Thread by @TheLastRefuge2

1) I don't like gaming stuff out by thinking like this Lawfare crew, but...

2) There is a possibility...

3) This impeachment could be a disposable first step.

Call it impeachment 1.0

4) They use this impeachment to get the judicial authority to penetrate the constitutional firewall.

A pending senate trial gives them an argument in court for their pre-existing cases.

5) The real goal of impeachment 1.0 is the evidence they seek. (1) Mueller 6e material. (2) McGahn as a witness. and (3) the financials/taxes.

These cases already exist in courts [#3 is less important].

6) Eventually McConnell votes down the impeachment, but that doesn’t matter. What the House really wanted was an interim phase to help get the 6e material, Don McGahn etc.

7) From there the House assembles new articles based on the new evidence. And impeachment 2.0 goes to the Senate.

8) Two benefits:

(A) treasure trove of oppo research for 2020.

(B) It’s like an insurance policy if Trump wins again….

9) Nadler knows what the 6(e) material is already.

Nadler wouldn’t be going after it if Weissmann and crew didn’t leave something in there for him.

10) That 6e material is the motherlode of opposition research. FBI 302's, hundreds of anti-trump witnesses, massive speculations and accusations, wiretap results, surveillance results, nat sec letter results...

11) All of it immediately in the hands of Jerry Nadler, Nancy Pelosi, Lawfare, Fusion-GPS, DNC, political operatives and the democrat 2020 presidential candidate.

12) Full Title-1 surveillance was done on the entire Trump family and administration for two years. Think about what was available for Weissmann/Mueller to leave for Nadler and the DNC.

All of it perfect for slow leaking to the media during an election year....

13) Impeachment 1.0 could simply have been the method, the legal pathway, to get to all of that information.

Thus holding the articles for a little while til the courts grant benefit from their existence within the three pending cases in early January.

14) Like I said.... I don't like thinking like these Lawfare schemers, but that's the kinda stuff they come up with.

We've been living through it for 3 years.

15) /END

16) post script.... Don't forget Mary McCord is with the Lawfare contracted crew working for Nadler on this endeavor.

McCord is currently working for Jerry Nadler !!

politico.com/news/2019/12/1…

17) also.... this approach would explain why Nadler dropped all of the other article stuff, which originally perplexed everyone, but stuck to: abuse of power and obstruction.

Both current articles are arguments for pending cases.

18) In lower court decision on 6e material the HJC win was limited to material directly related to the Mueller findings.

One of those Mueller findings centered around "obstruction",.... the same as the second article of impeachment.

19) So HJC argues the Mueller 6e is directly related to their pending Senate impeachment case.

"Obstruction"

20) Thanks for the reminder....

So we should be able to get a good idea, whether this is indeed their strategic approach, based on how HJC responds to this:

21) The 6e response will likely argue the second article for impeachment would use this as evidence.

Then....

22) The second HJC response, vis-a-vis McGahn, will likely argue toward the first article on "Abuse of Power".

McGahn as WH counsel would be a direct witness:

23) This approach, if accurate, would reconcile all of the preceding behavior from the Pelosi, Nadler, and Lawfare crew...

Meaning the two current articles for impeachment are a means to an end, and *NOT* the end themselves.

24) Remembering that Mueller's entire two year effort was a counterintelligence investigation, the material Weissmann and crew gathered -which Nadler wants- would include this stuff as an example: