Are they saying we have to start impeachment to find out if his activities call for starting impeachment?
It sure looks like it.
Ah, yes. Here we go. A Trump appointee rears his ugly head. And the slow-moving coup continues.
I guess we’ll see just how much Chief Justice Roberts really likes stare decisis.
That’s easy - just open up formal impeachment proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee. Here’s three potential counts to start off: 1) Obstruction of Justice in the Russia Election Interference Investigation, 2) Conspiracy to Violate Campaign Finance Laws with Cohen, (Stormy Daniels / Karen McDougall), 3) Intimidation / Interference in release of Trump’s Tax Returns lawfully requested from the IRS by Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal. If that is not enough, they can probably tack on illegal holding refugee kids in cages and emoluments violations.
It does say “preliminary to” a judicial proceeding. So maybe the threat of impeachment is enough? Though it’s GOP appointees all the way down.
Am I the only one who winced reading “Trump appointee”? Can we just replace that from now on with “hack”?
There’s no reason inquiries in the House can’t go into the same matters. Just Benghazi the shit out of it. This is stuff Congress and the public have a right to know.
I think apparatchik is more appropriate.
I totally agree. Let the hearings begin. What’s good for the 'Ghazi…
There’s the start of your “constitutional crisis”, folks, wherein GOP-appointed judges overturn precedent, statute and even a plain text reading of the constitution itself in order to protect their people, party and “cause” (that being the preservation of rich while male dominance over all others, per Papa Jeebus).
It’s not so much Trump’s ass that they’d be trying to save here, as what he represents and leads, and what his losing would mean to people like them and their precious “cause”. They’ll couch it in all kinds of legalistic BS to make it seem legit, but in the end they’re going to twist themselves and the law into legal pretzels to make sure that their side doesn’t lose.
Unless John Roberts decides otherwise. He is literally the only person in the country who can lawfully prevent this. My guess is that personally, he believes that Trump is a vile POS and crook who should be taken down, but that he also realizes that for him to go down would mean that his party and “cause” would also have to go down. In the end only he can decide which is more important.
My gut feeling is that in the end he’ll do the right thing, not necessarily because it’s the right thing, but because in the long run it’s the smart thing for conservatism as he sees it. Short cuts don’t work, he realizes. They tried those and got Bush II and Trump. For conservatism to succeed, it has to succeed on its own merits, more or less, and not with imbeciles and crooks leading the way. Plus a lot of bad consequences await if he presses his thumb for a POS like Trump, some of them really bad for the courts and their co-equal and independent nature.
We’ll just have to see. But when the right-leaning courts begin to consistently rule in favor of Trump is cases where’s they clearly wrong, is when the oft-predicted “constitutional crisis” gets fully underway. This is just the start. There will be lots more. Buckle up. It’s going to be a rough ride.
Btw, I believe that we’ll have public opinion on our side, and that the more they fix it for Trump, the greater their electoral losses in 2020 and beyond. If they want to hand Dems the senate and WH, this is how.
Benghazi as a verb. Stealing it.
And, John Roberts just taking over for Kennedy. Since 2001, ONE MAN has decided the fate of money in politics, gun control, unions, ad nauseum. It makes me ad nauseum.
Your logic is unimpeachable.
Same with the 6th Circuit upholding KY’s abysmal new abortion law.
6th circuit has 6 trump appointees.
https://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/judges
Someone should collect the data on the rest.
“Btw, I believe that we’ll have public opinion on our side”
YEP !
And Public Opinion,Thanks Temptations.
"Like a snowball rolling down the side of a snow covered hill, it’s growing
Like the size of a fish that the man claims broke his reel, it’s growing
Like a rosebud blooming in the warm of the summer sun, it’s growing
Like the tale by the time it’s been told by more than one, woo, it’s growing
Everyday it grows a little more than it was the day before
Oh, how it grows and grows
And where it’s gonna stop I’m sure, nobody knows"
I’m beginning to believe the rethugs don’t care as their goal all along was the court system. They were light years ahead of the dems with project red map, and as the dems struggle to disentangle gerrymandering and voter suppression, the treasoners moved on to the courts.
we’re always fighting the last war against the R’s.
If we can capture the WH and Senate we can stop the bleeding but a lot of damage will have been done and will continue to inflict pain as the RWNJ judges burrow in like a tick on a deer.
It really comes down to the people.
I still am not confident that enough of us really know the spot we are in. If they did, 10,000,000 people would be knocking the door at Barr’s office.
I am not very much pleased with TPM’s reporting about yesterday’s protests (if I missed something on this
site, correct me).
Time for some people (friends and foes) to get hauled up before Congress.
SOON.
Uh,oh. More impeachment talk.
Nancy “Slow-Walking” Pelosi isn’t going to be happy. 
“Too divisive!” “Not worth it”
Like I have been saying for months:
Impeachment Now!
And it starts with impeachment hearings and investigations.
(BTW, the confidentiality of Grand Jury proceedings is a good thing, and should not be violated willy-nilly)
Preach!
I don’t know how many times I’ve said that the reason the House needs to begin impeachment proceedings is to be able to use the courts to gain access to all the information the House wants – that “impeachment” trumps all other claims of “confidentiality”. But its nice to see this article confirm what I’ve been saying…
However, some legal experts were skeptical that the committee’s current situation could meet that exemption, particularly since the committee has not launched formal impeachment proceedings against President Trump.