Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the cases of Trump v. Mazars, Trump v. Deutsche Bank, and Trump v. Vance, President Trump's challenges to House Democrats' and New York's subpoenas for his personal financial records:

Let’s start with a tweet from a lawyer with experience in congressional investigations in both parties:

The debate on Article I reveals one of its more fundamental flaw. It doesn't allege a crime (like the Nixon and Clinton abuse of power articles did). It also doesn't allege that @realDonaldTrump committed an act that is unlawful (but not criminal).

— Sam Dewey (@samueledewey) December 12, 2019

There is a lot to unpack in Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report on the review of four FISA applications.  It is impossible in one short blog post to detail all of the things uncovered.  The only safe conclusion is all Americans should be upset by this report.  As one group said (emphasis added):

For instance, the litany of problems with the Carter Page surveillance applications demonstrates how the secrecy shrouding the government’s one-sided FISA approval process breeds abuse. . . . The FBI must also adopt higher standards for investigations involving constitutionally protected sensitive activities, such as political campaigns.

That statement is not from a Republican or a conservative group, it is from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).  Speaking of Carter Page, he has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal which begins:

Today, the RNLA filed a Federal Election Commission complaint against Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg and Bloomberg News, alleging that the way that Bloomberg News has announced that it will cover the presidential campaign constitutes an impermissible in-kind corporate contribution that is not subject to the media exemption.

In our continued focus on Democrats who oppose impeachment, today we focus on famous lawyer and law professor Alan Dershowitz, who makes a strong case against impeachment, again.  We say again because he also wrote a book about the first quasi-impeachment effort which became the Mueller report.  Dershowitz details how Maxine Waters' interpretation of Congress' impeachment power is wrong and dangerous.

There are those like Congresswoman Maxine Waters who argue that Congress can impeach on any ground a majority wishes. “There is no law,” she has asserted, because then power to impeach is vested solely in the House and there is no judicial review of its actions. Even if that were true — and it is debatable —Waters’ lawless and reductionistic view confuses what Congress can get away with, as distinguished from what the Constitution obliges its members to do: namely to apply the criteria set out in the Constitution.

Today, National Review published a review by Sherif Girgis of Justice Neil Gorsuch's book, A Republic, If You Can Keep It.  The review summarized the insights into Justice Gorsuch's view of the separation of powers provided in the book:

The voters in November 2020 can and should be the judge of President Trump.   In light of the recent struggles of their party’s candidates, it seems House Democrats fear that potential judgment and want to insert their own.  Professor Jonathan Turley, a Democrat and Trump opponent, breaks down how that judgment may damage all future Presidents in his written testimony today:

To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my only concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of impeachment. President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.

Set to be released in early 2020, Created Equal–Clarence Thomas in His Own Words is a two-hour documentary that allows viewers to get up-close and personal with Justice Clarence Thomas as he discusses firsthand the numerous hurdles he faced en route to the Supreme Court of the United States. The purpose of the documentary is to “tell the Clarence Thomas story truly and fully, without cover-ups or distortions.”

As Rep Adam Schiff finishes his impeachment inquiry report there seems to be a feeling among even a few Democrats and academicians that there is nothing there for impeachment.  Keep in mind, this is without Republicans or the President even able to present their side. 

Democrat Rep. Jefferson Van Drew of New Jersey stated:

No president has ever been removed from office, Van Drew, 66, points out. And to have a "small, elite group" of lawmakers do so when an election is less than a year away seems to him to be not only unfathomable but un-American.

 “To some folks, that’s reminiscent of what was done to kings and queens many years ago," he said. "Everything our country doesn’t stand for."

Two court decisions this week concerning President Trump provide an interesting contrast.  The Supreme Court stayed a D.C. Circuit decision that would have required President Trump to provide his tax returns to House Democrats: