Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

DOJ Uses Impeachment Confusion Against House Democrats In Dispute Over Mueller Grand Jury Material

DOJ Uses Impeachment Confusion Against House Democrats In Dispute Over Mueller Grand Jury Material

“House Democrats’ attempt to access Mueller’s grand-jury information hinges on the courts acknowledging that they are conducting an impeachment investigation”

https://youtu.be/y5susJNbV9s?t=117

National Democrats are having a tough time.  They were blind-sided by President Trump’s 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton and haven’t yet managed to regain a sense of equilibrium.  They are still operating, to borrow a phrase from poker, on tilt.

Here’s the definition of tilt that best captures the Democrats since 2016:  “After a bad beat or an extended (real or imagined) downswing, you lose control over your game. You play too loosely because you are fuming.”  On tilt, one’s emotions take over, hubris and wildly ill-conceived decisions follow, and big losses are all but guaranteed.

We’ve seen this throughout the past three years in everything from the rabid #Resistance to the #MeToo movement to the Russian collusion hoax to pretty much every word uttered or printed by either Democrats or the leftstream media.

An activist writer at the Washington Post is stunned that he writes and writes about Orange Man Bad, yet Trump is still in office.  Meanwhile, activist anchors on CNN and MSNBC regaled the nation for two years with the “walls closing in” and the end being nigh for Trump.  They weren’t.  It wasn’t.

One of the best examples of the Democrats’ post-2016 “tilt” is their increasingly insane approach to impeachment.  They want Trump gone because Orange Bad Man.

They don’t know and can’t agree on exactly what grounds there are for impeachment, so we get garbled nonsense.  They haven’t uncovered an impeachable offense, so the “impeach him now” wing has settled on shouting that Trump has committed “crimes” and that he’s “guilty.” Of stuff.

This wing is also insistent that they are pursuing an “impeachment inquiry”/”formal impeachment proceeding.”  These are nebulous, invented terms that seem to mean pretty much what Maxine Waters said back in early 2017: the evidence is there, she felt it!, so they need an investigation to find the impeachable offense.  This seems to be mollifying the base.  A little bit.  For now.

The other wing is more pragmatic; this is the Pelosi wing that wants to beat Trump at the polls next November.  They want Trump gone, but they recognize that the witch hunt being offered by the “impeachment now” wing as red meat to the base is . . . just that.

It won’t fly with even moderate Democrats and will never fly with Republicans who still support Trump in record numbers.  They’re going along with this “impeachment inquiry” charade but are also distancing themselves from any actual talk of impeachment.

This tangled web of political hackery is about to implode on Democrats, however.  Not only is Nancy Pelosi stomping out of pressers rather than answering tough impeachment questions from the activist media (who want Trump impeached for any reason or, seemingly, for no reason if one can’t be found).  However, Democrats’ utter confusion on the issue is (ironically) stalling their phony “impeachment inquiry.”

House Democrats are attempting an already questionable move to access Grand Jury information, and their grounds for seeking it don’t seem to exist.

Politico explains in their piece entitled “DOJ cites Dems’ mixed-up impeachment messages to undercut House probe”:

The Justice Department on Friday flatly rejected House Democrats’ claim that they’re in the midst of an “impeachment investigation” into President Donald Trump, pointing to the scattershot messaging by Democratic leaders in recent days — even citing Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s reluctance to use the term at a news conference just a day ago.

In a new court filing on Friday, Justice Department lawyers argued that the House Judiciary Committee’s effort to obtain former special counsel Robert Mueller’s most sensitive secrets — evidence and testimony collected by a grand jury — should be denied, in part because House Democrats can’t agree on what to call their investigation.

“Most prominently, the speaker of the House has been emphatic that the investigation is not a true impeachment proceeding,” the lawyers wrote, citing Pelosi’s June statement that Democrats were “not even close” to such a move.

House Democrats’ attempt to access Mueller’s grand-jury information hinges on the courts acknowledging that they are conducting an impeachment investigation.

