A few days ago, Nadler was being raked over the coals as too weak to do more than

[StarfishSaver]

"send another strongly-worded letter." Now, he's being hailed as a hero.

The reason Nadler and the other Judiciary Democrats were able to do what they did today is that they laid the appropriate, escalating groundwork (including strongly-worded letters) that provided the legal foundation for them to stomp the big foot today.

[elleng]

1. Yes, it's a process,

and that must be noticed.

[tymorial]

2. Keyboard quarterbacking. Its tiresome

[StarfishSaver]

3. "Keyboard quarterbacking"

Great description. And, yes, it is tiring, isn't it?

[Fiendish Thingy]

29. Not as tiresome as keyboard defeatism Nt.

[babylonsister]

4. So are uninformed or overly emotional opinions.

Which everyone is entitled to.

[DemocracyMouse]

19. So nicely put! And funny! Now let's get back to impeaching the bastard!

[NurseJackie]

5. Great phrase.

[BunnyMcGee]

16. Keyboard quarterbacking

That's a perfect description.

[samnsara]

6. hes like that spider that is slowly crawling up your sleeve......

[onetexan]

15. Ive never viewed him as weak, rather the opposite

[DFW]

40. I can confirm your opinion

I have known Jerry for years, and your assessment is quite accurate.

[manor321]

7. But this contempt against Barr does nothing

The contempt against Barr will go to the DOJ, which will do nothing.

Judges would be more willing to give Congress what they want if they had an official impeachment inquiry. But there is no impeachment inquiry.

[2naSalit]

9. In our justice system...

there is a process an a set of actions which must be taken before a case is ready to be heard in a court, of any kind. Yes we can see the criminals in action yet we have to have a case with evidence to back it up. The process takes time, just like good food.

[StarfishSaver]

10. You have no evidence - because there isn't any - that "judges would be more willing to give Congress

what they want it if they had a official impeachment inquiry." That's just an assumption based on no facts whatever.

Judges will expedite a matter if they think it is warranted to expedite it. There is nothing magical about an impeachment inquiry that puts anything on a fast track that wouldn't occur otherwise.

[watoos]

13. I disagree

An impeachment hearing carries more weight.
What happened to Barr was necessary but will not be enforced.
The major issues are McGahn and Mueller testifying in the near future. Dems should have started impeachment hearings before the Mueller report was issued, time is wasting.

[StarfishSaver]

18. An impeachment hearing has no legal standing that will require a court to move any faster

to resolve an issue than it would in connection to any other Congressional hearing.

Fortunately, House Democrats don't share your view of the timetable they should follow.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

8. Jerry's kickin' azz and takin' names!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. He just said on Rachel " we're going to have to wait for this to work its way through the courts"

Despite acknowledging this is a lawless administration, there was No sense of urgency, no sense of determination, just a shrugging "well, we gave it our best shot", as if there were no other stronger measures available...

[StarfishSaver]

12. What "stronger measures" are available to him?

[watoos]

14. Impeachment hearings

[StarfishSaver]

20. What outcome would Nadler obtain with impeachment hearings at this point that he can't get

with the measures he's doing now?

And, fyi - it's not up to Nadler to start impeachment hearings.

[Fiendish Thingy]

24. Are you being coy, or...?

For starters- inherent contempt with imprisonment (no court hearings or delay) for all who obstruct or resist.

Impeachment inquiries/hearings for Barr, Rettig, and Mnuchin.

(Predictable defeatist response in 3,2,1...)

[StarfishSaver]

26. Not being coy. Just asking you to elaborate on your blanket statements

How exactly do you see "inherent contempt" playing out?

How would the House imprison Mnuchin, Barr, etc.? (And please don't say, "Send the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest them." That doesn't mean anything. Explain exactly how the arrest and imprisonment would be carried out).

How would it ensure the Judiciary Committee obtains what it's seeking any more quickly or effectively than going to court?

[DallasNE]

17. Some Thought Nancy

Was micromanaging too much but in her own words she told us she was moving forward strategically and this is the result

[StarfishSaver]

21. She knows exactly what she's doing

Unlike the "keyboard quarterbacks" who've never played the game and don't even know all of the rules of the sport, sitting out in the parking lot listening to the game on the car radio, pissed off because the coach and players aren't running the plays they think they should and determining that everyone on the field is just an idiot.

[pazzyanne]

22. Ab-so-lute-ly!

I have faith in our Democratic representatives and their following the process to the nth degree. A properly laid groundwork has a much better chance of producing better results. We, unfortunately, have become people who have no patience and do not play for the end game. Thank heavens our Democratic leaders are playing for the end game.

[StarfishSaver]

23. Hear Hear!

[briv1016]

25. So what happens when Barr tells him to pound sand?

How many people have gone to jail for contempt of congress?

[StarfishSaver]

27. What is your alternative plan?

[briv1016]

30. Impeachment hearings.

But that might be "politically risky."

[StarfishSaver]

32. How would impeachment hearings be more likely to get Judiciary the unredacted report

and Barr's testimony than what the committee's doing now?

[briv1016]

34. Because these contempt charges will be forgotten by next week.

Impeachment hearings will last months. Much more difficult to stonewall and prevent leaks for that long.

[StarfishSaver]

37. Contempt charges and hearings (whether impeachment or otherwise)

Are two totally separate things.

Contempt charges are an enforcement tool that are used as part of an effort to compel testimony or production of documents in connection with an investigation or hearing. If the House started impeachment hearings tomorrow and subpoenaed testimony or documents that the administration refused to provide, they would be subject to contempt charges, just as they are now.

This notion that "impeachment hearings" are some kind of magical process that would lead to doors being flung open, tongues unleashed, documents pouring in and information spilling out is just a fantasy having nothing to do with reality.

In fact, impeachment hearings are no more likely to produce the results you seem to think will occur than the investigatory process that's happening now. And impeachment hearings are not a replacement for or better process than contempt charges since the two are altogether different things.

[Thekaspervote]

28. Thank you for you post... Dems are playing the long game, that's good- nail em in the end

[briv1016]

31. Worked great during the Bush administration.

[StarfishSaver]

33. Yes

And I'm so glad the Democrats are resisting the Trump team's attempts - that are wittingly and unwittingly being egged on by some on our side - to goad them into prematurely pulling the impeachment trigger before they've got their aim and ammunition.

[regnaD kciN]

35. You mean we're "keeping our powder dry"...?

[StarfishSaver]

38. No. I meant exactly what I said.

[uponit7771]

36. How does today's actions compel Benedict Donald et al to do anything? tia

[StarfishSaver]

39. It doesn't by itself

But it's a necessary step for getting a court order to compel Barr to comply or to enforce inherent contempt, if they decide to go that route. The Judiciary Committee can't just ask for something and then if they don't get it, simply go out and arrest someone.

This is a process and certain things must be done in a specific order for it to be legal.

[uponit7771]

41. What are the steps to accountability? I think if that gets addressed then the want of "now" gets

... mitigated to a degree because people know what to expect.

Impeachment and "inherent contempt" aren't quick fixes then what is the process for the slow fix so we can hold our criminal president and government accountable?

"Trust them" isn't why America was founded, we'll trust but verify which is our minimal duty.

How do we verify that the steps to hold Red Don accountable are being followed

Regards

[corbettkroehler]

42. I Shared Your Impatience And Adoration For The Results Thus Far

I had the honor of bumping into Chairman Nadler in Penn Station in Midtown a few years ago. I found him thoughtful.