House Judiciary Committee Set to Take on Impeachment Probe

by Daveda Gruber:

It appears that the circus is coming to town. Yes, the House Judiciary Committee has set a December date to take over the impeachment probe of President Donald Trump.

The probe has been set to start on December 4th and the question of  “high crimes and misdemeanors” will be the focus. The Constitution allows for such an impeachment probe to take place.

The chairman of the committee is Democrat Jerrold Nadler of New York, and the ranking minority member is Republican Doug Collins of Georgia.

Featured will be legal experts who will examine the constitutional grounds for impeachment. It is alleged Democratic aides discussed the schedule on the condition that they remain anonymous before an official announcement.

The House intelligence committee is expected to submit a report which is allegedly a compilation of evidence of the committee’s probe on Trump’s dealings with Ukraine and requests for Ukraine to investigate Democrats as the U.S. withheld military aid.

Nadler penned a letter to the president on Tuesday. In it he announced a hearing for Dec. 4th at 10:00 a.m. The president was also notified of the committee’s intentions to provide him with “certain privileges” while they consider “whether to recommend articles of impeachment to the full House.”

Nadler also invited the president by asking him whether “you and your counsel plan to attend the hearing or make a request to question the witness panel.”

In the letter Nadler wrote, “If you would like to participate in the hearing, please provide the Committee with notice as soon as possible, but no later than by 6 p.m. December 1, 2019. By that time, I ask that you also indicate who will act as your counsel for these proceedings.”

Nadler went on to say in the letter, “I remain committed to ensuring a fair and informative process. To that end, I remind you that participation by the President or his counsel has been described by the Committee in past inquiries as ‘not a right but a privilege or a courtesy which is being extended to the President’s counsel.'”

We saw what kind of a circus that the intelligence panel put on and now another circus is coming to Washington D.C. and this time Nadler will be the head clown.

We saw what was accomplished during the two weeks of the impeachment inquiry, a lot of hearsay.

The report that is due is likely full of that same hearsay but Democrats are going full steam ahead with that kind of evidence that would clearly not be allowed to be presented if the hearings went to the Senate floor.

Matt Gaetz Kicked Out of Impeachment Inquiry Hearing

by Daveda Gruber:

On Monday a strong supporter of President Trump, Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., tried to sit in on testimony from a former top National Security Council expert on Russia.

Fiona Hill, a former deputy assistant to the president, was testifying on Capitol Hill as a part of the House impeachment inquiry into the president and Gaetz wanted to be able to listen to what was being asked and what answers were given.

Gaetz was told that because he was not a member of the House Intelligence Committee that he had to leave.

The House Intelligence Committee Chairman is Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and he appears to be making up his own rules as he goes and then allegedly leaking selected talking points that suit his agenda.

Remember that House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees are conducting the impeachment inquiry into Trump which, by the way, was never voted on.

Gaetz sits on the House Judiciary Committee and Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., was involved in the impeachment inquiry so why was Gaetz not allowed to listen?

Gaetz stopped to speak to reporters after he was told to leave the hearing in question. He was disturbed to say the least. He said to reporters, “It’s not like I’m on agriculture. What are the Democrats so afraid of?”

He later tweeted this:

Is Pelosi Done with Trump?

by Daveda Gruber:

On Tuesday Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was not backing claims on impeachment but rather implying that her caucus has more support for not pushing for it than it has members who do want to roll with it.

Pelosi was speaking at the Fiscal Summit in Washington hosted by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation when she made the comment, “It’s not even close in our caucus.”

Pelosi’s comment was in response to a question directed at her about if she would move on impeachment if a majority of her caucus supported it. She also added, “Why are we speculating on hypothetical’s?”

Madame Speaker, despite calls from her fellow Democrats, has so far resisted impeachment proceedings. The progressive wing of her party is not on the same track as their leader.

Pelosi is trying to cover all corners and would not rule out impeachment. She said, “It’s not off the table. I don’t think you should impeach for political reasons and I don’t think you should not impeach for political reasons.”

The Speaker then added, “It’s not about politics. It’s not about Democrats and Republicans. It’s not about partisanship. It’s about patriotism to our country.”

When Special Counsel Robert Mueller gave his public statement, he did emphasize that his report did not exonerate the president of obstruction of justice accusations. Many Democrats took this to mean that it was a call to action by Congress.

Some of us did not seem to feel the same way. Even Pelosi is reluctant to fall behind the strategy her progressive members want to go for. She’s did, however, she did say that she ultimately wants to see Trump “in prison.”

