort of privilege on the the information that is presented at these “trials”. They have been admitting to multiple illegal activities.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Elle says:

          The Dems and their witnesses made sure we knew that they were SUBPOENAED to be there. I remember one exchange where Dems and one witness went waaay over the top to make a BSD (Big Stinking Deal) that the witness was only there was because of the subpoena.

          Hmmm. Are they going to somehow use the subpoena to claim some sort of immunity?

          “Democrats have invited Bolton to testify in private, but his attorney said he won’t appear without a subpoena”.

          and this: “The judge’s decision in the case could have a significant impact on whether other executive branch personnel appear before the committee, as the ruling would determine whether arguments of executive branch immunity apply to some other administration officials as well. The case asks the judge to determine whether the subpoena issued by the House committee is valid under House rules, which, if found invalid, would likely call into question other subpoenas issued to other possible witnesses ”
          https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obey-white-house-subpoena-witness-impeachment-probe-asks/story?id=66636082

          Like

          • Elle says:

            Rule 45 – Subpoena
            https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-vi-trials/rule-45-subpoena/

            B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information UNTIL THE CLAIM IS RESOLVED; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information under seal to the court for the district where compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.

            hmmmmm….

            Liked by 1 person

  12. joebkonobi says:

    Thanks Sundance for the clear explanation of how all of those cases play into the “Constitutional process” issue and the ramifications thereof.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. California Joe says:

    Funny how all the President Trump cases get assigned to Obama judges. Ever wonder why? Well, the women who work in the District Clerk’s Office are easily corrupted by the high-powered private attorneys who file cases there. The judges are assigned on a wheel. It’s a simple phone call to the Lawfare attorneys to let them know who is up next!

    Liked by 12 people

  14. I wonder how many people in the Deep State sat around a big table and plotted this all out? How many players were there?

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Merkin Muffley says:

    Oh, Federal Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, an Obama appointee. I wonder how she will rule???

    Like

  16. leftnomore says:

    Yes, I’ve noted the judge’s photo. On to the SC on Tuesday.

    Liked by 1 person

    • meow4me2 says:

      Not sure what you are referring to here. Her race, if that is what you mean, is immaterial. There are many wonderful black conservatives out there. Justice Thomas comes to mind.

      Liked by 2 people

  17. luke says:

    Look guys it’s important we keep ourselves dialed in. It’s very much imperative that we keep the faith and stay focused. That being said we have the high ground now. Do not confuse it with moral high ground because that doesn’t mean shit to people that will lie about anything. We/Us/Our Side Control the top levers of government. The fighting ones; the ones that get their hands bloody are with us.

    Liked by 8 people

  18. Bill Schuetter says:

    Please include a published date on each article. It helps sort things out in proper sequence. Thanks.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. jus wundrin says:

    Another 0Bomba appointee thats not fit to wear the robe. I never read howells decision, so Im curious what citations she made to justify her ruling. Orange man bad?

    Like

  20. :-) says:

    In 1996, Jackson married surgeon Patrick G. Jackson.[20] They have two daughters. Jackson is related by marriage to U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan.[20][21] Her husband is the twin brother of Ryan’s brother-in-law.[21]

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketanji_Brown_Jackson

    Liked by 3 people

    • John Rawls says:

      Interesting. If she is smart and wanted to garner R support when time comes, she’d rule for the constitution rather than for Dems short-sighted impeachment fantasies.

      Like

  21. I’d say it time for fasting and praying if you aren’t already doing so.

    Like

  22. WES says:

    I think all of these cases are just the Dems buying a few weeks/months of time.

    Like

  23. dufrst says:

    This is obviously where the Dems are going to put all of their hopes and that’s reviving Russia through McGahn’s testimony and the grand jury information, because this Ukraine deal is a dog that won’t hunt!

    It amounts to a food fight between those who felt they are in the regular chain against those in the so-called irregular chain of Ukraine policy. Dummy Schiff then inserted himself to turn that food fight into something impeachable, taking advantage of the feelings of disgruntled personnel and the ignorance of LT. Col Vindman, a junior officer with a high sense of himself and not a clue as to what his job and role was in the NSC!

    It’s really despicable but it’s a tactic of the Left to accuse the Right of the crimes that they commit in order to get away with those crimes. In this case, this Ukraine inquiry is all about protecting Biden against the severity of the attacks on his corruption in Ukraine (but what will they do with his dealing in China? Trump is saving that for the campaign).

