Michael Conway, Former counsel, U.S. House Judiciary Committee scathing opinion piece on Impeachment

[Laura PourMeADrink]

I checked first. Conway is not a right-winger and has appeared on MSNBC.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/house-democrats-impeachment-rules-vote-isn-t-serious-effort-sanction-ncna1051891

snip

For months, Democrat leadership has slow-walked the prospect of an impeachment inquiry by employing a delay-riddled strategy of filing lawsuits to obtain documents and secure the testimony of witnesses before ever officially authorizing an impeachment inquiry. Instead, in court-filed complaints seeking the release of secret grand jury materials and the testimony of former White House counsel Donald McGahn, lawyers for the committee allege that an impeachment inquiry is simply happening.

snip
First, as any first-year law student will attest, lawyers’ statements in a complaint are only allegations — not proof. If the federal judges hearing the two cases against the Trump administration’s claims of privilege demand proof that an impeachment inquiry exists, there isn’t any to provide them. Unlike the impeachment proceedings against Nixon and Bill Clinton, the House has not voted to institute a proceeding.

And neither public statements by the committee chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., that an impeachment inquiry is underway nor references to such an investigation in the text of Thursday’s resolution is or will be enough. They are contradicted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s repeated public statements opposing an impeachment inquiry and the failure of the full House to vote to institute an impeachment inquiry.

Second, the committee’s judicial strategy to investigate before an official impeachment investigation entails months of delay — perhaps up to the 2020 elections — with an uncertain outcome.

[LakeArenal]

1. I believe more and more members are siding with impeachment

At least the inquiry.
🤷🏼‍♀️

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. The House was supposed to vote today on impeachment. n/t

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. Really? thought it was just the Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

[dixiegrrrrl]

8. arrgh

Yes, the Committee, but I am pretty sure that last week they said Wed.
but
if it is not the news today, then I was off on the date too.

[StarfishSaver]

3. "As any first-year law student will attest, lawyers' statements in a complaint are only allegations"

Wow. This is a stunning comment coming from a lawyer.

Any first year law student, and certainly a practicing lawyer, knows that the statements by House lawyers aren't "allegations." They are representations made under oath to a court about the nature of a proceeding. The house is not " ledging that it's conducting an impeachment inquiry. It is informing the court that it is doing so. Those are two different things. Conway surely knows this. If he doesn't, he doesn't need to be practicing law. if he does know it, he's being disingenuous and is actually making a specious argument that Trump will try to Make two further stone wall the process. Fortunately, the court will know better.

The idea that the Judiciary Committee can't conduct an impeachment inquiry unless the House votes to authorize it in advance is ridiculous. He certainly knows that, too. And so do the people who have been impeached and removed from office pursuant to impeachment proceedings that originated in the Judiciary Committee without advance authorization by the full House or a public acknowledgement by the Speaker of the House.

[Vinca]

4. Guess he missed that "unindicted co-conspirator" tag in the Cohen court documents.

That, alone, is reason to impeach starting now.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

7. And telling people it's ok to break law he will pardon them - just build the damn wall.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

6. He's got quite the credentials. Don't think he meant that they can't start but that

position in courts weakened for the reasons he states. Perhaps why committee actually voting on Thursday?

Bio
https://www.foley.com/en/people/c/conway-michael-m

Michael has been Peer Review Rated as AV® Preeminent™, the highest performance rating in Martindale-Hubbell's peer review rating system. He is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and is listed in Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business (2008-2014). From 1991 to 2014, he has been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® in the field of first amendment law* and has been selected for inclusion in the Illinois Super Lawyers® lists (2005, 2007-2014). Only five percent of the lawyers in the state are named by Super Lawyers.* For 38 years, he has focused his practice on media, commercial arbitrations, business disputes, corporate and federal tax litigation with a particular emphasis on emergency injunctive cases. More than 200 reported decisions in the federal and state court systems have involved civil cases in which he had primary litigation responsibility at the trial court or on appeal, including First Amendment, commercial, business tort, ERISA, RICO, airport environmental, and federal tax disputes: