I’m going to attempt to remove the legal linguistics and explain what appears to be a highly predictable process most are ignoring.

BASELINE – After the 2018 mid-terms, and in preparation for the “impeachment” strategy, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Lawfare group members to become House committee staff…. Chairman Schiff hired former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman(link), and Chairman Nadler hired  Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen and criminal defense attorney Barry Berke (link).  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi then hiredDouglas Letter as House General Counsel – all are within the Lawfare network.

♦On October 25th DC Judge Beryl Howell granted the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) request for legal authority to receive 6e grand jury material underlying the Mueller report.

Additionally, within the Howell decision she officially recognized the HJC effort was predicated on a constitutional impeachment process.

In essence Howell’s opinion granted the HJC with “judicial enforcement authority.”

♦The DOJ moved to appeal the decision and requested a “stay” pending appeal.  Judge Howell rejected the “stay” motion.

The DOJ appealed to the DC Court of Appeals.  A panel of three judges issued an “administrative stay”, blocking enforcement of the Howell ruling while the appeal was reviewed.

The temporary administrative stay was granted to freeze the status quo while the court considers whether to grant a longer stay that would remain in effect until the DOJ appeal is argued or decided (deadline tomorrow).  The outcome is pending.  Judge Merrick Garland is the Chief Judge of the DC Appeals court.

After the full House voted to authorize the ongoing “impeachment inquiry” today, Nadler’s team immediately opened a second legal front.

♦Using the baseline predicate of Howell’s recognition of HJC impeachment authority; and now using the full House vote as further affirmation therein; the HJC is now moving to another Judge, Ketanji Brown Jackson, an Obama appointee to the federal district court in D.C., requesting judicial enforcement authority to compel testimony from former White House legal counsel Don McGahn:

WASHINGTON DC – Lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee urged a federal judge on Thursday to force former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify before Congress about President Trump’s possible obstruction of justice, arguing that his refusal to comply is harming House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.

Democrats’ counsel said that even though McGahn’s role in the obstruction investigation carried out by former special counsel Robert Mueller was described at length in Mueller’s report, lawmakers still need to independently evaluate his testimony. (more)

The HJC objective is simple: gain judicial enforcement authority for their subpoenas so their targets cannot legally refuse to give testimony.

The premise for both fronts [(1) document subpoena 6e material, and (2) testimony from McGahn] is predicated on penetrating a constitutional firewall that exists within the separation of powers.

Under existing SCOTUS precedent, the White House can be compelled to deliver Executive Branch documents and testimony so long as an official legislative branch impeachment process is underway.

Judge Beryl Howell was the first person in the judicial branch to recognize and accept the HJC position that such an official impeachment process was ongoing.  Judge Brown Jackson will likely be the second. The House vote today is fuel for that twisted-legal approach.

Some have asked for my opinion on where this is going…. My opinion is not outlining success or failure, merely the likely approach they are taking with this scheme:

It would appear that Nadler and his Lawfare group are collecting evidence for their Impeachment Managers.  The decision to impeach was reached long ago; these moves by the HJC are moves to gather evidence for the Senate trial.

The Pelosi-Schiff optics of open House impeachment hearings is a pantomime, intended to give the illusion of customary and traditional impeachment proceedings taking place.  The impeachment report Schiff’s Lawfare group will deliver to the HJC Lawfare group is meant only to bolster the pre-existing conclusions from Barry Berke and Norm Eisen.

In essence, the usurpers began with the end in mind, and they are now back-filling the pre-scripted articles of impeachment with supportive evidence.   The HJC subpoenas are intended to do that back-filling along with the Schiff committee product.

Unfortunately, I do not foresee the DOJ succeeding in their appeals.  The DOJ has put their weakest lawyers (half-hearted attempts) into the fight.  As an outcome it looks like the Judiciary is aligned in favor of the constitutional predicate claimed by the HJC.

Ultimately it will take a much stronger republican house effort to stop Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and their host of Lawfare contracted agents.  Simultaneously it would take a much stronger team in the DOJ fighting to retain the executive branch position.  Neither is currently present.

Show me an action by U.S. AG Bill Barr to change the impression the DOJ is intentionally tanking the external fight and I will change my opinion.  However, so far the push-back from the DOJ has been very weak considering the stakes.  [Too weak to be accidental]

Thus my opinion: despite the strength of their constitutional position, the DOJ will fail to protect the office of the presidency.  It’s a gut-sense impression; but we should be able to get a better feel of DOJ motive from their approach toward the appeals court.

♦ That brings up the Senate trial.   From a review of their signaling and positioning, it appears to me the objective of the Lawfare group, via the impeachment managers, will center around modifications to Senate Impeachment Rules and the use of a Senatorial Trial Panel.

The senate rules on impeachment processes can be changed and modified [Example here from 1986].  Additionally there is nothing in the constitution that requires an established number of senators to sit or convict during the trial [Constitution, Article 1, Sec 3]:

This is my interpretation of what the Lawfare group will attempt.

