,
3 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Jed always has a thoughtful analysis. But sometimes, like many profs, he doesn’t seem to understand litigation or negotiation strategy.
Sometimes getting a court to tell you “no” is tactic for the court to tell you “no, BUT . . . “ Then you do the “but.” With judicial backing.
Sometimes getting a court to tell you “no” is tactic for the court to tell you “no, BUT . . . “ Then you do the “but.” With judicial backing.
A good part of what’s happening now is House Dems structuring contempt/subpoena litigation for two tasks:
- Rulings “yes, you can get x, y, z w/o impeachment.”
- Rulings “no, unless you impeach you can’t get a, b, c.”
The second group of rulings is just as important.
- Rulings “yes, you can get x, y, z w/o impeachment.”
- Rulings “no, unless you impeach you can’t get a, b, c.”
The second group of rulings is just as important.
It will amount to, and be played as, a judicial imperative to impeach, so that full oversight can occur. That’s 2 branches vs. one, in effect.
