The President sued his own government for $10 billion, his own Justice Department declined to fight back, and the two sides walked out with a $1.776 billion settlement paid from your money.
The distinction between impeachment as removal versus impeachment as an evidentiary record is the central point here.
Most public discourse treats impeachment purely as a mechanism for immediate removal, ignoring its constitutional function as a formal grand jury indictment by the House. Even if a Senate trial fails to reach the 67-vote threshold for removal, a formal House impeachment inquiry carries subpoena power that bypasses executive privilege claims and places every member on record regarding the $1.776 billion settlement finding.
Judge Williams' 56-page ruling on Trump v. IRS established a factual finding of collusive litigation and a failure to defend the public interest. Forcing a recorded House vote on whether that conduct meets the standard of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" under Article II forces Congress to formally define the boundaries of DOJ independence for the public record.
My "impeach" list already had Blanche, as well as Vance and Trump - in that order, so we don't end up with President Vance. I think we need to throw in at least one, maybe two, of the sitting justices on the Supreme Court as well - Thomas for sure; not certain about the other.
Outstanding overview of yet another instnce of blatant public corruption — this time by the president’s former personal lawyer … uh, attorney general.
Holding power account is the Congress’s job. Holding Congress to account is the voters’ job.
Let’s make sure we do our job with a resounding, overwhelming repudition of this corrupt regime. So we can get bck to building “the more perfect unuon” the Constitution envisioned.
Impeached? Hell, he never should have been confirmed to start with. And yes, I do realize I am stating the obvious.
I will NEVER understand how three senators, with NOTHING TO LOSE, would lower themselves to confirm Todd Blanche. It just shows none of them have a spine.
I think the writers of our Constitution expected the impeachment powers of the Congress would actually be used, and frequently. Boy were they wrong. Hope the next Congress grows a spine.
Blame for this mess falls on Senator Mitch McConnell, who voted no on convicting Trump on his second impeachment, on the thin technicalities that Trump was no longer in office, and that the legal system would punish Trump. As Senate majority leader, McConnell likely influenced and gave cover to other Senators to vote no, so Trump walked free.
Question: why was the IRS lawsuit allowed to proceed at all if it was filed outside the statute of limitations? Incidentally, I really enjoy your work. Thank you.
That's a great question, Jim, and thanks for the kind words. The way a defense attorney has a case dismissed for violating the statute of limitations is to bring a motion making the argument. Usually, depending on the court and jurisdiction, it's called something like a motion to dismiss because the statute of limitations has run, or if this fact isn't determined until after the discovery process, it would be brought in a motion for summary judgment. In either case, it's something that happens because the defense attorneys ask the court to make it happen.
In this case, Todd Blanche in the Department of Justice, whose job it was to defend the IRS and protect the American taxpayers didn't file a single responsive document to the lawsuit. No affirmative defenses were alleged. No arguments were made. I'll include a link below sharing all of the different defenses that could have and should have been raised, but were not. These are just a couple of reasons why the lawyers and judges all see this as a fraudulent effort to deceive the court with the intended purpose of securing the settlement and IRS treatment. If any lawyer handled a file this way in private practice, they would be sued for malpractice and probably be disbarred.
Help me out. 'Our' IRS got sued, and 'our' DOJ was supposed to provide its defense? Blanche didn't do his job; he acted in the complainant's (trump's) interest instead? Along with the other malfeasance, I still haven't seen anything showing his authority to say trump, et al, are forever free of IRS investigation, etc. As pretend AG, I suppose blanche could say that trump & company would never be PROSECUTED, but I don't understand how even that could have legs after he's no longer AG.
And, I fully agree. Congress must have enough bandwidth to prosecute an impeachment, along with other priorities. They have separate committees to insure they can walk and chew gum simultaneously. Maybe just don't expect bubbles.
A new Democrat majority Congress in the House and hopefully also in the Senate will do just the opposite. They don't work for him. They control the power of subpoena, oversight, power of the purse, and separation of powers. Without funding, improper policies cannot be moved forward, and with oversight, officials and wrongdoers can be placed under oath to answer questions. Not the kind of questions you see on television in five-minute talking point speeches, but behind closed doors, recorded under oath, and taking days. It's a big deal.
By your own admission a conviction is impossible. Assuming the democrats take one or more of Congress they need to prioritize what is most important. I believe that is to reestablish democracy, the rule of law , the sanctity of treaties and agreements with other countries Not vengeance which will use up political capital. They need to create a record that supports a democratic presidency in 28
Totally appreciate where you're coming from Bruce. But here's the thing. Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. Nine of the top ten things Congress is going to start fixing after January 3rd have nothing to do with holding wrongdoers accountable. It will be working to stop the Iran war, reduce prices, save social security and medicare, and replace the healthcare benefits the Republican’s have stripped from tens of millions of Americans. I shared details here https://mitchthelawyer.substack.com/p/the-midterms-change-everything-heres?r=2fe7t3&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
Having said that, and at the same time, this impeachment should be and is on the table too. Because an impeachment forces a recorded vote. It puts every member of Congress on the record. Consequences are necessary but will not override a new Congress working for all states.
I would be interested to kniw what the numbers were on the democratic majorities for these 100 bills. They were also passed in a different world. There was some bipartisanship back then. Now, not so much. Obama really had a big win with coattails. He had political capital. He chose to use most of it on Obama Care. Maybe a good idea. But he used a lot of his bullets up getting it done.
First win. Not a foregone conclusion when the current administration will do anything and I mean anything to retain control. Then if fortunate prioritize on what is truly most important. I would repeal Citizens United via legislation. I think it destroyed the country. More important than some debased toady lawyer AG
I wouldn't verbally say it's vengeance from the Democrats. I think it's a nessity for his impeached since he's being paid by taxes and is the DOJ for we the people, not for the president.
Agree. A new Congress will work hard to create policies for all states and all Americans. As I mentioned in my earlier response last week, I wrote a piece about the top ten things I see a new Congress doing to help our country. Only one item out of those ten had to do with holding wrongdoers accountable. After a new majority is elected and sworn in, I would first spend my time focusing on these policies so the American people know that their best interest is being placed first once again. After about a month, I would initiate the impeachment action. One effort doesn't exclude the other. See https://www.uncensoredobjection.com/p/the-midterms-change-everything-heres?r=2fe7t3&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The distinction between impeachment as removal versus impeachment as an evidentiary record is the central point here.
Most public discourse treats impeachment purely as a mechanism for immediate removal, ignoring its constitutional function as a formal grand jury indictment by the House. Even if a Senate trial fails to reach the 67-vote threshold for removal, a formal House impeachment inquiry carries subpoena power that bypasses executive privilege claims and places every member on record regarding the $1.776 billion settlement finding.
Judge Williams' 56-page ruling on Trump v. IRS established a factual finding of collusive litigation and a failure to defend the public interest. Forcing a recorded House vote on whether that conduct meets the standard of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" under Article II forces Congress to formally define the boundaries of DOJ independence for the public record.
My "impeach" list already had Blanche, as well as Vance and Trump - in that order, so we don't end up with President Vance. I think we need to throw in at least one, maybe two, of the sitting justices on the Supreme Court as well - Thomas for sure; not certain about the other.
Outstanding overview of yet another instnce of blatant public corruption — this time by the president’s former personal lawyer … uh, attorney general.
Holding power account is the Congress’s job. Holding Congress to account is the voters’ job.
Let’s make sure we do our job with a resounding, overwhelming repudition of this corrupt regime. So we can get bck to building “the more perfect unuon” the Constitution envisioned.
Impeached? Hell, he never should have been confirmed to start with. And yes, I do realize I am stating the obvious.
I will NEVER understand how three senators, with NOTHING TO LOSE, would lower themselves to confirm Todd Blanche. It just shows none of them have a spine.
I concur
I think the writers of our Constitution expected the impeachment powers of the Congress would actually be used, and frequently. Boy were they wrong. Hope the next Congress grows a spine.
Blame for this mess falls on Senator Mitch McConnell, who voted no on convicting Trump on his second impeachment, on the thin technicalities that Trump was no longer in office, and that the legal system would punish Trump. As Senate majority leader, McConnell likely influenced and gave cover to other Senators to vote no, so Trump walked free.
No Trump, no Blanche…a guy can dream, right?
Do turtles have spines?
Question: why was the IRS lawsuit allowed to proceed at all if it was filed outside the statute of limitations? Incidentally, I really enjoy your work. Thank you.
That's a great question, Jim, and thanks for the kind words. The way a defense attorney has a case dismissed for violating the statute of limitations is to bring a motion making the argument. Usually, depending on the court and jurisdiction, it's called something like a motion to dismiss because the statute of limitations has run, or if this fact isn't determined until after the discovery process, it would be brought in a motion for summary judgment. In either case, it's something that happens because the defense attorneys ask the court to make it happen.
In this case, Todd Blanche in the Department of Justice, whose job it was to defend the IRS and protect the American taxpayers didn't file a single responsive document to the lawsuit. No affirmative defenses were alleged. No arguments were made. I'll include a link below sharing all of the different defenses that could have and should have been raised, but were not. These are just a couple of reasons why the lawyers and judges all see this as a fraudulent effort to deceive the court with the intended purpose of securing the settlement and IRS treatment. If any lawyer handled a file this way in private practice, they would be sued for malpractice and probably be disbarred.
See "The $1.776 Billion Shakedown: Why the Anti-Weaponization Fund and the Trump Tax Immunity Order Are Unethical, Illegal, and Unenforceable" https://mitchthelawyer.substack.com/p/the-1776-billion-shakedown-why-the?r=2fe7t3&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
Help me out. 'Our' IRS got sued, and 'our' DOJ was supposed to provide its defense? Blanche didn't do his job; he acted in the complainant's (trump's) interest instead? Along with the other malfeasance, I still haven't seen anything showing his authority to say trump, et al, are forever free of IRS investigation, etc. As pretend AG, I suppose blanche could say that trump & company would never be PROSECUTED, but I don't understand how even that could have legs after he's no longer AG.
And, I fully agree. Congress must have enough bandwidth to prosecute an impeachment, along with other priorities. They have separate committees to insure they can walk and chew gum simultaneously. Maybe just don't expect bubbles.
Thanks very much. We really need a functioning DoJ.
His appointment is meant to ensure the next Congress is every bit as compliant as the current Congress.
I’m hoping that is the case.
I’m just expecting him to be on the front line of election tampering for his boss to retain his Republican majority.
A new Democrat majority Congress in the House and hopefully also in the Senate will do just the opposite. They don't work for him. They control the power of subpoena, oversight, power of the purse, and separation of powers. Without funding, improper policies cannot be moved forward, and with oversight, officials and wrongdoers can be placed under oath to answer questions. Not the kind of questions you see on television in five-minute talking point speeches, but behind closed doors, recorded under oath, and taking days. It's a big deal.
Todd Blanche should be summarily executed as should the entire Trump cabinet. No trials. No lawyers. Offer them deportation to CECOT. If they decline…
Harsh.
Nothing compared with the heinous behavior of these CHUDS. Give them a taste of their own medicine so to speak.
Imprisoned, not impeached...
How about both?
I'd be good with that as well!
He's a piece of 💩
By your own admission a conviction is impossible. Assuming the democrats take one or more of Congress they need to prioritize what is most important. I believe that is to reestablish democracy, the rule of law , the sanctity of treaties and agreements with other countries Not vengeance which will use up political capital. They need to create a record that supports a democratic presidency in 28
Totally appreciate where you're coming from Bruce. But here's the thing. Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. Nine of the top ten things Congress is going to start fixing after January 3rd have nothing to do with holding wrongdoers accountable. It will be working to stop the Iran war, reduce prices, save social security and medicare, and replace the healthcare benefits the Republican’s have stripped from tens of millions of Americans. I shared details here https://mitchthelawyer.substack.com/p/the-midterms-change-everything-heres?r=2fe7t3&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
Having said that, and at the same time, this impeachment should be and is on the table too. Because an impeachment forces a recorded vote. It puts every member of Congress on the record. Consequences are necessary but will not override a new Congress working for all states.
“Walk and chew gum”? Congress? Good luck with that
Please, when they have the majority they do it all the time. See my new post and list- 100+ Laws Democrats Passed That Changed Your Life https://mitchthelawyer.substack.com/p/100-laws-democrats-passed-that-changed?r=2fe7t3&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
I would be interested to kniw what the numbers were on the democratic majorities for these 100 bills. They were also passed in a different world. There was some bipartisanship back then. Now, not so much. Obama really had a big win with coattails. He had political capital. He chose to use most of it on Obama Care. Maybe a good idea. But he used a lot of his bullets up getting it done.
First win. Not a foregone conclusion when the current administration will do anything and I mean anything to retain control. Then if fortunate prioritize on what is truly most important. I would repeal Citizens United via legislation. I think it destroyed the country. More important than some debased toady lawyer AG
I wouldn't verbally say it's vengeance from the Democrats. I think it's a nessity for his impeached since he's being paid by taxes and is the DOJ for we the people, not for the president.
Agree. A new Congress will work hard to create policies for all states and all Americans. As I mentioned in my earlier response last week, I wrote a piece about the top ten things I see a new Congress doing to help our country. Only one item out of those ten had to do with holding wrongdoers accountable. After a new majority is elected and sworn in, I would first spend my time focusing on these policies so the American people know that their best interest is being placed first once again. After about a month, I would initiate the impeachment action. One effort doesn't exclude the other. See https://www.uncensoredobjection.com/p/the-midterms-change-everything-heres?r=2fe7t3&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web