The House must demand Barr testify about Stone intervention—and be prepared to force his compliance

This cannot go on. Three top prosecutors (which may turn into four) in the Roger Stone case have now withdrawn after Attorney General William Barr's Department of Justice ordered them to revise their guideline-based recommendations on Stone's sentencing. This happened the morning after Donald Trump tweeted that he "cannot allow" the prosecutors' recommended sentencing of Stone, an ally and key stonewaller in the Robert Mueller investigation of the Trump campaign's ties to Russian government hacking in the 2016 elections.

It is time to haul Barr to the House to explain himself. Immediately. If he refuses a subpoena, then inherent contempt must be used to force his compliance. The House has broad but almost-never-used powers to compel such testimony: This is precisely the dire occasion they were designed for.

Campaign Action

The resignation of three top names from Stone's case signals clearly that the federal prosecutors involved believe Barr has acted with corrupt intent in reaching down to order a reduced sentencing ask. They, too, should be subpoenaed immediately so that they may describe the situation that led to their self-removal. This is an extraordinary situation: Even if a teetering-toward-fascism Republican Party will not so much as pretend at "concern" for Trump and Barr's move, the House can expose it without their assistance.

It must be done. The Department of Justice has within the span of days been turned formally into a tool for "processing" allegations against Trump's political opponents and, now, overriding the sentencing of Trump's criminal allies. Barr will resist, but it must be done regardless.

Sen. Chuck Schumer is calling for the inspector general at the Department of Justice to “open an investigation immediately.” That internal review, however, would be obviously insufficient. Rep. Adam Schiff, chair of the House Intelligence Committee and lead House manager in Trump's Senate-stifled impeachment trial, sent out an initial statement calling the reported Barr-Trump intervention a "blatant abuse of power" and, coupled with Trump's retaliatory firings, "the gravest threat to the rule of law in America in a generation." But it does not yet threaten subpoenas.

Schiff is correct in his diagnosis—and now the House must once again act. It is not optional; it cannot be danced around. Barr has committed an act of corruption so blatant that prosecutors have resigned rather than carry it out; he must explain himself under oath.

‘Disgraceful’: Steve Scalise Slams Pelosi for Ripping Up Trump’s Speech

House Republican Whip Steve Scalise blasted Speaker Nancy Pelosi for ripping up President Trump’s speech after his address was over on Tuesday night, calling her actions “disgraceful.”

“I thought it was disgraceful. It’s unbecoming of a speaker,” Scalise told CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett in an interview for “The Takeout” podcast. “Frankly, Speaker Pelosi should apologize as well, because it’s not the image she should want to portray as the speaker of the House.”

RELATED: Trump Holds Up ‘Acquitted’ Headlines Next to Pelosi Attending Prayer Breakfast

Did Pelosi’s Stunt Disrespect the President’s Guests?

When Garrett mentioned to Scalise that Pelosi said she was justified in ripping the speech because she believed it was a “manifesto of mistruths,” Scalise wondered if her stunt actually represented Democrats disrespecting White House guests present at the speech, including a former Tuskegee airman and a soldier who was reunited with his family.

“I think she at a minimum owes a deep apology to the president and the country,” Scalise said.

Scalise said he believes Trump will be reelected by a wide margin in the Electoral College, and that the President could also win the popular vote in 2020, after losing that vote by 3 million votes in 2016.

Scalise Says Trump Will be Re-Elected

“The popular vote’s a different situation, but look, it’s possible,” Scalise said, before downplaying the importance of the popular vote. “Ultimately, it’s like the Super Bowl. You don’t get the trophy for getting more yards than the other team. You get the trophy for getting more points.”

Scalise also voiced his dissatisfaction with Republican senators Lisa Murkowski and Lamar Alexander who voted to acquit President Trump during his impeachment trial, but also believed the president’s behavior had been “inappropriate.” Scalise insisted that Mr. Trump had done nothing inappropriate or wrong when he asked Ukraine’s president to investigate a political rival.

“The president’s done his job,” Scalise said.

RELATED: Pelosi Blames Trump for Bombs, But Was Appalled When Democrats Were Blamed for Scalise Shooting

On Wednesday, Scalise tweeted in support of Republican Congresswoamn Kay Granger’s resolution to condemn Pelosi’s actions.

“Ripping up the President’s official State of the Union speech with the nation watching is beneath the dignity of the House of Representatives,” Scalise tweeted. “JUST NOW → @RepKayGranger introduced a resolution to condemn Nancy Pelosi’s disgraceful behavior.”

“She must be held accountable,” he added.

The post ‘Disgraceful’: Steve Scalise Slams Pelosi for Ripping Up Trump’s Speech appeared first on The Political Insider.

Now That Trump Has Been Acquitted, Are We In Agreement The Dem’s Future Is On Fumes?

Before I go into thoughts, let me remind you about Chuck Schumer’s letter regarding former Bill Clinton’s impeachment 1999 in part.

Schumer said the following: “It has shaken me that we stand at the brink of removing a President — not because of a popular groundswell to remove him and not because of the magnitude of the wrongs he’s committed — but because conditions in late 20th century America has made it possible for a small group of people who hate Bill Clinton and hate his policies to very cleverly and very doggedly exploit the institutions of freedom that we hold dear and almost succeed in undoing him.”

MORE NEWS: CNN’s Jim Acosta Gets Nuked Over ‘Disgusting’ Comments About Rush Limbaugh

Today, the United States Senate acquitted Pres. Donald Trump of two impeachment articles sent by the Democrat-led House of Representatives, and Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Nadler, and Adam Schiff couldn’t do a thing to stop it. Weeks and weeks of this blame game and false narrative created by overzealous lawmakers whose intention was to alert the American public that Pres. Trump was was dangerous to the Republic. He is dangerous, but not to the Republic. The actions of the Democratic party have shown all voters who the bottlenecks of progress have been all these years.

The final vote was 52 to 48 on articles one and 47 to 53 on article two. The only surprise was when Sen. Mitt Romney voted to convict the president on the first article, in what would prove the lone GOP defection.

Democrats have been filled with rage ever since Trump defeated Crooked Hillary in the last election. Democrats are only interested in perpetuating their hatred of Pres. Trump, by fabricating one impeachment case after another for their political gain. That is why they were calling for his impeachment the day after the 2016 elections. Democrats are delusional, paranoid, and blinded by their hatred of the president. That is why they are obsessed with overthrowing an election that reflects the will of the American voters.

MORE NEWS: Here Are The Top Three Reasons Dem Leaders Hate To See Anyone Successful In America!

Romney is correct about one thing, “The people will judge us for how well and faithfully we fulfilled our duty.” Many Democrats, along with Romney, will be judged harshly in November 2020, but he probably doesn’t care. His son holds a high position in the same Ukrainian company as Hunter Biden, so I’m sure his family will remain well off even after he’s voted out in November.

Democrats went from spying on Trump’s presidential campaign to a special counsel investigation to this House committee investigation sham, and they lost at every turn, but still decided to send two articles of impeachment to the Senate anyway so the American people could hear the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States say, “Donald John Trump has been acquitted of both charges.” This is an epic failure on the part of the Democratic Party; they are nothing but fumes now.

Now that this is all over with, maybe the Senate and the House can finally get back to work and get something accomplished instead of wasting everybody’s time and money.

I’m sure the Democrats have gone back to their offices to try to hatch a new plan to take Trump down. I wonder what they’re going to do next, and they will do something next, it’ll be interesting to see what they try now.

MORE NEWS: Tlaib, Omar Storm Out During Trump’s State of the Union Speech

The simple truth is that, for all his shortcomings, Trump is several orders of magnitude better than the alternative. Liberal don’t understand that they have so little to offer that we are willing to have Trump as President, no matter how crass or unpresidential he is.

For the record, I have been consistent with my dislike for Romney since he gave up during the 2nd presidential debate of 2012. But then again, he doesn’t need me; he has a new set of friends now. Maybe he can get a seat on their late-term abortion committee.

More Stories On 


The post Now That Trump Has Been Acquitted, Are We In Agreement The Dem’s Future Is On Fumes? appeared first on The Political Insider.

Why Jonathan Turley isn’t just wrong about the House impeachment strategy, but dangerously wrong

As expected, both Twitter feeds and news analysis on Friday were littered with smug claims from those who wanted to nitpick every action taken by the House impeachment managers, both hearings and in the Senate trial, for what they had done “wrong.” And perhaps none of them were smugger than instant expert Jonathan Turley, the man elevated to “perhaps the greatest constitutional scholar” by House Republicans for the simple reason that he was the only person who they could find who would agree with them.

“Had they waited for a couple months as I advised,” said Turley following the vote on witnesses. “They could have gotten Bolton's testimony and other witnesses as well as key court orders. It was a rush to a failed impeachment.” But the guy who was that guy, before Alan Dershowitz was that guy, is not simply wrong; he’s making an argument that both ignores what really happened and papers over a gaping hole in American justice.

My original reply to Turley included calling him a “great thundering yutz.” There’s no need for that here. So I did it anyway.

But the important thing isn’t this weak-tea attempt to extend Turley’s fifteen minutes of fame long enough to land a few prime analysis spots on Fox. It’s that by perpetuating this view, he gives Monday morning quarterbacks a satisfying explanation to nod over: If only Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Jerry Nadler had done it this way, if only they had dotted this ‘i’ before crossing that ‘t’ and inserted tab A into slot B … If only they had done it the right way, all would have been fine.

That’s not just wrong. It’s ridiculously wrong. It’s dangerously wrong. It’s such a bassackwards* view of events and motives that it sets up infinite future failure. And it leaves the ship of state with a yawning wound, sinking not at all slowly during a deckchair positioning debate. 

What really happened was this:

Lamar! Alexander:  “There is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven.”

Marco Rubio: “New witnesses that would testify to the truth of the allegations are not needed.”

From the moment that Senators Lisa Murkowski and Lamar! Alexander teamed with Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz to direct a question to the Trump defense team, it was clear not only that the cause was lost, but why it was lost. It was not because there was a lack of Bolton's testimony, other witnesses, or documents. They accepted the case as proven. Proven.

Their question, handed over to Trump’s team for blessing, had nothing to do with evidence, witnesses, or even process claims. It was simply this—even if Trump did everything the House managers said he did, would it be impeachable? The Trump team immediately declared that it was not an issue, as Murkowski and Alexander knew they would when sending the question their way.

Had that same question been directed to the House managers, it would have been signal that the rule of law was still in play. But because it went to the Trump team, it was a flashing neon sign signaling “GAME OVER.” Nothing said after that point mattered in the least.

The entire reasoning behind these Republican statements doesn't just assume the case is true as a hypothetical, it labels it "proven" and in no need of further proof. Adam Schiff understood that the moment Murkowski and Alexander staked their position in deep Dershowitz territory. It was immediately obvious when he stood and began his next response by ignoring the question given him and saying “Let me be blunt,” before speaking to what he knew: the field was lost.

This is not something that could have been solved by further months in court trying to knock down "immunity," to be followed by months of fighting to prove "validity," to be followed by months of claims concerning "privilege," to be followed by months of some new invention. It’s not an issue that could have been resolved at all. Trump was quite content to ascend and descend the ladder of courts repeatedly, knowing that he has bottomless legal resources, a fixed window beyond which it will not matter, and that he has appointed a quarter of all appellate judges— a number that will only increase. 

Had the House pursued witnesses until Barron Trump's second term, they would never have secured clear testimony of a single current White House official, on the points critical to the trial, so long as the White House resisted that effort. Never. This is not, and probably never was, a scalable mountain.

What made past impeachments possible was that Nixon and Clinton cooperated. Not just failed to block subpoenas, but actively demonstrated faith in the system by instructing their officials to testify. Trump had no intention in cooperating at all, ever. Nor any reason to do so.

The experience of the House is easily sufficient to show that, given the resources of the White House counsel and DOJ, an uncooperative president need never be brought to heel. Never. Not, to steal from Lincoln, in the "trial of a thousand years." Not under the system as it exists.  There is no existent mechanism, outside impeachment, to being an uncooperative executive to heel. And an executive determined to be uncooperative on the subject of impeachment can be uncooperative forever, unless Congress is prepared to hold that lack of cooperation itself as a cause for impeachment.

The Senate made it clear that it would not do this. House managers made it clear themselves … the second article was key to their case. Key to the oversight role of Congress. Key to the legitimate power of both the Senate and the House. Schiff and others did all they could to underline that point, bringing the attention again and again to the point that the Senate should not accept broad claims of either privilege or immunity on the part of the Executive, because it has never accepted even the existence of such power in the past. Historically, the Senate has never recognized even narrow claims of privilege on the part of the White House. This time, the House could not enlist a Senate determined to protect Trump at all costs, even if that cost was to their own authority.

Without that, it was not possible to proceed. Schiff recognized that clearly. That’s why the efforts on Friday were not framed as an effort to simply bringing in John Bolton or any other witness, but to structure the depositions in a way that allowed decisions about privilege to stay within the Senate. Historically, neither the House nor the Senate has ever endorsed the idea that executive privilege exists. They have claimed, and still do, the right to access any document, any witness, on any subject. But they know privilege is out there; that it has been recognized by the courts. So they often carefully avoid fights over privilege out of fear that a court ruling will redefine this amorphous blob (which, no matter how many times Pat Philbin said it, is not in the Constitution) in a way that makes it larger.

Schiff dangled his bait in the Senate’s sweet spot. Offering them a chance to test the bounds of privilege in a way that did not risk leaving behind a nasty court precedent. They did not bite.

This situation did not come out of some great genius on Trump’s side. Trump is not a genius. But his natural inclination is simply to refuse cooperation. And with the system as it is, that is all it takes. He can lose all day, every day, in every court, and still never face a day of testimony so long as a witness adheres to his instructions to stay quiet. Impeachment isn’t the option of last resort, it’s the only option available if the executive digs in its heels. If Turley wants to address something, he needs to look squarely at this open wound and determine what steps can be put in place to make it possible to rein in not just this executive, but future executives. How might we prevent “will not cooperate” from becoming both standard practice and an automatic out?

And still ... That was never the issue in any case. No matter what Turley says. No matter what a thousand other armchair generals deliver with a waggle of their oh-so-wise fingers. 

Republicans told you their reasoning... they don't care. They considered it proven. It wasn’t an issue of privilege. It wasn’t an issue of witnesses. It wasn’t an issue of anything that might have introduced new facts. They surrendered on the facts.

The Senate decision was made on the profound and eternal principle of They simply do not give a damn. That cannot be remedied through evidence, or reason, or anything that is within the powers of anyone on the House team to deliver.


*I can’t tell you how happy I am that this word got the sanction of use on the Senate floor during the trial. It’s always been one of my favorites.

Dem Impeachment Manager Echoes Adam Schiff – This is About the Election

Rep. Jason Crow, currently serving as a Democrat impeachment manager, admits that his party’s efforts are due to the upcoming presidential election. It is a similar argument to one made by Adam Schiff recently.

Crow’s admission came during an interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Rosenberg, in which the host addressed the Democrat party’s alternating sense of urgency regarding the need to remove President Trump from office.

“Did the House move too quickly?” Rosenberg asked, noting that had the House conducted a thorough effort in the first place, they wouldn’t need the Senate to do their job now.

“No, I think the House proceeded in the way that it should have proceeded,” Crow insisted. “There was urgency, but it was also thoughtful and deliberate, it occurred over several months period of time.”

He then – perhaps accidentally – admitted what that urgency entailed.

“There is some urgency here,” Crow explained, before adding, “it does have to do with the elections that are coming up later this year.”

RELATED: Schiff: Impeachment Necessary to Stop Trump In 2020


You mean to tell me the Democrats are using impeachment to try and sway the election in their favor? To change the outcome of not only the 2020 election but the 2016 election as well?

Color me shocked.

Except that A) It’s already pretty obvious to anyone with a working set of eyes and ears and B) They’ve already admitted this before.

Crow’s impeachment manager colleague, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, confessed that he and his colleagues could not wait on impeachment because the threat of President Trump winning re-election is too great.

“The argument, ‘why don’t you just wait?’ comes down to this,” Schiff claimed. “‘Why don’t you just let him cheat in just one more election? Why not let him have foreign help one more time?'”

In one fell swoop, Schiff is suggesting President Trump is cheating to win in 2020 and claiming he already cheated in 2016.

Is anybody here old enough to remember when Schiff and his colleagues were telling everybody who would listen that the notion of a rigged election is ludicrous and not accepting the results is a ‘threat to democracy’?

RELATED: Adam Schiff Wants Trump Removed Because He Won’t Do “What’s Right For This Country”

This is Why They’re Doing It

It isn’t just Schiff and Crow who have flat-out said the Democrat party is trying to interfere and rig the 2020 presidential election.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who promoted Schiff and Crow to the ranks of impeachment managers, admitted recently that her party is pursuing the unpopular sham because “civilization, as we know it today, is at stake in the next election.”

Rep. Al Green, the Texas Democrat who believes articles of impeachment should address slavery, has said he’s “concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.”

And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the New York socialist and darling of the Democrat party, got this whole process rolling by warning: “We don’t have the luxury of time. Yes, this is an emergency.”

Senator Ted Cruz explained exactly why they are doing this.

“This is a partisan sham because they’re mad – the House Democrats – are mad at the American people for electing President Trump,” he said.

Now, they’re telling you exactly that, and they’re saying it to your face.

The post Dem Impeachment Manager Echoes Adam Schiff – This is About the Election appeared first on The Political Insider.

Some House Democrats push for Bolton to testify in House as Senate Republicans keep pushing cover-up

House Democrats have been reluctant to call former national security adviser John Bolton to testify in recent weeks, but that may be changing. Bolton wrote in his forthcoming book that Donald Trump explicitly told him that the hold on military aid to Ukraine was connected to Trump’s push for Ukraine to investigate his political opponents, but most Senate Republicans sound as committed as ever to covering up for Trump.

The House Intelligence Committee had asked Bolton to testify in November, but after he refused to do so without a court battle and the House sent impeachment articles to the Senate, House Democrats argued that the question of Bolton’s testimony was now in the Senate’s hands for the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Now, though, Mother Jones reports that “several House Democrats on Monday initiated talks within their caucus about taking the dramatic step of subpoenaing him or once again requesting that he testify before a House committee, according to multiple Democratic sources.”

Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee chair and lead House impeachment trial manager, continues to be opposed to subpoenaing Bolton, not wanting Senate Republicans to use “but the House” as an excuse for not voting to have Bolton as an impeachment trial witness. What if (when) Senate Republicans push through their cover-up, though? Are House Democrats just going to leave Bolton’s likely testimony dangling?

They face their own tough races, but these House Democrats are working to flip more red districts

Swing-district House Democrats with military and national security backgrounds are teaming up to help flip some more congressional districts in 2020. Reps. Mikie Sherrill, Chrissy Houlahan, Jason Crow, and Max Rose will co-chair the “Second Service Coalition,” which has also been joined by Reps. Elissa Slotkin, Abigail Spanberger, Gil Cisneros, and Elaine Luria. 

While they’re not pushing the party to the left, each of these lawmakers flipped a red seat in 2018, and they’ve supported impeachment even though they risk their own political futures in doing so. Crow is even one of the House impeachment managers in the ongoing Senate trial of Donald Trump.

The group will raise money and offer campaign support and mentorship to candidates including Gina Ortiz Jones—who came heartbreakingly close to defeating Republican Rep. Will Hurd in 2018 and is running again as Hurd retires—and Kim Olson in Texas; Minnesota’s Dan Feehan, who also came close in 2018; Zahra Karinshak in Georgia; Jackie Gordon, running to replace the retiring Republican Rep. Peter King in New York; and Nikki Foster in Ohio.

It’s an ambitious plan for people who will be facing their own tough races—and that’s good. Democrats need to be ambitious and aggressive when it comes to defeating the relentlessly ruthless Republican Party.

You have a role to play, too. Can you chip in $1 to the Democratic nominee funds to win these flippable Republican seats?

Adam Schiff Wants Trump Removed Because He Won’t Do “What’s Right For This Country”

When the never-ending impeachment trial of Donald Trump adjourned on Thursday, Congressman Adam Schiff explained why the President – who is accused of no crime – has to be removed from office.

Schiff said it is because of what Trump might do.

“You can’t trust this president to do what’s right for the country,” Schiff said. The Democrat also said Trump must be removed from office now, “before he continues his efforts to corrupt our next election.”

RELATED: Pelosi Says No Matter What Happens Next, Trump Will Be ‘Impeached Forever’

His argument assumes that if Trump wins again in 2020, the election results would be inherently tainted.

Democrats No. 1 Mission: Get Trump

Republicans have insisted that Democrats have looked for ways to attack Trump since day one. Of course, Democrats feign innocence. Yet, in his closing remarks Thursday night, Schiff was explicit that his party’s primary mission is to undermine Trump.

“Now, you may be asking how much damage can he really do in the next several months until the election?” Schiff said. “A lot. A lot of damage.”

Schiff continued, “Now, we just saw last week a report that Russia tried to hack or maybe did hack Burisma. OK? I don’t know if they got in; I’m trying to find out, my colleagues on the Intel committee, House and Senate, we’re trying to find out, did the Russians get in, what are the Russians’ plans and intentions?”

“But let’s say they got in,” he said. “And let’s say they start dumping documents to interfere in the next election — let’s say they start dumping some real things they hacked from Burisma; let’s say they start dumping some fake things they didn’t hack from Burisma but they want you to believe they did.”

“Let’s say they start blatantly interfering in our election again to help Donald Trump,” Schiff imagined. “Can you have the least bit of confidence that Donald Trump will stand up to them and protect our national interest over his own personal interest? You know you can’t.”

“Which makes him dangerous to this country,” Schiff insisted. “You know you can’t. You know you can’t count on him. None of us can. None of us can.”

Fear-Mongering Schiff

Schiff did not hesitate to spread fear even further.

“What happens if China got the message?” Schiff went on. ” Now you can say, well, he’s just joking, of course. He didn’t really mean China should investigate the Bidens. You know that’s no joke. Now maybe you could have argued three years ago, when he said, ‘Hey Russia, if you’re listening, hack Hillary’s emails.’ Maybe you could give him a freebee and say he was joking. But now we know better. Hours after he said that, Russia did indeed try to hack Hillary’s emails.”

“There’s no mulligan here when it comes to our national security,” Schiff said, alarmingly.

Schiff blathered on trying to frighten anyone willing to listen finally ending with this warning.

“If right doesn’t matter, we’re lost,” he said. “If the truth doesn’t matter, we’re lost. The Framers couldn’t protect us from ourselves if right and truth don’t matter. And you know that what he did was not right.”

RELATED: Pelosi Threatens the President: ‘One Way or Another’ We Will Remove Trump

The Mask Has Been Ripped Off Dems

Schiff and his party have been out to get Donald Trump through any means necessary from the beginning. This impeachment trial is simply their latest attempt, thus undermining its credibility severely.

Adam Schiff just said in plain English that his primary goal is to remove Trump, no matter the results of this trial. The mask has been ripped off.

Now, can we finally end this debacle and get on with the business of the country?

The post Adam Schiff Wants Trump Removed Because He Won’t Do “What’s Right For This Country” appeared first on The Political Insider.

House attorneys are using arguments Trump’s legal team made in Senate to fight Trump’s own DOJ

Yes, you can. No, you can’t. Yes, you can! Those are not just the lyrics to an old show tune; they’re also the refrain in a disconnect between the case Donald Trump’s attorneys are pressing in Trump’s Senate impeachment trial and positions that Trump’s Department of Justice is taking in multiple courtrooms. In particular, the motley crew of con man lawyers undertaking Trump’s defense before the Senate has shouted that the place to obtain cooperation from subpoenaed witnesses is the courts. At the same time, the DOJ is continuing a case that claims that Congress can’t go to court to enforce subpoenas of Trump’s advisers.

Under Attorney General William Barr, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has argued that Trump isn’t subject to indictment. It’s argued that Trump can’t be mentioned as a suspect in legal proceedings. It’s argued that Trump can’t even be investigated. And now it’s arguing that when Trump says no to a subpoena, Congress has no recourse at all.

And now the House is using the Trump lawyers’ argument in the Senate to battle Barr’s argument in court.

As The Washington Post reports, attorneys representing the House of Representatives brought the position argued by Trump’s impeachment team into federal court with them on Thursday in the ongoing fight with the Justice Department. In a case that’s already been mentioned several times on both sides of the impeachment proceedings, House attorneys have been seeking testimony from former White House counsel Donald McGahn. When the House dropped cases against other Trump advisers who had resisted subpoenas, it was because its legal team was concentrating on the McGahn case in the hope of making it a model that could force quick obedience to any other subpoena. 

The House already won its case in federal court, with a decisive ruling that was highly dismissive of the case presented by White House attorneys. However, the McGahn case was immediately appealed, and the DOJ argument to the appeals court is that … the appeals court has no business even hearing arguments. Incredibly, the DOJ has argued that the appeals court is “barred from considering subpoena-enforcement suits brought by the House.”

The argument is that the judicial branch was to withdraw from any dispute between the executive and legislative branches. Which is convenient for Trump, since he has no intention of cooperating with congressional oversight in any way. In past cases, courts have been reluctant to engage in this kind of dispute, and have frequently backed away while ordering the other branches of government to work out their differences. But there’s a very big difference between that reluctance to get involved and the idea that the judiciary is barred from making a ruling—especially when the White House has made it clear that it has no interest in negotiating.

Now the House attorneys are back with fresh evidence in the form of the claims that Trump’s attorneys have made in the Senate. Trump’s team has repeatedly claimed that if the House wanted to see witnesses cooperate, it would take them to court. With Trump’s own attorneys arguing a case contradictory to the DOJ position, the House has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to make a quick ruling on the basis that the ruling could affect the Senate outcome.

If the court rules that it really is barred from intervening in such cases, then claims that the House should have taken witnesses to court are moot … and Trump apparently has unlimited authority to obstruct. On the other hand, if the court rules that McGahn must testify, it’s very likely that subpoenas will then go out to John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney. If the Senate does not issue such subpoenas, the House will.

The most likely outcome is that the court will come down where it has in the past: The other branches of government should work out their differences without coming to court. But if they have to come to court, the court will give them a ruling.

The only way that Trump comes out a winner is a ruling that his privilege cannot be challenged. In which case the losers are everyone in America.

Dems Have Had A Chance To Show They Care For The Rule Of Law For Over 20 Years — And Failed

The Articles of Impeachment were a forgone conclusion, from the morning after the election, and before the then-GOP candidate, Donald Trump took over the Presidency.

The only question was which specific charges would be included. But, as Nancy Pelosi has infamously said earlier, you have to vote FOR them, to find out what they may contain.

The Democrat party has proven itself wholly and utterly unfit to lead. IF they had any involvement in the incredible past three years of economic development and wealth creation, they would at least be able to say they did something of value.

RELATED: Opinion: If The Dems Case Is So Strong And So Obvious, As They Insist, Why Need More Docs And Witnesses?

Still, they did nothing but “protest,” complain, and lie to the American people at every turn. The results of the upcoming election will be theirs to own, as voters take them to task for their failures. Seventy-five million (75,000,0000), that’s the number of votes Trump will get this election. Mark my word. Republicans will win at least one more seat in the Senate, and the Democrats will lose the House. You’ll see.

Democrats had the chance to show how much they care about Rule of Law numerous times over the past 20 years, starting in the late 90s with Clinton’s impeachment, and their vote that obstruction of justice didn’t warrant impeachment, to “sanctuary laws” and pretending immigration law is exempt from the concept of Rule of Law.

Rep. Adam Schiff keeps saying that there is overwhelming evidence that has been presented, and “the extensive evidence” that was collected in the House impeachment process will be given. So if the House has done its job, there’s no need for additional witnesses, and the Senate can make their determination on the case the House managers present.

Remember, every “star” witness called by the Democrats was asked on cross-examination if they witnessed the president committing any crimes – and everyone said “no.”

Let’s say this again. It is NOT the responsibility of the Senate to find evidence. That task is up to the House of Reps, which is what they are supposed to use to decide whether to bring Articles of Impeachment. Obviously, they’ve decided to bring Articles of Impeachment and then try to find evidence to support them.

RELATED: Opinion: This Impeachment Is Based Only On Political Desire And Opinion, Not The Constitution Or The Law

This is just a bunch of nervous Democrats fearing that if they don’t get rid of a president that is getting closer to exposing their dirty games and affecting their bank accounts, they will be out of a job.

Senate trials have ONE purpose. To remove officials who have done very serious crimes. Bill Clinton committed a felony (lying under oath), and he was not removed. Nixon committed a felony and resigned instead of going through a Senate trial in which he would have been pronounced guilty. What we are looking at here are hardly crimes, if crimes at all. They certainly are not worthy of a Senate trial.

Once you understand that, you know that this could be nothing other than a sham.

More Stories From

The post Dems Have Had A Chance To Show They Care For The Rule Of Law For Over 20 Years — And Failed appeared first on The Political Insider.