Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

House Judiciary Committee Opens Probe Into Trump’s Administration, Business, Family

House Judiciary Committee Opens Probe Into Trump’s Administration, Business, Family

Chairman Jerrold Nadler said “the goal of the probe was ‘to present the case to the American people about obstruction of justice, corruption and abuse of power’ within the Trump administration.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q12EAIQ87QA

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler unleashed a probe into President Donald Trump’s administration, businesses, and family on Monday morning. From Fox News:

Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said Monday the committee served document requests to 81 agencies, entities and individuals, as Democrats unveiled a probe into “alleged obstruction of justice, public corruption, and other abuses of power by President Trump.”

In addition to the White House, Nadler is also seeking information from Trump family members, like Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Jared Kushner; from former administration figures like former chief of staff Reince Priebus, former national security adviser Mike Flynn, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and former spokeswoman Hope Hicks; and from Trump campaign figures like Brad Parscale and Corey Lewandowski.

“Over the last several years, President Trump has evaded accountability for his near-daily attacks on our basic legal, ethical, and constitutional rules and norms,” Nadler said in a statement. “Investigating these threats to the rule of law is an obligation of Congress and a core function of the House Judiciary Committee.”

The panel sent these requests to 81 people and entities. They have to respond by March 18. Axios has the entire list, but some names that stick out include Corey Lewandowski, David Pecker, Eric Trump. Donald Trump Jr, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Julian Assange, and Wikileaks.

From Politico:

At the Trump Organization, top executives Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg and chief legal officer Alan Garten are covered under the Democrats’ document requests, as well as Trump’s longtime personal secretary Rhona Graff. Notably, the House panel didn’t include Trump’s oldest adult daughter, White House adviser Ivanka Trump, in its initial round of document requests despite her long-standing connections to her father’s business empire.

Democrats also are seeking materials from several Trump officials who have been charged in the nearly two-year old Mueller probe, including Flynn, Manafort, Trump 2016 campaign deputy Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos and longtime Trump associate Roger Stone.

The probe comes after Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen testified in front of the House Oversight Committee where he named other people associated with Trump “who may have been involved in crimes Cohen has pleaded guilty to, including lying to Congress and committing campaign-finance violations tied to hush-money payments.”

The White House confirmed it received a letter from Nadler. Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said that “[T]he Counsel’s Office and relevant White House officials will review it and respond at the appropriate time.”

Nadler spoke about the probe on ABC’s This Week on Sunday morning. He stated that “the goal of the probe was ‘to present the case to the American people about obstruction of justice, corruption and abuse of power’ within the Trump administration.”

Trump told reporters that he will “cooperate all the time with everybody. You know the beautiful thing: no collusion. It is all a hoax.”

I guess the Judiciary Committee will not be satisfied with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible Russian collusion with Trump’s campaign in 2016. If Mueller found no evidence of collusion, the Democrats will not stop until they find something to impeach Trump. House and Ways Committee Chairman

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Mr. Nadler, now do the Clintons. Yeah, that’s what I thought.

I hope they all tell Nadler to Suck My Subpoena.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | March 4, 2019 at 3:18 pm

Time to Chop Off the Illegal Demcrat Party’s Witch Hunt!

For the purposes of efficiency, perhaps we could give every Presidential candidate a Mueller-Nadler enema

Anyone know when the Democrats will find time to work on legislation that will improve the lives of Americans?

    Massinsanity in reply to mailman. | March 4, 2019 at 4:25 pm

    Oh please no.

    As an employed, white, male, financially responsible, heterosexual of faith I don’t want the Democrats to pass any legislation period as anything they might pass will most likely come at the expense of or against the best interests of me and my family.

      Agreed. As long as they’re running around chasing their tails, they won’t be passing legislation that will ruin the country and erofe our freedom even further.

    Sanddog in reply to mailman. | March 4, 2019 at 4:46 pm

    Since they have no intention of crafting legislation that will actually help American citizens, they’ve got plenty of spare time to go on witch hunts.

    inspectorudy in reply to mailman. | March 4, 2019 at 5:11 pm

    Really? They want to take away our right to own guns. They want to take back the tax cut. They want to reinstate obamacare. They want to open our borders and do away with ICE. They want to do away with all fossil fuel burning autos/busses/planes/boats. They want to allow illegals to vote. They want to murder new BORN babies!

