TPM Reader PM makes their case against my reasoning on impeachment …

At every further step in this discussion, I find myself sharpening my disagreement with your conclusions (thank for your applications of the socratic method :).

Keeping it short: The difference in moving forward with impeachment in the present circumstances is the difference between gathering around a single purpose and principle that can be formulated in fundamentally patriotic terms, and being mired in an unruly mess of legalistic language that will draw on for months without ever (or only very rarely) exiting the world of fake lawyers’ panels on CNN.

Happy Wednesday, May 22. President Donald Trump’s lawyers will see the inside of another courtroom today as they yet again try to stop a congressional committee that has subpoenaed information about the President. This time, it’s the House Oversight Committee’s effort to get Trump’s financial records from his banks. Here’s more on that and the other stories we’re following.

The Washington Post has gotten hold of a draft internal IRS memo which argues that the IRS and Treasury Department have no choice but to hand over the President’s taxes.

This seems like little more than a legal analysis that states what I think everyone who has looked at the law understands, which is that it’s crystal clear: To follow the law they have no choice but to hand over the returns. The only real argument I’ve seen from conservatives is that the law itself is unconstitutional. But the text of the law is clear.

Yesterday we got the first court ruling in Congress’ battle to conduct oversight of President Trump. The judge issued a broad decision that affirmed Congress’ oversight authority, rather than narrowly ruling on the subpoena for Trump’s accountant, Mazars. TPM’s Josh Kovensky talked to legal experts who provide a very helpful lens through which to read the ruling. It’s worth a look.

Some very interesting numbers in a just released Quinnipiac Poll.

Here are numbers that jump out to me.

President Trump’s numbers are 38% approve, 57% disapprove. On May 2nd those numbers were 41%-55%. 54% of voters say they would “definitely not vote” for President Trump. 31% say they’d “definitely vote” for him.

TPM Reader JP has thoughts about Nancy Pelosi and the difference between leading the Democratic caucus and being – whether she wants it or not – the Democrats current national leader. The inside game and the outside game, if you will. I have some comments in response below …

Was reading yet another reference to Pelosi’s infighting with her caucus:

In observing the public machinations and gyrations Speaker Pelosi continues to conduct regarding impeachment I found myself thinking back to the position she took during the ACA debate. More than anything I think it highlights the significant gap in her effectiveness at inside baseball (passage of legislation) and outside baseball (directing the public politics regarding a compelling national issue such as impeachment). Ultimately both goals are the same: keep your caucus unified and get a win for your side (and then sell the win to the country).

A highly knowledgable lawyer writes in the following about the Trump accounting firm subpoena …

Judge Mehta wrote a smart and detailed opinion. And his decision not to grant a stay pending appeal sends a strong message that he views Trump’s arguments as extremely weak.

Trump of course has appealed and will seek review in the Supreme Court if he loses in the court of appeals.

His goal is to run out the clock until the middle of next year, which will make it hard for the House to analyze the documents, conduct further investigations, and reach any conclusions before November 3. It also will mean that any conclusions will be lost in the swirl of a highly partisan election contest.

President Trump is moving quickly to appeal the federal court ruling against him over the congressional subpoena of his accounting firm.

Happy Tuesday, May 21. The White House has blocked former White House counsel Don McGahn from testifying before Congress — and Democrats are less than pleased. Here’s more on that and the other stories we’re watching.

Over recent months I’ve had a number of readers write in to ask if I’d put all my book reviews and recommendations in one place. So I’ve done that. After the jump are recommendations for just over 60 books – all what I’d call serious popular history, with a few examples stretching over into more academic books. The topics range from language and alphabets to Rome and Late Antiquity to Christianity, Islam, the Renaissance, pre-history and ancient civilizations, Israel, Eastern Europe and a number of other topics. Many of them I’ve recommended at some point over the last couple decades. A number are recommended for the first time. And I’m not done. I have at least 15 or 20 more I plan to add.