Enidigm
5192
There are only, really, two solutions to America’s political breakdown. Split the old south off - I favor “de-ratification”, demoting them to territories and not states, so letting them do what they want culturally while keeping them under the “umbrella” of the US’s territorial sovereignty, so they can terrorize their populace in the way they’ve so desperately desired for decades - maybe with some modern adjustments (say + WV, - Texas, for ex) and so reducing the number of permanent GOP senate seats they control. Or find a way to put Fox News out of business.
Since it would actually be easier to split the country up than to change our laws to prevent a new Fox News from springing up again from the ashes, I think you know my personal vote here is.
Enidigm
5193
I do feel like McConnell is going to tip the hand of where the direction of our political system is going to go, and for me the question is whether he’s going to stage manage some kind of impeachment, authoritarian style, with a predetermined outcome but following the form of an impeachment trial, or if he and the GOP just dismiss the whole thing out of hand with the tiny majority that they have. They have different political trajectories.
Yup, America is broken, quite possibly beyond repair.
I’m pleased that Cockroach Herodotus will be able to write that a nontrivial portion of the American people saw what was happening and objected, but a lot more has to happen before my cloud of despair will be pierced.
This is interesting.
The implication is that since the impeachment process in the House is over, and the articles of impeachment don’t include anything for which McGahn’s testimony is relevant, then the House’s subpoena has less force?
I know Republicans argued that the subpoenas were meaningless absent an official impeachment inquiry, but I didn’t think any courts actually took that argument seriously.
Sharpe
5196
The House’s official response to this will tell us a lot: is the House going to concede that the impeachment process is “over” or will they take the position that the non-Ukraine part of the impeachment inquiry is still ongoing? (I’m strongly for the latter, but we’ll see.)
That would set a terrible precedent: basically, wait out the clock and you can just ignore things.
I agree with that — that they should either say that the Mueller stuff is ongoing or actually make it ongoing — but I also hope they didn’t concede the Republicans’ position that the subpoenas had to be enforced because impeachment in their arguments. Because that is a terrible outcome, that the executive branch can ignore congressional subpoenas in any case other than impeachment.
It would just mean that all Congressional oversight of the Executive stems from the impeachment power. It would be absurd to rule that they can’t subpoena someone because they voted articles of impeachment, as if impeaching for one offense automatically pardons all other offenses.
I agree, but then why is the court asking to be briefed on the impact of the impeachment vote on the validity of the subpoena?
I don’t know - the tweet is fairly cryptic. Who is briefing them, did they have any more specific questions, what prompted the request? I mean, if the subpoenas were specifically related to this impeachment inquiry and the inquiry was over it would be reasonable for the House to drop the subpoenas. Of course, since the trial hasn’t happened this would seem like weird timing to do that, but perhaps the court just wants to confirm that it still has to rule before making the tough decision to actually try to settle a dispute between the other branches.
There is a bit more here:
The order the appeals court issued in the McGahn case Wednesday night specifically asks if the House is seeking to force McGahn’s testimony as potential fodder for impeachment or pursuant to more traditional “legislative oversight” functions.
They’re asking the plaintiffs (the House) to clarify, and they’re asking the DOJ to explain their view. They’re clearly making a distinction between subpoenas for impeachment processes and those for other purposes.
It seems odd that they’re asking, and odder still that they were poised to ask immediately after the vote in the House was taken.
antlers
5203
I would bet this stems from newly minted Trumpies on this bench. They have been slow walking the McGahn case because there aren’t really arguments for Trump’s side but they are fishing for an excuse to make it moot.
The position of the House should be that there is still an impeachment inquiry in progress regarding conduct unrelated to the Articles that previously passed.
The McGahn case is particularly interesting because it is the most clear case of obstruction of the Mueller probe. McGahn testified that Trump ordered him to fire Mueller, and that Trump later told him to falsify records to hide the fact of the order. As I understand it, in testifying on the matter to the Mueller grand jury, McGahn (and the White House) effectively waived executive privilege for that particular testimony, so there really are no grounds at all for not complying with the subpoena.
Although Nancy Pelosi will never know, mea culpa: I have finally learned not to second guess her political acumen. She knows what she’s doing.
Or it could just be that a mother of five children has learned how to deal with a three-year-old :)
Thrag
5208
I have no doubt that her experience raising five children helped prepare her for the role of speaker in general. I bet her children recognized this expression:
While perhaps politically shrewd, it makes no sense to me that there are not established requirements and procedures for all of this. And the senate making up rules each time is not much of a procedure. The arbitrariness off so many of our political systems and the power a few people hold over them (e.g. controlling whether a bill even comes up for a vote) seems like a major problem to me.
