Think about all of the media panel discussions on gun ownership you have watched; segments where second amendment advocates were ridiculed by media pundits for daring to bring up the possibility of the U.S. government using arms against U.S. citizens who hold opposing political views…  There are hundreds of recent reference points.

Now consider, earlier today U.S. House of Representatives Legal Counsel, Douglas Letter, argued in court it would be a possible remedy -for a conflict between branches of government- for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to order an armed “gun battle” between the House and the United States Department of Justice.   Yes, this actually happened.

At the same time as national Democrat political candidates are arguing to remove the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners, the highest ranking Democrat in the United States; a person only two succession-steps away from the presidency; is arguing in DC federal court the House could begin an armed conflict against the Dept. of Justice.

.

Hat Tip Michael Sheridan for the segment – Full Hearing Audio is HERE Via CSPAN

BACKGROUND – Federal appeals court judges aggressively grilled lawyers for the Justice Department and the House of Representatives Friday in a pair of intertwined cases that could have major implications for Donald Trump’s presidency and the Democrats’ ongoing efforts to remove him from office.

During back-to-back hearings spanning about three hours, the judges drilled in on the House Judiciary Committee’s dual quests to learn special counsel Robert Mueller’s grand jury secrets and to secure testimony from Don McGahn, Trump’s former top White House lawyer. The two hearings were overseen by two partially overlapping, three-judge panels. (read more)

This court case is the background to remove President Trump.  Everything else, including the impeachment effort, is chaff and countermeasures. Conservatives are oblivious.

Today the DC Circuit Court heard oral arguments from House legal subcontractors representing lawmakers, in their attempt to unseal grand jury testimony and documents from the Mueller investigation. [Remember, the subcontracted lawyers were part of Nancy Pelosi’s changed House rules in 2018… These moments were all pre-planned.]

To give further indications of the landscape, U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr sent his weakest constitutional lawyers, Mark Freeman, Justice Department Civil Division Appellate Staff Director, and Deputy Asst Attorney General Hashim Mooppan to face-off against Douglas Letter, U.S. House of Representatives General Counsel, and approximately two dozen House contracted lawyers.

The hearing lasted for an hour and thirty-seven minutes.  [Full Audio Here] The three panel judges are tackling the unprecedented attempt by House lawyers to gain access to the Mueller material.

During one segment of the hearing House Lawyer Douglas Letter discussed the serious possibility of sending armed House officers to the DOJ to engage in a gun battle with the Dept. of Justice if needed. Not joking – serious stuff:

Reminder, WARNING from 2018: “Speaker Pelosi is creating her own mini DOJ inside the legislative branch. And, with additional investigative powers granted to House committees, we might even see a mini-FBI units, dispatched to conduct investigations and spy operations, accountable only to speaker Pelosi. Heck, considering congress already has subpoena power, there’s no telling where this might end.”

Democrats together with the alliance of Lawfare operative and their media allies know what this is all about.  Republicans and conservative pundits (writ large)  are oblivious to it; they don’t take it seriously…. keep watching, you’ll see how serious this is… the Tick Tock Club and Trusty Planners will catch up in a few weeks/months.

WASHINGTON DC – […] During back-to-back hearings spanning about three hours, the judges drilled in on the House Judiciary Committee’s dual quests to learn special counsel Robert Mueller’s grand jury secrets and to secure testimony from Don McGahn, Trump’s former top White House lawyer. The two hearings were overseen by two partially overlapping, three-judge panels.

While the judges didn’t announce firm positions in the two cases, their pointed questions for both sides suggested the House had a stronger chance of prevailing in the grand jury records fight, with the outcome more uncertain in the McGahn battle. The two impeachment-related cases, being heard before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, are on something of a fast track that set them up as the court’s first public business for 2020.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. Trump’s ability to stave off a Senate conviction after last month’s House votes to impeach him is essential to his political survival. But court losses for the president in either or both cases argued Friday will help to keep the impeachment issue alive throughout 2020, while giving House Democrats their own boost in a consequential constitutional showdown with Trump’s Justice Department that ultimately appears headed to the Supreme Court.

“This is it,” Doug Letter, the lead House counsel, argued during the second half of Friday’s proceedings over the Mueller grand jury material. “There is nothing more important than determining whether the president of the United States should remain the president of the United States.”

Letter also argued that Trump shouldn’t rest easy just because the House has already voted to impeach the president over his efforts to pressure Ukraine leaders into investigating his political rivals. How the courts rule in the Democrats’ bid for more testimony and documents connected back to the Mueller probe into 2016 Russian election interference could still yield additional impeachment articles against Trump, he said.

“Yes, that is on the table. There’s no doubt,” Letter said, while also confirming to the judges that his remarks had sign off from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The historical significance of Friday’s arguments was apparent in pretty much every exchange before the D.C. Circuit panels, which were composed of two Republican presidential appointees and one judge named by a Democrat. For example, a GOP-appointed judge assigned to both cases, George W. Bush nominee Thomas Griffith, pressed the Justice Department over whether Trump’s blanket refusal to cooperate with House impeachment probes was an unprecedented act of contempt for the legislative branch.

[Judge] Rao seemed to accept that Howell could release the court’s veil of secrecy over the records, but she also suggested that forcing the executive branch to fork them over to Congress raised thornier questions.

That prompted Letter, the House counsel, to repeatedly raise the specter of Congress returning to use of force to enforce its subpoenas — a practice not attempted for nearly a century. But as the House lawyer spoke of the potential for such confrontations leading to violence, it appeared he was highlighting the dangers of such an approach rather than seriously suggesting returning to the coercive methods employed until the 1930s.

“I guess what we would do is use the main remedy the House has had from the beginning, we’ll send the sergeant-at-arms over to the Justice Department. I cannot imagine anyone is going to interfere with him doing his duty as an officer of the House,” Letter said.

When pressed by Rao about what would happen if the Justice Department refused to comply, the House counsel added: “We can send the sergeant-at-arms and he can have a gun battle.” (keep reading)