    So we shall see how Judge Roberts rules. The fate of our nation may very well rest in his hands. It is why I believe Bill Barr has such a powerful speech about defending the executive branch at the Federalist society because I believe he was speaking directly to the Supreme Court’s conservatives, many of whom are former members of the federalist society. Let’s hope and pray that they got the message!

    Liked by 4 people

  24. hokkoda says:

    At this point, I would walk through Hell in a gasoline suit to vote for Trump.

    I don’t know how the GOP members on that committee retrain themselves from beating Schiff to death with a table leg, but God bless ‘em.

    As for the court cases, anything goes, and odds are they rule that the Congress can do whatever the heck it wants….Roberts sides with the other Liberals.

    Liked by 9 people

  25. snailmailtrucker says:

    I’m cool with this…It just lets me know if this Federal Judge gets to go on MY LIST or not !

    Like

  26. snailmailtrucker says:

    Anyone who is not now completely ready to Go to War against these AntiAmerican Criminals in Washington DC who are Trying to Remove the President of The USA who we Specifically Elected to do what he is doing isn’t worth being Called an American Citizen !

    POTUS TRUMP IS DOING WHAT WE ELECTED HIM TO DO…ARE YOU GOING TO LET THEM KEEP ATTACKING HIM ?
    WAKE THE F UP AMERICA !

    Liked by 3 people

  27. jus wundrin says:

    Not much is being discussed about the subpoena case that Charles Kupperman brought before DC dist. court judge Leon. I found this opinion article from yesterday by the WaPoop that brought up some interesting aspects.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/18/trump-friendly-judges-run-out-clock-impeachment/?outputType=amp

    Despite milbanks far left musings, there are a couple of tidbits here on why Leon is keeping this case alive. Could this have any effect on activist jacksons Monday ruling?

    Like

  28. margarite1 says:

    This is not the country I’m paying for with my #($*$ tax dollars. I am SOOOO pissed at these arrogant people who play their dirty games – they ought to all be fired for not having a balanced budget. This is a total ripoff.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Truth and Liberty says:

    No they want McGahn to testify as a wintness against President Trump for obstruction in the Mueller fiasco. McGahn is not a target at this point. Just more minutia in the circus grasping at straws, throwing up anything trying to something to stick.

    Like

  30. YeahYouRight says:

    Congress looks desperate to me, won’t change a thing from Trump’s side, same with the leftists.

    But the middle…The middle is probably veryangry that they got nothing but coups and witch hunts. Not what they were promised in 2018.

    Like

  31. TarsTarkas says:

    Broken record again . . .

    IS JOE BIDEN ABOVE THE LAW??? Are we going to tolerate blatant recorded criminal behavior based on party affiliation? Because if he is not punished, if the coup plotters get away with it, It. Will. Never. Stop. Ever.

    Liked by 4 people

  32. Angel Martin says:

    If McGahn does end up forced to testify, Repubs should ask him under oath if he is NYT Anonymous. And also, ask if he was the FBI spy inside the Trump campaign.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Grendel says:

    This is exactly why I visit here. Plus the riveting dry legalese. I’m up to speed now.
    Thanks!

    Liked by 1 person

  34. trumpmemesandreams says:

    Ketanji Brown Jackson is an Obama appointee, as one might guess. She has had the key role in enjoining several of POTUS’s EOs around civil service reform (13836, 13837, 13839) which dealt with federal employee collective bargaining amongst other issues.

    She will screw POTUS on this one, too. Count on it.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Jaap Titulaer says:

    I think that the Don McGahn subpoena case is their best bet. And the clearest.
    If SCOTUS rules against that, then they are saying that the impeachment process as it has been currently constructed is invalid.
    But if SCOTUS allows it, it’s a clear sign that the Dems can continue as planned.

    The Grand Jury material will not be released by SCOTUS, on grounds that have nothing to do with the separation of powers, but with protecting the rule of law and proper functioning of the Grand Jury as an institution.

    The Tax returns case may or may not be dismissed by SCOTUS on independent grounds. The IRS has them, and taxes are their job, not those of oversight. The possibilities for abuse of oversight rights are clear here so that maybe the grounds for dismissal.

