Monday, October 28, 2019

EVEN MORE UPDATES: Pelosi Schedules Impeachment Inquiry Vote For Thursday

Right now there's not enough information to properly assess this move. I'm gonna go out on a bit of a limb and say that this is probably window dressing, forced because the Dems are feeling the pressure of public opinion against their Impeachment Theater. My guess is that this vote will largely attempt to legitimate the current process as it is, with a few cosmetic changes. As such it might:

1) Allow for the release of transcripts and a few other measures, moves that they will call "transparency" for PR purposes, but

2) They will continue to conduct the "inquiry" as essentially a Kangaroo Court that denies due process to the President and denies any significant role to GOP Representatives.

We'll probably find out soon.

UPDATE 1: The statement by Pelosi claims that the President will be provided "due process rights." In other words, those due process rights have been denied up till now. What those rights will consist of remains to be seen. For example, will the President be provided with the identity of his primary accuser, the "whistleblower"? Will the President be allowed to call witnesses? Will counsel for the President be allowed to cross examine?

UPDATE 2: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy appears to confirm that this is all a game, that the "due process" is "going forward," and Trump or the GOP Representatives won't be allowed to recall past witnesses for public cross examination.

“It’s been 34 days since Nancy Pelosi unilaterally declared her impeachment inquiry. Today’s backtracking is an admission that this process has been botched from the start. We will not legitimize the Schiff/Pelosi sham impeachment,” McCarthy said.

UPDATE 3: William McGurn at the WSJ points out two things that are relevant to what's going on with Impeachment Theater.

First, Pelosi has still not threatened to go to court to enforce the "subpoenas" in the "inquiry." Clearly, she fears a ruling that the "inquiry" is not an authorized proceeding. If Pelosi were truly determined to get to the truth she would need to use the subpoena power, but that would drag the hearings out all through the primary season at a minimum. That could well be a dagger at the heart of Dem election hopes--such as they may be.

Second, while the ruling by Judge Beryl Howell that the House is entitled to portions of Team Mueller's grand jury information may seem like a victory for Pelosi and the Dems, it also carries a significant threat. That ruling is being appealed by DoJ, and it invites higher courts--potentially, and even probably--right up to the SCOTUS, to consider the argument that the entire Impeachment Theater inquiry is illicit, lacks constitutional status. This is the argument that House Republicans are making and that DoJ is also entitled to make: The Constitution gives power to initiate impeachment proceedings to the House of Representatives as a whole--not to the Speaker. While a vote to initiate proceedings isn't mentioned in the Constitution, voting is the means by which any legislature acts. Therefore, the presumption should be that the House must vote to begin impeachment proceedings. No vote, no authority, and it's all a game with no cognizable standing--neither the Senate nor any court would be required to pay any attention to Impeachment Theater.

While Pelosi's vote may appear to be a remedy for that argument, it isn't. To remedy that argument the Dems would need to start the inquiry all over again in order to afford standard due process rights. But this vote only purports to authorize what's already going on, without any vote on initiating impeachment proceedings. The problem remains.

UPDATE 4: Here's a really good video of Laura Ingraham interviewing John Yoo and Alan Dershowitz on the events of yesterday. I earlier posted a snatch from the video the Ukrainian spy in the White House, but this is the full interview and it features these two top notch law professors going into Constitutional issues on impeachment. Laura, of course, is no slouch herself on these matters, so it's well worth watching for 7-8 minutes:

UPDATE 5: And here's a good article, not too long, by a guy who's been teaching law at Yale since 1981. In it he describes the stakes--will the US Constitution be tossed overboard and the US government transformed into a sort of EU West?

How James Comey’s Revenge Is Changing Our Constitution
The battle over who runs the federal government.

Who will run the government? The elected representatives of We The People--including the president--or the bureaucracy?


  1. Meanwhile (and Mark nailed it weeks ago):

    WASHINGTON, DC: The worst kept secret in Washington is that former NSC staffer and CIA employee Eric Ciaramella is Adam Schiff’s secret “whistleblower” in the ongoing Nancy Pelosi impeachment farce. More importantly, Ciaramella has a long history with Obama NSC advisor Susan Rice and former Vice President Joe Biden.

    Add that to the list of “witnesses” before Schiff ‘s Stassi East German secret police-style lack of intelligence committee. You have a succession of partisan Trump-haters with long pedigrees of either being Democrat operatives. Deep ties to Burisma holdings. Or active participants in the George Soros Open Societies Foundations.

    A steady stream of Deep State Trump-hating partisans

    It is a remarkable parade. Eric Ciaramella. Ambassador Marie Yovanovich. Ambassador William Taylor. Schiff staffers and former NSC employees Abigail Grace and Sean Misko both joining the staff of his committee in August 2019. Just in time for the “whistleblower” report to be coordinated.

    Both worked with Ciaramella on the NSC in the Obama White House.

    More here:

    1. Bebe, thanks for the link.

      Here's one question I'd like to see answered: Will Trump get to recall "witnesses" who have already testified? Like Taylor, etc.?

  2. My guess is that all the Dems will call in sick on Thursday.

    Can Dems from swing districts afford to vote in favor of an inquiry? I guess the answer is yes, provided that this doesn't officially launch an impeachment hearing. It's all in the terminology.

    The Dems want to have their cake and eat it, too.

    1. It seems clear that they're feeling public pressure. And they're down two sure Yes votes--Cummings and the throupler.

    2. Right. Only two sure Yeses. They are bemoaning having neglected to give al-Baghdadi a dog whistle, or…

      Oh, nevermind….

    3. Mark, you are exactly right. Nancy is so busy… hanging new curtains in the same old room:

      Very nice trick here by the Lawfare advisory and rules committee that is handling the construct of the “Official House Inquiry” on impeachment. It is such a good trick it has everyone crossed-up and confused. Likely, that is by design.

      On Thursday of this week Speaker Pelosi is bringing to the floor a resolution to affirm her previous declaration of an “Official House Inquiry”. Mrs. Pelosi is very purposefully and carefully telling reporters this is not a “House resolution on impeachment”. Read the wording carefully:

  3. Judiciary Committee and Nadler to regain control of impeachment

    The Judiciary Committee had been criticized by both parties for conducting an impeachment proceeding that had devolved into theatrics, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Monday she’ll move the inquiry back to the panel some time after the House votes Thursday on a resolution to formalize the proceedings.

    1. And you can be sure there's a lot of serious infighting among the Dems. Meanwhile Trump's fundraising is on steroids, as is his support.