If You Think the House Democrats Are Subpoena-Slaphappy Anti-Trump Junkyard Dogs Salivating over the I-word, You're Right

ARE THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS GOING TO FORCE AN IMPEACHMENT VOTE? It is beginning to look like Speaker Nancy Pelosi is losing control of her caucus on this issue. And, an Obama-appointed federal judge is pointing the way for the out-of-control and out-of-common-sense House Democrats. • • • AN 'OBAMA' FEDERAL JUDGE AGREES WITH DEMOCRATS ABOUT RELEASE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FINANCIAL RECORDS. Fox News reported on Monday that while the Office of Government Ethics has released President Trump's annual financial disclosure report -- most of the President's income came from his properties, making $247 million from his golf and other resort clubs -- a Washington, DC-based federal judge has "sided with House Oversight Committee Democrats seeking to enforce their subpoena of Trump accounting firm Mazars USA, in a major ruling that breathes new life into Democrats' ongoing efforts to probe the President's financial dealings. The subpoena seeks access to a slew of Trump financial documents dating back to 2011, including personal records and records of various affiliated business and entities. Democrats pursued the subpoena after former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen testified to Congress in February that the President's accountants routinely and improperly altered his financial statements -- including some signed by Mazars -- to misrepresent his assets and liabilities." It was Obama-appointed judge Amit P. Mehta who wrote the opinion, which began by comparing President Trump's concerns about congressional overreach to those of President James Buchanan, asserting that Trump "has taken up the fight of his predecessor." • The key importance of the Mehta opinion is that it points the way for the appellate court to overrule his decision. Mehta acknowledges that there is a high likelihood that any documents obtained by House Democrats would quickly leak, and become partisan political fodder : "[T]he court is not naïve to reality... there "is a chance that some records obtained from Mazars will become public soon after they are produced." Mehta added that he was "well aware that this case involves records concerning the private and business affairs of the President of the United States," dating back to well before he declared his candidacy....Courts have grappled for more than a century with the question of the scope of Congress’s investigative power. The binding principle that emerges from these judicial decisions is that courts must presume Congress is acting in furtherance of its constitutional responsibility to legislate and must defer to congressional judgments about what Congress needs to carry out that purpose. To be sure, there are limits on Congress’s investigative authority. But those limits do not substantially constrain Congress. It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct -- past or present -- even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry." • Judge Mehta is clearly showing his anti-Trump colors when he argues for congressional review of presidential financial papers by saying the review is part of Congress's power to impeach a President. Mehta wrote that the standard for obtaining a valid congressional subpoena is not a difficult bar to clear under Supreme Court precedent, and Democrats had easily shown they were not simply out on a "fishing expedition." Comments made by Democrats suggesting their political motivations, Mehta said, did not automatically make the subpoena itself invalid : "The Oversight Committee has shown that it is not engaged in a pure fishing expedition for the President’s financial records. It is undisputed that the President did not initially identify as liabilities on his public disclosure forms the payments that Michael Cohen made to alleged mistresses during the presidential campaign. Furthermore, Michael Cohen has pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations arising from those payments." AND, WHO IS the chairman of the House Oversight Committee that issued the subpoena for the financial records ??? ELIJAH CUMMINGS -- the arch Hillary defender. No politics there -- no sir !!! • The appellate court should have much to say about this judge and his opinion. Fox News says : "The President’s legal team, in a filing earlier this month, had asked the judge to prohibit Mazars from 'enforcing or complying' with the subpoena, issued April 15. Trump's lawyers quoted Democrats as openly admitting they wanted to use subpoena power for political purposes. 'We’re going to have to build an air traffic control tower to keep track of all the subpoenas flying from here to the White House,' one Democrat said; another referenced a 'subpoena cannon' firing at the White House. Trump's lawyers also argued the subpoena to Mazars 'lacks a legitimate legislative purpose,' and is an 'unconstitutional attempt to exercise ‘the powers of law enforcement.’....Trump’s lawyers also noted that the House Oversight Committee, led by Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., is leading several Trump-focused investigations. 