“Concurrence of two-thirds of the members present“

The Democrats will argue their 2020 candidates cannot spend all this time on a Senate trial…. the media will be sympathetic….. Because the constitution is ambiguous to the construct…. and intentionally differential to the size of the Senate…. the democrat approach will be to empanel a bipartisan jury of an unknown number of Senators to sit for the trial “under oath and affirmation.”

There is nothing in the constitution that would stop the Senate from assembling a jury of 10 republican senators and 10 democrat senators. It would then require “two-thirds” or thirteen for a conviction.  Or the jury could be 40 or (fill_in_blank).

This type of a senate construct is what the left has been hinting about in their discussions.  This is what Lawfare has been discussing since they successfully gained the Nixon Impeachment Roadmap during their lawsuit a few months ago.

Senator Lindsey Graham, who has increasingly come under pressure for doing nothing as the powerful Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announces today that he will be abdicating his chairmanship immediately after the 2020 presidential election:

(Via Politico) Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) plans to hand the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee back to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa.) in the next Congress.  Graham took over the panel this year from Grassley, who left to chair the Senate Finance Committee.

In an interview Thursday, Graham said Grassley asked to come back after his tenure on the Senate Finance Committee. Graham responded “absolutely.”

“Love Chuck Grassley. That’s the way the Senate works,” Graham said. “He took the Finance Committee so I could be chairman, and he’ll come back and fill out his time, and I’ll come back, and somebody else will come along.” (read more)

Obviously this announcement begs the question:

Did Graham -who has done nothing promised- assume the Chair for 2019 and 2020 as a designed effort to protect the backroom interests of the upper-chamber?

Despite some initial side-eye to the cynicism, the premise would actually not be that far fetched.  Such a plan was laid out by GOPe political consultant Alex Castellanos [SEE HERE].  […]  “The best way to do it is how Brutus killed Caesar. Get real close, snuggle up, and shiv him in the ribs.” (link)

The Senate Judiciary Committee could be questioning a myriad of people from the DOJ, FBI and national security apparatus that have been identified as participating in a lengthy scheme to usurp the office of the presidency; however, Senator Graham has done nothing.

Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko presented US Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham with the Order of Freedom and the Order of Prince Yaroslav the Wise respectively, ahead of a US delegation meeting in Kiev, 2016.  WATCH:

.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will have structural organizational responsibilities for an upcoming senate impeachment trial after the House impeachment managers deliver their articles of impeachment.

House republican and democrat leadership both held press conferences today immediately after the successful passage of the House Impeachment Inquiry Resolution.

Republicans:

.

Democrats:

.

Repost by Request – with intro:   After the 2018 mid-terms, and in preparation for the “impeachment” strategy, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Lawfare group members to become House committee staff.

Chairman Schiff hired former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman (link), and Chairman Nadler hired  Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen and criminal defense attorney Barry Berke (link).  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi then hired Douglas Letter as House General Counsel – all are within the Lawfare network.

[Barry Berke, left and Norm Eisen, right – pictured exiting the HSCI scif with Jerry Nadler on the same day Pelosi’s “Impeachment Inquiry” Resolution was released, 10/29/19]

After Goldman, Eisen, Berke and Letter were hired in late 2018, Pelosi then went aboutchanging the Rules of the House in January ’19.  Few were paying attention until recently.

In the last month many people have surmised that Pelosi and Schiff moved to utilize the Ukraine/NSC impeachment angle *after* the Mueller angle for impeachment ran into trouble. However, CTH research (widely criticized in 2018) doesn’t reflect the Whistle-blower impeachment plan as an ‘add-on’.  Instead, what we see is the use of the HPSCI; and the use of embeds within National Security Council staff; by design.  The Schiff events of today were always part of a prior planned design.

Only two committees hired Lawfare staff in 2018: Judiciary (Eisen & Berke) and HPSCI(Goldman).  This evidences a 2018 plan to use the Judiciary and HPSCI for the impeachment process as designed by the Lawfare contractors.  This design is also outlined in the year of public advice from the mother-ship, Lawfare.

They impeachment crew always planned to use the House Intelligence Committee; and they always planned to use activated sleeper cells within the National Security Staff.  None of this is organic; none of this current action was contingent upon a Trump phone call.  The whistle-blower approach was always going to be used; the only issue was: ‘how’?

That sets the context for the slick moves by Pelosi and Schiff’s Lawfare team.  The contracted legal staff within House Intelligence Committee produced a House “Impeachment Inquiry” resolution to be voted on tomorrow.

By all appearances the impeachment crew is following a legal strategy.  Leading with Nadler (Mueller) in the HJC was part of that forethought.  Berke and Eisen would then go after the Mueller evidence (grand jury, 6e material).   Whether Judge Beryl Howell was/is in-on-it; and whether the DOJ staff tanked the oral arguments on purpose; is up for debate… but the plan was always thus.

Once, Barry Berke and Norm Eisen gained Judicial impeachment validation from a federal judge, that’s where Chairman Schiff and Daniel Goldman come in.  Goldman is the Lawfare contractor leading the questioning and framing the House impeachment inquiry approach through the use of the HPSCI rules that are useful in their secrecy.

The primary point is: none of this process-flow is accidental.  There is a design evident in activity that is only visible in hindsight.

Why does this matter?

Because if we can see the visible House plan; and if we accept the deliberate process it has taken to carry it out; then why would we assume there isn’t a similar plan for the Senate?

♦ Constitutional professor Lawrence Tribe is to the left as Mark Levin is to the right.

To the Lawfare crew, Lawrence Tribe is their Svengali.  Tribe has been hinting toward a process that could be possible within the Senate. [SEE HERE]   Ignore him at our peril.

Retreating to the Senate as the Alamo, where all hope falls upon the action of Mitch McConnell, isn’t exactly the most reassuring plan.  That approach means the House will have then destroyed the structural intention of the constitutional intent surrounding the impeachment process.

This needs to be fought hard, to stop the House from codifying a process that will forever change the office of the president.  The precedent being outlined here is alarming.

The crafted resolution that will be voted upon tomorrow (full pdf below) contains the rules constructed by Nadler and Shiff’s Lawfare staff, for public HPSCI hearings.

The House impeachment resolution blocks President Trump’s lawyers from participating in the House process until the hand-off to the Judiciary Committee for article assembly.

Within the House resolution is a process to transfer the evidence from the three investigative committee chairs: Schiff, Engel and Maloney, to Jerry Nadler at Judiciary. [The process within Judicary will be assembling the ‘articles of impeachment’.]

What Pelosi/Schiff et al have assembled is a format for a highly controlled public spectacle prior to a predetermined transfer of evidence to Jerry Nadler (Judicary). With the intent to construct a pantomime for public absorption in mind, the rules are written for maximum narrative construction. [ex. Lawfare lawyers will question witnesses]

The rules within the resolution outline the guidance for at least one public hearing from the HPSCI prior to transfer to Judiciary. The Oversight Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee and Intelligence Committee are assembling publicly under the House Intelligence Committee (HPSCI) for that/those public hearing(s).

Key points from rules:

• The Executive Branch will not be permitted to participate in the open HPSCI hearing.
• President Trump lawyers will not be permitted to question witnesses in the open HPSCI hearing.
• Ranking member of HPSCI (Nunes) may have subpoena power subject to pre-approval by Chairman Adam Schiff. Requests must be made in writing. Chair is not mandated to approve.
• Ranking member of HPSCI (Nunes) may have ability to request witnesses subject to pre-approval by Chairman Adam Schiff. Requests must be made in writing. Chair is not mandated to approve.
• Schiff (Chairman) and Nunes (Ranking member) will each have 90 minutes (aggregate) to question any witness brought before the committee. All other committee members will have 5 minutes each, per witness. [Remember this is a member assembly of 3 committees]
• The Chairman can allow contracted legal staff (Lawfare) to question witnesses, as part of his 90-minutes of available questioning.
• The Chair is authorized, though not required, to make depositions public.
• Upon completion of the hearing(s), the HPSCI chairman shall write a **report to the Judiciary (Nadler) with instructions of findings. The chair may include dissent from the minority opinion therein.

[**Note: IMHO this report has already been written. That was the purpose for the basement hearings. All of this public testimony is for public consumption to support the premise of a constitutional impeachment proceedings. It’s a farce.]

• The resolution then provides a process for the HPSCI report to transfer all of the assembled tri-committee material to the House Judiciary Committee where Jerry Nadler will take over.

The next part of the resolution is the House approving of the transfer process, and setting up rules for the Judiciary Committee phase. The Judiciary Committee (HJC) then shifts to official Impeachment Hearings, prior to articles of impeachment being assembled.

• The HJC Ranking member (Doug Collins) shall have subpoena power subject to approval by the HJC Chair, Jerry Nadler.
• The HJC ranking member shall have the ability to request witness testimony, subject to approval by the HJC Chair, Jerry Nadler.
• The HJC will allow participation by President Trump’s counsel.

Within the rules, the existence of judicial enforcement authority -punishment for refusing to provide documents and witnesses by subpoena- is assumed. Based on the construction of this resolution, and with Judge Howell’s court decision still standing, this presumption by the House appears structurally solid.

Here’s the full pdf of the rules:

.

“The resolution provides rules for the format of open hearings in the House Intelligence Committee, including staff-led questioning of witnesses, and it authorizes the public release of deposition transcripts.

“The evidence we have already collected paints the picture of a President who abused his power by using multiple levers of government to press a foreign country to interfere in the 2020 election. Following in the footsteps of previous impeachment inquiries, the next phase will move from closed depositions to open hearings where the American people will learn firsthand about the President’s misconduct.” (LINK)

Lawfare lawyers Barry Berke and Norm Eisen, leading participants in the construction of the impeachment rules, October 29, 2019, entering the SCIF with Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler