On Wednesday, the Supreme Court temporarily denied a motion from House Democrats to receive grand jury testimony and other documents from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s phony Russia investigation as they conduct what they say is an “ongoing presidential impeachment investigation” into President Donald Trump.
I’m sorry, but didn’t the House Democrats already impeach the president, the Senate held a trial and overwhelmingly acquitted him, and now it’s over? That’s what Chief Justice John Roberts declared at the end of the Senate trial. So, then why are House Democrats now trying to get grand jury information, whose anonymity is protected by law?
Don’t forget that the Democrats, out of thin air, manufactured a fake law saying that the phony whistleblower that they used to impeach the president was afforded anonymity by the whistleblower statute. That was a lie. The only anonymity afforded was that the Inspector General was not allowed to mention his name, but all 7+ billion other human beings on planet Earth are allowed to say it.
In short, Democrats are asking the Supreme Court to allow them to break the law.
The court’s ruling kept confidential information from the probe into Russian interference during the 2016 presidential election out of the Democrats’ reach until at the very least early summer. Democrats have until June 1st to brief the high court about whether or not the full case needs to be heard.
The information they’re after concerns the testimony and documents from the Roger Stone and Michael Flynn cases. Let’s focus on Flynn for a minute. If Flynn’s case is “technically” not yet dropped, the Democrats believe they can use whatever information they get out of the protected grand jury information to file a second article of impeachment against Trump.
One question comes to mind. Did the Democrats ask Judge Emmet Sullivan to pull his recent little stunt where he refused to shut down Flynn’s case, even after both the defense and the prosecution have asked to have the case dropped because if the case was dropped, Democrats couldn’t use grand jury testimony about Flynn against Trump in an impeachment inquiry? That’s the only thing that makes sense as to why Sullivan would ruin a career on the bench by refusing to drop the case and allowing former Watergate prosecutors, known Trump haters, to write amicus briefs arguing why Flynn should be in prison.
Yet, on Monday, the Democrats had the gall to tell the court that they were in an “ongoing presidential impeachment investigation” while arguing that documents from Mueller’s already shut down Russia probe needed to be turned over because of it.
“The Committee’s investigation did not cease with the conclusion of the impeachment trial,” the Democrats told the nine justices. “If this material reveals new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the articles adopted by the House, the committee will proceed accordingly — including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment.”
Translation: The president and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are over the target concerning the 2016 attempted government coup by the Obama administration, which includes the Mueller investigation, and the Democrats are in panic mode.
Democrats are not used to being called out on the carpet for their scandals, and they know what’s coming, so they wanted to proceed with another impeachment inquiry to get the daily revelations of their own collusions and crimes against President Trump, his people, the Constitution, and the country. Now it looks like the law is standing in their way.
If the SCOTUS decides to rule in favor of the law, the Democrats will scream cover-up, implicate the Supreme Court in the said cover-up, and not a single Fake News anchor will point out that the law prohibits the release of grand jury testimony. How do I know? Well, when you wake up every morning for decades and the sun comes up, after a while, you come to expect it.