https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...l2a?li=BBnb7Kz
The House is open to the prospect of impeaching President Donald  Trump a second time, lawyers for the Judiciary Committee said Monday.
House Counsel Douglas Letter said in 
a filing  in federal court that a second impeachment could be necessary if the  House uncovers new evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct  investigations of his conduct. Letter made the argument as part of an  inquiry by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals into whether Democrats  still need testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn after  the votes last week to charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction  of Congress.
   
 “If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the  conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are  not covered by the Articles approved by the House, the Committee will  proceed accordingly — including, if necessary, by considering whether to  recommend new articles of impeachment,” Letter wrote.
It’s  the first impeachment-related filing by the House since lawmakers  voted, mostly along party lines, to impeach Trump over allegations  stemming from efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his Democratic  rivals. It comes just hours after the Justice Department argued that the  impeachment votes undercut lawmakers’ ongoing court case demanding  testimony from McGahn, who was special counsel Robert Mueller’s central  witness.
In a brief  filed early Monday morning, DOJ lawyers acknowledge that the House’s  approval of two articles of impeachment — focused on Trump’s alleged  effort to withhold aid from Ukraine and his blockade of the House  inquiry — do not render moot the legal fight over McGahn.
However,  the Justice Department attorneys said the House Judiciary Committee’s  decision to move forward with impeachment means there’s no longer  urgency to resolve the House’s case. That bolsters the Trump  administration’s argument that the courts should simply butt out of the  legal showdown, the DOJ filing says.
“The reasons for refraining  are even more compelling now that what the Committee asserted — whether  rightly or wrongly — as the primary justification for its decision to  sue no longer exists,” the DOJ lawyers wrote, without elaborating on  that claim.
A second Justice Department brief in a related case —  the Judiciary Committee's demand for Mueller's grand jury evidence —  suggests without basis that the Judiciary Committee's decision to  advance articles of impeachment on the Ukraine scandal have effectively  ruled out any effort to impeach the president based on Mueller's  evidence, therefore rendering the matter moot.
It's unclear why  the Justice Department argues that the committee has conceded that the  Mueller impeachment investigation is over when House lawyers and  lawmakers have described it as ongoing and active.
House lawyers indicated in advance of last week’s committee and floor votes that
 the panel planned to push on  with its impeachment-related investigations. Democratic lawmakers who  led the House impeachment inquiry have long contended that their efforts  to gather more evidence would continue and that the timing of the  impeachment vote reflected the urgency of the matter, not the conclusion  of the effort to obtain witnesses and documents.
Letter’s new  filing emphasizes the fact that nothing precludes the House from  impeaching Trump again if it unearths new evidence, though no member of  Democratic leadership has suggested such a course, particularly with a  looming Senate trial and the presidential primary season imminent.
Letter also notes that McGahn’s testimony could become crucial evidence in the upcoming Senate trial.
“McGahn’s  testimony is critical both to a Senate trial and to the Committee’s  ongoing impeachment investigations to determine whether additional  Presidential misconduct warrants further action by the Committee," he  argued. Letter added that McGahn’s testimony is important aside from  these matters, as the House considers legislation that might arise from  the details of Trump’s conduct.
The filings landed Monday amid an  ongoing struggle between Democrats and Senate Majority Leader Mitch  McConnell over whether a Senate trial — whose contours remain unsettled —  will include testimony from witnesses who never appeared before any  House panel. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, in particular, has  requested testimony from acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney  and former national security adviser John Bolton.
Justice  Department attorneys argued in their new submission that the coming  Senate trial is yet another reason for the judicial branch to stand  aside.
“If this Court now were to resolve the merits question in  this case, it would appear to be weighing in on a contested issue in any  impeachment trial,” the DOJ legal team wrote. “The now very real  possibility of this Court appearing to weigh in on an article of  impeachment at a time when political tensions are at their highest  levels — before, during, or after a Senate trial regarding the removal  of a President — puts in stark relief why this sort of interbranch  dispute is not one that has ‘traditionally thought to be capable of  resolution through the judicial process.’”
“This Court should  decline the Committee’s request that it enter the fray and instead  should dismiss this fraught suit between the political branches for lack  of jurisdiction,” the Justice Department lawyers added.
The DOJ  filing was one of several submissions expected Monday in response to  requests the appeals court issued about an hour after the impeachment  votes last week, seeking clarification of the impact of the votes on the  McGahn case and a parallel legal fight for access to grand jury secrets  in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in  the 2016 campaign.
Both of those cases are expected to be heard on  Jan. 3 by partially overlapping three-judge panels. The Justice  Department, which brought the cases to the appeals court, is not urging  any delay of those arguments. However, the DOJ lawyers said the court  shouldn’t rush to get out a decision in the McGahn case — potentially  leaving a ruling until after the expected impeachment trial is complete.
DPST's are already panning more "Impeachment in search of A Crime"!! They will abandon any pretense at bipartisan governance of America until Jan , 2025.  Truly absurd in their TDS.