Anyone thinking Pelosi and Nadler aren't strategizing this carefully and together should consider

[StarfishSaver]

they have been laying he groundwork for today's activity for nearly two months - and probably much longer than that:

Looks like Pelosi and chairs are maneuvering to give committees standing to access grand jury info prior to opening a formal impeachment inquiry.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212159168
June 3, 2019

Today, when the House Judiciary Committee announced hearings on the Mueller Report, Chairman Nadler promised the hearings would pursue “targeted legislative, oversight and constitutional remedies designed to respond to these matters.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-03/nadler-plans-mueller-report-hearings-starting-with-john-dean

This language is very interesting.

As has been discussed a lot on this board, grand jury proceedings are closely guarded and cannot be disclosed except in very specific circumstances set forth in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Among them, Rule 6E provides for limited exceptions to the secrecy rules that gives courts discretion (but does not require them) to allow the release of grand jury material "preliminarily to or in connection with judicial proceedings." The federal courts have held that impeachment inquiries fall within the definition of "judicial proceedings," so an impeachment panel has standing, under the rule, to request grand jury materials; although the rule doesn't guarantee an impeachment panel access and it does not completely prohibit other types of investigations (such as oversight) from getting such materials, an impeachment inquiry is in a stronger position to obtain them than is a regular oversight panel.

However, less often discussed is Rule 6E's "preliminarily to" language, which also permits a court to release documents to a non-impeachment inquiry, if that inquiry is "preliminarily to" an impeachment inquiry.

Chairman Nadler's statement, in this context, is very revealing. He very specifically stated that the hearings announced today aren't limited to legislative and oversight purposes, but also are targeted toward "constitutional remedies." The only constitutional remedy available to the House to respond to the behavior described in the Mueller Report is impeachment, so he signalled today that impeachment is one of the remedies these hearings are intended to pursue.

This language isn't accidental. I think it clearly indicates that Nadler is laying the groundwork for characterizing the hearings as preliminary to impeachment, therefore, putting them squarely within the exception set forth in 6E - meaning the committee will have legal standing to request and obtain access to the grand jury materials, even without the opening of a formal impeachment inquiry. Legal standing doesn't mean that they're entitled to them or will automatically get them but means that they have the legal right to ask for them and for the court to provide them, if it so chooses.

I wouldn't be surprised if, as other committees' investigations move forward, they, too, will be framed using the same language, thereby giving them standing to also request and obtain grand jury materials for their purposes prior to the opening of a formal impeachment inquiry.

I hope I'm right. If so, nicely played Madame Speaker and Chairman Nadler!

House just authorized Chairman Nadler to go to court to enforce subpoenas and obtain grand jury info

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=edit&forum=1002&thread=12180453
June 11, 2019

H.Res 430 passed on a straight party line vote, 229-191.

That the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives is authorized, on behalf of such Committee, to initiate or intervene in any judicial proceeding before a Federal court—

(1) to seek declaratory judgments and any and all ancillary relief, including injunctive relief, affirming the duty of—

(A) William P. Barr, Attorney General, to comply with the subpoena that is the subject of the resolution accompanying House Report 116-105; and

(B) Donald F. McGahn, II, former White House Counsel, to comply with the subpoena issued to him on April 22, 2019; and

(2) to petition for disclosure of information regarding any matters identified in or relating to the subpoenas referred to in paragraph (1) or any accompanying report, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), including Rule 6(e)(3)(E) (providing that the court may authorize disclosure of a grand-jury matter “preliminarily to... a judicial proceeding”).

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/430q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hres+430%22%5D%7D&s=3&r=1

[nycbos]

1. The ability to understand strategic thought is beyond the capacity of leftist twitter.

[empedocles]

2. Very prescient observation from a WH insider on Pelosi.

At a traditional postinaugural occasion: the congressional leadership met on the first business day of the trump administration. Sitting beside the new president Trump were Bannon and Priebus. Nancy Pelosi was sitting across from them. 'Looking at the House Minority Leader, Bannon felt a shiver go down his spine. He leaned close to Priebus and whispered', ''She so sees through us.''

''Pelosi, the professional, was taking stock of the most ill-informed, ill-equipped, ill-prepared team ever to come into the White House. .
What she [Pelosi] seemed to feel was less scorn, Bannon sensed, than pity. She saw the future.''

[SEIGE, p 283, Michael Wolff]

The Speaker, from the beginning, new what she had to deal with; trump et al, the base of each party, working towards a national consensus - and a long-term, patient, consistent, strategic sense of how to get there.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. I agree

Something that Junior Congress people might not realize - is that some of these folks have worked together a long time and know how to play the game. Winning takes coordination and game plans.

[mcar]

4. And just in time for the August recess

Where they can go home and talk to their constituents about how they are working to hold Dotard and his mob accountable, and pass bills that will help people.

[StarfishSaver]

5. And House and Senate Republicans are also dispersed and can't cook up mischief in DC on the

national stage.

[RussBLib]

6. hopefully lots of Dems will show up at Town Halls

and argue LOUDLY for an impeachment inquiry

[mcar]

7. More that they hold Town Halls

and answer their constituents questions about impeachment and other things in the straightforward manner we saw in today's presser.

[silentEcho]

8. I don't know why people do not trust. Pelosi, with the other Democratic Leaders, has held

Republicans and Trump well for only having the house for a year. One more year.

Pelosi has been clear from the start. It is hard for me to be patient too, but wow, we need the adults that can not be reactive. GOP, senate, SC and Trump have no rules.

[leftstreet]

10. +1

[melman]

11. +1

Except for the change of heart part. I haven't seen any evidence of that.

[pnwmom]

12. I think Pelosi and Nadler have been playing the same poker game all along.

And they're determined not to show any of their cards before they have to.

[StarfishSaver]

13. Yes, you have been misinformed

Even last night, after Nadler and the Committee Democrats came out and said they were conducting an impeachment investigation, some in the press were still claiming Pelosi was blocking an impeachment inquiry. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

And no, this isn't a case of Pelosi having "a change of heart" or bring dragged into doing something she didn't want to do. As I pointed out more than six weeks ago, Pelosi and Nadler have been setting up this move for weeks, and probably months. Everything Nadler did yesterday was put into motion in early June with his announcement of the hearings on the Mueller Report and the House resolution authorizing him to go to court to enforce subpoenas and obtain grand jury materials as part of the House's Article I authority. I posted about those actions then and predicted this was where they were going. This was anything but some last minute pivot on Pelosi's part.

The only thing "intellectually disingenuous" about this is the continued attempts to smear Pelosi by assuming facts not in evidence and ignoring facts that are in plain sight. I realize yesterday's "reveal" was a blow to the "Pelosi's blocking impeachment because she's weak/clueless/nefarious coward" argument and anti-Pelosi crowd is grasping at straws to stay on message. But if they want to keep coming for her, they need to come up with some new material.