Rachel pointed out the meaning to Chairman Nadler's methodologically extending deadlines.

[Ninga]

She noted his careful and measured approach is for one reason and one reason only.

The courts.

Ninga says:
Nadler is papering the file so to speak. He is giving witnesses, the IRS and the WH every possible chance to reply, show up, turn over docs.

So that when he goes to court, the judge can say pony up, the Chairman gave you the benefit of doubt.

I cannot imagine the heartfelt stress the Democrats are living with....

[manor321]

1. I understand that, but an impeachment inquiry strengthens it further

The House could be following the exact same steps under an official impeachment inquiry, AND the courts likely would give the House more deference for a formal impeachment inquiry.

The impeachment proceedings should begin immediately. There is no excuse for delay.

[Ninga]

4. You may be right. The Dotard's escalating arrogant criminal behaviors will not stop.

It may be a matter of time before they move forward.

Nadler and Pelosi want to have as strong a foundation as possible to stand on.

I would not want to be a part of that decision making process for sure!

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. The Constitution can't wait. Nt

[pnwmom]

20. I think they are waiting for Mueller's testimony, which they expect within the next couple weeks. nt

[UniteFightBack]

2. I do agree with this approach. It's very important to follow procedure. However, if it gets caught

up in the courts for years well that won't do and we'll be forced to open impeachment hearings...not proceedings - hearings.

[TwilightZone]

5. It's going to be in the court system for lengthy periods of time regardless.

Impeachment isn't a magic wand. It won't stop the WH from stonewalling and everything will end up in the court system either way. The only difference is that the courts *may* give a bit more deference to claims made under impeachment requests than the usual, but the jury is still out on whether it will play out that way in reality.

There's a reason Trump and the GOP have been packing the courts.

[UniteFightBack]

7. Impeachment fasts tracks everything. nt

[TwilightZone]

8. Normal rules don't apply to Trump.

We should know that by now. There's little reason to believe he'll follow court orders, regardless of the source or the context.

It's not going to be a quick process. Those who insist that it will be are likely to be disappointed.

[UniteFightBack]

10. I don't think it will be quick but it's going to be the only option. nt

[Fiendish Thingy]

14. The rules under impeachment haven't been tested under Trump

We would certainly find out how honest/corrupt Roberts/SCOTUS are.

As much as Trump wants to run out the clock, opening an impeachment inquiry gives priority to any impeachment related rulings, whereas without an inquiry, things would indeed plod along like any garden variety disagreement between branches of government.

[StarfishSaver]

23. What do you think can be "fast tracked" that would move more slowly

under normal procedures?

[onenote]

30. The Nixon subpoena case was decided in around thre months

From the date the subpoena issued to Supreme Court decision.

[StarfishSaver]

33. That doesn't answer my question

The Supreme Court had been ruling on Watergate matters expeditiously well before impeachment proceedings began.

Also, the primary reason that the Supreme Court ruled the one at it did in that case was that the plaintiffs had laid the right groundwork for months leading up to the case. The Judiciary Committee didn't suddenly start it's impeachment inquiry, issue a subpoena, go to court and then BOOM! Nixon resigned.

The reason the tapes were important was that they conclusively corroborated what John Dean had testified to the year before in the Senate hearings - and the only reason anyone knew about the tapes was that Alexander Butterfield revealed their existence during those earlier hearings.

Had the impeachment hearings started without the other hearings, we would very possibly have had a very different outcome.

[onenote]

36. What other Watergate-related rulings did the Supreme Court make before impeachment

proceedings began?

[StarfishSaver]

37. I was mistaken

It was the Court of Appeals, the court directly below the Supreme Court, that had issued previous rulings in the Watergate case.

However, my point stands. The ruling in US v. Nixon was not triggered by "fast tracked" because of the impeachment proceedings. In fact, that case arose before the impeachment inquiry and it was completely unrelated to the impeachment. The case was brought by the special prosecutor to enforce his subpoena for the tapes. It was not brought by the Judiciary Committee and was not in any way connected to the committee's impeachment inquiry.

There is nothing about an impeachment investigation that gives a court any reason to expedite a ruling that would not apply to any other House or Senate investigation.

Now I've answered your question, please answer the one I asked you: What do you think can be "fast tracked" that would move more slowly more slowly under normal procedures?

[onenote]

38. The point of my post was that people expect it to take 2 years for the courts to rule on Congress'

subpoenas.

I think the courts would respond positively to motions to expedite the proceeding, including a motion to bypass the court of appeals (something that the Supreme Court agreed to in US v Nixon and currently in the census question case).

[StarfishSaver]

39. The possibility that a court might respond positively to a request to expedite a ruling

because an impeachment process is underway does not mean that "impeachment fast tracks everything."

In fact, if a case ends up in the hands of the wrong judges, impeachment could also have exactly the opposite effect.

[mopinko]

15. i dont see how the courts get involved in impeachment hearings.

i guess spanky can try to cling to his packed courts, but i dont see why the committee would stop or even slow down.
wont provide evidence? witnesses? documents?
fine, we add that to the articles. we make our best judgement on the available evidence, and then vote. the court cant order the house to do jack shit, as far as i can tell.

i think we should get barr first. all the fun, all the dirt, all the facts in the sunshine, without the risk of having spanky escape removal and becoming a folk hero.

we will be pushed to impeachment. it should all be about lining up those ducks for that.

[TwilightZone]

29. For the same reason they get involved now.

Because Trump and his admin will stonewall. Impeachment isn't some magic wand that is going to make Trump cooperate. I'm not sure why so many seem to believe otherwise.

"the court cant order the house to do jack shit"

It's not the House that they'll need to order to do shit. It's the administration.

[mopinko]

32. if he fails to cooperate, he can still be convinced.

there is no reason for the house to wait around while he stalls.

[TwilightZone]

3. Agreed.

Nadler knows what he's doing and he understands the system. He also knows how to anticipate how the process will play out. It's pretty clear that all of this stuff is going to end up working its way through the courts, and as Rachel noted, eliminating excuses or reasons to dismiss or refer back is important.

But then, that requires that we have a little patience, and that's not our strong suit here at DU.

[Ninga]

6. *sigh* yes. We are readers and thinkers and patriots here at DU.

[TwilightZone]

11. It's a very complicated process that we're trying to make simple.

It just doesn't work that way. I get the frustration many express at the pace, but I find it more useful to acknowledge that the process is a necessary evil and preparation is incredibly important.

[ehrnst]

9. Nadler and Pelosi know their shit. I'm glad neither one has aspirations to higher office

so that they feel free to do things the best way, the smartest way, even if it may not be apparent to an impatient public.

[empedocles]

12. Agreed. Pelosi and Nadler know what they are doing.

Back when JFK had his vaunted 'the best and the brightest' appointees - an old experienced pol remarked, best as I remember, I wish one of those [best and brightest] had successfully won an election for Sheriff'.

[Pols tend to know and feel something about voting publics. I have great respect for Tribe and Wittes, and more, however, we've got pol pro's on our side. Lets respect and actually listen to them, and learn how serious their deep dilemma is]

[Nevermypresident]

16. ...and while we're giving them every chance, the clock keeps ticking which is in their favor.

Will the judge(s) not recognize that the constitution provides them oversight duties?!?!?!?!?!?!

Besides, how many "chances" are enough? They're running down the clock...

[Ninga]

18. I understand where you are coming from. This

is why I appreciate the deliberation the Dems must
constantly be conducting.

Right now they have determined the courts to be their most important audience.

It matters not how right they are,they know they must satisfy the judicial process.

[Nevermypresident]

21. Can you explain what "judicial process" you are referring to? My understanding is our

Constitution provides the House the authority to do oversight. If the witness doesn't comply, the constitution provides them subpoena power.

Are we looking to litigate what is already provided in the Constitution? If so, why?

Besides, it's been obvious this all was headed to the courts anyway. So again, just how many "chances" are enough? How much time are we going to eat up with this unsuccessful (to date) "process" of asking over and over? Again, our Constitution already provides Nadler, etc. the remedy.

[Ninga]

25. Example: Nadler files contempt charges for not turning over etc. Judge sez, Nadler you know only

gave them 2 hours to comply. Not good enough.

When Nadler files contempt charges filled with time after time requests, showing how the committee granted delays etc it gives the judge meat for the ruling.

[Nevermypresident]

31. Thank you. My exception is "two hours" vs. the actual reality of what has transpired so far,i.e.

By March 1, 2019, Elijah Cummings, Chair of House Oversight Committee asked White House staff if the Kelly and McGahn memos on Jared Kushner's security clearance exist. White House staff refused to confirm or deny—three times.



On March 1st, Cummings said, "To date, the White House has not produced a single document or scheduled a single interview," he said. "The committee expects full compliance with its requests as soon as possible, or it may become necessary to consider alternative means to compel compliance."

