Stop everything! Nadler has everything he needs NOW to subpoena testimony and evidentiary materials. That’s not the problem.

Regrettably, Greg Sargent @ThePlumLIneGS, whose political judgments are almost invariably sound and insightful, continues on a tear about how Dems are being forced by Trump into a position whether they have no choice but to impeach. 1/16 https://wapo.st/2vk4TtN

First of all, impeachment without conviction in the Senate (removal from office) is meaningless. It would actually be a huge political victory for Trump, and would enormously complicate things and diminish our chances of defeating him in 2020. 2/16

Second, as commentators with cooler heads have pointed out to Sargent, opening formal impeachment hearings would do nothing to serve the cause of getting grand jury materials or anything else such as testimony from WH officials that the House Dems want. 3/16

One commentator has suggested that it would help to open a formal impeachment *inquiry*, but I fail to see either that this is necessary or that it would accomplish anything. 4/16

A resolution saying that the committee has initiated a “preliminary investigation into whether or not there’s anything in the Mueller Report that would justify impeachment” (a suggestion of Nick Akerman’s) 5/16

‘All Part of the White House’s Cover-Up’: Fmr Watergate Prosecutor Says AG Barr Gave Trump Intel from Mueller ReportA former Watergate prosecutor believes Bill Barr is part of a coverup designed to prevent congressional investigators from obtaining the Mueller report.https://bit.ly/2vk2Q95

Is much better, because it would only notarize for the courts something that everyone understands is ALREADY going on — and no one, including Pelosi’s critics or the WH, has suggested that anything that has happened so far has gotten the impeachment train rolling. 6/16

Bottom line: by law and by all precedents and norms, Congress essentially has a right to all the materials and testimony it has requested as things stand NOW. 7/16

But Trump is stonewalling, and changing what they do or even whatever they call whatever they do in Congress will not do anything to change that — including opening formal impeachment proceedings, which, incidentally, would be a disaster for us. 8/16

You can have what every sane person would call an impeachment inquiry without calling it an impeachment inquiry, and you can have what every sane person would understand to be impeachment hearings without calling them impeachment hearings. 9/16

What one calls it makes no difference to the courts, because courts regard this sort of thing as a political question over which they have no jurisdiction. 10/16

How the House handles this matter and what it calls it or does not call it is not justiciable — subject to court review. (Cf. Nixon v. United States). 11/16 bit.ly/2vmEU4U

If the House Judiciary Committee notifies the Attorney General (or if it comes to that — which it will — the courts), all it has to do is say that it is holding hearings and investigations related to the Mueller Report 12/16

and that needs all the evidentiary material in and behind that report to fulfill its oversight responsibilities. 13/16

(That is essentially what Akerman is recommending, because the House’s constitutional authority and even obligation to impeach if there have been “high crimes and misdemeanors” is always there in the background.) 14/16

Here is a link to a thread where people are thrashing around about this in case you’re interested: 15/16

Grant Stern on Twitter“@BradMossEsq https://t.co/IeOVmwtqAA”https://bit.ly/2viIXzr

And another: 16/16

Brian Beutler on Twitter“Don’t understand this at all. Yes, the House could proceed directly to votes on articles of impeachment, but an impeachment inquiry is an investigation in and of itself, and one that significantly s…https://bit.ly/2vmHF6i

Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & AnalysisBreaking news and analysis on politics, business, world national news, entertainment more. In-depth DC, Virginia, Maryland news coverage including traffic, weather, crime, education, restaurant revie…https://wapo.st/2vk4TtN

First of all, impeachment without conviction in the Senate (removal from office) is meaningless. It would actually be a huge political victory for Trump, and would enormously complicate things and diminish our chances of defeating him in 2020. 2/16

Second, as commentators with cooler heads have pointed out to Sargent, opening formal impeachment hearings would do nothing to serve the cause of getting grand jury materials or anything else such as testimony from WH officials that the House Dems want. 3/16

One commentator has suggested that it would help to open a formal impeachment *inquiry*, but I fail to see either that this is necessary or that it would accomplish anything. 4/16

A resolution saying that the committee has initiated a “preliminary investigation into whether or not there’s anything in the Mueller Report that would justify impeachment” (a suggestion of Nick Akerman’s) 5/16

‘All Part of the White House’s Cover-Up’: Fmr Watergate Prosecutor Says AG Barr Gave Trump Intel from Mueller ReportA former Watergate prosecutor believes Bill Barr is part of a coverup designed to prevent congressional investigators from obtaining the Mueller report.https://bit.ly/2vk2Q95

Is much better, because it would only notarize for the courts something that everyone understands is ALREADY going on — and no one, including Pelosi’s critics or the WH, has suggested that anything that has happened so far has gotten the impeachment train rolling. 6/16

Bottom line: by law and by all precedents and norms, Congress essentially has a right to all the materials and testimony it has requested as things stand NOW. 7/16

But Trump is stonewalling, and changing what they do or even whatever they call whatever they do in Congress will not do anything to change that — including opening formal impeachment proceedings, which, incidentally, would be a disaster for us. 8/16

You can have what every sane person would call an impeachment inquiry without calling it an impeachment inquiry, and you can have what every sane person would understand to be impeachment hearings without calling them impeachment hearings. 9/16

What one calls it makes no difference to the courts, because courts regard this sort of thing as a political question over which they have no jurisdiction. 10/16

How the House handles this matter and what it calls it or does not call it is not justiciable — subject to court review. (Cf. Nixon v. United States). 11/16 bit.ly/2vmEU4U

If the House Judiciary Committee notifies the Attorney General (or if it comes to that — which it will — the courts), all it has to do is say that it is holding hearings and investigations related to the Mueller Report 12/16

and that needs all the evidentiary material in and behind that report to fulfill its oversight responsibilities. 13/16

(That is essentially what Akerman is recommending, because the House’s constitutional authority and even obligation to impeach if there have been “high crimes and misdemeanors” is always there in the background.) 14/16

Here is a link to a thread where people are thrashing around about this in case you’re interested: 15/16

Grant Stern on Twitter“@BradMossEsq https://t.co/IeOVmwtqAA”https://bit.ly/2viIXzr

And another: 16/16

Brian Beutler on Twitter“Don’t understand this at all. Yes, the House could proceed directly to votes on articles of impeachment, but an impeachment inquiry is an investigation in and of itself, and one that significantly s…https://bit.ly/2vmHF6i

The Resistance. Vote Blue: True Blue American. We look forward, they look back. We’re progressive, they’re regressive. @twoodiac