Impeachment Inquiry

[GreyhoundFan]

Rufus, please let this be true: "The impeachment inquiry Trump has feared is here"

Spoiler

House Democrats have begun impeachment proceedings against President Trump. A key Democrat admitted as much Thursday.

“This is formal impeachment proceedings,” the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), told CNN on Thursday, after weeks of dancing around whether his committee would formally consider impeaching Trump.

“We are investigating all the evidence, gathering the evidence," Nadler added. "And we will [at the] conclusion of this — hopefully by the end of the year — vote to vote articles of impeachment to the House floor. Or we won’t. That’s a decision that we’ll have to make. But that’s exactly the process we’re in right now.”

His statement makes clear what a lawsuit filed Wednesday by his committee states: that the "Judiciary Committee is now determining whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the President based on the obstructive conduct described by the Special Counsel.”

In fact, Democrats may have already begun an impeachment inquiry without most people noticing and without the fanfare (and potential political backlash) of a big announcement that it’s happening. In a court filing in late July to get the full, unredacted Mueller report, the Judiciary Committee argued that it needed the information because it “is conducting an investigation to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment.” Since then, Democrats’ language has only become stronger in court filings, culminating with Nadler’s statement that impeachment proceedings have begun.

What that means: Democrats are taking the first step in this process. They have launched an impeachment inquiry to investigate what, if any, “high crimes and misdemeanors” Trump may have committed. If the investigation concludes that he has, the committee will draw up articles of impeachment and the Judiciary Committee and then the full House vote on it.

If they get to the step of voting on articles of impeachment, we don’t know how that would fare. There are 30 Democrats who represent districts Trump won in 2016; only one of those backs an impeachment inquiry. More than 100 Democrats don’t even publicly support an impeachment inquiry; many of them represent swing or Republican-leaning districts. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has resisted informal impeachment proceedings because she fears it could cost Democrats the House next year.

Still, getting to this early stage in the process is the last thing Trump wanted. Not that he is in any real risk of getting kicked out of office. For that to happen, the Senate would have to hold a trial and two-thirds of the 100 members would have to vote to convict him. The Senate is controlled by Republicans largely loyal to Trump.

But when Democrats took back the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm elections, his team feared getting tied up in time-consuming investigations launched by House Democrats; investigations that have the potential to air some of Trump’s dirty laundry.

Impeachment proceedings are the most intense, and dramatic, kind of congressional investigation.

Consider: Democrats are already investigating issues including whether Trump obstructed justice in the special counsel investigation, whether he had a role in illegal hush-money payments during the campaign, whether his business had money laundering ties to Russia, and much more. Trump has resisted handing over information in 20 investigations, leading to legal battles.

Most recently, House Democrats are suing Trump’s administration to try to get his tax returns and suing to get Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald McGahn, to testify about key moments in the Mueller report. (That’s the lawsuit they filed Wednesday where they said McGahn’s testimony is key for considering impeachment.) All that is in addition going to court to get the unredacted Mueller report.

Many of these investigations could get wrapped up into an impeachment investigation. And because that investigation carries the weighty “i” word, it guarantees news coverage and eyeballs on all future hearings Democrats have in this committee.

A catalyst for embracing the impeachment term seems to have been former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s III testimony in July to two House committees, where he laid out what his report found: that Trump’s campaign welcomed Russia’s help and Trump may have obstructed justice.

“We all looked up after Robert S. Mueller III’s testimony and realized that we are in an impeachment inquiry,” Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, told New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg.

“In every meaningful way, our investigation is an impeachment inquiry,” Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, wrote in an op-ed in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, right as a majority of House Democrats said they supported taking the first step toward impeachment.

Arguing in under-the-radar court filings that the committee is beginning an impeachment inquiry is one thing. It could be a legal strategy that doesn’t carry much political weight. The “i” word strengthens Democrats’ case to get grand jury information underlying the Mueller report, or to force McGahn to testify, since Congress can argue it, too, is a judiciary body conducting a court proceeding, and it needs evidence to do that.

But having the chairman of the committee key to impeachment openly, and clearly, stating that an impeachment inquiry has started escalates things. The impeachment inquiry that Trump has feared is here.

 

[fraurosena]

26 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Rufus, please let this be true: "The impeachment inquiry Trump has feared is here"

  Hide contents

House Democrats have begun impeachment proceedings against President Trump. A key Democrat admitted as much Thursday.

“This is formal impeachment proceedings,” the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), told CNN on Thursday, after weeks of dancing around whether his committee would formally consider impeaching Trump.

“We are investigating all the evidence, gathering the evidence," Nadler added. "And we will [at the] conclusion of this — hopefully by the end of the year — vote to vote articles of impeachment to the House floor. Or we won’t. That’s a decision that we’ll have to make. But that’s exactly the process we’re in right now.”

His statement makes clear what a lawsuit filed Wednesday by his committee states: that the "Judiciary Committee is now determining whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the President based on the obstructive conduct described by the Special Counsel.”

In fact, Democrats may have already begun an impeachment inquiry without most people noticing and without the fanfare (and potential political backlash) of a big announcement that it’s happening. In a court filing in late July to get the full, unredacted Mueller report, the Judiciary Committee argued that it needed the information because it “is conducting an investigation to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment.” Since then, Democrats’ language has only become stronger in court filings, culminating with Nadler’s statement that impeachment proceedings have begun.

What that means: Democrats are taking the first step in this process. They have launched an impeachment inquiry to investigate what, if any, “high crimes and misdemeanors” Trump may have committed. If the investigation concludes that he has, the committee will draw up articles of impeachment and the Judiciary Committee and then the full House vote on it.

If they get to the step of voting on articles of impeachment, we don’t know how that would fare. There are 30 Democrats who represent districts Trump won in 2016; only one of those backs an impeachment inquiry. More than 100 Democrats don’t even publicly support an impeachment inquiry; many of them represent swing or Republican-leaning districts. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has resisted informal impeachment proceedings because she fears it could cost Democrats the House next year.

Still, getting to this early stage in the process is the last thing Trump wanted. Not that he is in any real risk of getting kicked out of office. For that to happen, the Senate would have to hold a trial and two-thirds of the 100 members would have to vote to convict him. The Senate is controlled by Republicans largely loyal to Trump.

But when Democrats took back the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm elections, his team feared getting tied up in time-consuming investigations launched by House Democrats; investigations that have the potential to air some of Trump’s dirty laundry.

Impeachment proceedings are the most intense, and dramatic, kind of congressional investigation.

Consider: Democrats are already investigating issues including whether Trump obstructed justice in the special counsel investigation, whether he had a role in illegal hush-money payments during the campaign, whether his business had money laundering ties to Russia, and much more. Trump has resisted handing over information in 20 investigations, leading to legal battles.

Most recently, House Democrats are suing Trump’s administration to try to get his tax returns and suing to get Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald McGahn, to testify about key moments in the Mueller report. (That’s the lawsuit they filed Wednesday where they said McGahn’s testimony is key for considering impeachment.) All that is in addition going to court to get the unredacted Mueller report.

Many of these investigations could get wrapped up into an impeachment investigation. And because that investigation carries the weighty “i” word, it guarantees news coverage and eyeballs on all future hearings Democrats have in this committee.

A catalyst for embracing the impeachment term seems to have been former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s III testimony in July to two House committees, where he laid out what his report found: that Trump’s campaign welcomed Russia’s help and Trump may have obstructed justice.

“We all looked up after Robert S. Mueller III’s testimony and realized that we are in an impeachment inquiry,” Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, told New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg.

“In every meaningful way, our investigation is an impeachment inquiry,” Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, wrote in an op-ed in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, right as a majority of House Democrats said they supported taking the first step toward impeachment.

Arguing in under-the-radar court filings that the committee is beginning an impeachment inquiry is one thing. It could be a legal strategy that doesn’t carry much political weight. The “i” word strengthens Democrats’ case to get grand jury information underlying the Mueller report, or to force McGahn to testify, since Congress can argue it, too, is a judiciary body conducting a court proceeding, and it needs evidence to do that.

But having the chairman of the committee key to impeachment openly, and clearly, stating that an impeachment inquiry has started escalates things. The impeachment inquiry that Trump has feared is here.

 

Nadler was also on TRMS. He stated quite bluntly and unequivocally that he is conducting an impeachment inquiry.

So yes, @GreyhoundFan, Rufus heard our prayers! 

According to Nadler, if everything goes as expected, then the House will be holding a vote to begin impeachment procedures by the end of November. Hearings in the inquiry will start as soon as the House reconvenes in September, and continue on in October. If the courts rule favorably (and it's expected they will) then McGain, Hicks et al. will be forced to testify by November. 

Interesting times ahead.

[fraurosena]

Articles of impeachment introduced a couple of months ago. 

 

[fraurosena]

 

[fraurosena]

This is going to be good.

[thread]

[fraurosena]

Interesting thread. 

Sadly, no unroll available yet.

[fraurosena]

The vote could be as soon as next Wednesday.

The House Judiciary Committee plans to finally define its impeachment inquiry

Quote

The House Judiciary Committee is planning to formalize its impeachment investigation into President Donald Trump by voting on a resolution outlining rules for the inquiry next week. The vote may end months of confusion over how — and whether — House Democrats plan to move forward with the probe in the shadow of the upcoming presidential election.

A source close to the committee said the vote is intended to increase the “officialness” of the investigation, Politico reported. The probe has been ongoing for months, but has long been muddled by semantic debates over whether a formal impeachment inquiry has already begun, and substantive debates about what the committee hoped to achieve through its investigation.

The committee has, for example, already called witnesses and sued the White House for blocking one of its subpoenas. Witnesses have been slow to comply to the committee’s requests for testimony, however, slowing the pace of the investigation. Proponents of the probe hope that by defining it, the committee might be better able to compel hesitant witnesses to testify, while also gaining access to top Trump aides currently shielded by the president’s claims of immunity.

A growing segment of the party’s base has is calling for impeachment to get underway; however, party leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have been hesitant to launch the impeachment process knowing the Republican-led Senate would never pursue an impeachment trial. Party leaders have also worried about the effect an impeachment attempt could have on Democrats in purple states. Formalizing the inquiry could help Democrats navigate this tension between the base and leaders, giving those calling for some action on impeachment what they want without forcing all members of the House — including Democrats in swing districts — to vote on the issue.

The impeachment investigation to date

The pressure for Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and House Democrats to clear up the scope and weight of their investigation into the president has been building for a while.

In March, Nadler said his committee would look into “alleged obstruction of justice, public corruption, and other abuses of power by President Donald Trump, his associates, and members of his Administration.” He sent record requests and subpoenas but stopped short of “opening a formal impeachment inquiry.”

As Vox’s Andrew Prokop reported, the House’s pro-impeachment faction began arguing in July that the Judiciary Committee can conduct an investigation and both write and vote on articles of impeachment without opening a formal inquiry.

But Nadler continued to waffle, refusing to define the scope and aims of the investigation. Last month, he went on CNN and said the Judiciary Committee was in the middle of “formal impeachment proceedings,” but in the same interview said “I think it’s important not to get hung up on semantics.”

Meanwhile, House Democrats have increasingly begun to back some sort of impeachment inquiry: More than half of House Democrats (134 of 235, according to a recent CNN count) have said they support an impeachment inquiry, which would be just the first step in a lengthy process of booting the president out of office.

Those numbers have grown since former special counsel Robert Mueller spoke before Congress in July. But as Vox’s Ella Nilsen and Andrew Prokop point out, that doesn’t exactly mean all those members would actually vote to impeach Trump. Voting to impeach would be a more complicated decision, embodied by the continued hesitance of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to support calls for impeachment:

Supporters of an impeachment inquiry are still being met with resistance from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She’s offered a variety of different reasons for her opposition to the move. But she likely believes (as most do) that there’s zero chance the Senate will remove Trump from office, and therefore fears a controversial impeachment vote would harm House Democrats representing districts that voted for Trump — something that could put her majority at risk.

Estimates on how many Americans support impeachment vary, but polls indicate a majority do not support impeaching Trump. That fact puts many Democrats in vulnerable districts on edge, especially given they have history to warn them: Republicans who impeached former President Bill Clinton in the 1990s lost seats in the House and barely gained seats in the Senate, a decline experts later attributed to their pursuit of impeachment.

Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA), the vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee, told Vox’s Ella Nilsen that history is very much on Democrats’ minds as they consider impeachment.

