Thread by @jedshug

Impeachment Catch-22.
Before starting an official impeachment inquiry, @SpeakerPelosi is waiting for a big shoe to drop from tax returns, bank records, big televised testimony...
But judges might deny subpoenas for pretexts, if Dems don’t honestly cite impeachment inquiry...

How to resolve it?
A cost-benefit analysis, weighing priorities.
1. What‘s the chance a committee impeachment inquiry - not an impeachment vote - will hurt Dems politically? Split her caucus? Jeopardize swing seats?
She knows better than I do, and it’s her job to prioritize them.

2. What‘s the chance judges create new subpoena precedent that pretextual purposes are not legitimate or reasonable?
I think she underrates those chances. Just like underrating the risk of not calling the ACA individual mandate a “tax,” which almost doomed the entire ACA in 2012.

3. I think Pelosi’s decision to wait may be a valid difference of priorities. It’s my job to worry anxiously about litigation strategy, conservative judges’ inconsistencies, the rule of law, and Trump.
It’s her job to keep her caucus together and keep control of the House...

4. But I think she is undervaluing/underestimating Trump’s re-elect chances. She needs to maximize the chance of winning subpoenas in order to win back the White House, even if some risk of losing some House seats.
I wrote about pretexts & subpoenas here:
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…