Two Races – Pelosi and Schiff Are Racing Court Rulings For Impeachment Vote, and IG Report for Narrative…

Last week we outlined the likely schedule for all of the rapidly surfacing DC issues to include: (A) Pelosi and Schiff’s impeachment effort; (B) the IG FISA abuse report being released; and (C) the narrowing timeline of court decisions for all three of Pelosi’s impeachment committees.

Today we have some new background to help see the narrative race and legal race.  Pelosi and Schiff are not only racing the impeachment vote against the IG report, they are also racing against the Judicial branch wiping out all prior “impeachment inquiry” validity.

Effective at the end of business today the House is now in recess for the Thanksgiving holiday.  CNN is reporting:

The House returns on December 3rd and recesses again for Christmas break on December 12th.  That is the window for Pelosi to cram in all of the House needs; eight days.

Remember, the House Democrats punted the budget with a short term CR so that has to get done.  We were hopeful Pelosi would put the USMCA ratification up for a vote; however, that now appears to be off the table until 2020.  So the budget and impeachment vote are inside this eight day window.

But that is not all that is inside this window.

Eight Legislative Days in December

On December 9th the IG report on FISA abuse and DOJ/FBI corruption will be released.  On December 11th Michael Horowitz will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

So there are two races.

♦ One race within the Trump impeachment is for the narrative:  Trump Impeachment -vs- DOJ/FISA corruption against Trump.  This is the race everyone is discussing.

♦ The second race within the Trump impeachment is legal: Pelosi, Schiff and ultimately Nadler -vs- the Judicial branch.   This is the race few are watching, but actually could be far more consequential because it could invalidate the entire HPSCI process.

The aforementioned mid-December House Impeachment Vote is not a vote to impeach President Trump.  It is a vote at the end of their “inquiry”; and a vote to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to begin their “official” impeachment hearings.

The mid-December vote will be to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to begin the “official” impeachment hearings.  Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff need this vote fast; they need this vote before they lose any court case that could make the “impeachment inquiry” invalid.

Additionally, Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler need this full House authorization vote to gain the authority to penetrate the constitutional firewall that protects the separation of power in the “official” impeachment investigation. And they are hoping that any loss in the three pending cases will not undermine the validity of the prior impeachment inquiry…. that’s an issue.

That’s why Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler need to get that mid-December House vote before they lose any SCOTUS ruling.  There are three cases, each of them appears heading to the Supreme Court; one is already there.

♦The first case is the House Oversight Committee 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.  There is a very strong probability Pelosi will lose this case because Oversight doesn’t have jurisdiction and the case began back in February.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. granted the administration’s request to stay the federal appeals court ruling against Mr. Trump until “further order” — for now — as the high court decides whether or not to hear the president’s challenge.

[…] Douglas Letter, general counsel for the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, had sent a letter to the court, agreeing to a brief 10-day stay while the parties filed their court papers debating the need for an injunction while the case is being considered.  (link)

Probability of loss to Pelosi 90%.

♦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  stayed by a three member DC Appellate court.  Oral arguments were November 12th, the decision is pending. [Depending on outcome, the case could will also go to SCOTUS]

[…] the appeals court in a brief order said it would not immediately release the documents “pending further order of the court.” The court also asked the House and the Justice Department for more briefings and set a Jan. 3 date for another hearing.  (link)

Probability of SCOTUS 100% – Probability of loss to Pelosi 80%

♦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.

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. (link)

Probability Appeal 100% – Probability SCOTUS 90% – Probability of loss 50%

Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Lawfare are hoping a full House vote to authorize impeachment will help them retroactively in any judicial decision (court, appeals or SCOTUS).  The only case where that seems possible is the last one; and that has a long way to reach SCOTUS.

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

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

If the House loses the Tax case in SCOTUS (likely), and/or either HJC case in appeals or SCOTUS it will mean there was no constitutional foundation for the “impeachment inquiry”, and the committee approach therein.

Without the constitutional recognition of the judicial branch Pelosi and Schiff’s HPSCI status as a constitutional impeachment process would be fatally flawed. The product from all of that effort could be considered invalid; and possibly the Senate could ignore any House impeachment vote that uses invalid evidence gathered in the fatally flawed process.

This is why Pelosi and Schiff are racing the court for their legal foundation; and simultaneously facing the IG FISA report release for their narrative foundation.


This entry was posted in AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, CIA, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Election 2016, Election 2020, FBI, IG Report Comey, IG Report FISA Abuse, IG Report McCabe, Impeachment, Legislation, media bias, Nancy Pelosi, Occupy Type Moonbats, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Spygate, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, Typical Prog Behavior, Ukraine, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

263 Responses to Two Races – Pelosi and Schiff Are Racing Court Rulings For Impeachment Vote, and IG Report for Narrative…

  1. Curt says:

    If this were a criminal case being heard at your local courthouse the judge or any reputable defense council would laugh it out of the courtroom for lack of any credibility or evidence. Hearsay is NOT evidence……

    Liked by 22 people

    • Pew-Anon says:

      That’s the whole point. This is not a criminal proceeding, or even a judicial proceeding, the avoidance of which is by design, to accommodate all the hearsay and skirt due process.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. islandpalmtrees says:

    Lawfare Group is being funded by China through a proxy, therefore the Lawfare Group is an agent of a foreign power, direct FARA violation. Sundance has written about this problem in a previous article in more detail.

    Even if the court rejects this analysis, he can still potentially stop Pelosi for a time with it..

    Liked by 22 people

    • Orville R. Bacher says:

      The Democratic Party is dancing to Chinese influence. Delaying USMCA means Chinese steel is still being “backdoored” into the USA, via the “made in Canada” and “made in Mexico” ruse.

      Liked by 4 people

  3. islandpalmtrees says:


    AS PREDICTED: Corrupt Mueller Hack Attorney Van Grack Slid Back into DOJ’s FARA Unit — And Is Now Leading FARA Probe Against Rudy Giuliani

    Just last weekend The Gateway Pundit reported on how former Mueller prosecutor Brandon Van Grack was was promoted to head the DOJ’s FARA Unit.
    This is the same government entity that is now investigating President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani.

    In May 2018 The Gateway Pundit contributor Joe Hoft reported on the 13 Angry Democrats on Robert Mueller’s investigative team including Obama donor Brandon Van Grack.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Blasater says:

    This is NOT an impeachment…it’s a COUP… must be treated as such. Where are the White Hats in FedGov? in the Military?

    Liked by 9 people

    • roddrepub says:

      Excellent question. I’m sick of hearing ” there are good men and women in these federal agencies” show me damned! Pardon the language. Enough is enough.

      Liked by 6 people

      • Despicable Me says:

        The good ones are doing what they have always done…..doing their jobs and now additionally abiding by the gag orders that have most likely been put in place. Why you would think good employees are privy to the criminal shenanigans going on is a mystery to me. Corrupt folks simply don’t invite folks who in their estimation are uncorrupted into their schemes and plans and necessarily shield their actions from discovery. Plus there is a lot of stove piping of need to know stuff which can be exploited to hide corrupt acts. As old cops used to say, you don’t catch crooks using Boy Scouts (unless of course the crooks are preying on Boy Scouts). Basically you don’t get the bad guys using good guys but rather get bad guys using other bad (lesser, caught and flipped) guys. Quit harping on the good guys and encouraging them to become like the bad guys by leaking. There are good guys there….just not as many as most of us would like.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Boots says:

          Why you would think good employees are privy to the criminal shenanigans going on is a mystery to me.

          The real question is why you’d say the above, when everyone here knows about all the “criminal shenanigans going on”. If we know about it, you can be almost damned sure the “good employees” know about it.

          Liked by 3 people

          • madeline says:

            “Good” employees in the DOJ…sound like an oxymoron. It all depends on what the word Good means.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Despicable Me says:

            I used the term “knows” which is present tense to refer to knowledge of things that are going on or are on going presently. I was NOT referring (as you seemed to infer or deliberately and wrongly conflate) to knowledge of things which have gone in in the past and are well documented and readily available in the various released IG reports, congressional testimony transcripts, Judicial watch FOIA results, tweets, books and Flynn court filings and CTH. If I had been referring to the past events I would have used the term “knew” (past tense).

