Jerry Nadler’s Trump-bashing show is a bust

[hislegacy]

And yet, they have no interest in calling Mueller. Why are they giving him a pass?

 

[FreeinChrist]

---SE---

Now, he is an unindicted co-conspirator in regards to the hush money payments he made through Cohen. The prosecutors have more than Cohen's statement about that.

And history will look badly on his administration's treatment of immigrant children and families.

 

[FreeinChrist]

And yet, they have no interest in calling Mueller. Why are they giving him a pass?

They may yet. But they do have the Mueller report. What they want is the underlying documents as to how Mueller came to his conclusions. And they need to speak to McGahn and others who are currently resisting.
I think the Judiciary committee needs to threaten to make contempt charges on those who fail to appear.

 

[hislegacy]

---SE---

Now, he is an unindicted co-conspirator in regards to the hush money payments he made through Cohen. The prosecutors have more than Cohen's statement about that.

And history will look badly on his administration's treatment of immigrant children and families.

What’s offensive is calling some who is not charged or indicted, who cooperated fully for two years, not once using executive privilege, not once claiming client attorney privilege, who turned over 1,000,000 pages of documents,

To be called guilty.

The rule of law is that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

That goes for the President also. Whether you like him or not.

The offense is against the rule of law.

 

[hislegacy]

And in 2020 should the house flip back and the President be re elected the left will still resist

My personal opinion they are putting a rush on everything because they are afraid of 2020.

 

[Pommer]

What’s offensive is calling some who is not charged or indicted, who cooperated fully for two years, not once using executive privilege, not once claiming client attorney privilege, who turned over 1,000,000 pages of documents,

To be called guilty.

The rule of law is that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

That goes for the President also. Whether you like him or not.

The offense is against the rule of law.

Nixon was never convicted of any crimes...was he “innocent”?

 

[FreeinChrist]

What’s offensive is calling some who is not charged or indicted, who cooperated fully for two years, not once using executive privilege, not once claiming client attorney privilege, who turned over 1,000,000 pages of documents,

To be called guilty.

The rule of law is that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

That goes for the President also. Whether you like him or not.

The offense is against the rule of law.

And the reason for not indicting him was explained in the Mueller report and repeatedly explained in various threads, though ignored by Trump's supporters. The DOJ has the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted. IF he loses in 2020, expect charges for the hush money and indictments for the obstruction, and probably more.

From what I read, Trump is an offense against the rule of law.

He hasn't cooperated fully for 2 years. He has anything BUT cooperated, and only because he had to or his attorneys made he decision.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well obviously the haters don’t.

Don't what?

 

[FreeinChrist]

Nixon was never convicted of any crimes...was he “innocent”?

Good point.

Wish we knew back in 1968 that he interfered with the peace negotiations that Johnson had going with the South Vietnam and the North Vietnam. But Johnson wanted the fact that the US was spying on South Vietnam kept quiet, so said nothing about Nixon's aide, Halderman, telling South Vietnam not to agree, that Nixon will make a better deal. That war could have ended in 1968, and instead went on til April 1975. How many Americans were killed or wounded in that time? That act was treason.

But Nixon was not charged or indicted for anything.

 

[Albion]

There is way more to obstruction, and a simple statement of innocence is not really of concern.

That's what I would say, but some of the Impeach Impeach Impeach people are of another POV.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Those supporting impeachment have good reason for it, and don't need to go one about some statement of innocence.

I would like an Impeachment inquiry because then the judicial committee would have more pull, and the resistance to subpoenas would end, and documents would be turned over than haven't been....and they can interview the witnesses like McGahn easier. Mueller lined up the facts for an obstruction charge, but expected the report to go to Congress like it should have, not stopped by Barr so he could do PR for the president.

 

[Albion]

And in 2020 should the house flip back and the President be re elected the left will still resist

My feeling is that this is a certainty. The idea that elections decide things and the will of the voters should be respected is past history, Im afraid.

My personal opinion they are putting a rush on everything because they are afraid of 2020.

That is quite possible. And what do they have to campaign on OTHER THAN impeachment?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

That is quite possible. And what do they have to campaign on OTHER THAN impeachment?

A return to normalcy and maturity in national politics. Concern for the environment, healthcare reform. Not siding with autocrats and wannabe dictators over US intelligence sources. Having a president who reads and can provide intelligent insight into world and domestic affairs instead of making things worse on both fronts.

 

[DaisyDay]

At the very least, I hope that the Republicans in 2020 will make as a leading campaign issue the fact that the opposition spent four years accomplishing nothing in Congress, even after the voters gave them, in 2018, a majority in the House of Representatives.

Wouldn't that be two years, given that a term in the House is two years and the Democrats didn't get a majority until the 2018 election (taking office in 2019)?

 

[hislegacy]

He hasn't cooperated fully for 2 years. He has anything BUT cooperated, and only because he had to or his attorneys made he decision.

Did he prevent one person from testifying?
Did he not turn over any documents?
Did he not answer the questions sent to him?
Did he exert executive privilege during the investigation?
Did he prevent the White House counsel from being interrogated for 30 hours?
He he prevent his own family members from being questioned?
Did he destroy any evidence?

 

[Tanj]

That's what I would say, but some of the Impeach Impeach Impeach people are of another POV.

oooh, are they any relation to the locker her up! locker her up! lock her up! people?

 

[Albion]

oooh, are they any relation to the locker her up! locker her up! lock her up! people?

No. Those are mainly ordinary people attending a campaign rally, not members of Congress!

We expect something better from our national leaders (or used to expect better anyway).

You want “the left” to hold “their” politicians to a higher standard than you bother to hold 45?

You’re serious?

I do hold to a higher standard. But, that aside, I cannot imagine why anyone would think that a Congressperson should not behave differently from anonymous people on a social media website.

 

[Pommer]

No. Those are mainly ordinary people attending a campaign rally, not members of Congress!

We expect something better from our national leaders (or used to expect better anyway).

You want “the left” to hold “their” politicians to a higher standard than you bother to hold 45?

You’re serious?

 

[Hank77]

I do hold to a higher standard. But, that aside, I cannot imagine why anyone would think that a Congressperson should not behave differently from anonymous people on a social media website.

Many of those anonymous people are voters. I expect voters to have higher standards, they are the ones who elect the people we are complaining about, members of Congress and the President.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Did he prevent one person from testifying?

He brought up pardons in news interviews.
Google Trump Pardon Mueller investigation.

Did he not turn over any documents?

Did he turn over all that was asked?
Mueller says messaging apps likely destroyed Trump-Russia evidence

What about the income tax records now?

Did he not answer the questions sent to him?

Mueller wanted an interview with him. Trump's lawyers fought that because they couldn't be sure he wouldn't perjure himself. There was lots of back and forth about interviewing and the questions were the final result of an almost year long discussion on it. It wasn't what Mueller wanted.
It was in the news. Did you see anything of all the stuff that was printed and what Trump himself said?

Did he exert executive privilege during the investigation?
Did he prevent the White House counsel from being interrogated for 30 hours?

Only because he was advised by his lawyer at that time (now fired) that it was okay to do.
As to the House committees, his administration has been refusing to cooperate. They are ignoring subpoenas. Haven't you read that?

He he prevent his own family members from being questioned?
Did he destroy any evidence?

Was his family questioned? I don't think they were. As Trump had already been throwing things away that he shouldn't in the beginning of his administration, and hasn't been keeping records, and other things were destroyed (see the link above), he could have.

I already wrote how Trump obstructed justice in an earlier post.