{"id":75559,"date":"2019-12-10T21:52:34","date_gmt":"2019-12-11T02:52:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=75559"},"modified":"2019-12-10T21:52:42","modified_gmt":"2019-12-11T02:52:42","slug":"the-daily-gouge-archive-monday-december-9th-2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=75559","title":{"rendered":"The Daily Gouge Archive, Monday, December 9th, 2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s Monday, December 9th, 2019…but before we begin, one quick comment on a topic raised in our Friday Quote of the Day<\/em>\u00a0from Rich (yes, “Rich”, as that’s all Balls Cotton has on him)…<\/strong><\/p>\n

“Everywhere<\/em><\/span> you look, the Progressive agenda proves to be the largest, most destructive pyramid scheme ever formed<\/em><\/span>.\u00a0 It supports crime, poverty, social unrest, and general disruption and mayhem<\/em><\/span>, so that a very few at the top<\/em> can get rich and powerful<\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span>“<\/p>\n

…which was accompanied by an appropriate meme we prepared:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

One of the primary reasons the Progressive elite…along with a certain portion of their Republican counterpart…crave wealth and power is so they can live by a different set of rules from us mere mortals.\u00a0 To wit, this series of memes forwarded from The Penguin:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

It’s why Hillary Clinton, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, James Comey, Jim Clapper, John Brennan, Pete Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rodenstein, Lois Lerner, John Koskinen and Barack Hussein Obama himself…among many<\/em>, many<\/em><\/span> others…are not either in prison<\/em> or under indictment<\/em><\/span> today.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Next to their<\/em> indisputable<\/em> infractions<\/em><\/span>, Trump’s<\/em> purported<\/em><\/span> collusion\/quid pro quo\/bribery\/crime du jour was the Sermon on the Mount.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Now, here’s The Gouge<\/em>!<\/strong><\/p>\n

First up, in a commentary we gave top billing in last Friday’s Lost Edition<\/em>, as the WSJ<\/em>‘s Kimberly Strassel observed…<\/strong><\/p>\n

Adam Schiff Is Watching<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/h1>\n

Obtaining phone logs of political rivals is a stunning abuse of congressional power<\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“…Mr. Schiff purposely<\/em><\/span> kept that action secret<\/em><\/span>. This guaranteed<\/em><\/span> that the only entity<\/em><\/span> involved with a decision over whether to release the records was AT&T<\/em><\/span>.<\/span> And that<\/em><\/span> gave Mr. Schiff all the cards<\/em><\/span>, since companies fear<\/em> political retribution<\/em> far more than violating their customers\u2019 privacy<\/em><\/span>.<\/span> (Had we been<\/span> an AT&T customer, we wouldn’t be<\/span> today!<\/em>)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The question<\/em><\/span> is whether Mr. Schiff<\/em><\/span>, in his zeal to bring down Mr. Trump<\/em><\/span>, has made himself<\/em><\/span> legally vulnerable. In\u00a0Kilbourn v. Thompson\u00a0<\/em>(1881), the U.S. Supreme Court held that \u201ca congressional investigation into individual affairs is invalid if unrelated to any legislative purpose<\/em><\/span>.\u201d<\/span> Mr. Schiff might<\/em><\/span> argue he has wider powers in an impeachment inquiry. But the House didn\u2019t approve the inquiry until Oct. 31<\/em><\/span>, a month after<\/em><\/span> he issued his main AT&T subpoena.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe subpoenas aren\u2019t related to legitimate congressional oversight<\/em><\/span>,\u201d says constitutional lawyer David Rivkin. Because there\u2019s \u201cno conceivable legislative purpose to obtaining these call logs and publicly disclosing this information<\/em><\/span>, Mr. Schiff would not be able to benefit from the Speech and Debate Clause immunity that otherwise protects members of Congress from civil and criminal liability<\/em><\/span>.\u201d<\/span> Mr. Rivkin adds that any<\/em><\/span> of the targets could sue Mr. Schiff under state law for invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress, and potentially even compel Mr. Schiff to turn over documents in discovery<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Mr. Nunes has already said he\u2019s weighing his legal options<\/em><\/span>.<\/span> Since House Democrats<\/em><\/span>\u00a0(Or their shills in the MSM.<\/em>)<\/span> obviously won\u2019t hold Mr. Schiff accountable for his abuses<\/em><\/span>, let\u2019s hope at least one of the targets demands a court review his tactics<\/em><\/span>. No one<\/em><\/span> should want to live in a world where Adam Schiff has unfettered power to spy on Americans<\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span>“<\/p>\n

Nor in which\u00a0any<\/em> politician or political appointee<\/em><\/span>…Dimocrat or<\/span><\/em> Republican…is above the law<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In a related item, NRO<\/em>‘s Andy McCarthy records…<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Impeachment Eye Test<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/h1>\n

We know an impeachable offense when we see one \u2014 or do we<\/span><\/a>?<\/span><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“T<\/strong><\/span><\/span>o put it mildly, the 1960s were not notorious<\/em><\/span> for juridical modesty. They might<\/em><\/span> compare favorably<\/em><\/span>, though, to Wednesday\u2019s episode of \u201cThe Lawyer Left Does Impeachment\u201d at the House Judiciary Committee<\/em><\/span>. Oh, I have no doubt<\/em><\/span> that the three progressive constitutional scholars spotlighted by Democrats yearn in their hearts<\/em><\/span> (and<\/em><\/span> their classrooms) for the Warren Court<\/em><\/span>, that apex of make-it-up-as-you-go-along lawyering<\/em><\/span>.<\/span> But even those<\/em><\/span> jurists had the occasional<\/em><\/span> convulsion of modesty.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The most instructive one for present purposes belonged to Justice Potter Stewart. The question before the High Court in the 1964 case of\u00a0Jacobellis v. Ohio\u00a0was how to define\u00a0hard-core pornography\u00a0for purposes of setting the elusive boundary where protected free expression transmogrifies into criminal obscenity.<\/span> Assessing the terrain, Justice Stewart confessed that he could not \u201cintelligibly\u201d provide a workable definition \u2026 \u201cbut I know it<\/span> when I see it<\/span>.<\/em>\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Impeachment<\/em><\/span> has an eye-test, too<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

You would never know that from listening to the law profs<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

…Suffice it to say, it was a good day for the president<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span>…”<\/p>\n

As David Harsanyi notes at NRO<\/em><\/span>:<\/strong><\/p>\n

“…But however smart<\/em><\/span> people such as Michael Gerhardt, distinguished professor of constitutional law at University of North Carolina, might be<\/span><\/em>, (an assessment we find highly questionable!) they aren\u2019t immune from peddling partisan absurdities<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong> <\/span>Once\u00a0Gerhardt argued<\/a><\/em><\/span>\u00a0that Trump\u2019s conduct was \u201cworse than the misconduct of any prior president<\/em><\/span>,\u201d we no longer had any intellectual obligation to take him seriously on the topic<\/em><\/span>.\u00a0(Or<\/span>, for that<\/span> matter, any other topic<\/span>!!!<\/em>)<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Because while I\u2019m certainly not a distinguished professor, I am very confident<\/em><\/span> that history began before 2016<\/em><\/span>. Which means that, even if I concede Gerhardt\u2019s framing of Trump\u2019s actions<\/em><\/span> \u2014 bribery, extortion, etc. \u2014 I can rattle off at least a dozen instances of presidential misconduct that are both morally and constitutionally \u201cworse\u201d than Trump\u2019s blundering attempt to launch a self-serving Ukrainian investigation into his rival\u2019s shady son<\/u><\/span><\/strong><\/span>…”<\/p>\n

Which of course, Harsanyi proceeds to do<\/em><\/span><\/a>, with his usual precision and perspicacity.<\/strong><\/p>\n

We’ll leave it to Congressman Matt Gaetz, the Pride of Pensacola, to offer a simple and succinct summation of this crazed Ukraine kangaroo court:<\/strong><\/p>\n