'Very substantial evidence' Trump is 'guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors,' House Judiciary Chair

[RKP5637]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/21/politics/mueller-investigation-nadler-says-evidence-trump-guilty-high-crimes-misdemeanors/index.html

Washington (CNN)House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler on Sunday said Robert Mueller's report presents "very substantial evidence" that President Donald Trump is "guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors" -- an impeachable offense.

"We have to ... let Mueller present those facts to the American people, and then see where we go from there, because the administration must be held accountable," Nadler, whose committee would lead impeachment proceedings, said on "Fox News Sunday."

[malaise]

1. Justice is coming

I can't wait - let's go Dems!!

[RKP5637]

3. I think so ... just getting all the ducks lined up, so they say. Once the asshole starts to go under

he'll sink very deeply. I hope he loses everything.

[malaise]

4. And he said it on Fox

[RKP5637]

5. I wonder if he was in the Fox studio ... lucky to get out. n/t

[malaise]

7. I never watch them so I don't know

Ha

[RKP5637]

9. Last I watched it broke my TV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Traildogbob]

17. Infectious

I can't even believe the weather channel any longer. They are only 2 digits away from the Fox Channel on Direct TV. That sickness has infected half of the nation and spreading. All the hundreds of 24/7 Jesus shows are right there as well. MSNBC is too close, it has already affected Chuckle Todd. Wash your hands frequently Miss Maddow.

[RKP5637]

22. K&R! n/t

[PoliticAverse]

2. He did "present those facts to the American people" in a huge report. n/t

[RKP5637]

6. I doubt many Americans have bothered to do anything with it. At minimal, this is

giving it some visibility, starting to crank it up, I hope.

[malaise]

8. M$NBComcast has a special on the report tonight

and lawfare has a neat synopsis

[RKP5637]

10. Excellent!!! n/t

[malaise]

12. This thread needs to be on the greatest page

Kick

[triron]

11. Yes. Thank you for the reminder. Rachel talked about this Friday.

She was a bit pedantic on her show (which is fine imo).

[malaise]

13. Agree

I'll be watching tonight

[RKP5637]

38. I thought it was excellent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[malaise]

42. Agree

although we already know what's in the Report

[RKP5637]

43. I hope the right people watched it - AKA Fox News viewers ... and they don't, I'm pretty sure ... nt

[triron]

14. Yes you're correct. Our local newspaper is continually 'normalizing' this monster.

In a very blue state no less!

[Hoyt]

15. Unless Mueller says something new, Nadler needs to move on to Impeachable offenses such

as racism, dereliction of duty, campaign finance irregularities, attempting to prosecute political opponents (like Clinton), advocating violence, breaking treaties, incompetence in office, disregarding Presidential functions, abuse of power, violating free speech, and a whole lot more.

They can throw in Obstruction of Justice, but Obstruction was never going to take trump down. Mueller went out of his way to absolve trump and his campaign from charges related to Russian interference. The language Mueller used to let Kushner, Junior, Manafort, etc., off the hook was a miscarriage of investigational integrity. Mueller wimped out. He has one more chance to repent.

[RKP5637]

23. I agree. If not, tRump will say how weak the democrats are ... and how they could

find nothing to substantiate their fake claims. He's a master of deflection. The democrats really need to move forward IMO. Otherwise, he has lowered the bar of the presidency to his level.

[mr_lebowski]

29. I don't think he went out of his way at all, I think the laws that we expected/hoped were in play

Don't exist/weren't in play.

Had, for example, DJTJr and Co actually physically received stolen docs at the TT meeting (or had anyone in direct employ of the campaign at any time thereafter), Mueller would've nailed them. But it doesn't seem they did.

And 'attempting to receive' items of unknown value (such as 'dirt') is not strong enough to even call for Campaign finance violation charges based on it being 'from a foreign country'. The laws just are not 'there'. They rely being able to quantify 'value' in some tangible sense.

Had he been able to show that TrumpCo were actively involved in the theft originally ... he'd have nailed them. But it doesn't seem they were.

Hell, if Stone was an actual employee of the Trump Campaign when talking to Wikileaks, rather than just 'an old buddy of Trumps', Mueller MIGHT have been able to nail the Campaign for his talks with Wikileaks ... but he wasn't at that point.

Fact of the matter is, the laws are not nearly as strict as we'd hoped against the kinds of shit the Trump Campaign pulled, and thus Mueller's hands were tied. And they were clever in what they did and didn't do.

[Hoyt]

31. I don't disagree. However one couches it, Impeachment for these matters is pretty much over

if Mueller says anything close to that. I do think for some of the Russian interactions with trump campaign, Mueller was too quick to say, "The investigation found no evidence . . . . . ."

In fact, it could well reflect badly on Democrats unless we move on quickly. The more we keep coming up dry, the more it really looks like a political "witch hunt" to those who don't despise trump as much as us.

[mr_lebowski]

32. Agree on that point, and would've appreciated a whole lot more ...

along the lines of "However, we here unable to investigate this as thoroughly as we'd have wanted to because X, Y, Z (stuff related to non-cooperation, people giving questionable testimony, people being in foreign countries, texts/emails being deleted ... and I'd have like to see DETAILS) on EVERY instance like this, rather than (as I understand it) more or less expressing this idea one time in a summary-type section.