            Of course, Captain Obvious, ANY sentient person who takes the time to read the aforementioned documentation can know what happened in the past.

            My position is this and you can take it or leave it:

            There are good USG employees. I was one and I know and worked with dozens like me.

            There are bad USG employees. I was not one but know hundreds who were and I was forced to work with them. We used to say that 20% of the people did 80% of the work. My brother who was a contractor during a short stint said the ratio was more like 10%/90%. He could very well be correct and I was merely fortunate in my experience.

            Good USG employees (as well as many of the bad ones) learned of the coup effort when the general public did

            Good USG employees were not and are not involved in the coup and aren’t privy to current ongoing coup efforts by others within the USG (outside of their ability to listen to testimony in the current televised travesty of an “impeachment inquiry” of relatively recent past coup efforts) If they were/are privy to coup efforts they cooperated or are cooperating with IG Horowitz (or their departments’s IG and/or USA Durham.

            Rigid compartmentalization of programs within various agencies effectively keeps those “without a need to know” from knowing what a particular compartment is doing. This effect can been abused by the unscrupulous and I believe was abused by the coup members. Don’t CTH commentators routinely refer to the “small group” almost as though it is a trademarked term by CTH as a reference to the cabal? Hint: “small group” = compartmentalization. Corrupt people simply don’t invite non corrupt people into their schemes; don’t advertise their activities for all to see; and they seek to shield their activities from any type of oversight.

            But hey, by all means remain convinced that all USG employees are bad and corrupt if that makes you feel better.

            Liked by 2 people

    • John55 says:

      Where are the White Hats in the US Senate? Not a single Republican Senator has stood up for the rule of law over the last three years. Not one.

      Liked by 4 people

    • old white guy says:

      Please, there are no “good” people in any of these agencies. They are liberal democrats to the core and are working to destroy America.


    • Susan Bolle says:

      Many were purged during the previous administration, some harassed and/or charged with crimes if they were important white hats (ex: Rogers/Flynn). Notice also that no one from the Joint Chiefs of Staff have rebuked Vindeman for his outrageous display at the hearings (as of yet).

      Liked by 1 person

    • Janus says:

      Where’s Delta Force when we need them?


  5. Bogeyfree says:

    If it is a race, where is it written that Durham’s indictments must follow the IG FISA Report?

    By waiting Barr allows almost 3 weeks to go by and more importantly the chance that Pelosi and team get to brand PT FOREVER in the history books with the title an impeached President via articles of impeachment.

    Horowitz’s Report is mostly process and procedure irregularities while Barr is all about crimes committed.

    I guess, why rush after all it’s only the President of the United Sates.

    Liked by 6 people

    • FPCHmom says:

      I have been hoping for some indictments to coincide with the IG report. That would be some fireworks.

      Or at least some strategic leaks about pending indictments to scare some of the freshmen congress people off of going over the cliff with Nancy Pelosi.

      Liked by 3 people

    • hokkoda says:

      It’s possible there will be no indictments, right?

      But the Democrats don’t necessarily know that, and the rushed full throttle fake impeachment says they are definitely worried about something.

      To the Sundance list I’ll add:
      – Ginsberg’s failing health
      – Democrat primaries / Iowa

      But they seem exceptionally agitated and rushed which is going to cost them votes if they’re not careful.

      Liked by 8 people

    • Noswamp says:

      I see no way SCOTUS stops this in time. Especially with DeepState patsy Roberts as Chief Justice.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Padric says:

        I’m no fan of Roberts by any stretch, but I have to give him credit here. He was the one that, as far as I can see, unilaterally issued the 10 day stay on the Tax case. Normally it’s put to a vote to issue a stay but there are times when a justice can do it on their own pending a full court review.

        The reason why that 10 day stay is important is that the judge in the McGahn case has said they will rule on the House Judiciary’s request by November 25th, which puts it in that 10 day window. If the Judge rules in favor, the DOJ can then try to appeal directly to SCOTUS, bypassing an appeals court, under the premise that it’s a matter of national importance and going through the normal appeals process would cause irreparable harm because there would be nothing stopping the House from impeaching when the validity of that impeachment is the very heart of their argument.

        SCOTUS normally is pretty loathe to bypass lower courts for a variety of reasons, a lot of which have to do with them wanting to understand what the other judges were thinking when they made their rulings and wanting to have as fleshed out arguments presented to them as possible. But since the McGahn case is really about some pretty bare bones basic constitutional concepts, I wouldn’t be shocked if they took it.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Kintbury says:

        Go to American Thinker this morning they have an article about how Hill made Roberts a witness in her testimony yesterday. Didn’t someone predict that one SC Justice would die and another would resign because of corruption? I pick Alito to take his place.

        Liked by 1 person

    • dallasdan says:

      “By waiting Barr allows almost 3 weeks to go by and more importantly the chance that Pelosi and team get to brand PT FOREVER in the history books with the title an impeached President via articles of impeachment.”

      Barr’s actions, cited numerous times by SD, facilitate elongating the judicial process and protecting the FBI/DOJ from serious criticism.

      Liked by 3 people

    • YeahYouRight says:


      With an asterisk. Because it was corrupt.


  6. noswamp says:

    Barr has realize the game they are playing. Just a little too late.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. The impeachment is a hasty pre-empt of the whole 2016 investigation reports being released. Hence all the claims of “debunked conspiracy” talking points by all these witnesses. They want to get ahead of the real story and try to discredit it.
    DR Fiona Hill was supposed to put the cherry on the sundae.
    Notice how many foreigners are State Dept and other Deep State employees?
    What was our government thinking?

    Liked by 10 people

    • Issy says:

      I have noted that and have been concerned. Too many dual citizenships as well. One thing that stood out to me about the whole Ukraine testimony was there seemed to be more concern for what was best for Ukraine than U.S.

      Of course, we want an ally in the region and one that can defend itself from Russian aggression, but these people so adamantly defending their “interagency policies” of the past went along with a corrupt government. Also, one that seemed to operate as a slush fund for U.S. govt. officials.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Patience says:

        That topic (under the guise of “patriotism) was woven-ly-noted throughout the Schitt-show.
        Hurd, pert near crying… his ‘oh beautiful’ & ‘tell me your grandpa’s suffering; your patriotism saved-you- story’.

        >Robotic Dr. Kill certainly got her long-winded ire up (“George Soros…blah blah blah) yesterday). OOOps!
        Her pigtails on fire story was her “Dear Dad” Vindman letter.

        Subversive ingrates!

        Liked by 1 person

      • David Jasinsky says:

        And Soros!


  8. Elric VIII says:

    The Ukraine/Democrat corruption is becoming public at an accelerating pace. This may be the Democrats’ main bug-a-boo, as well as a number of RINOs.

    Liked by 4 people

    • The President stated “they will soon be on our turf”. The WH released a statement that they support a Senate trial. Trump won’t let this opportunity go to waste as it’s the chance he’s waited 3 decades for to expose the whole lot of them. And best of all, he’s being handed a public forum with which to do it on a golden platter. And in court, no less, where it will all happen in real time, day after day without appeals or SCOTUS delays. The stage will be his and Nancy will rue the day she cooked up her highly flawed scheme.

      No. PDJT is not worried. He is fully prepared and will have all the witnesses he desires including President Zelensky, Mr Shokin and all the other Ukranians who’ve been shafted by US State Department/Obama/Soros.

      The stage is his and I fully expect him to maximize every minute to his advantage. This will be the real show people. And for popcorn lovers, better stock up.

      Liked by 16 people

      • Including President Zelensky, Mr Shokin and all the other Ukranians who’ve been shafted by US State Department/Obama/Soros. YEAH BABY! Can not wait.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ospreyzone says:

        Remember, Senate rules require the minority to agree on what witnesses get called. It’s a rigged game and you’d have to trust Mitch McConnell to change the rules. Do you trust Mitch?