    Like

    • Grand Jury materials are the purview of the Courts, and the Congress is not and cannot be called a Court … no matter what a lower-court Judge may have said. The Constitution expressly declares otherwise. Each Branch is granted certain check-and-balanced powers and is expressly prohibited from assuming any powers not so granted. Congress is the only Branch that can make law, but it cannot decide that you broke them.

      Liked by 1 person

  36. BitterC says:

    The McGahn subpoena was issued in the Spring. I don’t see how they can use last week’s Roger Stone testimony to bolster their case.

    This subpoena shouldn’t fall under impeachment proceedings. It would seem they need to start over

    Like

    • Baby El says:

      What exactly are you trying to convey with a picture and two words?

      … and how does your posting contribute to the conversation?

      Ask yourself, can I do better.

      Liked by 1 person

  37. Merkin Muffley says:

    The opera isn’t over until the Supreme Court sings.

    Like

  38. mark says:

    Bill Barr has it right with his Constitutional separation of powers speech. That’s why the uniparty and in particular the democrats are filling these lawsuits. Like Sundance says they are trying to breach the firewall of Presidential privacy. That’s just 1 lawsuit, just 1 avenue to combine the Judicial and Legislative agenda of the left together, to obstruct the Executive branch. How many judges have ruled against the President’s executive orders?

    Stop looking at Berman Jacksons lawsuit as a single thing, combine it with the rest and see the forest thru the trees.

    We are almost gone as the Constitutional Republic the framers put forth for us. If they can get the Supreme Court to rule in their favor (obamacare was the 1st) then all is lost for a peaceful transition of power and then what comes next?

    Like

    • No, they are seeking to penetrate the separation of powers. In their ideal world, the President, Supreme Court Justices and so on will now all serve at the pleasure of Congress, who may on their own authority declare them guilty of something-or-other and throw them out of office forever. As I said below, this is called a Bill of Attainder. See §1.9.3.

      Liked by 2 people

  39. Padric says:

    Well, if she’s going to rule on the 25th, that will put the ruling within the 10 day stay of the Tax case currently before SCOTUS. Unless I am mistaken, should the judge in this case rule in favor of Nadler, I believe at that point they can try to appeal directly to SCOTUS on the grounds that both cases are tied to the validity of the impeachment process. It is, of course, up to SCOTUS as to whether or not they will take the case and, again, if I am remembering correctly, they are usually loathe to take a case in this manner. They much prefer a case that has made its way through the lower courts first, but in matters of heavy constitutional questions with huge national importance such as this, I could see them deciding to take it though I certainly wouldn’t guarantee it. 30% chance or so I’d guess, maybe as high as 50/50 if the request is phrased the right way so as to make the urgency crystal clear.

    Like

  40. The “inquiry” can be defeated on more-Constitutional grounds than this. When you look at what the inquiry wants to generate, and then act upon, you see that it is a Bill of Attainder, which is expressly prohibited by §1.9.3. Dress it up, dress it down, call it whatever you like … in the end, this is what they intend to use to claim that the President has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” worthy of Impeachment.

    There is a three-part test for a Bill of Attainder, and their actions easily qualify for them all:

    (1) With apparent malice, the Legislature apportions unto itself Judicial powers, and on its own authority finds someone guilty of some crime; then …

    (2) Seeks to punish that person; and …

    (3) Does so without benefit of trial (and in this case, any 4th/5th/14th rights at all).

    Many European nobles lost their heads, and their estates, because of Bills of Attainder. Our Founders knew that, if the Legislature was given Judicial power, their acts would quickly become Attainder and the President, Supreme Court Justices, etc. would merely serve at the pleasure of Congress. Bill Barr wrote an apparently-unsolicited legal brief on this same topic before becoming AG again. Our Founders expressly forbade both Bills of Attainder and so-called “corruption of blood,” in addition to everything else they said about impeachment.

    The Impeachment clause is careful to say that the Congress may only remove an officer from office; that this act does not constitute a criminal charge, even though Impeachment must be the consequence of a criminal charge. It goes on to say that the accused “will still face indictment, trial, conviction and punishment” by the Courts. But Donald Trump officially faces no indictment at all. $40 million taxpayer dollars later, he is still an innocent man.

    What the House is attempting to do – and Lawfare, like any presumably competent lawyers, knows this perfectly well – is a thing that the Constitution calls out by its name, and prohibits.

    Liked by 4 people

  41. Cocoon says:

    So, the precedent would be, if the Speaker of the House declares an Impeachment Inquiry, all Executive Privilege is forbidden?
    Don’t know how this provides Separation of Powers as the powers lie only in Legislature then?
    Perhaps this further explains AG Barr’s recent speech on recent attacks on the Executive Powers by both Congress and the Judicial Branches, no?
    Let’s hope, as with his speech on judge rulings with national injunctions, it’s effective.

    Like

    • Mike Robinson says:

      In my view, the Attainder issue still rises to the front. (See Victor Williams as I cited above.) “The House May not punish or harm any individual, including Trump.”

      Fundamentally, Congress must have a carefully proscribed reason to pursue a legitimate impeachment proceeding. It may not conduct an “inquiry.” Neither the Department Of Justice nor any Grand Jury contemplates any sign of malfeasance, and it is clear with regards to Ukraine that the President is acting within his diplomatic prerogatives and law enforcement duties. Whether or not self-important lifetime Washington staffers like it! 😝

      English jurist William Blackstone described “Attainder” as any legislative harm, taint, stains or blackening. The prohibited “attaintus” may come in any form or fashion. It may constitute an actual penalty or it may be purposed solely to damage a targeted individual’s reputation and credibility. […] The Constitution’s textual prohibition against Attainder provides a solid argument against the House.

      Liked by 1 person

  42. willthesuevi says:

    Democrats used to understand precedent.

    The left screwed themselves when Harry Reid changed the Senate rules; it backfired on them after Republicans re-took the Senate.

    What we are witnessing in this entire impeachment debacle is a whole host of terrible precedent that will boomerang on them. When it does, the cacophony from the left will be epic.

    Terrible for our Republic but like other terrible things our country has done to itself it will be rectified………….eventually.

    Like

  43. mike diamond says:

    Obama was the most corrupt President in American history,yet the news media swept it all under the rug,let’s see Obama’s tax returns,let’s see the transcripts of 2015,when Obama met,behind closed doors with the Muslim brother hood,let’s hear the phone calls Obama made to Iran,why did Obama let the worst terrorist out of cuba!???let’s look into bill and Hillary s pay for play charity! Obama called isis,just a junior varsity! He called terrorism just work place violence! He never took up for the Jews,or the Christians,he wanted Israel to go back to their 1967borders,and the news media went silent!what a shame!

    Like

  44. elsuperbus says:

    There’s never been a SCOTUS ruling on specific enforcement of an impeachment investigation because it’s clear as day how it should work and worked that way before (at least in regard to the rights of the accused). Constitution only uses the term “House of Representatives” when referring to impeachment. Clearly implies the House has to be operating as a single entity and as with everything else that is done when operating as a single entity, needs a full vote. Sure, they can vote on articles of impeachment without fully voting for an “impeachment investigation” but then they don’t get real subpoena power. Impeachment is one process described in the Constitution. To obtain subpoena power regarding impeachment, there must be a full vote.

    Like

  45. Mike Robinson says:

    I’d very much like to see the President take the bull by the horns and file Trump v. US House of Representatives, directly and formally challenging the Constitutionality of this entire contretemps. (Future historians will regard it as the most important case the Court has ever yet heard.)

    The primary argument will be Attainder. That the Congress is engaged right now in an Unconstitutional act, and that it has no legitimate grounds to file any Articles at all.

    The judicial system found no high crime and does not now contemplate that any such crime might exist. The President’s acts regarding Ukraine are entirely within his diplomatic and law enforcement duties and prerogatives. Congress has no power to declare on their own authority that he has committed or probably has committed any crime.

    In my view, this entirely illegal and irresponsible action must be officially called-out for exactly what it is and shut down as unconstitutional by formal SCOTUS ruling, which must be expedited. It is extremely destabilizing of the country, and it is a deliberate tort against the individual and his Office. Enough is enough. They are never going to stop. They must be stopped by legal force.

    Like

  46. Sue says:

    So the judge is going to give her ruling on Monday, November 25th. How convenient. . .no one will be in DC. Congress is on Thanksgiving Vacation.

    Like

  47. shipley130 says:

    The democrats can’t spin the Ukraine interference in the 2016 election as a loss for Hillary since it was generally believed that the Ukrainian parliament supported Hillary, so it is safe for Democrats to use Ukraine as a “Get Trumpy” excuse.

    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