The House democrats will keep doing this until someone in the media begins to hit them with hard questions that expose the nonsense.

Today Chairman Adam Schiff (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence); Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (Committee on White House Oversight; and Chairman Eliot L. Engel (House Committee on Foreign Affairs) continue sending carefully worded letters under the guise of ‘subpoenas’. [Main Link Here]

Again, just like all prior examples, this is not a “subpoena”, it is a letter calling itself a “subpoena” and carries NO legal penalty for non-compliance. A legislative “letter” needs to carry judicial enforcement authority –A PENALTY– in order to be a “subpoena”.

There is no penalty that can be associated with these demands because the Legislative Branch has not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempt to work through their non-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

It has long been well established by SCOTUS that Congress has lawful (judicial authority) subpoena powers pursuant to its implied responsibility of legislative oversight.  However, that only applies to the powers enumerated in A1§8. Neither foreign policy (Ukraine) nor impeachment have any nexus to A1§8.  The customary Legislative Branch subpoena power is limited to their legislative purpose. 

There is an elevated level of subpoena, made power possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations.  That level of elevated House authority requires a full House authorization vote.

In this current example the Legislative Branch is expressing their “impeachment authority” as part of the Legislative Branch purpose.  So that raises the issue of an entirely different type of subpoena:… A demand from congress that penetrates the constitutional separation of powers; and further penetrates the legal authority of Executive Branch executive privilege.

It was separately established by SCOTUS during the Nixon impeachment investigation that *IF* the full House votes to have the Judiciary Committee commence an impeachment investigation, then Judiciary (only) has subpoena power that can overcome executive privilege claims. 

There has been NO VOTE to create that level of subpoena power.

As a consequence, the House has not created a process to penetrate the constitutionally inherent separation of powers, and/or, the legally recognized firewall known as ‘executive privilege’.   The House must vote to authorize the committee impeachment investigation, and through that process the committee gains judicial enforcement authority.  This creates the penalty for non-compliance with an impeachment subpoena.

A demand letter only becomes a “subpoena”, technically meaning: ‘a request for the production of documents with a penalty for non-compliance’, when the committee has judicial enforcement authority. That process establishes an enforcement penalty.

The current demand letters cannot carry a penalty because the demands do not contain judicial enforcement authority…. because the impeachment investigation was not authorized by the chamber.

The reason judicial enforcement authority is constitutionally required is because creating Judicial enforcement authority, creating the penalty for non-compliance, gives the Executive Branch a process to appeal any legislative demand via the Judicial Branch (federal courts).

Absent a penalty for non-compliance, which factually makes a subpoena a ‘subpoena’, the Executive Branch has no process to engage an appellate review by federal courts. This is the purposeful trick within the Pelosi/Lawfare road-map.

Pelosi and Lawfare’s plans are designed for public consumption; she/they are creating the illusion of something that doesn’t exist.  The purpose of all this fraudulent impeachment activity is to create support for an actual impeachment process.

Because the current Lawfare/Pelosi roadmap intends to work around judicial enforcement authority, the impeachment process is destined by design to end up running head-first into a constitutional problem; specifically separation of power and executive privilege. That predictable constitutional issue will end up with arguments to The Supreme Court.

THAT appears to be why Democrats and left-wing activists have been working for months to de-legitimize the Supreme Court. They always intended to run into this problem. They planned for it.

The Lawfare impeachment road-map is designed to conflict with the constitution. It is a necessary -and unavoidable- feature of their impeachment plan, not a flaw.

If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn’t have the media pushing her narrative the impeachment effort would have already failed.    In this interview Judiciary committee ranking member Doug Collins states the un-American inquiry is likely to backfire.

The initial reports came last night indicating that former South Carolina republican congressman Trey Gowdy has joined President Trump’s legal team. Reporting todayconfirms that Trey Gowdy is no longer a Fox News contributor.

Specifically it appears Mr. Gowdy has joined the team as a proactive measure before a House impeachment vote which then leads to a trial in the Senate.

Given Gowdy’s specific legal skillset, and considering he is well known amid Senate chambers, I would surmise Gowdy would be the primary defense orator during a senate trial.

In that regard this is a good pick.

We do not yet know who House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will select to be the House “Impeachment Managers”, for all intents and purposes the House impeachment prosecutors.  However, given recent court positioning it seems possible Lawfare member Douglas Letter -current House counsel- will be one of the two impeachment managers.

Mr. Gowdy has a rather mixed past in the political sphere. Heck, to be direct, his history of purple ties and political fence-positioning has been more than a little annoying. However, the 55-year-old former prosecutor is a strong litigator known for skilled oration and quick thinking in verbal arguments.

A smart chap with a disarming southern drawl is an asset in court. Considering the public spectacle of a Senate trial, this strength outweighs his prior shortcomings.

Additionally, another benefit to Trey Gowdy is there’s no need to bring him up-to-speed on the central issues. Mr. Gowdy was one of two House members who has reviewed every bit of classified documentary evidence gathered during the republican congressional investigations of the DOJ and FBI conduct.

House member John Ratcliffe and former member Trey Gowdy were selected by their colleagues to represent their interests. As a result Gowdy has seen all of the classified intelligence that lay behind all of the known events; and as a consequence all security clearances are pre-established. That could become an important benefit considering where this ridiculous impeachment path is heading.

CTH would not expect to see too much of Mr. Gowdy as the House impeachment battle continues.  In the background Gowdy will likely be absorbing information, reviewing every document, process and witness, along with helping coordinate the aggregate defense strategy.

My hunch is Gowdy’s profile strength will be saved in the event a Senate trial becomes a reality.

.

Against new information that U.S. Attorney John Durham has lengthened the time-framefor this investigative inquiry into the DOJ and FBI activity around the 2016 election, earlier today Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo revealed (and President Trump tweeted) the FISA report by Michael Horowitz will be released on Friday October 18th.

If that time-frame for the IG report is accurate, that means the classification review has been completed; any remaining classified information not specifically authorized in the inspector general report, a decision granted to AG Bill Barr, would be placed in a classified appendix that is not available to the public.

A publication date in/around October 18th would also mean the time allotted for principal review has expired.  Generally the people whose conduct is under review are granted a preview of the report that covers their activity.  The IG may or may not include any response from the principals outlined.  If the IG permits inclusion of a principal response, the IG usually outlines additional information to rebut or support the principal position.

A final draft is assembled only after the OIG administrative referencer makes a final review of all statements of fact and provides citations therein.  Then things get a little troublesome…

If Bartiromo is accurate as to the size of the IG report; this is where the ‘summary of IG findings‘ becomes critical.  Generally speaking the IG writes the full body of the report, but may not author the ‘executive summary’.  The executive summary can be written by administrative state career officials and their priority is institutional preservation.  If they are motivated to shape public opinion of the report content, the executive summary may be written to dilute institutional damage outlined within the main body of the report.

We saw a profound disconnect between the 14-page ‘executive summary’ and the main 568-page body of the investigative report when the DOJ and FBI released the IG report on FBI and DOJ handling of the Clinton Investigation.   The summary was completely disconnected from the material within the report; stunningly so.

The June 14th 2018 OIG Executive Summary was so ridiculously detached from the evidence within the report; and the roll-out day was so transparently coordinated; FBI Director Christopher Wray held an immediate press conference to announce the “inspector general found no evidence of political bias” during the 18-month investigation.

Director Wray made that specific proclamation at 5:30pm on Thursday, June 14th, 2018,less than three hours after the 568-page IG report was published.  The FBI timing was purposefully positioned just before the 6:00pm broadcast evening news, so that media could run with the headline “No Bias”.   It was a transparent DOJ/FBI public relations and political con job.

The June 2018 IG report was full of examples of political bias, but Director Wray’s intentionally misleading proclamation -in combination with a profoundly obtuse executive summary- set the foundation for how the report was broadcast to the public by the majority of the media.  Christopher Wray is still the current director of the FBI.

If Ms. Bartiromo is correct that DOJ officials are releasing the widely anticipated IG report on a Friday (October 18th), unfortunately that Friday document dump would be an indication the intent of the DOJ leans toward diminishing the content.

One aspect heavily monitored by CTH surrounds frequent redactions to ongoing DOJ releases that touch upon former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. An additionally annoying thorn would be the continued holding-back of Rosenstein’s expanded scope memos authorizing the expansion of Mueller’s special investigation. [They remain hidden]

The reason Rosenstein’s behavior remains a high-priority is simply because without his ongoing participation and authorization in 2017 and 2018 the Weissmann/Mueller probe would not have been able to continue.

Rosenstein is a central character to all events, and at the end of the Mueller investigation -through today- the DOJ continued to black out any information that evidenced Rosenstein’s duplicitous activity.

As a result, CTH has viewed the transparent DOJ redactions as a purposeful effort to protect Rosenstein.  However, recent activity and media reports outline the possibility of another motive.  Perhaps, just perhaps, the evidence of Rosenstein’s activities has been withheld because Rosenstein is a subject of the Durham investigation.  First watch this:

.

Setting aside the common mistake in part of that report by John Roberts, the fact that Durham is looking into the Mueller phase of the coup (early 2017); in combination with White House officials now sharing documents surrounding the Mueller-Rosenstein White House visit; and accepting the ongoing redactions by the DOJ on material that touches Rosenstein; there is a moderate possibility Rosenstein is now a Durham target.

There are four central actions taken by DAG Rod Rosenstein that frame the four corners of his active involvement within the “small group” coup effort.  Four corners that would highlight Rosenstein as an “unindicted co-conspirator”:

♦Corner One – Rosenstein’s contact with Mueller immediately following the firing of James Comey (less than 15 hours); and the documented contact with Mueller during the period of May 10th through May 17th (leading to the appointment); and the material evidence that Rosenstein lied to the White House when he took Mueller into the Oval Office on May 16th to interview the special counsel target.  As Devin Nunes outlined in January: “Rosenstein made Trump the target of Mueller“.

♦Corner Two – DAG Rod Rosenstein expanding the special counsel investigations. Rosenstein wrote three scope memos in total. The first initiated the special counsel under the predicate of looking at Russian interference in the 2016 election and/or Trump campaign official conduct therein. The second scope memo expanded the depth of the Mueller probe and allowed the investigation to look at other issues unrelated to Russia interference (Manafort taxes, FARA, etc.). The second scope memo also authorized Mueller to use the Steele Dossier as an investigative tool.

The third expanded scope memo allowed Mueller’s team to go after targets unrelated to Russia interference, and unrelated to the other matters. The third memo specifically allowed Mueller to target Mike Flynn Jr. as a tool to get General Flynn to take a plea deal.

♦Corner Three – DAG Rosenstein cooperated in the Mueller claim of Russian election activity through DOJ indictments of ridiculous Russian-related entities; none of which would ever be prosecuted – and almost all of which seemed constructed to promote the guise upon which the Special Counsel was launched.  It would have also been DAG Rod Rosenstein who approved of the James Wolfe plea deal, burying the FISA leak and the involvement of senators within the SSCI in the overall coup effort.

♦Corner Four – DAG Rosenstein was specifically in charge of authorizing or granting the aggregate activity of Mueller’s team; which would include the aggressive methods used by the DOJ and FBI evidenced by raids on Paul Manafort and SWAT deployment against Roger Stone (with CNN media to broadcast). More concerning, and perhaps most damning, DAG Rosenstein would have to sign-off on the $10,000 sting operation against George Papadopoulos at Dulles International Airport.  DAG Rosenstein also threatened President Trump not to declassify material in Sept. ’18 or he would face obstruction.

We’ve always said that Attorney General Bill Barr’s biggest challenge would not be gathering evidence of what took place; the evidence is so obvious there have been books written about it. The real challenge for AG Barr is navigating through what We The Peopleare already aware of; against a likely disposition that Barr would not want to believe it, and certainly would be conflicted in facing it.

The reports of AG Bill Barr personally going to see and interview the places and people at the very epicenter of the fraudulent 2016 predicate, is an indication that Barr doesn’t really have any options. The scale of what took place is so serious; and the evidence therein so obvious; if he doesn’t get his arms-around-it the Attorney General is looking at very serious long-term institutional damage.

The obvious stares us in the face.  If Durham has indeed expanded his time-frame to looking at early 2017, he is looking at DOJ and FBI activity entirely under the authority of Rod Rosenstein.

It would be, at least should be, impossible for either Barr or U.S. Attorney John Durham to complete their investigation/review of what took place, and then deliver a report -or statement- that results in nothing; or worse, attempts to justify all of the known activity. Simply put, too many millions of Americans are aware.

All of that said, it could be possible the DOJ action to redact, remove and/or keep the demonstrable activity by Rosenstein hidden, is not to protect Rosenstein – but rather because Rosenstein is an investigative subject or target therein. Again, WATCH:

.

Earlier today the White House held a background Q&A with reporters to discuss the letterthey sent to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  [You can find additional CTH information HERE]

[Transcript] – MR. GIDLEY: Thank you so much everyone. We appreciate you joining the call. This is a background briefing regarding the letter to the House Representatives. Keep in mind that this call is attributable to a senior administration official, so on background only. It is also embargoed until the conclusion of the call.

With that, I’m going to turn it over to [a senior administration official] to give you a brief overview of the letter. And then I have [senior administration officials] to answer questions after the presentation.

So, with that, I’m going to turn it over to [senior administration official].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thank you, Hogan. Thank you everyone for being on the call. Today, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone sent a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and to the chairmen of the Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight and Reform committees of the House of Representatives, explaining the President’s and the administration’s position with respect to recent requests for information in connection with what the House has characterized as an impeachment inquiry. And the letter explains that there are legal and constitutional flaws that make what has been labeled a so-called “impeachment inquiry” invalid as a constitutional matter.

For the first time in our nation’s history, the House of Representatives is now purporting to proceed on an impeachment inquiry against the President without conducting a vote on the House floor. This has never happened in the history of the country. There’s always been, in every prior inquiry into a presidential impeachment, a vote on the House floor.

And here, the House is purporting to proceed simply on the basis of a news conference that the Speaker of the House had. And that is simply not sufficient to establish the sort of accountability to show the will of the House to embark on this that is required out of due respect for the separation of powers and for the vote of the American people that was taken in the last election.

Even more importantly, the second legal and constitutional flaw is that the House is purporting to proceed without providing any of the due process protections that have been provided in all modern presidential impeachment inquiries in the past. The House is not providing any rules to provide the President any of the basic procedural rights that would apply in any proceeding that is designed to achieve a real search for the truth.
They have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts as testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present — all of these. And these have been in the 1970s, in the inquiries into President Nixon; in the late 1990s, the inquiries into impeachment with President Clinton. All these rights were available. It is unprecedented that they are being denied here, and it violates basic due process standards.

In addition to that, by failing to have any resolution on the House floor, the House has avoided giving even the minority on the committees the right to subpoena. So, in all prior modern presidential inquiries into presidential impeachment, the minority party has had co-equal authority to issue subpoenas to gather information along with the majority.

This is the first time ever that someone — that a House has tried to pursue such an inquiry while denying the minority that right. And it simply guarantees that this would be a one-sided inquiry, a one-sided effort by one party to gather the information that it finds favorable, without the same power on the other side to gather other information.

And that’s contrary to one of the basic tenets of our adversarial system of justice, which is that, in having an adversarial presentation of evidence — two sides trying to get at the truth — that is the best way to get at the truth of something. Again, it’s denial of basic fairness, fundamental fairness in this process.

And so, the letter explains that there are these flaws denying fundamental fairness and due process, contrary to all history and precedent in the country, and explains that the reason the Democrats are proceeding in this fashion is that this is really nothing but a political strategy.

It’s a political stratagem because the Democrats want to overturn the results of the 2016 election and they want to use impeachment as a political strategy to influence the results of the 2020 election. And this, again, is unprecedented in the history of our nation to use such a grave constitutional proceeding for such raw political ends.

It’s something that was denounced even by Chairman Nadler in the context of the Bill Clinton impeachment. He explained then that there should never be a narrowly voted impeachment, or impeachment supported by one political party and opposed by another — that that’s simply not the proper use of impeachment.

The letter goes on also to explain that there are some serious questions raised by some of the conduct of the committees — with Chairman Schiff, for example, first denying that he had any contact with the whistleblower, then having to admit that that was not true. And that these are questions that ought to be explored. But given the current procedures — the constitutionally flawed procedures that the committees have adopted, there is no opportunity either for the President or for the minority, so the Republicans in the House, to explore these issues. There’s no subpoena power for them. There’s no way for them to get access to evidence. There’s no opportunity for the President to confront witnesses at all or cross-examine them. So the entire process is flawed from the outset.

And the letter concludes by explaining that, given these constitutional flaws and the President’s obligations under the Constitution and to future occupants of the Office of the Presidency, that he cannot have his administration participate in this unconstitutional procedure, and that, under the current circumstances, at least as currently framed, that he and his administration will not participate in this process.

I think that’s a good summary of the letter, and we’d be happy to take questions.

Q Thank you. Alex Ward from Vox here. We were talking to House Democrats today who said any action along these lines could be seen as something that could lead to articles of impeachment over obstruction of justice. I’m wondering how you view those statements by Democrats.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, asserting rights under the Constitution cannot ever properly be framed as obstruction of justice. Democrats may try to spin it that way politically, they may try to make that argument politically, but that’s a political argument; it’s not a legal argument. Standing on rights and asserting rights under the Constitution, under the separation of powers and under the due process clause, is not obstruction of justice; it’s part of the constitutional system we have.

Q Hi. This is Andrew Feinberg with Breakfast Media. Thanks for doing the call. I have two questions. The first is: Aren’t you putting the due process cart before the horse here? Because the opportunity to question witnesses against the President, wouldn’t that come in a Senate trial?

And second, since Democrats took over Congress, you guys have argued that their oversight requests aren’t legitimate without a legitimate legislative purpose. You’re now arguing that the impeachment inquiry that you said — that you guys previously said that the administration would cooperate with — have the obligation to cooperate with — is illegitimate because there hasn’t been a House vote.

What’s to stop you from arguing that an impeachment inquiry, should the House take a vote, is illegitimate because not enough Republicans voted for it? I mean, isn’t the real (inaudible) you don’t see the Democratic House as having any legitimate authority over a Republican administration?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, no, that’s not accurate at all. And the answer to both of your questions, really, is grounded in precedent.

As to the first one, the ability to question witnesses in all modern presidential impeachment inquiries — even at the inquiry stage in the House — the President was afforded the ability to question witnesses. President Clinton’s counsel questioned witnesses in the House. So that’s before the Senate trial.

What is unprecedented is the denial of that ability under the current procedures that the House is pursuing right now. And in terms of oversight, you’ll see towards the end of the letter, we point out that Congress can’t have it both ways here. It can’t have — purport to be pursuing an impeachment inquiry without the requisite procedures and then try to rely on its oversight authority to be doing that.

And the precedent is that for impeachment inquiries, there is, for a presidential impeachment inquiry, a vote in the House. That’s what authorizes the inquiry to go forward. If the House wants to revert to regular order on oversight and not have an impeachment inquiry, we would be — we would respond to those requests, as we have according to the constitutionally mandated accommodation process and according to longstanding principles that have governed our approach.

Q Oh, hi there. It’s Josh Wingrove from Bloomberg. Thank you for taking the time. Can you give us sort of a practical sense of what this means? This means that all members of the administration will not testify; they will decline subpoena requests? It will not provide documents either in response to subpoenas or requests, as was the case with the Vice President? Basically, it’s just a full halt on the part of the administration. Is that correct?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That is correct. The administration’s policy, under the current circumstances — at least as these rules are currently framed — that the administration will have a full halt because this is not a valid procedure for going forward on an impeachment inquiry.

Q Hi. This is Yamiche Alcindor with PBS News Hour. I have a question about what happens if the House does hold a vote on the impeachment inquiry. Does the White House then say that it would provide documents and allow witnesses to testify?

And then the second question is, there’s going to be criticism that this is really the President stonewalling Congress because he doesn’t like this investigation and this impeachment inquiry. Can you say — can you answer both of those things please?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don’t want to speculate about what would happen in various hypothetical situations. You know, we’ll take this step by step. We have one concrete situation now that we’re confronting; we’ve addressed it. If the House wants to engage and alter the current circumstances, then we’ll have to evaluate that as it goes along.

And in terms of your second question, this is really a situation where the President has an obligation to the institution, to the Executive Branch prerogatives and to future occupants of the Office, to protect certain principles and not to engage in a process that we believe is constitutionally defective. And it would set a precedent then for future proceedings by lowering the bar for starting an impeachment inquiry and making it much easier to use an impeachment inquiry simply as a political tool, when it should be an extraordinary remedy that is very rarely invoked, only for the gravest of circumstances.

Q Hi, it’s Steven Portnoy from CBS News. Thanks for taking this call. Gentleman, the Constitution doesn’t have too much to say about impeachment, but what it does say, you know, is rather powerful. It seems you’re going to have answer a threshold question if this is tested in court. And that question might be: How do any of the premises you’ve put in your letter — the discussion of precedent, you cite the Alcee Hastings case in a footnote — how does any of that outweigh the Constitution’s clear statement that the House shall have the sole power of impeachment? Starting from that very simple basis, what’s the legal, not political, but the legal argument that the President can have anything to say about this at all?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, as you probably know, particularly in the area of separation of powers, the Constitution doesn’t say very much explicitly. It’s a principle that’s derived from the structure of the Constitution.

And in that area in particular, courts tend to look at the practice — the precedent of the way that branches have handled inter-branch conflicts, and treat that as gloss in many circumstances on what the Constitution requires.

So here, the fact that precedent is completely on our side, and it’s not really disputed that it’s on our side, that precedent itself provides a powerful gloss on what the Constitution requires in terms of separation of powers.

And I think both for having the vote in the House to establish that is actually the action of the House — the elected representatives of the people — that they want to embark on this course of a very grave inter-branch conflict requiring a vote — for that is consistent with case law in other areas, such as the courts have required a vote from the House to authorize as to engage in litigation, because it’s that vote from the House that shows the will of the body, the institution, to engage in an inter-branch conflict.

And on the due process clause, or due process protections, these are fundamental protections that are regarded as essential for the search for the truth under our system of laws. And to say that in one of the gravest proceedings that affect the entire nation to remove the President from office, that the Constitution doesn’t imply that there is any process protection, I think would be untenable.

Q This is Ben Tracy from CBS. Could you specifically say what is the bar for cooperation? Is it simply taking this vote? Do you feel like you will get these due process issues settled? Or do they have to meet all of these requirements you’ve outlined in this letter?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’m not going to try to provide particular red lines or things like that. The letter, I think, speaks for itself about flaws. We have to see what the House wants to do to try to remedy them. And as I said before, I don’t want to speculate. We’ll take it as the situations develop, and day by day as things change, be able to reevaluate.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Moderator, we have time for one more question. Thank you.

Q Hi, this is Noah Bierman of the LA Times. You are not willing to answer what circumstances would cause you to cooperate? A lot of people will take that as, basically, an open-ended statement that you’re not going to cooperate at all and not willing to get ahead of the President, who may change his mind on a whim. Is that an accurate characterization of what’s going on here?

And how do you respond to people who are concerned about that — that this is a constitutional prerogative of Congress that is being ignored here, basically?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I think by saying that we don’t want to speculate about hypotheticals or draw red lines, or predict the future, we are definitely not saying that — we’re avoiding saying that there is no way we’d ever cooperate and laying down something definite.

What we have done in this letter is explain the flaws under the current circumstances and how changes could address those flaws and what that might hold for the future. I don’t want to try to predict now because we’ll have to see how it develops.

MR. GIDLEY: Thank you very much, Moderator. Just as a reminder to all the reporters on the call, this call is attributable to a senior administration official. Again, it’s a background call attributable to a senior administration official. And, of course, the embargo is now lifted. Thank you so much for your time.

END 5:39 P.M. EDT

.

(White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham)  The President has done nothing wrong, and the Democrats know it.  For purely political reasons, the Democrats have decided their desire to overturn the outcome of the 2016 election allows them to conduct a so-called impeachment inquiry that ignores the fundamental rights guaranteed to every American.

These partisan proceedings are an affront to the Constitution—as they are being held behind closed doors and deny the President the right to call witnesses, to cross-examine witnesses, to have access to evidence, and many other basic rights.

Today, on behalf of President Donald J. Trump, Pat Cipollone, Counsel to the President, sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings.  The letter demonstrates that the Democrats’ inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, and even the most elementary due process protections.

Democrats are pursuing purely partisan goals, including influencing the upcoming 2020 election.  In the process, they are violating civil liberties and the separation of powers, threatening Executive Branch officials with punishment simply for exercising their constitutional rights and prerogatives.

All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent.  For these reasons, the Executive Branch cannot be expected to, and will not participate in, this exercise of partisan political theater.

President Trump and his entire Administration will, however, keep fighting for the American people, growing the economy, building prosperity, and protecting America’s interests at home and abroad.  (LINK)

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Lawfare allies can change House rules (they did). Pelosi and Lawfare can also change House impeachment rules (they did). Pelosi/Lawfare can change committee rules (they did); and in doing so they can remove House republicans from the entire process… Which They Did.  However, what Lawfare and Pelosi cannot change is The U.S. Constitution, which they are desperate to confront.

Speaker Pelosi’s ‘Lawfare House rules‘ and/or ‘Lawfare impeachment rules‘ cannot supersede the constitutional separation of powers.

Nancy Pelosi cannot decree an “official impeachment inquiry”, and as a consequence nullify a constitutional firewall between the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch.

~ Speaker Pelosi and House Attorney Douglas Letter ~

All of that said, there is a distinct difference between a congressional subpoena intended to compel generic testimony, and a congressional subpoena intended to compel impeachment testimony.

Attempting to compel testimony that crosses through the separation of powers; and goes even further in an attempt to penetrate the firewall around executive privilege; requires the House -or a committee therein- to carry “Judicial Authority“.

“Judicial Authority” is not absolute authority, but rather a legal reference and framework that forms the basis for an impeachment ‘compulsion demand‘ (or subpoena) by the House.  Judicial Authority is the House saying they have a legal basis to make a demand.

The reason judicial authority is necessary, is because creating Judicial authority, via the Legislative Branch full chamber vote, gives the Executive Branch access to appeal any legislative demand via the Judicial Branch (federal courts).

Repeat for emphasis:

…The reason judicial authority is constitutionally required, is because creating Judicial authority, gives the Executive Branch a process to appeal any legislative demand via the Judicial Branch (federal courts)….

Absent the creation of judicial authority the House has not created a penalty for non-compliance.  However, absent a penalty for non-compliance the Executive Branch has no process to engage an appellate review by federal courts.   This is the purposeful trick within the Pelosi/Lawfare road-map.

Speaker Pelosi’s current Lawfare-inspired road-map (House and committee rule changes therein) attempts to construct a path to impeachment that avoids asserting House “judicial authority”; because they fear losses from a Judicial Branch ruling.  Those who constructed the road-map are also concerned about outright blocks by the courts in their proceedings.

This process issue was argued by Lawfare member Douglas Letter today during a hearingon the topic of the House Judiciary Committee gaining access to Weissmann/Mueller’s grand jury evidence.  [Expanded Here]

Here’s the bottom line: “Judicial Authority”, granted by a full House vote, gives the House of Representatives more authority in their impeachment construct.  However, “judicial authority” also grants the Executive Branch a path to appeal via the Judicial Branch.

Because the Lawfare/Pelosi roadmap intends to subvert judicial authority, it is destined by design to end up running head-first into a constitutional problem; specifically separation of power and executive privilege.  That predictable constitutional issue will end up with arguments to The Supreme Court.  THAT is why the Democrats have been working for months to delegitimize the Supreme Court.

Please let me repeat for emphasis.  The Lawfare impeachment road-map is designed to conflict with the constitution.  It is a necessary -and unavoidable- feature of the plan, not a flaw.  Pelosi and the Lawfare group know they are creating a constitutional crisis; that is why the background attacks against the Supreme Court were started months ago.

Understanding this, here’s the White House response:

.