        Liked by 2 people

        • askmeanythinginthelight says:

          Interesting, somet


        • foo says:

          I trust Mitch to be on Mitch’s side, and in this case Trump’s electoral goals align with Mitch’s: “destroy the ability of democrats to win”

          Remember, Mitch is an EXPERT at serving revenge cold. Look what he did with Harry Reid’s filibuster changes.

          Trump’s strength is breaking the frame, Mitch’s strength is abusing the frame to his advantage.

          When their interests align, this results in an unstoppable, impenetrable political force.


      • lookingforinfo says:

        Jordan said as much yesterday.
        No shiffty rules, both he and Pelosi under oath with all the other things breaking around them.
        If they had one iota of sense they would back off, but I don’t think they can now.


      • Issy says:

        Trump should offer a deal to nervous nancie. End it all and I won’t expose everything. He may not want to stop it though, and nancie lives in such a bubble she doesn’t realize there will be collateral damage, mostly to democrats.


      • Janus says:

        Should the impeachment farce reach the Senate, don’t for a moment think Miss Lindsey, the Turtle and Justice-Obamacare-is-a-tax-Roberts will allow Trump maneuvering room to expose the DC-wide coup against him. That ain’t happening.

        A Senate trial will be structured to allow Trump to escape impeachment, but not without some dings–intentionally inflicted by the aforementioned RINO traitors.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Peppurr says:

      Absolutely ! imo


  9. David John Leach says:

    I wonder how the “House Rule XI, Cause 2(j)(1) The Minority Rule on calling witnesses” invocation by the repubs plays into this calendar… if the repubs want to slow things down this would add a day that needs to be done before any impeachment votes

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Peter Noone? says:

    So… if Dems forced impeachment attempt is damage control ahead of revelations they fear more than the potential downsides of a botched impeachment, is that an indication of the quality of the IG revelations / Durham’s criminal investigation?

    Everyone is either themselves with extreme fatalism over these things, but it seems hard to explain Dem behavior with a shoddy impeachment otherwise. They have to know there’s damage incoming, or they wouldn’t push ahead with such a shoddy process.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Maquis says:

    Sure would be nice for some event or move to totally discombobulate these schmucks and break their stride long enough to foil their schemes. I surely don’t feel comfortable placing my hopes on DC courts doing Righteously nor Timely.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. rayvandune says:

    Okay, as I see it Barr can’t act too forcibly on the Van Grack thing and other Pelosi / Lawfare maneuvering, without triggering a chorus of “he’s acting as Trumps personal attorney”. That’s what they want to sell to the public, so he doesn’t want to score an own goal for them.

    BUT… he can signal to everyone, including the media, that they better be careful on which side they line up, by sending out a little message that “shit just got real”.

    And that’s what he just did with the leak about an FBI agent getting indicted for altering a document! From the looks on the faces of the boys at CNN, I’d say the message was received there loud and clear.

    Liked by 3 people

  13. The American Patriot says:

    JUST IN: They lose no matter what!

    Liked by 1 person

  14. The Demon Slick says:

    It’s pretty much what I expected. Pelosi will try to get a win with the judge with the sub saharan sounding name and she delayed the clear loss. My problem is that the Senate has already said that they’re going to hear it. The courts may decide that the Senate by agreeing to go to trial is making it official. Taking whatever nonsense Schiffty puts forward and stamping it “OFFICIAL” I don’t know how that will change anything but I suspect that it may benefit the dems. If Pelosi can rush articles through to the Senate…..? Recess, sure, sure. But it might give her one or both of the cases not yet at SCOTUS.


    • Ospreyzone says:

      Remember, despite outward appearance, Pelosi has Mitch McConnell on her side.

      Liked by 1 person

      • foo says:

        Absolutely not.

        Don’t mistake Mitch’s preference for quietly wielding the process as a club, and his distaste for Trump’s bombast, as “alliance” with Pelosi.

        Remember, this is the man who quietly bided his time before using Reid’s “filibuster reforms” to serve up a crow buffet to senate democrats.

        Trump is great at “breaking the frame”: Mitch is his inverse and excels at abusing the crap out of the frame.

        In this case, Mitch’s electoral victory agenda aligns with Trump’s. It’s a direct analogue of the US teaming with the Soviets to defeat Germany.

        Nobody likes corrupt McTurtle, but we can count on him serving his own corrupt interests by foiling Pelosi.

        Liked by 1 person

  15. Midnite says:

    McCarthy’s letter may provide the instrument to close the window on any impeachment vote this December. Notice how he words the second to last sentence “We will inform you of the witnesses we intend to call once you have provided a hearing date and time to which we agree.” Shiff is being asked to provide a date and time, but there’s also a caveat in there “to which we agree”. You know how scheduling can be a bitch this time of the year…we’re all busy with Christmas shopping and all…sorry can’t make it Tuesday. Is it just possible they sense the urgency of the Dems to move forward and now realize, as SD has so eloquently pointed out, that stalling may be in their best interests?
    Now, if you ask me he really screwed the pooch with his close, so I’m only giving him a 7 overall and it’s because of this “Your failure to schedule this hearing shall constitute evidence of your denial of fundamental fairness and due process.”
    I mean seriously, the whole inquiry is rife with evidence of a lack of “fundamental fairness” and “due process”, so what exactly does he expect Shiff to do, besides what he’s already done? He’s giving him a get out of jail free card here instead of playing hard ball…hmmm on second thought he get’s a 6.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Elle says:

      Good Points.
      “Your failure to schedule this hearing shall constitute evidence of your denial of fundamental fairness and due process.” Pollyanna, were she available, might think that he’s setting Schiff up for a future ethics violation.

      Liked by 2 people

  16. Bigly says:

    I cannot help but recall Chief Justice Thomas explaining his Obamacare vote by arguing something like

    “I don’t think it is the job of the Supreme Court to overturn an election. Elections have consequences”

    Or something like that.

    Seems if he is to be consistent….given the manufactured evidence….and Lawyer…the Coup has started guy….


    • YeahYouRight says:

      Chief Justice Roberts. Yes, that was his justification for allowing the unconstitutional Obamacare to stand as it was shoehorned into place with flaws along strict party lines. Justification is not his job.


    • Issy says:

      Roberts came up with the idea O’ Care was a tax to justify its constitutionality. He’s very creative.


  17. shirley49 says:

    From all I have heard about the testimony at these hearing is that they were all big fat jokes with no substance, so how can they still have an impeachment fraud? Did I miss something? Like PROOF

    Liked by 1 person

    • Issy says:

      I watched most of them, missed snippets but to my knowledge, there was only one witness that gave direct evidence of what Trump said and much of his testimony was based on presumptions. Everything else was hearsay and their arrogant beliefs that Trump must abide by their interagency policy.

      Democrats and proof; you jest. 🙂


  18. Easy as pie. You kidnap a 9th circuit judge and make him order a stay in the “inquiry” until the legal justification for it is done. Yes, I’m kidding about the “9th circuit” part, but ____it, it shouldn’t be that hard to force them to stop, since they are, technically, under investigation themselves. Get it done, incompetents.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Ellis says:

    I see one of two things happening because Pelosi is trapped. She has no impeachable offense and certainly doesn’t want a trial in the senate. This fiasco has been a political disaster for the democrats as Pelosi rightly predicted it would be.

    1. She will allow this to continue and have a vote while allowing swing district congressmen to vote no.
    2. They will settle for censure.