March 1st was 64 days ago.!!

[Ninga]

35. Point well made! Now that I've thought about it

maybe Dems are closer to filing...

[StarfishSaver]

41. You're right

I posed this scenario in a thread a few days ago:

If the committee tried to get a contempt ruling against Barr without a showing that it tried to obtain his testimony through its standard invitations, the short-and-sweet hearing would go something like this:

"Your Honor. We are here to request the Court find the Attorney General in contempt of Congress for failure to appear before the Committee on the Judiciary pursuant to a lawfully-issued subpoena"

"What steps did you take to secure Mr. Barr's appearance prior to issuing the subpoena?"

"Your Honor, the Committee invited the Attorney General to testify, pursuant to its rules. He accepted. However, when he learned that a Committee Counsel would ask the questions, he withdrew his acceptance. We thereupon approved the issuance of a subpoena by a majority vote of the Committee."

Did you make any other attempt to compel his appearance after issuing the subpoena?"

"No."

"You didn't try to work it out with the Justice Department?"

"No."

"Did you respond to him after he said he wouldn't appear under those terms?"

"No."

"Not even a letter?"

"No. We didn't see the point. We know they're not going to cooperate."

"You know that's not how it works, Counsel. You have to try to find a solution before you come to me to enforce a subpoena. If, after good faith effort, the Attorney General still refuses, we will revisit it. But I'm not going to issue a contempt ruling until you exhaust all of your remedies. We're adjourned." Bang Bang (that's the gavel)

Nadler knows exactly what he’s doing.

[barbtries]

17. me too.

i had a chance to talk with Rep David Price (D-NC) at our district convention last Saturday. It's on his face. he argued that impeachment will not result in conviction because of the republicans so our best chance is 2020. I argued otherwise. but it's clear that the Republicans in Congress are every bit as bad as we imagine.

[MineralMan]

19. Yes. Exactly.

At some point, we say, "Look, we've asked you nicely six times to comply with the Constitution. You have failed to do so, and that means that we are now forced to compel you to comply. Please go with this man in uniform."

[Ponietz]

22. The longer the 'methodology' takes, the less likely RBG will be there to rule on it n/t

[StarfishSaver]

24. Most people aren't paying close attention

Last edited Sat May 4, 2019, 02:28 PM - Edit history (1)

and think of all this as a big political fight between the parties. I think that if Democrats started impeachment proceedings right now, a large segment of the American public would dismiss it as a political stunt by the Democrats tune it out.

The press wouldn't help given its propensity to turnit into a sports match IMPEACHMENT 2019 DAY TWO! keeping daily score of who's up who's down, playing their false equivalence objectivity game, giving equal time to "the other side" to explain why we didn't hear and see what we just saw and heard and why it doesn't prove anything anyway, etc.

The Democrats are smart to proceed with hearings and investigations just as they would be doing through the impeachment process but in several committees covering many issues. They are showing the public, outside of the impeachment process, how corrupt and unfit this president is and compiling substantial evidence to be used in impeachment inquiry and trial, when the time comes.

I'm glad Rachel Maddow gets it - and I hope she can do a better job of explaining it to impatient Democrats than I have.

[Ninga]

26. ''Tis a mess for sure. Nt

[Control-Z]

27. When you say:

"I cannot imagine the heartfelt stress the Democrats are living with...."

I'm assuming you mean the Democratic leaders. Nadler and the other Democratic Representatives serving on House committees. Because, you know, it sounds kind of funny coming from another democrat. Lol.

[Ninga]

28. Good catch! Why don't I just go ahead and add Democrats writ large to Congressional Dems

and say that all of us are living very stressful days!

[Control-Z]

34. That pretty much covers it.

Honestly, though, I'd bet money there are republicans who feel the same but aren't allowed to say as much. I believe a lot of republican women vote the way their spouses tell them.

[MadDAsHell]

40. 8 dimensional intergalactic chess. I'm so sick of decades of intergalactic chess.

I'd much rather have a spine than be a good chess player.

[StarfishSaver]

42. Not intergalactic chess. Just the law and court procedures and practice

Nadler knows what to do to make it much more likely that the House isn’t just spinning its wheels and putting on a show for the crowd but not actually accomplishing anything. And he certainly knows what he’s doing much better than people watching from the sidelines.

And I have a feeling that the Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary has at least as much spine as you do.