Nadler’s phony ‘impeachment inquiry’ talk will run smack into the House Rules Committee

Chairman Jerry Nadler appears to be an intellectually limited man or at least he plays one on TV.  His leader in the House, Speaker Pelosi, can run from an “Impeachment Inquiry” but she cannot hide if it begins to become a formal process.  Via The Hill:

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) is hitting the rhetorical gas on Democratic efforts to impeach President Trump

The Judiciary Committee chairman this week boosted his case that the panel has already launched impeachment proceedings into potential presidential wrongdoing, applying the "formal" label to the process for the first time while amplifying vows to draft impeachment articles if his ongoing probes reveal the type of misconduct to merit them.

The escalation is one of tone, rather than process. In court filings over the past several weeks, Judiciary Committee Democrats have cited the potential for impeachment as the basis for seeking disputed documents and witness testimony from an uncooperative administration, with members variably characterizing the operation as an “impeachment inquiry” or “impeachment investigation.” 

Nadler's recent comments marked an amped up extension of that strategy — one that required no votes to set it in motion. But his forceful choice of words sent a clear signal that the emboldened chairman and his committee are charging ahead with a process that could lead to impeachment votes later in the year, while beating back liberal criticisms that the panel has been too timid in its investigative approach.

 The lasting problem is what the late, brilliant Gerald “Jerry” Solomon (R-NY) Republican Chair of the House Committee on Rules, told me when I was on the Rules Committee Professional Staff.  “The Democrats are very lazy and they do no bother to learn the Rules.” Consequently, their flop sweat of trying to explain what is going on is actually truly pathetic.

Just watch and listen to the confusion in this interview of Nadler by CNN’s Erin Burnett, probably intentionally and diabolically inspired in order to bring along the gullible reporters  nationwide and create an incessant public drumbeat of  “formal impeachment proceedings,” and/or an “impeachment Inquiry.”  

CNN video screen grab

The CNN interview is a perfect example of not knowing, or intentionally muddying up the rules about an Impeachment Inquiry. "There is no such thing" Chairman Nadler simply makes that up because the House Committee on Rules  has to bring the formal articles of impeachment  to the floor, not the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Hence Speaker Pelosi will control exactly what happens as the Burnett tries very honorably to bring clarity to all the  "words"  floating around   

Let’s use Trumpian New York speak because of my early years growing up NYC also, ---“Formal Schmormal  -- what the hell do they mean?” The Democrat leadership can throw whatever they wish into the public debate against President Trump to try to see whatever works and sticks.

This was evident when they threw Bob Mueller into the national spotlight and his legacy reputation will never recover. But he took the job and so be it. The Democrat/Special Counsel Mueller romance died a very ugly public death.

It is now obvious that the Democrat Representatives are in what is called in a romantic relationship a rebound phase. They are like those in a relationship who must find someone new to embrace and move on.  However, their fundamental problem is that there is no one new, not now, not ever. Consequently, they have to resort to creating a Congressional impeachment process argument in public to gloss over the embarrassing soured two-plus years of their wistful courtship with Robert Muller.

Until the Chairman of The Judiciary Committee presents his case by testifying before The House Committee on Rules, known as the Speaker’s Committee, nothing serious and formal will occur on Impeachment. House rules specify:

 The Committee on Rules is amongst the oldest standing committees in the House, having been first formally constituted on April 2, 1789. The Committee is commonly known as “The Speaker’s Committee” because it is the mechanism that the Speaker uses to maintain control of the House Floor, and was chaired by the Speaker until 1910. Because of the vast power wielded by the Rules Committee, its ratio has traditionally been weighted in favor of the majority party, and has been in its “2 to 1 1” (9 majority and 4 minority members) configuration since the late 1970s.

The Wizard of Oz curtain recently slipped when Democrat Congressman, James Raskin (D-MD) who also has a Rules Committee assignment actually successfully waffled what is occurring using the word “effectively.” He has said that the House has already "effectively begun an impeachment investigation.”

A formal “Impeachment inquiry” and resulting articles of impeachment have not yet been run through Speaker Pelosi’s Rules committee. So everything especially during the August recess is bluff bluster and BS. Speaker Pelosi, she alone when back in session, will have to give permission to begin the formal process of impeaching President Trump, not Chairman Nadler because he does not have that unilateral power.

Having been on the Rules Committee Professional Staff for President Clinton’s Impeachment Inquiry I learned a lot.

The impeachment of President Clinton, who beyond a doubt -- unlike the phony-baloney narrative about President Trump and Russia -- actually accepted illegal off-shore money from China and attempted bribes by Russian and Ukrainian mafia leaders, sadly veered off into impeachment over “sex, sex, sex,”

News flash for Democrats in case you forgot: President Clinton’s poll numbers then went up. Over to you, Madam Speaker, because you are ultimately in charge not Representative Nadler (D NY) :

Clinton's job approval went up, not down, and his ratings remained high for the duration of the impeachment proceedings:

  1. Bill Clinton's mean job approval rating, 1st quarter 1993 through 1st quarter, 1999 was 53.8
  2. Bill Clinton's mean job approval rating for the five years preceding 1998 was 51.3
  3. Bill Clinton's mean job approval rating in 1998 was 63.8
  4. Bill Clinton's average job approval rating for 1998 was thus 10 points above his overall administration to-date average
  5. Bill Clinton's average job approval rating for 1998 was thus 12.5 points above his administration average for the five years preceding 1998
  6. Bill Clinton's average job approval rating for 1998 was 5.7 points above that of the previous year, 1997, which in turn was higher than that of any of the four years which preceded it

 

Chairman Jerry Nadler appears to be an intellectually limited man or at least he plays one on TV.  His leader in the House, Speaker Pelosi, can run from an “Impeachment Inquiry” but she cannot hide if it begins to become a formal process.  Via The Hill:

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) is hitting the rhetorical gas on Democratic efforts to impeach President Trump

The Judiciary Committee chairman this week boosted his case that the panel has already launched impeachment proceedings into potential presidential wrongdoing, applying the "formal" label to the process for the first time while amplifying vows to draft impeachment articles if his ongoing probes reveal the type of misconduct to merit them.

The escalation is one of tone, rather than process. In court filings over the past several weeks, Judiciary Committee Democrats have cited the potential for impeachment as the basis for seeking disputed documents and witness testimony from an uncooperative administration, with members variably characterizing the operation as an “impeachment inquiry” or “impeachment investigation.” 

Nadler's recent comments marked an amped up extension of that strategy — one that required no votes to set it in motion. But his forceful choice of words sent a clear signal that the emboldened chairman and his committee are charging ahead with a process that could lead to impeachment votes later in the year, while beating back liberal criticisms that the panel has been too timid in its investigative approach.

 The lasting problem is what the late, brilliant Gerald “Jerry” Solomon (R-NY) Republican Chair of the House Committee on Rules, told me when I was on the Rules Committee Professional Staff.  “The Democrats are very lazy and they do no bother to learn the Rules.” Consequently, their flop sweat of trying to explain what is going on is actually truly pathetic.

Just watch and listen to the confusion in this interview of Nadler by CNN’s Erin Burnett, probably intentionally and diabolically inspired in order to bring along the gullible reporters  nationwide and create an incessant public drumbeat of  “formal impeachment proceedings,” and/or an “impeachment Inquiry.”  

CNN video screen grab

The CNN interview is a perfect example of not knowing, or intentionally muddying up the rules about an Impeachment Inquiry. "There is no such thing" Chairman Nadler simply makes that up because the House Committee on Rules  has to bring the formal articles of impeachment  to the floor, not the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Hence Speaker Pelosi will control exactly what happens as the Burnett tries very honorably to bring clarity to all the  "words"  floating around   

Let’s use Trumpian New York speak because of my early years growing up NYC also, ---“Formal Schmormal  -- what the hell do they mean?” The Democrat leadership can throw whatever they wish into the public debate against President Trump to try to see whatever works and sticks.

This was evident when they threw Bob Mueller into the national spotlight and his legacy reputation will never recover. But he took the job and so be it. The Democrat/Special Counsel Mueller romance died a very ugly public death.

It is now obvious that the Democrat Representatives are in what is called in a romantic relationship a rebound phase. They are like those in a relationship who must find someone new to embrace and move on.  However, their fundamental problem is that there is no one new, not now, not ever. Consequently, they have to resort to creating a Congressional impeachment process argument in public to gloss over the embarrassing soured two-plus years of their wistful courtship with Robert Muller.

Until the Chairman of The Judiciary Committee presents his case by testifying before The House Committee on Rules, known as the Speaker’s Committee, nothing serious and formal will occur on Impeachment. House rules specify:

 The Committee on Rules is amongst the oldest standing committees in the House, having been first formally constituted on April 2, 1789. The Committee is commonly known as “The Speaker’s Committee” because it is the mechanism that the Speaker uses to maintain control of the House Floor, and was chaired by the Speaker until 1910. Because of the vast power wielded by the Rules Committee, its ratio has traditionally been weighted in favor of the majority party, and has been in its “2 to 1 1” (9 majority and 4 minority members) configuration since the late 1970s.

The Wizard of Oz curtain recently slipped when Democrat Congressman, James Raskin (D-MD) who also has a Rules Committee assignment actually successfully waffled what is occurring using the word “effectively.” He has said that the House has already "effectively begun an impeachment investigation.”

A formal “Impeachment inquiry” and resulting articles of impeachment have not yet been run through Speaker Pelosi’s Rules committee. So everything especially during the August recess is bluff bluster and BS. Speaker Pelosi, she alone when back in session, will have to give permission to begin the formal process of impeaching President Trump, not Chairman Nadler because he does not have that unilateral power.

Having been on the Rules Committee Professional Staff for President Clinton’s Impeachment Inquiry I learned a lot.

The impeachment of President Clinton, who beyond a doubt -- unlike the phony-baloney narrative about President Trump and Russia -- actually accepted illegal off-shore money from China and attempted bribes by Russian and Ukrainian mafia leaders, sadly veered off into impeachment over “sex, sex, sex,”

News flash for Democrats in case you forgot: President Clinton’s poll numbers then went up. Over to you, Madam Speaker, because you are ultimately in charge not Representative Nadler (D NY) :

Clinton's job approval went up, not down, and his ratings remained high for the duration of the impeachment proceedings:

  1. Bill Clinton's mean job approval rating, 1st quarter 1993 through 1st quarter, 1999 was 53.8
  2. Bill Clinton's mean job approval rating for the five years preceding 1998 was 51.3
  3. Bill Clinton's mean job approval rating in 1998 was 63.8
  4. Bill Clinton's average job approval rating for 1998 was thus 10 points above his overall administration to-date average
  5. Bill Clinton's average job approval rating for 1998 was thus 12.5 points above his administration average for the five years preceding 1998
  6. Bill Clinton's average job approval rating for 1998 was 5.7 points above that of the previous year, 1997, which in turn was higher than that of any of the four years which preceded it