'The Oversight Committee has shown that it is not engaged in a pure fishing expedition for the President’s financial records.' — Washington, D.C. district court Judge Amit P. Mehta....'Chairman Cummings flat-out admitted that he wanted to ‘investigate whether the President may have engaged in illegal conduct before and during his tenure in office’ and ‘review whether he has accurately reported his finances to the Office of Government Ethics and other federal entities,’ Trump’s lawyers wrote in the filing. Meanwhile, House Oversight Committee ranking member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, called the subpoena 'an unprecedented abuse of the Committee’s subpoena authority to target and expose the private financial information of the President of the United States.' " • Fox News reminds us that special counsel Mueller's investigation, with resources and legal authority far exceeding that of Congress, resulted in the prosecutions of several former members of Trump's orbit for financial crimes. But in addition to failing to find any evidence of improper collusion with Russia, Mueller returned NO EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT by the President. • And, on Tuesday, President Trump appealed Judge Mehta’s order that his accountants comply with subpoena. The Washington Post revealed that : “President Trump’s lawyers on Tuesday notified a federal judge that they have appealed 'all aspects' of a Monday ruling that the President’s accounting firm must turn over his financial records to Congress. The two-page notice filed in federal court in Washington marks the latest move in a gathering legal battle over Congress’s oversight powers. 'Plaintiffs...hereby appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit all aspects of this Court’s order and opinion from May 20, 2019,' stated lawyers for Trump, the Trump Organization and several related companies in the notice to US District Judge Amit P. Mehta." • • • FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL WAS A NO-SHOW FOR NADLER'S HEARING AS DEMOCRATS CLAMOR FOR IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.. Fox News said earlier on Tuesday that McGahn would defy the subpoena on President Trump's orders, and faces a contempt citation by House Democrats. Fox News said : "House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., says he will hold former White House counsel Donald McGahn in contempt after McGahn said he would not appear at a hearing scheduled for Tuesday. President Trump directed McGahn to skip the hearing, citing a Justice Department opinion that he cannot be compelled to testify about his official duties. The White House has accused Democrats of wanting a 'do-over' with countless Trump investigations following the findings of no collusion in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. A frustrated Nadler on CNN accused the White House of 'intimidating' McGahn and said it was becoming 'more and more difficult' to not consider impeachment against 'a lawless president.' And despite her reluctance, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could soon be left with no choice but to embrace calls from some within her party to impeach Trump, one senior Democrat told Fox News on the condition of anonymity." • In a separate article, Fox News reported that : "Nancy Pelosi 'isn't going to be able to hold off' impeachment push from inside her party, a senior House Dem tells Fox News -- speaking on the condition of anonymity -- 'It is coming to a head,' the Democrat told Fox News, before predicting the mounting pressure from inside her own ranks could force Pelosi to change her position 'within the next two weeks.' The Democrat argued that 'the vast majority of us are for impeachment.' Fox News was told there was a hearty debate in the Democratic Steering Committee today about impeachment." • Fox News also said that Representative David Cicilline, D-R.I., who runs the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, an arm of the Democratic leadership, "is now calling for impeachment. Cicilline told Fox News there is a 'tremendous level of frustration' behind the growing impeachment efforts, adding that he believes Trump is 'behaving as though he is above the law and he is not....However, he [Cicilline] would not be drawn on criticizing Pelosi’s effort to avoid impeachment, saying instead : (Our Speaker is our Speaker, elected by our colleagues and we have a Caucus where we share our views... I think the Speaker is very responsive to the caucus and she’ll make judgments based on where the caucus is.' Cicilline said Monday it is time for impeachment inquiries to be opened if former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a no-show to Tuesday's scheduled congressional hearing....'Let me be clear; if Don McGahn doesn't testify, it is time to open an impeachment inquiry,' Cicilline said. 'The President has engaged in an ongoing effort to impede our ability to find the truth, to collect evidence, to do our work, and this is preventing us really from ultimately finding the facts and doing our work in terms of oversight.'....This declaration from Cicilline was welcomed by his freshman colleague, Representative Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich, who has been vocal with her calls to impeach President Trump." • Fox News also reported that : "Liberal billionaire activist Tom Steyer also ramped up pressure on House Democrats to impeach President Trump, releasing a scathing ad slamming the party for balking at the idea. Steyer has been a leading advocate for beginning the impeachment proceedings against Trump, spending tens of millions on TV ads and other measures to rally the support for the drastic course of action. But the latest ad, titled 'Nothing Happened,' appears to be the most unambiguous attack on Democratic lawmakers for failing to impeach the President, assailing the party for being passive." • Speaker Pelosi has often dismissed the impeachment efforts by certain Democrats, and told the Washington Post in April : "I’m not for impeachment. Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.” • But, Democrat presidential wannabes support impeachment proceedings, including Senators Elizabeth Warren, D- Mass., and Kamala Harris, D-Calif. • After McGahn's no-show, TheHill wrote that some Democrats are calling impeachment proceedings "inevitable," citing several Democrat House leaders : " ' I think it's time, I do," said Representative John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), who is chairman of the Budget Committee and a de-facto member of Pelosi's leadership team. 'I think the sheer disregard for provisions of the Constitution [providing] checks and balances is enough reason to begin the inquiry -- formally....I think there's a growing understanding that...the impeachment process is going to be inevitable. It's just a question of when, not if. And if it happens this summer, that's fine. If it goes into the fall or next year, I think that's probably too late.' " • TheHill revealed that : "Democrats will hold a caucus meeting on Wednesday morning to discuss their oversight and investigations of the Trump administration, offering an opportunity for a longer discussion on impeachment." • Helping the Democrats, according to The Hill, is the recent statement of Republican Representative Justin Amash (R-Mich.), who has repeatedly said in recent days that Trump should be impeached for obstruction of justice. Amash on Saturday became the first GOP lawmaker to say the President engaged in 'impeachable conduct.' He later stood firm by those remarks amid a backlash from fellow Republicans. TheHill says : "It's unclear just how many Democrats are eager to launch impeachment proceedings against the President, and Pelosi still has plenty of backing in the caucus she's controlled since 2003. At a leadership meeting Monday night, her top lieutenants -- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) -- both joined her side when Cicilline spoke up in support of launching an impeachment inquiry. And many rank-and-file members also support her more cautious approach. 'We need to show the American public that we have whatever evidence there is, and make a decision based on that,' Representative Tony Cardenas (D-Calif.) said going into Tuesday's caucus meeting. Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), former head of the Congressional Black Caucus, is also not ready to launch impeachment -- yet. 'I think we're getting very, very close to that point,' Cleaver said. 'I'm not there yet, but I think every time someone refuses to testify, every time the President blocks another civilian who's not working for the federal government from testifying...then more and more people are saying, 'You know, he's pushing us to the edge.' " A crucial factor in the debate, Cleaver argued, is having Pelosi on board. 'The Speaker needs to be there," he said. 'You don't elect a leader and then run off and leave her.' Yet others seem more than ready to do so. Representative Al Green (D-Texas), who's emerged as the face of the impeachment push in the House, said he's been encouraged by Cicilline's new support for the effort, and predicted the issue will soon come to the floor. 'I am convinced that there will be a vote on impeachment, and I am convinced that people are starting to conclude that it should be sooner rather than later,' said Green, who has been threatening for months to force a vote. 'My hope is that somebody else will [force the vote]; but if nobody else does, I will.' Green then went to the House floor, where he called for Democratic leaders to launch impeachment proceedings immediately." • Meanwhile, Representative Amash on Tuesday said he would not rule out a third-party challenge to President Trump in 2020. TheHill asked Amash if he is thinking about leaving the Republican Party to run for president as the Libertarian Party candidate. “I’m just focused on defending the Constitution, it’s not something I’ve thought about,” Amash said. “I don’t take things off the table like that, but it’s not something at the forefront of my considerations right now, I’m just focused on my job. I wouldn’t take running for governor off the table or Senate or state house, I don’t take things off the table." • AND, in late breaking news, we learn from TheHill that subpoena-slaphappy Jerry Nadler has now subpoenaed two former White House officials to testify before his committee and provide documents, a move that is likely to further exacerbate his standoff with the White House. TheHill states : "Nadler issued subpoenas to Annie Donaldson, who served as chief of staff to former White House counsel Don McGahn, and former White House communications director Hope Hicks, one of President Trump's longest-serving aides in the West Wing. The two subpoenas mark an ongoing fight between the White House and Congress as House Democrats seek to compel the testimony of other current and former administration officials as part of their sprawling investigations into Trump and his administration....The subpoena orders Hicks to provide documents by June 4 and then to testify before the Judiciary Committee on June 19. A separate subpoena requires Donaldson to turn over a tranche of documents to the committee by June 4 and demands her appearance at a deposition on June 24. Democrats believe Donaldson and Hicks witnessed a series of key events that they hope to examine as they review the episodes Mueller examined as possible obstruction of justice. Donaldson is said to have kept detailed notes about the meetings with McGahn that she sat in on and such notes were frequently mentioned in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report. Hicks also played a pivotal role as a trusted advisor in Trump’s inner circle, following him from the early days of his presidential campaign and into the White House. The Judiciary panel voted along party lines to authorize Nadler to issue subpoenas for Hicks, Donaldson, McGahn and former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus in early April as part of its sprawling investigation into allegations of obstruction and abuses of power by Trump. At the same meeting, Democrats also voted to authorize Nadler to subpoena Mueller’s full report -- an order he has already issued. • • • DEAR READERS, the Patriot Post wrote a piece on the current House Democrats, saying : "...[they] have made no secret of their obsession with seeing President Donald Trump removed from office. Even after Robert Mueller's two-year investigation came up empty, Democrat cries for impeachment have only gotten louder. Rejecting Mueller's findings, Democrats led by House Judiciary Committee Chair Representative Jerry Nadler have only upped their partisan zeal against Trump's presidency, issuing subpoenas for a slew of Trump's personal financial documents dating back to 2011. Trump has refused to comply, calling the move what it is -- a politically motivated witch hunt and not legitimate oversight." The Patriot Post asks : "Indeed, what actual crime or criminal behavior are the Democrats seeking to investigate? It would seem the only real answer is the 'crime' of defeating Hillary Clinton. But the Democrats bloviate about Congress's oversight authority, as if this grants them carte blanche authority over the executive branch." • And, to close the loop in today's blog, we read the Patriot Post's evaluation of "the Democrats' vacuous justifications for targeting Trump have been rewarded by Judge Amit Mehta, appointed by Barack Obama, to whom Mehta also donated. The Obama judge ruled against Trump's refusal to submit to the Democrats' subpoena, writing, 'Congress plainly views itself as having sweeping authority to investigate illegal conduct of a President, before and after taking office. This court is not prepared to roll back the tide of history.' Mehta further argued, 'It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct -- past or present -- even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry.' " • BUT, again the Patriot Post asks -- "what criminal behavior or unlawful conduct is alleged? There needs to be the existence of an actual crime before one can be accused of being a criminal." • The Democrats, who like to fantasize about President Trump's "lawlessness," long ago jumped ship on any connection between their wolfpack pursuit of the President and any evidence or even allegation that he actually committed any crime. The House Democrats have labeled Trump a criminal -- so for goodness' sake don't ask them for evidence or proof. Just accept their word for it -- President Trump is a criminal. That he refuses to kowtow to their unconstitutional fishing expedition in the desperate search for anything that can be used to foist an impeachment proceeding on America is for these crazed Democrats simply 'proof' that they are right. Representative Jim Jordan got it right when he called the House Democrat fishing expedition "an unprecedented abuse of the Committee's subpoena authority to target and expose the private financial information of the President of the United States." • Judge Mehta may have had the first word, but it will not be the last word. Winning an election is not a crime. And, sooner or later, the Democrats will be told that from the branch of government that "oversees" them -- the judicial branch in the form of the Supreme Court. • Doesn't it make us ill to see thousands of illegal immigrants flooding into the US from Mexico with the Democrat Party cheering them on, while those same Democrats cannot muster even a yawn when it comes to helping their duly-elected President stench the crisis. BUT, just say the I-word -- Impeachment -- and they start to wave their arms and foam at the mouth. Talk about upside-down values and a Fake agenda -- it is spelled DEMOCRAT.