“We also have lessons from the Clinton impeachment that when you do impeachment for primarily political reasons, that also causes problems for the country,” she said. “This is not something the country can enter lightly, but by the same token, the country cannot have a president that undermines the rule of law.”

On the other side of the issue are Democrats at the grassroots level who want impeachment to proceed regardless of potential consequences. And they are joined by Democrats in the the House who haven’t been shy about their feelings, as Vox’s Ella Nilsen notes:

Democrats know their best shot at getting rid of Trump is the 2020 presidential election. But at the same time, special counsel Robert Mueller laid out numerous instances of potential obstruction of justice by Trump in his report, and Democrats know they can’t just ignore it. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party has been vocally pushing for impeachment proceedings, but they need buy-in from committee chairs and House leadership.

The upcoming Judiciary Committee vote, which could happen as early as Wednesday, could help to get various factions of Democrats on the same page. While those who are hesitant to endorse impeachment will not suddenly give it their full-throated support, there will be new clarity as to what Nadler’s committee is doing, and where it sees the investigation going. And as Prokop has noted, “no Democrats are against a continued investigation by Nadler of potential crimes by Trump.”

The real question will be whether Nadler’s probe actually goes anywhere; vote or not, he will still face resistance from the White House, and will be engaged in a politically fraught potential battle that has no indication of clearing up anytime soon.

 

[Dandruff]

Playing devil's advocate here...it looks like the Democrats are taking forever to make up their minds (indecisive) and then are likely to be neutralized by the Senate (ineffective).  If overwhelming evidence is presented, and appropriately publicized, then at least the Senate would appear to be enabling Trump's behavior.  This could bite them during the next election.  But I also believe that the Democrats' apparent inability to cohesively move forward will bite them too.  If they can't decide then why should the general public?  This game, IMO, is currently much more about appearances than substance - and it's the Republican's game since they can't win on substance.

[fraurosena]

2 hours ago, Dandruff said:

Playing devil's advocate here...it looks like the Democrats are taking forever to make up their minds (indecisive) and then are likely to be neutralized by the Senate (ineffective).  If overwhelming evidence is presented, and appropriately publicized, then at least the Senate would appear to be enabling Trump's behavior.  This could bite them during the next election.  But I also believe that the Democrats' apparent inability to cohesively move forward will bite them too.  If they can't decide then why should the general public?  This game, IMO, is currently much more about appearances than substance - and it's the Republican's game since they can't win on substance.

The game could very well be about the substance though. The Dems could be playing the long game. It's all about timing. And they could be preparing a two-pronged attack: 1. overwhelming evidence, forcing the Repugs into action or loose any and all credibility and 2. overwhelming evidence, compelling voters into action and voting them all out.

But whatever game the Dems are playing, they are strategically holding their cards very close to their chests. That's not very satisfying for us, but if it gets the results we're all hoping for, we'll just have to be patient a little while longer.  (Please Rufus, not too long though!)

[Dandruff]

3 hours ago, fraurosena said:

The game could very well be about the substance though. The Dems could be playing the long game. It's all about timing. And they could be preparing a two-pronged attack: 1. overwhelming evidence, forcing the Repugs into action or loose any and all credibility and 2. overwhelming evidence, compelling voters into action and voting them all out.

But whatever game the Dems are playing, they are strategically holding their cards very close to their chests. That's not very satisfying for us, but if it gets the results we're all hoping for, we'll just have to be patient a little while longer.  (Please Rufus, not too long though!)

I hope the Dem's are playing what will turn out to be a successful long game.  The fact that they're keeping their cards close is encouraging.

[fraurosena]

I think the undeniability of the blatant corruption has the most chance of actually getting him impeached by the Senate. Corruption is not vague or ambiguous and it can't be explained away. 

Democrats to Broaden Impeachment Inquiry Into Trump to Corruption Accusations

Quote

House Democrats return to Washington this week poised to significantly broaden their nascent impeachment inquiry into President Trump beyond the findings of the Russia investigation, but they will confront a fast-dwindling political clock.

Undeterred by lackluster public support for impeachment, Democratic lawmakers and aides have sketched out a robust four-month itinerary of hearings and court arguments that they hope will provide the evidence they need to credibly portray Mr. Trump as corrupt and abusing his power.

Beyond the president’s efforts to impede the special counsel’s investigation, Democrats also plan to scrutinize his role in hush payments to two women who said they had affairs with him and reports that he dangled pardons to officials willing to break the law to implement his immigration policies. Democrats also demanded documents last week related to whether his resort properties illegally profited from government business.

“The central oversight perspective so far has been focused on the Mueller report,” said Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland and a former constitutional law professor who sits on the Judiciary Committee. “We need to broaden out the oversight work to get a complete picture of the lawlessness of the administration. That is the imperative for the fall season.”

Whether Democrats’ agenda will result in a House vote to impeach a president for only the third time in American history remains the most significant unanswered question of Mr. Trump’s presidency, one that could shape his bid for re-election and his prospects of notching any additional legislative accomplishments in his first term.

But even the most ardent supporters of impeachment conceded that time might already be short, with only around 40 days in session left before the end of the year and a slew of issues on Capitol Hill that could sap additional time and energy. Congress must fund the government in the coming weeks, and lawmakers in both parties want meaningful legislative debates over Mr. Trump’s trade deal with Mexico and Canada, gun safety legislation and bolstering election security.

Most House Democrats now privately agree that Mr. Trump’s behavior clears the bar for an impeachment vote — some reached the conclusion over the six-week recess that just ended — but the politics of doing so are more complicated and their leaders appear no closer to a decision on whether to proceed.

The Judiciary Committee’s chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, has indicated that the panel will most likely determine late this year whether to advance impeachment articles, and aides have privately argued that they cannot wait much longer to leave enough time to vote and try a case in the Senate before the 2020 election more forcefully diverts attention.

But Speaker Nancy Pelosi remains skeptical, telling colleagues during a private call late last month that the public still “isn’t there on impeachment.” Many of the caucus’s more moderate members, whose districts are crucial to maintaining the Democrats’ majority, have not backed impeachment either. And Republicans remain unified behind Mr. Trump.

Just as consequentially, court cases have hamstrung Democrats’ ability to stage potentially powerful public hearings — in part as a result of Mr. Trump’s stonewalling of congressional oversight efforts. Rulings in two cases — one on unsealing grand jury secrets from Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation, and the other to enforce a subpoena for the former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II — are expected this fall. They could determine whether lawmakers will be able to blunt the White House’s attempts to run out the clock by slow-walking document production and ordering major witnesses not to appear before lawmakers without a court order.

For now, Democratic congressional investigators agree they should push ahead, even if impeachment ultimately remains beyond their grasp.

“If we aren’t able to collect the evidence that we need to present a credible case before the election, well, at least maybe we will have put enough evidence out there that the public can exercise another form of regime change that is in the Constitution and vote,” said Representative Mary Gay Scanlon, a Pennsylvania Democrat on the committee.

The Judiciary Committee will take a substantial step to organize its effort this week. Lawmakers are expected to vote to establish rules and procedures governing the inquiry, including allowing staff lawyers to question witnesses and the president’s lawyers to more formally offer a defense, according to an official familiar with the committee’s plans.

Democrats began examining the hush payments and other areas of scrutiny in the spring, requesting documents and taking other early steps. But they have focused mostly on Mr. Mueller’s investigation and his account of Mr. Trump’s repeated attempts to thwart his team.

Several high-profile witnesses were subpoenaed to appear before Congress in September to discuss potential obstruction acts, including Mr. Trump’s former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and Rob Porter, a onetime White House aide. But Democratic leaders are hoping that their review of Mr. Trump’s properties, the hush payments and pardon dangling might resonate more with the public and allow lawmakers to sidestep the wall the White House has erected around witnesses related to Mr. Mueller’s inquiry.

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan investigated the payments to the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels and to Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model, and charged Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, with violating campaign finance laws by arranging the payments. Though Mr. Trump was not named in the indictment, prosecutors referred to him as “Individual-1” and said he directed the illegal payments. Mr. Trump has acknowledged the payments, insisting they were legal. He has denied the affairs themselves.

