March 6, 2019

House Dems Launch New Probe

We're officially on Insta! Did I throw on a blazer at 5 am for all you lovely people? You bet I did!

Dozens of people with connections to President Donald Trump and his associates will receive document requests this week, as the House Judiciary Committee starts a broad new probe looking at possible obstruction of justice, corruption and abuse of power. The panel sent letters to 81 people asking a flurry of questions about Trump’s activities before and after he was elected president. Those included family, former business associates and current and former White House advisers.” AP News

On Sunday Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, told ABC, “It’s very clear that the president obstructed justice.” ABC News

See past issues

From the Left

The left believes Congress is fulfilling its constitutional duties by investigating the President.

“Democrats have long said they want to wait to act on impeachment until after Mueller issues his final report. But Attorney General William Barr’s refusal to commit to providing Mueller’s findings to Congress—combined with the recent testimony by Trump’s longtime personal lawyer Michael Cohen that Trump implicitly asked him to lie to Congress—has given Democrats a new sense of urgency.”
Natasha Bertrand, The Atlantic

“I do not know whether former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s explosive testimony before the House Oversight Committee last week is sufficient to prove that there are grounds to impeach Trump. But Cohen’s testimony, coupled with the indictments of many of Trump’s other close advisers and the federal and state investigations into Trump’s business affairs, compels Pelosi to authorize a formal impeachmentinquiryAt this point, it would be an abdication of responsibility for the House not to pursue [an investigation].”
Philip Allen Lacovara, Washington Post

“In many ways, the congressional investigation offers advantages that Mueller’s probe lacks… While Mueller is bound by grand jury secrecy rules and Department of Justice policies to prevent public disclosure of matters under investigation, congressional committees operate largely in the public…

“Mueller is [also] limited to looking for federal crimes. But just because conduct does not amount to a violation of the criminal code does not mean that Congress should permit it to occur unchecked.”
Barbara McQuade, New York Magazine

“Political investigations tend to be marathons rather than sprints, requiring the slow, meticulous accretion of evidential layers. It’s easy to forget how slowly and painfully the Watergate investigation unfolded. It was more than a year after John Dean’s congressional testimony that President Richard Nixon resigned. With his investigation, Mr. Nadler is looking to build a case for impeachment so compelling that it will have enough bipartisan support to survive the Republican-controlled Senate… This is what oversight looks like.”
Michelle Cottle, New York Times

Some posit that “the Framers fantasized that the Senate would be made up of disinterested natural aristocrats who would always put country above party… [But] it hasn’t exactly turned out that way. In a two-party system with roughly equal distribution of power, whichever party holds the presidency will almost inevitably be able to block removal in the Senate, provided its members think the party has more to lose from removal than to gain from it…

“Constitutionally, this aggressive exercise of oversight may answer a question that has troubled many observers, myself included: What happens to the rule of law if there is evidence that the president is guilty of serious crimes, but there’s insufficient political will to impeach him? The answer may well be that such a president can be made to twist slowly in the wind, provided the opposition party controls one chamber of Congress.”
Noah Feldman, Bloomberg

“In theory, there’s no reason why a bad businessman can’t go on to become a good president. But a commander-in-chief whose signature legislative achievement expanded tax loopholes that he himself describes as grossly unfair is pretty much a bad president, by definition.”
Eric Levitz, New York Magazine

From the Right

The right dismisses the investigation as politically motivated, and believes Democrats have already made up their minds to impeach Trump.

From the Right

The right dismisses the investigation as politically motivated, and believes Democrats have already made up their minds to impeach Trump.

“Until recently, the left routinely claimed Mueller was essential to the survival of our democracy. Now they seem prepared to skip right past his final conclusions… While ‘collusion’ is fading away, the Democrats are ready to deploy ‘obstruction’ and ‘tax returns’ in its place as their anti-Trump mantra. This is Congressional Democrats showing us what their true motive has been all along: Get Trump in any way, at any cost.”
Buck Sexton, Fox News

“A President can obstruct justice while in office but only if he is committing a per se illegal offense. That is, if he suborns perjury or destroys evidence, or commits ‘any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence,’ as [Attorney General William Barr] put it. Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton committed such acts in Mr. Barr’s view, but Mr. Trump has not as far as we can see…

“A President cannot obstruct justice when he takes actions that are consistent with his Article II powers under the Constitution. That includes in particular firing inferior executive-branch officers such as Mr. Comey. Such acts may be politically stupid, but they aren’t obstruction.”
Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal

Unfortunately, “Nadler sounded less like a man weighing the evidence than a man who has has made up his mind… Nadler's talk with ABC was the clearest indication yet that Democrats have decided to impeach Trump and are now simply doing the legwork involved in making that happen. And that means the debate among House Democrats will be a tactical one — what is the best time and way to go forward — rather than a more fundamental discussion of whether the president should be impeached.”
Byron York, Washington Examiner

Meanwhile, “because investigations by Mueller, the House, the Senate, and the national news media have only produced evidence of process crimes or years-old bank fraud and tax evasion, it’s not obvious that Americans even know what they’re supposed to be alarmed about.”
Eddie Scarry, Washington Examiner

Some argue that “this Dem investigation blitz is going to be the most ambitious taxpayer-funded oppo research project for an election in the history of the country. Democrats are much less interested in the ostensible and futile goal of that research, the president’s removal by the Senate, than they are in winning next November and hoping that the blue tide carries them to a new Senate majority as well. They won’t impeach. They’ll ask voters to do it for them.”
Allahpundit, Hot Air

Others note that Congress’s ability to conduct these investigations shows there was no need for the special counsel in the first place. This is “how the process should work. Congressional Democrats, who are politically accountable, will now decide how to investigate and handle inherently politically charged matters out in the open; they will pay the price if they seem unreasonable or like they are going too far. This work never should have been wedged into the executive branch via the special counsel.”
Rich Lowry, National Review

Counterpoint: “after the War of 1812, President Madison… enacted the Tariff of 1816 to price British textiles out of competition, so Americans would build the new factories and capture the booming U.S. market. It worked. Tariffs [also] financed Mr. Lincoln’s War. The Tariff of 1890 bears the name of Ohio Congressman and future President William McKinley, who said that a foreign manufacturer ‘has no right or claim to equality with our own… He pays no taxes. He performs no civil duties’… [A tariff’s] purpose is not just to raise revenue but to make a nation economically independent of others, and to bring its citizens to rely upon each other rather than foreign entities.”
Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative

A libertarian's take

“The scoop reflects poorly on Trump, who willfully misled the public for a decade in hopes of fraudulently representing himself as a man with a Midas touch. But he could not have succeeded without the assistance of many Americans, some mercenary, others over-credulous, who helped to spread the deceit and deception, generating countless newspaper articles, magazine stories, and TV segments that misinformed the public about the publicity hound’s record in business. New evidence of his staggering losses in that decade therefore provides an apt occasion to reflect on the media’s complicity in Trump’s brazen deceit and deception… Let [this] be a lesson for today’s tabloids, gossip columnists, over-credulous or mercenary journalists, and reality-television producers.”
Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic

On the bright side...

She read the fine print on her insurance policy. It won her $10,000 in a contest.
Tampa Bay Times

Get troll-free political news.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.