[Hoyt]

34. Exactly. But, he didn't. Oh well, in any event, there is the 2020 election.

[mr_lebowski]

37. Yup, there is that. Allow me to add my big hope for the testimony, posted on another thread

copied here:

I want them to hammer Mueller on the BULLSHIT Barr decision that there couldn't be an obstruction charge w/o an underlying crime against the same person being charged.

There's no way he agrees with that idea, he knows the real law, and why it says what it does.

Lead him to describe alternatives such as 'obstructing justice to protect a loved one or friend', or 'obstructing justice because you thought it was POSSIBLE you or a loved one had committed a crime, but you weren't sure'.

Get him to admit that the MOST 'successful' possible acts of Obstruction are IN FACT the ones that would lead to no charges being filed, would they not?

And that it's for this very reason that the laws on Obstruction SPECIFICALLY state that no underlying criminal act by the person doing the obstructing ... is required for a person to be guilty of, and prosecuted for ... obstruction of justice.

Lead him to say ... basically ... Barr was full of shit from the jump, and continues to be on this account.

I bet he wants to say this, in fact.

[Hoyt]

40. I agree with hammering him on Obstruction, with one point.

I think Obstruction becomes somewhat less of an issue to most people when the underlying “crime” can’t be proven UNLESS the obstruction is why it can’t be proven.

And, there is at least one place in the report where Mueller appears to provide trump an excuse for Obstruction unrelated to any collusion/conspiracy, including improper encouragement like asking Russia for emails. Mueller essentially says trump was concerned that an investigation into the election would undermine his ability to lead by tainting his election. That might seem tenuous, but it is a defense for some seemingly obstructive actions.

In any event, I hope to heck the Committee is prepared and coordinated where these key questions get asked in logical order. If the Committee members are on their own, it will be a mess.

[Botany]

16. Nadler knows the law too ... from wiki

Nadler received his B.A. in 1969 from Columbia University, where he became a brother of Alpha Epsilon Pi.[8] After graduating from Columbia, Nadler worked as a legal assistant and clerk, first with Corporation Trust Company in 1970, then the Morris, Levin and Shein law firm in 1971.[9] In 1972, Nadler was a legislative assistant in the New York State Assembly before later that year becoming shift manager at the New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation, a position he would hold until becoming a law clerk with Morgan, Finnegan, Pine, Foley and Lee in 1976.[9]

While attending evening courses at the Fordham University School of Law, Nadler was first elected to the New York Assembly in 1976. He completed his J.D. at Fordham in 1978.

[OliverQ]

18. "But we're not going to impeach."

I don't know how you can claim Trump is very guilty of high crimes, and not immediately write up articles of impeachment.

[Control-Z]

20. I don't believe we want the House to

"immediately write up articles of impeachment".

My understanding is that it comes after an impeachment investigation, with public hearings, hopefully, which will take time and expose the reasons for impeachment. It is after that when the articles of impeachment are written and sent to the Senate.

Someone please correct me if I have this wrong as I'm trying to understand the process myself - and the delay in starting.

[malaise]

21. You are correct n/t

[Control-Z]

45. Thank you for the confirmation, malaise.

I've honestly tried to understand the process.

[RKP5637]

25. I think you are quite correct, at least in my understanding. n/t

[Control-Z]

46. Right?

I've asked a lot of questions and listened carefully whenever it's been the topic of discussion on any of
MSNBC's political programs. I appreciate your input, RKP5637.

[EveHammond13]

33. THIS

[EveHammond13]

19. please please don't screw it up

[malaise]

24. M$NBComcast special coming up at 9.00pm n/t

[triron]

26. Surely Nancy knows this. What is holding her back?????

Or does she think Nadler is full of it.

[Ponietz]

27. Rec--Together with Schiff's statement today--good news. n/t

[gulliver]

28. Trump has committed a lot of what should be considered high crimes and misdemeanors.

Declaring a national emergency in direct defiance of Congress and for no good reason, calling the press "the enemy of the people," taking security clearances away from critics, "joking" about staying in office even if he is voted out, willingly and eagerly accepting help from a foreign country to get elected...These don't violate statues, but guilt of high crimes and misdemeanors doesn't require statutes to be violated. These things are the very definition of what a president can't be allowed to do.

As it is, we have to get Trump with an open and shut case of obstruction. If we get that, then hearings can begin to build the case and put together appropriate articles of impeachment. The Republican Senate will let Trump off, but we need to make sure the American people see them making the dirty "bad call" on video.

[Aussie105]

30. Dump the Chump

any way possible.

Then normal people can relax, the MAGAts can go back under their rocks, and the rest of us can relax and get on with normal, non chaotic life.

Looking forward to that.

[Aaron Pereira]

35. At least enough to warrant a full inquiry.

Not to mention evidence of tax fraud outlined by the NYT and his above market real estate sales while in office. For some reason the leadership seems afraid of playing offense going into the next election. Very frustrating.

[Autumn]

36. If Trump is Trump is 'guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors,' and the House knows this

their duty is to impeach.

[RKP5637]

39. Yes, I would certainly think so ... or at least to start the investigation. n/t

[triron]

41. knr

[triron]

44. knr