By calling witnesses involved in the payments, Democrats believe they can make the case that Mr. Trump broke the law in his pursuit of the presidency, even though prosecutors closed the investigation without additional charges. It is not clear whether prosecutors concluded that they were bound by the Justice Department’s view that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

By broadcasting the details of Mr. Trump’s repeated efforts to drive government business to his family’s hotels, clubs and resorts, Democrats hope they can convince Americans that Mr. Trump is trying to profit off the presidency, a potential violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clauses. Mr. Trump has repeatedly rejected that accusation and turned over management of his company, the Trump Organization, to his oldest sons and an executive through a trust, though he is its sole beneficiary.

Democrats have also framed Mr. Trump’s reported offers to pardon aides willing to break the law to carry out his immigration policies as part of a pattern that also includes his efforts to impede Mr. Mueller’s investigators. The committee ordered Department of Homeland Security officials last week to hand over records related to the overtures, which Mr. Trump has denied and White House aides have said were jokes.

Democrats are largely united in their approach to casting Mr. Trump as abusing his power and plan to advance legislation to fight foreign election interference and misinformation campaigns, according to the speaker’s office.

But their stance has only loosely papered over internal differences about any impeachment vote, and party leaders could be forced to confront a messier intraparty conflict in the coming months based on how they decide to proceed.

Some of the House’s most liberal lawmakers appear to be growing tired of the methodical pace laid out by leadership and are prepared to argue more forcefully that allowing Mr. Trump to skirt punishment for his actions could free future presidents from congressional constraints on their powers.

Representative Steve Cohen, Democrat of Tennessee and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, said he spent August updating his own articles of impeachment accusing the president of emoluments violations, obstruction of justice, welcoming Russia’s election interference and unconstitutional attacks on the courts and the news media.

“I’m going to try to find out how many people are willing to stand up and vote for impeachment,” he said. “I understand the speaker and the chairman’s attitude about wanting to bring out all this proof. The proof is already there.”

Liberal advocacy groups had hoped to push the party during the August recess toward an impeachment vote by stirring up a groundswell of grass-roots support. But many moderate lawmakers opposed to impeachment emerged from August further convinced that their reticence was justified by voters’ lack of interest in impeachment and that the president was best voted out of office instead of removed.

That split may force impeachment advocates toward a compromise. With the Republican-controlled Senate highly likely to acquit Mr. Trump even if the House’s case were put to trial, some Democrats have begun raising another possibility: that the Judiciary Committee could draft articles of impeachment, vote them out of the panel but never bring them to the floor of the House — offering the public an election-year indictment of sorts without ever bringing the president to trial.

I just don't get how there is this perception that the American public is against an impeachment. 

[fraurosena]

My calendar's marked. 

Corey Lewandowski to be first Trump associate to have public hearing with House Judiciary Committee

Quote

President Trump’s former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski will be testifying in public when he appears before the House Judiciary Committee later this month, according to the Daily Beast.

Lewandowski is set to appear before the committee on Sept. 17 to answer questions related to the panel’s investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Trump.

Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-New York, issued a subpoena for the public testimony in August.

The White House was reportedly considering whether to invoke executive privilege to prevent Lewandowski from complying with the subpoena as it has done with former White House aides. It would have been the first time the president would have tried to assert the privilege over someone who never worked in his administration.

Democrats are seeking to question former Trump aides about their knowledge of potential obstruction detailed in the second part of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on his Russia investigation.

In Mueller’s report, Lewandowski, who did not work in the White House, said he was directed by Trump to ask then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit the investigation or tell him he was fired. Lewandowski said he never delivered the message.

It’s been months since Democrats have been able to get witnesses to answer questions. Former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks was the last to appear in a closed hearing June, but she repeatedly invoked claims of executive privilege.

Nadler also served subpoenas to former deputy White House chief of staff Rick Dearborn and former White House staff secretary Rob Porter. Both were asked to appear on Sept. 17 as well, but their testimony has not been confirmed.

Trump's former fixer Michael Cohen appeared publicly before the House Oversight Committee in February before he began his prison sentence in May. Cohen also testified behind closed doors to the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Will there be spurious invocations of 'executive privilege', and if so, how will the Dems react?

[fraurosena]

Live footage of the Judiciary Committee hearing on an Impeachment Inquiry.

 

[fraurosena]

The Repugliklans are being obnoxious, of course, but I find Jim Jordan particularly aggravating. His yelling and affected indignation is so obviously contrived that it makes my blood boil. Grrr. 

[fraurosena]

Triggered.

And afraid. Very afraid of what will come out, and how that will reflect on him. Or... what will come out about him.

 

 

[fraurosena]

I was so disgusted and angry with the Lewandowski hearing that for the first time ever, I turned it off and didn’t watch it after the first 15 minutes. Hence my lack of posting on the matter. Thinking back on it still makes my blood boil. One thing’s for certain: the GOP is completely corrupt and complicit in the obstruction of justice.

So it pleases me no end that this might actually happen:

 

[fraurosena]

That passender is all of us.

 

[fraurosena]

Yassssss!

Rufus be praised. 

It took them long enough. 

 

[fraurosena]

I suppose this should be in the House of Representatives thread, but as this is in all likelihood the reason for the impeachment inquiry,  I'm putting it here.

This is incredible news, and could happen as soon as this week -- if the DNI (or Trump) doesn't do anything to prevent it, that is.

 

[Dandruff]

17 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Yassssss!

Rufus be praised. 

It took them long enough. 

 

Yes, it did take them long enough...but what about the Senate?

Sorry I'm being a bit of a downer.  I really hope the Dems can get, and keep, the ball rolling.

[fraurosena]

1 minute ago, Dandruff said:

Yes, it did take them long enough...but what about the Senate?

Sorry I'm being a bit of a downer.  I really hope the Dems can get, and keep, the ball rolling.

I shouldn't worry about the Senate if I were you. If enough of the truth becomes irrefutable public knowledge, things in the Senate will happen like they did in 1974. At first there were hardly any Republicans that were for an impeachment. It was all Fake News (yes, even then) and a Dem conspiracy to get rid of Nixon. Then the inquiry happened, the incredible facts came out, public opinion became vociferously anti-Nixon, and suddenly the Republicans found they could not support their president anymore. And this is precisely what will happen with this impeachment inquiry. There are so many Repugliklans up for re-election next year, after all.

[fraurosena]

Unanimous consent. I am astounded. 

Yes, it's a non-binding agreement, and it doesn't mean the Repugs are suddenly against Trump. But it's a step. A tiny step, that can be backtracked, but still. It could be opening the door ever so slightly for Repugs to move away from their almost pavlovian lickspittling for Trump, no matter what.

[AnywhereButHere]

51 minutes ago, Dandruff said:

Yes, it did take them long enough...but what about the Senate?

Sorry I'm being a bit of a downer.  I really hope the Dems can get, and keep, the ball rolling.

As my husband has been saying - there is only one bullet in the gun, so the Dems better make sure their aim is good. The impeachment process needs to hang around his neck for the election. I have no faith in the Senate actually upholding an impeachment, and the last thing I want to see is dear leader going into the election crowing about a "win" on impeachment. I want his ass taken down.

[fraurosena]

And... it's official.

 

Trump's official reaction. 

As you can see, he's getting steadily more frightened as reality sets in.

 

[Dandruff]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

I shouldn't worry about the Senate if I were you. If enough of the truth becomes irrefutable public knowledge, things in the Senate will happen like they did in 1974. At first there were hardly any Republicans that were for an impeachment. It was all Fake News (yes, even then) and a Dem conspiracy to get rid of Nixon. Then the inquiry happened, the incredible facts came out, public opinion became vociferously anti-Nixon, and suddenly the Republicans found they could not support their president anymore. And this is precisely what will happen with this impeachment inquiry. There are so many Repugliklans up for re-election next year, after all.

I'd prefer to not worry but I think we're in a substantially different scenario than 1974.  I believe the corruption is deeper now, and it's international, and there's the Internet to help spin (in both directions) and distract.  People aren't just reading the same few articles and watching the same few TV stations.  The current situation seems as much like gang warfare to me as politics.  I'm not sure the Senate Republicans will lose a single vote - considering who votes for them - if they support Trump.  I am encouraged, though, by small indications of integrity by Republicans like Mitt Romney.

I don't know which way things will go.  I liked Nancy P's speech...she made clear what's patriotism and what isn't.  I hope the Senate abandons Trump and that he and his cronies fall like a house of cards.  I'm just not convinced that it's going to happen.