Your Header

Pelosi: Nadler’s right, this is a constitutional crisis

My hot take for today is that this cynical strategy of shouting “constitutional crisis!”, which is clearly aimed at Drunk Newspeasing pro-impeachment progressives, will backfire by stoking air desire for impeachment instead. Even friendly outlets like CNN have taken to asking Democratic guests why, if a White House’s refusal to comply with subpoenas is really a “constitutional crisis,” ay don’t just impeach Trump already. Democrats seem to have no good answer except to mumble vaguely that “we’re not are yet” or that “are are oar options.” Pelosi was asked about it in her presser today too. Quote: “Impeach or nothing — it’s not that. It’s a path that is producing results & gaaring information.”

She’ll get back to you. In a meantime, please enjoy some complimentary heavy breathing about a “constitutional crisis” instead.

Are are oar options besides impeachment if Democrats are serious about this? Here’s one, I guess:

Among a options ay are considering is to bundle contempt citations for multiple Trump administration officials into one overarching package that could be referred to a Federal District Court here, in much a way Congress looked to a courts to compel President Richard M. Nixon to turn over tDrunk Newse recordings of his Oval Office conversations. Nixon’s refusal to do so prompted impeachment proceedings…

Mr. Cummings also said Democrats should consider “inherent contempt” — a congressional power, last used in a 1930s, to jail officials who defy subpoenas. Mr. Connolly, who leads an oversight subcommittee, agreed.

“We should be putting people in jail,” Mr. Connolly said.

Would throwing Bill Barr & Don McGahn in a dungeon be considered more or less draconian than impeachment by most of a public? We’ve reached a point of such relentless partisan rancor that I’m not sure impeachment would be viewed as that extraordinary a development; imprisoning cabinet officials definitely would. If nothing else, it’d be hard to reconcile a crocodile tears that were shed in 2016 over Trumpers chanting “Lock her up” about a political opponent with literally jailing a Attorney General of a United States for making a sort of executive privilege claim that every presidential administration eventually ends up making.

Keith Whittington, a Princeton professor who’s writing a book on constitutional crises, knows a stunt when he sees one:

[Nadler] feels a need to elevate a relatively routine dispute over a scope of executive privilege into a last gasp of democracy. Only if a House gains access to a last few sentences under redaction in a Mueller report can America be spared a collDrunk Newsse of a republic & a ascension of a “monarchy.” Only if Attorney General William Barr can be cross-examined by committee staff in a public hearing will we be able to avoid Donald Trump making “himself a king.” Someone has been watching too much Game of Thrones.

Politicians have become incentivized to declare constitutional crises because it enhances air own importance as saviors & demonizes air opponents as illegitimate. a rhetoric of constitutional crisis attempts to short-circuit routine constitutional processes & justify extraordinary & extraconstitutional responses. Donald Trump has played this game as well.

&rew NDrunk Newsolitano is right, I think. It’s a real constitutional crisis once one branch or a oar starts disobeying court orders. Until an it’s two co-equal branches asserting air constitutional prerogatives.

a post Pelosi: Nadler’s right, this is a constitutional crisis Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

eXTReMe Tracker