    My guess is option two. Either way Pelosi saves face and can tell the fringe left she tried while at the same time give cover to those in Trump districts to try and salvage their seats and maintain control of the house.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Lt Col Covfefe999 says:

    The Dems’ have now lost control of the process. Sure they can hold their vote, but if they vote to impeach then the mess lands in the Senate and the Dems have zero control there. If the Senate holds a trial (which I hope they do) it will not only interfere with the campaigns of the Dem Senators who are currently running for President it will also allow facts damaging to the Dems to be presented at a very crucial time, in an election year. A Senate trial is a total loser for the Dems. But not impeaching is also a loser for them. 🙂 Good luck, Nancy.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Lt Col Covfefe999 says:

      An impeachment trial doesn’t allow for time off to do campaign events: The Senate rules require that once the trial begins, it must stay in session six days a week (Burr suggested a daily schedule running from 12:30 to 6:30). Perhaps some senators think they could make more hay at an impeachment trial than they could hitting the potluck circuit in Iowa or working street corners in New Hampshire, as the Post suggests: Several senators running for president, including Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), a former state prosecutor, are likely to try to use a trial of Trump as a showcase for their candidacy. Unfortunately, the current Senate rules compel virtual silence from senators during the trial itself, though they are free to run their mouths before it begins and after it ends. During the trial, unless precedents are ignored, all senators get to do is to send written questions to be posed by the House managers or the president’s attorneys, and then stand up and vote “guilty” or “not guilty” when the deal goes down. Not much room for showboating there.

      When propaganda media is reporting a problem for Dems, it’s a big problem.

      Liked by 5 people

  21. Ospreyzone says:

    If you wish you could do more to help PDJT, here is the list of vulnerable democrat representatives who will struggle to keep their seats in districts that President Trump won. I believe they need to be strongly reminded on social media and by telephone that supporting impeachment is a big loser for them. It’s worth a few minutes to message four or five per day until they all understand our anger.

    Joe Cunningham, Ben McAdams, Elaine Luria, Abigail Spanberger, Ron Kind, Antonio Delgado, Anthony Brindisi, Kendra Horn, Matt Cartwright, Conor Lamb, Andy Kim, Josh Gottheimer, Mikie Sherrill, Xochitl Torres Small, Max Rose, Angie Craig, Collin Peterson, Susie Lee, Chris Pappas, Jefferson Van Drew, Dave Loebsack, Cindy Axne, Jared Golden, Elissa Slotkin, Haley Stevens, Tom O’Halleran, Lucy McBath, Lauren Underwood, Cheri Bustos, Abby Finkenauer.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. stylin19 says:

    “If the House loses the Tax case in SCOTUS (likely), and/or either HJC case in appeals or SCOTUS it will mean there was no constitutional foundation for the “impeachment inquiry”, and the committee approach therein.”

    scratchin my head.
    On one hand you talk about “The issue at stake is whether the legislative branch can penetrate the constitutional firewall which exists within the separation of powers.” and yet expect SCOTUS can penetrate its constitutional firewall to the House if it rules against the House.

    Not sure how ruling against the House makes the “impeachment inquiry” invalid.
    Not sure how SCOTUS can forbid what the Constitution expressly allows.

    House can make it’s own rules.


    • jello333 says:

      Yeah, the House could keep on with this charade, they could vote, and they could even get enough votes to pass it on to the Senate. HOWEVER, if the whole process up to that point turns out to be invalid, the Senate can just ignore it and NOT take the case. What Sundance is saying is that if the Supremes rule against the Dems, they are in effect ruling that the House process was invalid as far as official impeachment goes. They’d be saying that CONSTITUTIONALLY it was invalid, and the Senate can just ignore any “articles” that the House passes.

      So yeah, the House can do most whatever they want, but unless they’ve done it in a Constitutional manner, it’s all for show, it means nothing.

      Liked by 1 person

  23. RAkin says:

    I see Nadler having some Health scares over Thanksgiving and needing to be replaced. They will need Schiff to step in over the Judiciary to continue this sham. Poor Jerry, we doesn’t even know how ill he is yet.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. RE the tax returns
    Let’s assume there is some nefarious activity in a tax return from 2014 and they go after him on that. Can you impeach on a private citizens boo boo on taxes doubt it. But even then could Trump sue the IRS for not properly auditing his taxes exposing him to the ridiculous claims?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Pew-Anon says:

      That’s probably the whole point of Trump refusing to release his tax data. It is a practical impossibility for there NOT to be some sort of technical violation in records so vast. There is guaranteed to “something” in there that could be used, technically, as hard evidence of a impeachable offense, and possibly as grounds for revenge prosecution outside of office. I’m beginning to wonder if the whole tax return issue looms much larger in this entire milieu than has been previously suspected.

