NEW: Rep. Ted Deutch became the 23rd lawmaker to call for an impeachment inquiry since Mueller testified -- and with him, a majority of House Democrats now say they'd vote to take that step.
-Deutch is chair of the Ethics Committee; 12 out of 20 standing committee chairmen would vote for an impeachment inquiry
-17 out of 24 Dems on the Judiciary Committee publicly support an inquiry. (And Nadler has backed it privately)
-Majorities of other investigative committees also support an inquiry, including 9/13 on the Intelligence Committee.
-Backers think there are a lot more to come; a slew of progressive members are still on the sidelines. But 218 is still a long way away, especially w/o Pelosi.
Dems who support an inquiry tell me they're watching two players:
-Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, a Dem leader who is running for Senate and helped elect a lot of the freshmen in 2018
-Rep. John Lewis, who has deferred to Pelosi on the issue.
Their support could move a lot of other Dems.
One more notable fact:
-Though just 2 of the 6 chairmen Pelosi tasked with invsetigating Trump have come out for an impeachment inquiry (Engel and Waters), a majority of all their committee members support such a move.
61 out of the 114 on these panels want to take that step.
WHY SOME COUNTS DIFFER: A lot of the impeachment whip counts vary by a couple members. We included in ours everyone who confirmed - either to us or in statements - that they would vote for an inquiry.
Some members were explicit with us but haven't been public about it otherwise.
That includes members like Reps. Bass and Pallone -- who both say they're not necessarily agitating for an impeachment inquiry but would vote for one if it came before them.
To us, that's the key metric of support in a body that measures things by voting.
Dem #119 who would vote for an impeachment inquiry: Rep. AGUILAR is the 24th lawmaker to back an inquiry since Mueller testified.
There's some confusion out there about Pallone. Here's what he told me on July 18 - the day after the Al Green vote.
"Personally I think that he's obstructed justice and he's done all these terrible things that would qualify for impeachment. So that's why I vote that way..." 1/2
Pallone said he had qualms about whether it was worth the House's time because the Senate would just kill it. But he said he personally supports - and would vote for it.
"If the opportunity comes to vote, I will vote for it."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
MORE: The court sends the case back to Chutkan to make a determination whether Trump's actions re: Pence were official or unofficial. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
BREAKING: Supreme Court, 5-4 with Barrett and libs dissenting, significnatly narrows obstruction statute DOJ has used to prosecute Jan. 6 defendants, could upend hundreds of cases. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
This ruling may dramatically impact the 350-plus cases of obstrcution against Jan. 6 defendants but have relatively little effect on the obstruction charges against Donald Trump. The court held that the statute in question must include manipulation of physical documents.
Justice JACKSON, who joined the majority here, also offers a roadmap for prosecutors to sustain their cases against the vast majority of Jan. 6 defendants charged with 1512, noting that even in the narrow view, the defendants sought to impair access to electoral certificates.
NEW: Mark MEADOWS has spent weeks quietly battling NARA and DOJ to obtain an enormous trove of his records as Trump’s chief of staff.
It’s spilled into the open this week in federal court, where NARA is resisting his demands. politico.com/news/2024/06/2…
Meadows says the records will help him fight criminal charges in Georgia and make clear why Jack Smith chose not to charge him or even call him an unindicted coconspirator.
But NARA says the request is too massive and broad to be relevant. What he wants:
One complicating factor: the judge in Georgia, Scott McAfee, signed off on Meadows’ request in March (before the case was paused by the appeals court). So Meadows is asking DC courts to enforce the request.
The House is free to express its disapproval of the Jan. 6 committee anytime, but this notion they will simply rescind the subpoenas or contempt votes of an earlier Congress — and that it will have some meaningful legal effect — is fanciful.
It’s become a litmus test on the right in recent weeks. But whether a contempt occurred in an earlier Congress is up to that Congress. It would be a form of legal chaos to allow Congresses years or decades later to try to unravel prior contempts that were already prosecuted.
For context: This has become a rallying call on the right, particularly since Judge Nichols ordered Steve Bannon to prison by July 1. Some candidates and members are openly promising to do this, as though it has some practical effect.
👀 Justice MERCHAN has notified the parties in Trump's case that a stray comment was posted on the NY court system's Facebook page on May 29, a day before Trump's conviction.
It does seem likely to be a fake — but Merchan didn’t indicate one way or the other whether he considered it serious. May have been sharing out of an abundance of caution in case others saw the screenshot.
BREAKING: Steve Bannon has been ordered to surrender to prison by July 1. Judge Nichols has revoked his bail.
Bannon’s sentence for defying the Jan. 6 committee’s subpoena has been on hold while he appealed. Today, Judge Nichols (a Trump appointee) ruled that the original reasons for staying the sentence no longer be er applied.
Bannon’s sentence would run through early November.
BANNON and his lawyer David Schoen are speaking to press now.