DOJ Files a Devastating Brief Exposing
Jerry Nadler’s Impeachment Inquiry Scam
Red State,
by
Bonchio
Original Article
Posted By: Pluperfect,
9/15/2019 4:44:51 AM
Recently, I covered Jerry Nadler’s House Judiciary Committee passing rules for an “impeachment inquiry.” As some of us have speculated for months now, this was simply an attempt at stealth impeachment, i.e. getting to use the benefits of impeachment (grand jury access, increased subpoena power, etc.) without having too actually pass articles of impeachment.
The game in this case is that Nadler wants to pretend he’s emperor with no guidelines while not having to pay the political price of having House Democrats actually vote as a majority to impeach.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Strike3 9/15/2019 6:20:58 AM (No. 180246)
Nadler is like another Robert Mueller with about one half the IQ and twice the weight.
82 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Osprey21 9/15/2019 7:01:40 AM (No. 180272)
Nadler the Nattering Nabob.
49 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
jeffkinnh 9/15/2019 7:06:52 AM (No. 180278)
Nadler wants to be given a big BAT to intimidate people with, just like Weissman used. But Weissmann was empowered by law to investigate, although he exceeded it by illegal methods. Nadler has NO such legal authority unless the House VOTES to pursue impeachment and The DOJ has just stated he cannot claim pseudo power to do so. As the article states, this is really good. There is a Constitutional division of powers and Nadler's actions are a power play to be able to continually interfere with the Executive. It is illegal and MUST not stand. The dems had their shot with Mueller and it is OVER.
93 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Lawsy0 9/15/2019 7:32:25 AM (No. 180290)
Thank you, #2 for the Agnew reference. We got over him and we can get over Nadler even though right now that nattering nabob is a nuisance.
30 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Highlander 9/15/2019 8:23:33 AM (No. 180332)
Sometimes, in politics, we get the best people (very rare). Too much, we get the scum-of-the-earth types like Nadler & Co.
44 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
chance_232 9/15/2019 8:46:00 AM (No. 180346)
Ok....so what brief did the DOJ file?
And its a sure bet that the left will dismiss any Trump administration DOJ filing.
14 people like this.
DOJ filed a "brief" with whom? To what end? Don't bother reading this tripe because it doesn't even mention a "brief" in its nonsense.
Congress is an independent, co-equal branch of the Federal government. By its rules it doesn't need anyone's permission to "investigate" anything. So, if Nadler, et al, want to chase "impeachment", there is no court in the land that can stop them. It is a political, not a legal process.
BTW: These hearings are about headlining every nitpicking thing that can be dredged up to convince the great American "middle" that PDT is everything from a rapist to a general reprobate. The media will pick up the tales and spread them widely. And people will believe whatever they want. Meanwhile, Mitt is getting loose int he Uniparty/GOPe bullpen, if you haven't noticed.
17 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
StormCnter 9/15/2019 9:13:32 AM (No. 180385)
More information here: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/461387-doj-files-brief-arguing-against-house-impeachment-probe
and here: https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2019/09/doj-obstructs-house-impeachment-inquiry-asks-federal-court-to-block-release-of-mueller-grand-jury-files/
9 people like this.
Thank you for the links, #8. What the links show is that the issue is whether Congress is entitled to grand jury testimony, even if this was a true impeachment effort.
One silly but key observation from The Hill article is: "While a majority of the Democratic House delegation has voiced support for impeachment in some form, divides remain over whether the party should support an investigation into impeachment or a formal impeachment inquiry that requires a vote in the House."
Simply put, you can't get to "impeachment in (any) form" without some formal process that introduces articles to the floor.
See the game?
15 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
AmericaYes 9/15/2019 10:42:15 AM (No. 180490)
Nadler will seek an Obama or Clinton judge who will ignore the Constitution and declare his committee is entitled to the information. Media will play it up. If case gets to SCOTUS it will most likely be shot down. Nadler and his media will then scream that "Trump judges" interfered with their efforts to get "the truth'."
Truth and justice have nothing to do with it. It's about getting Trump and sending a message to any Republican who dares take on the corrupt deep state.
19 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Chuzzles 9/15/2019 11:03:11 AM (No. 180519)
This post makes my day OP. We have always known he had no authority, that this is just a political attempt to give democrats campaign points for next year. The idea that Nadler thinks he can have access to secret GJ witness lists and so on is a real head shaker. He and Pelosi are driving that party into the deep chasm of political destruction, and they just do not seem to care. That too shocks me a bit.
If those two wind up costing the democrats control of the House next year, I look for their districts to finally do something about them. This is like watching version 2.0 of Obama/Reid and losing the Senate in 2016. If what I read recently about Nadler and his son, this could be another Biden family corruption scandal waiting to pop.
12 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
weejun 9/15/2019 11:51:59 AM (No. 180556)
I’m afraid I am with those here who view this news with jaundiced eyes. To quote the late great Dusty Springfield, we conservatives have been “wishin and hopin” for justice against these sniveling, leftist hypocrites with nary a sign on the horizon. It is sad to realize we are down to our last hope besides Trump: AG Barr. May he prevail over these hate mongers!
6 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
udanja99 9/15/2019 12:19:20 PM (No. 180582)
Speaking of congressional idiots, what ever happened to that positive proof of Russian collusion that Schiff-for-brains swore that he had?
12 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
NotaBene 9/15/2019 1:17:00 PM (No. 180634)
Conveniently, Nadler’s son Michael was hired as a lawyer by a firm dedicated to suing President Trump on many fronts. Any information extracted benefits both father and son.
https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/05/06/conflict-of-interest-anyone-nadlers-son-works-for-firm-suing-trump/
5 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Zarin 9/15/2019 1:18:07 PM (No. 180636)
OK. Can someone please explain? The brief if accepted by the court would stop any federal GJ testimony from being exposed to Congress - yes. Good. Nadler's fake 'impeachment inquiry' is just a fishing expedition and a propaganda bludgeon. But is the whole House of Representatives needed to start a legal/constitutional impeachment investigation? IOW in order to start an legal investigation does the whole House have to vote on Articles of Impeachment?? How did it work on Clinton? Does the whole House vote and then the investigation? And do they vote again to send impeachment up to the senate?
1 person likes this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
MDConservative 9/15/2019 1:55:44 PM (No. 180666)
#15 - The process of "impeachment" is simple: After charges are made by a Member, articles of impeachment may be drawn that go to the floor of the House for a vote. Historically, a committee investigates the charges, writes the articles, recommends disposition, and manages the process to the floor. So far, this has not happened - no actual "impeachment" charges have been made against PDT.
If passed by the full House, the articles form an "indictment", which leads to a trial before the full Senate. The Senate can remove from office upon conviction, which requires a two-thirds majority. Article I of the Constitution outlines the powers of each chamber. The process for each phase is whatever each chamber makes it.
2 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Pluperfect"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)