      Liked by 1 person

    • jello333 says:

      That’s been one of Sundance’s points: The fact that they’re trying to get Trump’s pre-inauguration taxes is just one of the fatal flaws in their logic, and proves what a scam it is.

      Liked by 1 person

  25. tav144 says:

    Even if they get the vote beforehand, once it’s turned over to the Senate they could petition SCOTUS regarding the validity of the House articles of impeachment based on it unconstitutional underpinnings.. They can do that before any trial even starts in the Senate.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. BigTalkers says:

    The 36 or so Dem House members elected from Districts that President Trump carried in his own election are caught in a classic “Catch 22″…

    If/when their Speaker calls up her Impeachment vote, should they not go along they risk, a) access to their party’s campaign funding, b) being primaried, or c) both.

    Yet if they do support Ms Pelosi’s Impeachment with the President appearing at fhe top of their ballot, they could just as easily lose outright.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. lydia00 says:

    And the last time I read comments here a lot of people wanted Jeff sessions back in the Senate. Sigh. Note: he did not clean house AT ALL in the DOJ either and he had been in DC for 20 years. He knew better.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Patience says:

      The question is, HOW could Sessions “clean house”?
      I do not know his voting record, financials, associations, etc,
      he has been instrumental in the swamp clean-out process; intentionally or not.
      Eventually, we will find out who he really is.

      >I hope he a white hat in the guise of a weasel.


    • Issy says:

      I don’t want him back. He is responsible for most of the turmoil over the last three years. When he knew he was being investigated, he should not have accepted the job he had lobbied hard to get. He is weak and ineffective.


  28. BigTalkers says:

    This is also why they embarked on their “Trump-Ukraine” journey (I call it “Trump-Russia II”) in the first place, to propose an alternative media narrative to the upcoming bad news.

    I’ve maintained they missed their opportunity to get clear of “Trump-Russia,” which few of their pols had anything to do with, from the start.

    Looking back at “Watergate,” by distancing themselves from Nixon, four years later the Republicans recaptured the White House.

    But for whatever reason their party leaders chose not to do that, and attempt to defend the indefensible instead…

    “Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!”


  29. Robert W says:

    Due to such massive obstruction by the obama administration, deep state operatives, and dems I think it would be a great argument for an actual third term for President Trump. I think the American people would be for a third term so Trump could actually have an entire term to work as President without such obstruction and tyranny against him and US the People.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. beaujest says:

    Hang Schiff,Nadler no,rope not strong enough!


  31. Kevin Mark Bauer says:

    I wonder where in this timeline the Republicans “Day of witnesses” is going to be fit into all of this. Doesn’t that throw a wrench into this ? I am sure they will call Adam Schiff and as many others they can fit into the day. If Schiff denies them their Day as stipulated under House Rules then they will lose the remaining Democrats in their camp , no ?
    Peace Y


  32. Patience says:

    May be a rise in ‘suicide’
    >Is there an obituary reading czar?


  33. BIT COYNE says:

    I am an ex-prosecutor. Rick Gates said he heard a conversation between Trump and Stone where they talked about WikiLeaks. First it is well known that Trump in his private life never put anyone on speaker phone. Then how could Gates have heard that conversation? He could not. Second he was under great pressure to lie to incriminate the President. Third, Trump ïn written interrogatories, and perhaps not under oath, said “he could not recall a conversation with Stone about Wikileaks” that means” Ï don’t remember”. One rule in a perjury case, the statement has to be “no I did not speak to Stone” Then prove he did THATS PERJURY. No body can be prosecuted for perjury for not remembering. That’s why Mueller did not claim perjury by Trump and nobody can do it now despite what Gates said he court. Gates had already made that statement to Mueller. THAT IS A NOTHING BURGER.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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