As you can well imagine, President Trump did not take Pelosi’s comments lightly.

The tweets from Trump were rather clear:

Pelosi also sad that she has had it with the president. She said, “I’m done with him.”

Pelosi mocked Trump on his tariff fight with Mexico. She also called him the “diverter of attention in chief.”

Pelosi declared that Trump doesn’t deserve attention for backing off his threat to impose escalating tariffs on Mexico. She also cast doubt on the idea that Trump struck a substantive deal that will benefit the United States.

Pelosi was in full force and mocked Trump’s tariff threats. She said, “They were designed to take your attention away from the Mueller report.”

On Tuesday the Democrats are pushing a resolution through the House that would make it easier to sue the Trump administration. They would also make it easier to sue potential witnesses. This would pave the way for legal action against those who defy subpoenas in Congress’ Russia probe and other investigations.

The Democratic members of the House, through their resolution, would authorize lawsuits against Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn for defying subpoenas pertaining to special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

Not that committee chairmen don’t have enough authority, but the resolution would empower committee chairmen to take legal action to enforce subpoenas without a vote of the full House, as long as they have approval from a bipartisan group of House leaders.

What is the next move by the Democrats after they approve the resolution? It may be dealt with depending on what kind of a mood Pelosi is in.

On Monday House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler stated that they will hold off on suing Barr. The panel struck a deal with the Justice Department to receive some important documents from Mueller’s report and Nadler pushed the pause button.

All members of the committee will be able to view the material.

Did Nadler Hit Pause on Contempt by Barr?

by Daveda Gruber:

On Monday Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., the House Judiciary Committee Chairman, has announced that he had reached a deal with the Justice Department over access to evidence related to former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report.

The chairman had said he would hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt. That vote had been scheduled for today but it appears that a pause has been taken.

Nadler, in a statement, announced an agreement with the Justice Department agreeing to turn over some crucial evidence.

Nadler said, “I am pleased to announce that the Department of Justice has agreed to begin complying with our committee’s subpoena by opening Robert Mueller’s most important files to us, providing us with key evidence that the Special Counsel used to assess whether the President and others obstructed justice or were engaged in other misconduct. These documents will allow us to perform our constitutional duties and decide how to respond to the allegations laid out against the President by the Special Counsel.”

Both Democrats and Republicans will have access and probably start sharing documents late Monday.

Nadler said, “Given our conversations with the Department, I will hold the criminal contempt process in abeyance for now. We have agreed to allow the Department time to demonstrate compliance with this agreement. If the Department proceeds in good faith and we are able to obtain everything we need, then there will be no need to take further steps.”

The full House is still expected to vote Tuesday on a resolution that would authorize Nadler to go to court to enforce the subpoena issued to Barr for special counsel’s full report and underlying evidence.

Nadler’s Monday statement more or less says that he will not go to court immediately to enforce the subpoena.

Nadler cautioned that if “important information is held back,” then the committee would have “no choice but to enforce our subpoena in court and consider other remedies.”

Last week the DOJ said it would revive negotiations with Nadler’s panel over the subpoenaed materials if he removed “any threat of an imminent vote by the House of Representatives to hold the Attorney General in contempt.”

Nadler is playing hard ball and it appears that he rejected the appeal and urged the Justice Department to return to the negotiating table “without conditions.”

The Judiciary Committee voted to hold Barr in contempt last month. This came after the Justice Department did not comply with a subpoena seeking access to an unredacted version of Mueller’s Russia report, which would include underlying documents and evidence.

President Trump used executive privilege over the files in order to protect them from release.

House Democrats are still preparing to move forward on a separate contempt-related resolution to enforce subpoenas. Barr and former White House Counsel Don McGahn’s names would be on the subpoenas.

The measure is still scheduled to be prepared late Monday in the House Rules Committee and then possible floor action could be taken on Tuesday, if the plan doesn’t change.

Democrats are divided among themselves about what action to take while Republicans appear to be on the same train of thought.

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins, R-Ga., praised the Justice Department for making the accommodations. Collins’ did not give Nadler the same credit.

In a statement Collins said, “The Justice Department has yet again offered accommodations to House Democrats, and I am glad Chairman Nadler — for the first time in months — has finally met them at the negotiating table.”

He continued, “Is the chairman prepared to rescind his baseless recommendation to hold the attorney general in contempt, or do House Democrats still plan to green light lawsuits against the attorney general and former White House counsel tomorrow?”

The House Intelligence Committee and the Justice Department had an agreement last month. At the time, the Justice Department agreed to share some documents with Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) committee.

Collins went on to say, “Today’s good faith provision from the administration further debunks claims that the White House is stonewalling Congress, which Chairman Schiff’s successful negotiations with the Justice Department already showed.”

The antics that seem to be swirling around impeachment talks and subpoenas, are taking a lot of time and cost money. If look at Congress, it would appear that members on two sides of the aisle are seeing and hearing the same scenarios but are coming to opposite conclusions.

We all got to see and hear Barr and Mueller speak. Apparently, Democrats and Republicans really do have brains that function differently. I for one do not see any collusion or obstruction screaming out to be heard and dealt with. On the other hand, Democrats seem to think that there is something in the second half of the Mueller report  that they can clutch onto.

Nadler Leading the Pack Against Barr but Holder Contempt Vote was Shameful?

by Daveda Gruber:

On Wednesday House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., led his pack of Democrats to hold Attorney General Barr in contempt of Congress.

The contempt charge has been led by Nadler and has Barr allegedly accused for not handing over documents related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe ˗˗ declaring the move necessary as the country enters a “constitutional crisis.”

Nadler also alleged that Barr acted as President Trump’s personal attorney.

Watch this video put out by MSNBC:

Oh my, things have certainly changed since 2012. In that year the shoe was on the other foot. House Republicans took the same step against then-AG Eric Holder for refusing to hand over documents related to the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal.

Remember Fast and Furious? Of course you do. All of us have recollections of where DOJ officials tracked thousands of guns smuggled across the border and then did nothing to stop them.

Well, Nadler was so against Holder being held in contempt that he tweeted this:

And they did. Over one hundred members of Congress walked out of Congress over the vote to hold the Obama-era DOJ leader in contempt.

Donald Trump Jr. noticed the “irony” that Nadler had displayed and tweeted  about it:

The House Minority Leader, at that time in 2012,  Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., argued House Republicans were more politically motivated in attacking Holder than driven to get to the bottom of the failed operation.

Pelosi said, “What is happening here is shameful.”

You can’t make this stuff up. In the year 2012 Pelosi was so against Holder being held in contempt and she made sure she put her two cents in. Watch these video clips and how Pelosi felt about Holder being held in contempt of Congress:

Former Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, wrote an op-ed for FOX News and said that the White House ‘stonewalling’ Congress represents an attack on ‘the essence of our democracy’ – as though stonewalling were some new phenomena. Where was Nadler’s righteous indignation when the stonewalling came from a Democratic White House?”

In an article by Politico, it was written that Fast and Furious has finally come to a conclusion and both sides said they maintained their disagreements but were dropping their appeals and the underlying lawsuit.

A settlement in a seven-year legal battle between the House and the Justice Department over records related to a gun-running investigation known as Operation Fast and Furious was publicly announced Wednesday just as similar clashes continue to intensify between the House and Trump administration.

The deal ends a lawsuit the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee filed in 2012 after the House voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for refusing to release some records the panel demanded about the probe, during which law enforcement officials watched but did not intervene as up to 2,000 weapons were illegally sold.

The fight over the records ended more than a year ago, but a proposed settlement ran aground last fall after U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson signaled that she would refuse to wipe out her rulings in the case.

Both the Obama administration and the House objected to aspects of her decisions, but the executive branch had the larger grievance, as Jackson rejected the Justice Department’s longstanding position that courts have no proper role in resolving battles between Congress and federal agencies over access to records.

In the settlement filed Wednesday, both sides said they maintained their disagreements with Jackson’s decisions but were dropping their appeals and the underlying lawsuit.

 “The Parties agree that because subsequent developments have obviated the need to resolve those issues in an appeal in this case, the District Court’s holdings should not in any way control the resolution of the same or similar issues should they arise in other litigation between the Committee and the Executive Branch, and hereby waive any right to argue that the judgment of the District Court or any of the District Court’s orders or opinions in this case have any preclusive effect in any other litigation,” the agreement says.

Is this a big coincidence that Nadler is being held in contempt of Congress but “Fast and Furious”  just finally got an agreement worked out on both sides agreeing not to use an appeal?

If we don’t pay attention and we are not “a fly on the wall in Congress” who knows what we’d miss.

In my humble opinion, I don’t see Barr being hurt by any of these allegations by the Democratic side of Congress. He has only gone by the rule of law and has not broken it.