Replies

Balance of article for perspective.

As interested observers will note the House never voted to authorize the full judicial impeachment process; instead they voted to approve an inquiry into whether an impeachment should take place. By not voting to authorize articles of impeachment the House never gained ‘judicial enforcement authority‘.
What the house crew have assembled is an interesting back-door attempt to position a valid claim for evidence against the accused without having first gained judicial authority for it. The HJC is now arguing to appeals courts, and likely to SCOTUS, the blocked evidentiary material is critical evidence in a soon-to-be-held Senate trial.
The House Judiciary Committee (HJC) led by Chairman Jerry Nadler has been seeking: (1) Mueller grand jury material; (2) a deposition by former White House counsel Don McGahn; and less importantly (3) Trump financial and tax records. Each of these issues is currently being argued. [The supreme court will hear financials/taxes in April].
House counsel Doug Letter responded to the DC Appeals Court arguing the forced testimony of White House counsel Don McGahn is needed for evidence in the impeachment trial. [Court pdf Avail Here] And the grand jury material is needed to highlight the second article, Obstruction of Congress [Court pdf Avail Here]
Looking at the legal maneuvers from that perspective means the grand jury material is the unspoken goal and impeachment is simply the enhanced means to obtain it.
The 6(e) material relates to evidence gathered by the Mueller team for grand jury proceedings in their two-year effort to construct a case against President Trump.
Remember, the Mueller evidence was gathered during a counterintelligence investigation, which means all things Trump -including his family and business interests- were subject to unbridled surveillance for two years; and a host of intelligence gathering going back in time indefinitely. A goldmine of political opposition research.
Obviously if Jerry Nadler could get his hands on this material it would quickly find its way into the DNC, and ultimately to the 2020 democrat candidate for president. This material would also be fuel for a year of leaks to DC media who could exploit rumor, supposition, and drops of information that Andrew Weissmann and team left to be discovered.
The oral arguments are next Friday, January 3rd, 2020.

Full HJC Brief Here

Full DOJ Response Brief Here

The rats, as usual, soil that which they control. The impeachment threshold has been reduced to what our Framers feared: a President that serves at the political pleasure of Congress.

With that in mind, federal courts should declare the matter entirely political, and then butt out. Don’t join a thoroughly corrupted process to remove a President.

Scotus-derived non-justiciable political question standards:

• A textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department (meaning that the U.S. Constitution requires another branch of government to resolve questions regarding the issue);
• A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;
• An impossibility of deciding [a matter] without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion;
• An impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government;
• An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made.