According to Capitol Hill members, via Politico, House Democrat leadership has taken a climate assessment of democrat House members and Speaker Pelosi announced they will not hold a House impeachment authorization vote. As a direct and specific consequence all committee subpoenas do not carry a penalty for non-compliance.

A judicial penalty can only be created if the House votes to authorize an impeachment inquiry. Absent a vote, the Legislative Branch has not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempt to work through their quasi-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

Instead of subpoenas, Adam Schiff (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence); Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (Committee on White House Oversight; and Chairman Eliot L. Engel (House Committee on Foreign Affairs) can only send out request letters. The compliance is discretionary based on the ideology of the recipient.

It is likely, highly likely, Nancy Pelosi does not have the votes to proceed with a full House impeachment authorization; so Pelosi, Schiff, Engel and Cummings have to rely on the duplicity of the media to help them hide their scheme. So far the media is complying.

(Via Politico) Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leaders will hold off on a full House vote authorizing an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, according to multiple lawmakers and aides. […] Trump, White House official and Republicans on Capitol Hill have seized on the absence of such an vote as an unacceptable break with House precedent and have vowed to resist what they describe as an illegitimate probe. […] Pelosi and other top Democrats could not come to an agreement among themselves during discussions on Monday over whether to move forward with the vote, which would have been a dramatic escalation of their impeachment battle with Trump. House Democratic leaders quietly reached out to the most vulnerable members of their caucus to gauge whether they would support a formal vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry against Trump, according to multiple Democratic aides. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn’s (D-S.C.) office lead the outreach effort, and the issue was discussed at a closed-door leadership meeting. […] The idea has been met with anxiety among some of the battleground Democrats, who fear it could distract from the agenda, according to multiple aides. (read more)

Speaker Pelosi & Lawfare’s impeachment scheme can only succeed with a compliant media protecting it. So far the media has been entirely compliant in not explaining the fraudulent basis for the construct. If the media would ask questions the fraud would collapse.

Adam Schiff has to hide his hearings because the foundation of the impeachment fraud is to create a public impression. There is no structural impeachment process or guideline being followed. The committee leadership are using the closed door hearings to leak information to the media to create the needed narrative.

A legislative “letter” or demand request needs to carry judicial enforcement authority –A PENALTY– in order to be a “subpoena”.

There is no penalty that can be associated with these demands because the Legislative Branch has not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempt to work through their non-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

It has long been well established by SCOTUS that Congress has lawful (judicial authority) subpoena powers pursuant to its implied responsibility of legislative oversight. However, that only applies to the powers enumerated in A1§8. Neither foreign policy (Ukraine) nor impeachment have any nexus to A1§8. The customary Legislative Branch subpoena power is limited to their legislative purpose.

There is an elevated level of subpoena, made power possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations. That level of elevated House authority requires a full House authorization vote.

In this current example the Legislative Branch is expressing their “impeachment authority” as part of the Legislative Branch purpose. So that raises the issue of an entirely different type of subpoena:… A demand from congress that penetrates the constitutional separation of powers; and further penetrates the legal authority of Executive Branch executive privilege.



It was separately established by SCOTUS during the Nixon impeachment investigation that *IF* the full House votes to have the Judiciary Committee commence an impeachment investigation, then the Judiciary Committee has subpoena power that can overcome executive privilege claims.

There has been NO VOTE to create that level of subpoena power.

As a consequence, the House has not created a process to penetrate the constitutionally inherent separation of powers, and/or, the legally recognized firewall known as ‘executive privilege’. The House must vote to authorize the committee impeachment investigation, and through that process the committee gains judicial enforcement authority. This creates the penalty for non-compliance with an impeachment subpoena.



A demand letter only becomes a “subpoena”, technically meaning: ‘a request for the production of documents with a penalty for non-compliance’, when the committee has judicial enforcement authority. That process establishes an enforcement penalty.

The current demand letters cannot carry a penalty because the demands do not contain judicial enforcement authority…. because the impeachment investigation was not authorized by the chamber.

The reason judicial enforcement authority is constitutionally required is because creating Judicial enforcement authority, creating the penalty for non-compliance, gives the Executive Branch a process to appeal any legislative demand via the Judicial Branch (federal courts).

Absent a penalty for non-compliance, which factually makes a subpoena a ‘subpoena’, the Executive Branch has no process to engage an appellate review by federal courts. This is the purposeful trick within the Pelosi/Lawfare road-map.

Pelosi and Lawfare’s plans are designed for public consumption; she/they are creating the illusion of something that doesn’t exist. The purpose of all this fraudulent impeachment activity is to create support for an actual impeachment process.

Because the current Lawfare/Pelosi roadmap intends to work around judicial enforcement authority, the impeachment process is destined by design to end up running head-first into a constitutional problem; specifically separation of power and executive privilege. That predictable constitutional issue will end up with arguments to The Supreme Court.

THAT appears to be why Democrats and left-wing activists have been working for months to de-legitimize the Supreme Court. They always intended to run into this problem. They planned for it.

The Lawfare impeachment road-map is designed to conflict with the constitution. It is a necessary -and unavoidable- feature of their impeachment plan, not a flaw.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Lawfare allies can change House rules (they did). Pelosi and Lawfare can also change House impeachment rules (they did). Pelosi/Lawfare can change committee rules (they did); and in doing so they can remove House republicans from the entire process… Which They Did. However, what Lawfare and Pelosi cannot change is The U.S. Constitution, which they are destined to collide with.

Speaker Pelosi’s ‘Lawfare House rules‘ and/or ‘Lawfare impeachment rules‘ cannot supersede the constitutional separation of powers.

Nancy Pelosi cannot decree an “official impeachment inquiry”, and as a consequence nullify a constitutional firewall between the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch.

🚨 BREAKING → I just asked the Democrat Majority a simple yes or no question: Has the House been authorized to conduct an impeachment inquiry into @realDonaldTrump? They refused to even answer the question. The Dems literally cut my mic. This process is a total sham. pic.twitter.com/GdCpoZ1iom — Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) October 15, 2019

.

.