It feels like the climate is beginning to change.  There was a Politico piece about republicans becoming uncomfortable with the idea the congress has no role in oversight of the executive.

For which BY THE WAY there is exactly the same possibility of support for passing it in the senate.

Inconvenient fact.  There is exactly one thing they can do on their own.  Oversight.  Which happens to be what they were elected to do and what they will be punished for not doing.

I want you to game this out here with me. First, I think you and most TLers here would agree with the painfully obvious, which is that Trump is hiding something fark and foreboding and so absolutely terrible, he's willing to go to some rather extraordinary lengths to keep these secret(s) from becoming public knowledge.

Therefore, and I ask this respectfully and sincerely, what makes you believe that Trump will suddenly respect the rule of law and with it, Congress's inherent right to conduct oversight over his administration, should Speaker Pelosi give the green light to House Judiciary Chair Jerrold Nadler to open an impeachment inquiry?

Because from my vantage point, given Trump's behavior thus far, I'd offer better than even odds that he will thumb his nose at that impeachment inquiry, too -- and further, Attorney Gen. Bill Barr will fully support him when he does.

Now, indulge me this short digression. Yesterday, regarding over the House Oversight Committee's subpoena of financial records from Trump's accountant, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled that because our U.S. Constitution is self-evident, Congress does not necessarily need to open an impeachment inquiry in order to conduct its constitutionally prescribed oversight activities of the executive branch, particularly as it pertains to its right of subpoena and discovery:

"It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a president for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct -- past or present -- even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry." (Emphasis is mine.)

(And in a rather delicious bit of irony, the Trump administration's appeal of Judge Mehta's decision has been assigned to Federal Appellate Judge Merrick Garland of the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Karma can be a real b*tch. Okay, that's enough digression.)

So, regardless of whether or not discovery is conducted through either the regular committee process or a formal impeachment inquiry by the Judiciary Committee, it's highly likely that the present argument over the extent of that discovery will be decided in federal court, probably all the way up to SCOTUS.

Now, let's please understand that impeachment was envisioned by our country's founders to be both a political act and a legal process. When making that decision, both aspects need to be balanced accordingly if the outcome is to prove successful.

And while I'm not an attorney, I am familiar with the doctrine of civil and criminal procedure called "exhaustion of remedies," whereby redress or satisfaction cannot be sought in another forum such as federal court until all other avenues of remedy have been exhausted in the forum having original jurisdiction -- which, in this particular case, would be Congress or more specifically, the U.S. House of Representatives.

Therefore, because the argument over discovery in this matter will probably and ultimately be decided by SCOTUS, the House's legal case will be greatly strengthened by Speaker Pelosi's ability to demonstrate and prove to the satisfaction of at least five justices that she first exhausted any and all other potential remedies before finally authorizing the move to impeach.

At that point, once Pelosi demonstrates that she's met that legal threshold, the burden of proof will squarely shift to Trump and AG Barr as the appealing parties, who will need to show cause as to why the administration and the Dept. of Justice are in defiance of validly issued and legally binding congressional subpoenas. Given Judge Mehta's ruling yesterday -- in which his repudiation of Trump's argument was not unlike watching a bouncer toss a rowdy drunk from a bar -- that will likely be problematic:

"Courts have grappled for more than a century with the question of the scope of Congress's investigative power. The binding principle that emerges from these judicial decisions is that courts must presume Congress is acting in furtherance of its constitutional responsibility to legislate and must defer to congressional judgments about what Congress needs to carry out that purpose. To be sure, there are limits on Congress's investigative authority. But those limits do not substantially constrain Congress. So long as Congress investigates on a subject matter on which 'legislation could be had,' Congress acts as contemplated by Article I of the Constitution.

"Applying those principles here compels the conclusion that President Trump cannot block the subpoena to Mazars. According to the Oversight Committee, it believes that the requested records will aid its consideration of strengthening ethics and disclosure laws, as well as amending the penalties for violating such laws.  The Committee also says that the records will assist in monitoring the President's compliance with the Foreign Emoluments Clauses. These are facially valid legislative purposes, and it is not for the court to question whether the Committee's actions are truly motivated by political considerations.  Accordingly, the court will enter judgment in favor of the Oversight Committee." (Emphasis is mine.)

And that's why, in my own honest opinion, I consider it both counterintuitive and counterproductive to rush to pull the trigger on impeachment before the legal process has played out completely. Following the lead of Judge Mehta, who fast-tracked his decision, other judges will probably not allow trump's legal team to run out the clock.

Therefore, if Democrats harbor any hope at all of a positive outcome for impeachment, public opinion has to be squarely behind the effort. And to rally public opinion, House Democrats have to engage in a formal and public process of discovery.

But in order to do so, House Democrats will not only need to demonstrate sufficient political resolve, they will also require the assistance of the federal judiciary in that effort. And to convince the judiciary to weigh in and compel the Trump administration to comply with a congressional directive, they must show that the due process of law has been followed and respected, which requires every "i" to be dotted and every "t" crossed.

Speaker Pelosi knows that while we're not quite there yet, we're close. And for her part, in order to seal the deal with the public, she needs to show that she's come to a decision to authorize impeachment rather reluctantly, and not allow the Republicans to mischaracterize her as somehow salivating over the prospect. Even though the GOP will likely do so regardless, why make it easy for them?

We're actually a lot closer to impeachment than you apparently think we are. And that's why I'm counseling public patience. We need to stand behind Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her House committee chairs, who are doing the heavy lifting here. Let's not risk undermining them politically because matters are not playing out as quickly as they would on an episode of "Madame Secretary." Otherwise, the present effort will fail, and it will not be resurrected any time soon -- regardless of whatever other outages Trump & Co., LLC commit.

I think she does not want to do it period.  I think she wants to stall until the election because she thinks that's better politics.

That means double the resentment.  Or maybe triple, with the reminder of slavery in America.