Since Democrats themselves can’t seem to acknowledge as one voice that they are conducting an impeachment investigation, courts may find it hard to do so, as well?

Further muddying the waters for Democrats is their own admission that they have no idea what outcome is likely from their blind-faith “impeachment inquiry.”

Politico continues:

. . . . The Judiciary Committee argued in late July that their impeachment investigation satisfies one of the exceptions to federal grand jury secrecy rules: that the House is engaged in an “impeachment investigation” and therefore is taking an action preliminary to a “judicial proceeding” — the Senate’s trial on whether to remove Trump from office.

But the Justice Department rebuffed that claim on Friday, citing inconsistent statements from senior Democratic leaders — as well as their own claims that the ongoing investigation might lead to innumerable outcomes other than an impeachment vote.

“The committee’s own description of its investigation makes clear that it is too far removed from any potential judicial proceeding to qualify,” the filing states.

“As the committee’s chairman has stressed—and as the speaker of the House and the House majority leader both reiterated this week—the purpose of its investigation is to assess numerous possible remedial measures, including censure, articles of impeachment, legislation, Constitutional amendments, and more,” it continues. “What may come of this investigation—if anything—remains unknown and unpredictable.”

So far, Democrats seem to have pulled off their schizophrenic impeachment messaging in which they tell the base one thing and the moderates another, but that is going to come to an explosive head when their cynical deception is revealed. And it will be.  Their base is following the hoax impeachment inquiry just as ardently as they tuned into the activist media’s constant coverage of the Russia collusion hoax.

Democrats don’t yet seem concerned about this, however, and maybe they needn’t be. After all, where is the base going to go?  Certainly not to Trump.  Instead, senior Democrats are reportedly more worried about how their disingenuous political hackery looks in court.

Politico continues:

Senior Democrats expressed concern this week that the lack of a unified message on impeachment could hurt their prospects in court, as they seek access to Mueller’s secret files and testimony from his key witnesses, which they say is necessary in order to determine whether Trump should be impeached.

Even if a judge determined that the House activities were close enough to a preliminary impeachment probe, the Justice Department’s lawyers went further, arguing that impeachment itself — and a removal trial in the Senate — would still fall short of an exception to grand jury secrecy.

“[I]mpeachment proceedings in Congress — including hypothetical removal proceedings in the Senate — are not ‘judicial proceedings’ under the plain and ordinary meaning of that term,” they wrote.

Who will be the scapegoat when all of this finally seeps through to the base?  Will Nadler be the new Mueller, once the hero to be and then the big disappointment?  Or will Pelosi feel the bite as the one who has (surprisingly) been the cool voice of reason on this issue?  Or maybe Democrats can make “the courts” the fall guy?

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

The Evil Fat Clown is going rogue.

but one has to wonder what “crime” the Democrats in the House think they are going to find in the Grand Jury information

if there was a there there, then the Mueller team of Dems would have used it against Trump, no?

this is probably some loop-around attempt to try and reveal sensitive information on Trump’s associates more than anything on Trump himself

    artichoke in reply to fishstick. | September 14, 2019 at 9:17 pm

    Yes, fishing, looking for collateral troublemaking as Mueller did, but without even the level of oversight Mueller had in a headless DOJ.

    This is, in spirit, highly unconstitutional. I don’t know why their constituents put up with it. Don’t they want to still have a country?

      oldgoat36 in reply to artichoke. | September 14, 2019 at 9:58 pm

      Their constituents are true believers who have been calling for Trump to be impeached from before he took office.
      They are not really any different than Mad Maxine and her “impeach fodee fie”.
      The left have truly gone insane. They went from having a mental disorder to full blown insanity because they cannot accept the results of a rigged election still going against them.

    Milhouse in reply to fishstick. | September 15, 2019 at 12:32 am

    but one has to wonder what “crime” the Democrats in the House think they are going to find in the Grand Jury information

    if there was a there there, then the Mueller team of Dems would have used it against Trump, no?

    An impeachable “high crime” is not necessarily an actual crime. It can simply be something Congress believes a president ought not to do. If I recall correctly, several of the counts against Nixon were not crimes.

      This is accurate and is causing much of the hilarity. Anti-Trump lefties want him impeached because. Normal Democrats are horrified and completely understand the political disaster such a knee-jerk reaction would spawn and the future fall-out (well, gee, that Democrat president sure does look orange or purple or maybe s/he said something that was objectionable, IMPEEACH NAOW! Purple president bad.). They’re not all morons, but enough of them are that we need to pay attention . . . particularly to the not-morons.

        This playing around with language is what has killed their attempt to get the Grand Jury information. An exception allows it to be released for “judicial proceedings”, but if the subject is alleged behavior that is NOT actually a crime, then that is a purely political procedure, NOT a “judicial proceeding”. And therefore, the DOJ is correct and legally justified in blocking their access to any legally privileged information.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | September 16, 2019 at 11:14 am

      Considering the leftist partisans in the FBI were talking about stopping Trump well before the election and then the rest started talking about impeachment shortly after the election, Trump’s “high crimes and misdemeanors” consisted only of this. He beat their precious. Hillary Clinton the Democrat was supposed to win. And one thing a Republican President is not supposed to do in the eyes of the congressional Dems is beat their historic first (fill in the blank) when she clearly had it in the bag.

    jakee308 in reply to fishstick. | September 15, 2019 at 12:59 pm

    What they’re doing is to attempt to redefine certain actions that Trump is allowed to take as President and frame them as if a crime has taken place then they get the obfuscation charge.

    Trouble it there has to be an underlying crime and that’s what they’re going to try and redefine.

    Many people don’t understand how the law actually works they substitute what seems to be logic and that’s not the basis of law. The basis of law is previous law, precedent and legal definitions. These can change from law to law unless they aren’t defined then general definitions MAY be applied.

    This is why they can’t frame these hearings as Impeachment hearings because first they have to take testimony on record that they can then twist so that they can charge a crime has taken place. Then they’ll hold an impeachment hearing.

    Luckily, I don’t think they have the time nor the means to succeed in this but they hope the act of investigation and the daily reporting will take votes away from Trump. That along with other quasi legal means to increase their vote will perhaps get them a win.

    Well at least this hasn’t been a boring Presidential term.

The Democrats are showing themselves to be some really ugly people…

which they say is necessary in order to determine whether Trump should be impeached.

Oops, screwed the pooch there. This is an admission that they are, in fact, not investigating high crimes or misdemeanors, but are actually just hunting for witches.

For a bunch of lawyers, these guys seem awfully amateurish.

“[I]mpeachment proceedings in Congress — including hypothetical removal proceedings in the Senate — are not ‘judicial proceedings’ under the plain and ordinary meaning of that term,” they wrote.

Yes, impeachment is a political act. To me this is obvious. I’ve said the House is conducting real impeachment hearings, because “real impeachment hearings” can be any sort of hearings held by the House or, in the case of Watergate, actually it was in the Senate for some reason I don’t understand.

Nixon had not been (and never was) impeached, and yet it was the Senate Judiciary Committee holding hearings, with Sen. Sam Ervin and Sen. Howard Baker getting tons of TV time.

    oldgoat36 in reply to artichoke. | September 14, 2019 at 10:04 pm

    Which was all about reducing any support Nixon had, and Nixon had been pretty popular till the Watergate thing broke.
    The politicians feared Nixon, and wanted to get him no matter what.
    The hearings were about having stories everyday that would sound bad on the news which was the only source people had then.
    The left believed they could pull the same stunt on Trump and have him resign. They believed if they piled on Trump the way Nixon was treated, he would throw in the towel. They didn’t know what to do when Trump called them on it, and showed the contempt the propaganda wing of the DNC has for truth over their political beliefs.
    Watergate was a show to depose a “king”.

      Except there were real crimes in Nixon’s case. He had a team in his basement working to steal the election, financed by bags of $100 bills out of Nixon’s election funds!

      It’s not clear if anything illegal was intended, but then they got caught in a burglary. This looked more like poor supervision than criminality emanating from the top, and if Nixon had immediately made the whole mess public (before the election), admitted he was at fault for turning idiots loose on a mission, and allowed the justice system to go ahead and hand his men the short jail sentences and probation a burglary conspiracy would normally earn in those days, Nixon would have only lost a few votes. Say, 57% instead of 60%, because the Democratic ticket was clearly insane…

      Instead, Nixon went full-on into a coverup, becoming responsible for obstructing justice, and implicating his top staff in this crime. I have no idea why the Senate was leading the investigation instead of the House, but amongst all the unprovable allegations, it did expose Nixon’s clear involvement in real crimes.

There were multitudes of impeachable offences and Nadler should start impeachment proceedings

Except one small problem – Hillary wasnt elected.

So if the House was investigating a crime which the President was implicated in, they *might* be able to access any grand jury testimony that applies.

But they aren’t, because he isn’t, so they can’t.

Folks, you will NEVER have a handle on this without understanding the fundamental thing: Impeachment is NOT a legal proceeding; it’s a political one. If 50%+1 of the House and 2/3+1 of the Senate decide to impeach the President over taking two scoops of ice cream, he’s gone.

The sole reason for trying to establish anything close to an actual crime, and giving it the trappings of a trial, is to try an make it look legitimate so that the voters whose candidate is being removed don’t decide that elections are worthless and it’s time to use guns.

The point that the Democrats have missed is that there are enough people who have decided the system is illegitimate that guns will be used anyway.

    tom_swift in reply to SDN. | September 15, 2019 at 2:24 am

    The sole reason for trying to establish anything close to an actual crime, and giving it the trappings of a trial, is to try an make it look legitimate so that the voters whose candidate is being removed don’t decide that elections are worthless and it’s time to use guns.

    In this instance the Dems need evidence of a crime, because a sufficient number of Republican senators won’t vote to remove him from office without it. The simple fact that the D’rats want him gone won’t be terribly convincing to Republicans. But if they can show that the President is indeed some sort of criminal (beyond the crime of not being a Democrat), then they might get enough Repub senators to help them remove him.

    fishstick in reply to SDN. | September 15, 2019 at 7:02 am

    but that is why THIS has always been dead in the water scheme

    because the Republicans control over half the Senate

    so the Democrats would need something like 20 crossovers from the other political aisle to successfully impeach

    do you really thing that is ever going to happen?

    this is a political hot potato that the Dems risk holding onto during a Presidential election year

    because many of the House seats the Dems flipped in the midterms are now vulnerable because of Trump’s re-election

    and this time around – you don’t have Repub senators abruptly resigning less than a year out to try and tank the GOP majority

I think it will take time and they will persue it slowly. Can a President be impeached after being reelected? In a landslide? Taking the house with coat tails?

Like the Whigs, this might be a political extinction level event.

    Milhouse in reply to tz. | September 15, 2019 at 12:37 am

    If his supporters take the House then by definition he can’t be impeached — unless those supporters change their minds, as they might if actual evidence were to emerge of actual wrongdoing.

If the president is reelected in a landslide, there will be not enough in congress to impeach him.

As stated by others above, impeachment is a political act, not a judicial act. An official who is impeached and removed from office can still be tried for any actual crimes that led to his or her removal. This would not be “double jeopardy” because impeachment and removal isn’t a judicial process. A judicial process is meant to punish a criminal. The impeachment process is meant to remove a person unsuited to an office to prevent damage to the public’s faith in integrity of the office.

Democrats don’t yet seem concerned about this, however, and maybe they needn’t be. After all, where is the base going to go?

They don’t need to go anywhere — including to the polls.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend