1/ House leadership is (i) convening a vote on continuation of the impeachment inquiry--something not legally necessary but helpful to foreclose a groundless, recurring argument; and ...
nytimes.com/2019/10/28/us/…
@just_security
nytimes.com/2019/10/28/us/…
@just_security
2/ ... (ii) going forward with the inquiries, and presumably to a vote on articles of impeachment, w/o waiting for all the immunity/privilege cases to work their way through the courts, which could drag on and as to which the ultimate holdings-- ...
3/ ... on cause of action and privilege, more so than on standing and "immunity"--are very uncertain (see my quote in the @npfandos piece). This latter course of action is wise b/c testimony from the likes of McGahn, Kupperman & Bolton is unlikely to offer ...
4/ ... many important details that aren't already known: What's already public is easily enough to demonstrate abuse of, and unfitness for, office. By contrast, obtaining the records at issue in Trump v. Mazars (CTADC) and Trump v. Deutsche Bank (CTA2) might be important, ...
5/... at least to the extent those records might reveal foreign indebtedness/financial involvement (i.e., conflicts of interest that would help explain Trump's aberrant conduct). The House therefore should be eager to have SCOTUS resolve those cases ASAP (ideally cert. denials).