    Do you really want them to focus on their agenda?

    CDR D in reply to mailman. | March 4, 2019 at 5:53 pm

    Actually, if they stay busy at this, and Trump plays them the way I know he can, the dirty bastards will be too busy to meddle in our lives.

    Ghost Rider in reply to mailman. | March 4, 2019 at 6:13 pm

    We don’t need the kind of lifestyle improvements they would come up with. I don’t want to be poorer and have less freedoms.

I guess the thing that angers me about this is that I feel this is all for show. Of course, they would love to find something incriminating. But, that is not necessary. Whatever they find will be presented as incriminating.

It is the opposite of “fair play” which used to be inherant in American society. And, it is he opposite of “Justice”.

For those two reasons, this is a very dangerous road. Trump supporters will not forget this.

    Don’t forget the third purpose: to ruin the lives of anyone associated with President Trump. Lawfare: it’s what makes tyrants prosper.

If the probe’s purpose is to present the case for impeachment, the probe cannot be for the purpose of finding the truth; they already know the truth. It is therefore, by Nadler’s proclamation, a public relations exercise to publicize their unshakable finding of guilt. The verdict has been rendered beforehand; all that remains is to present the verdict to the public to build support for sentencing.

I believe I have just described a show trial.

I’ll add that if Trump is guilty of all these things, that’s Trump’s problem. It is because I find these charges to be woefully unproven that I do not jump to support them. But, let’s set that aside. This is using the powers of the legislative branch for what is described by the relevant Chairmen to be a show trial, a political presentation, when they already know their target is guilty. They are not searching for truth; they are spinning it. Is this what “oversight” was meant to mean?

What I’m unsure of is if the Democrats were right all along that the Republicans abused oversight the same way against Bill Clinton, or if they just tell themselves that to justify one-sided abuse. It almost doesn’t matter. They’re not trying to oversee government– they’re trying to oversee their political enemies. This is the Congress that ought to have more powers “returned” to it…? It gives me great pause.

    This is an impeachment in search of a crime, which is exactly backwards of how it should be done. Bill Clinton lied to Congress, which is, on its face, an impeachable offense, and he was impeached, but not removed. Impeachment and removal from office are two very different things.

buckeyeminuteman | March 4, 2019 at 4:15 pm

“Show me the man, I’ll show you the crime” or something to that effect. Doesn’t the 4th Amendment apply here, unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause? Lois Lerner sure executed her 5th Amendment rights when drug before Congress, repeating that line over and over.

Each target should turn in clinton crime foundation investigative leads pointing to russian collusion. Start with Uranium 1, expand the scope of the investigation to fraud in Haiti, running weapons in Libya etc. Should keep the committee occupied for awhile.

Ghost Rider | March 4, 2019 at 4:29 pm

If the main goals of congressional oversight are preventing waste, fraud, and abuse, and protecting rights and civil liberties in the executive branch (we clearly need a watchdog doing this over the legislative branch too given all the money they waste), what gives Nadler the power to probe things outside of the executive branch like Trump businesses and charities, etc.? Seems like a lot of overreach going on here to try to take Trump out, or at a minimum tarnish his reelection bid.

I thought there was a SCOTUS case that kinda addressed this..
Watkins v. US? Jason Chavetz mentioned it on Fox.

    Joelist in reply to amwick. | March 4, 2019 at 5:11 pm

    Watkins v US is exactly on point. Hopefully one or more of those being persecuted file suit to terminate the entire thing as being outside the scope of Congress oversight authority.

Our tax dollars hard at work – or rather, down the drain.

2nd Ammendment Mother | March 4, 2019 at 4:41 pm

Nadler is using the power of the government to punish every person even slightly connected to Trump. Since felony charges can result from the slightest misstep, misstatement or misunderstanding of a question, specialized legal representation for these types of hearings is necessary and financially ruinous for even an innocent bystander.

How much stronger of a message can be sent to scare off potential campaign staff and donors to “not even dare”? The louder message is to the next outsider who dares to cross them…. do it and we’ll destroy everyone and everything you’ve ever loved.

I am surprised he didn’t issue a request from Melania and or any of his exes. Maybe in phase 2 of the witch hunt, he will. The Dems don’t have any compunction to abide by the attorney client privilege, so they will violate the husband wife thing too. Anything to get Donald Trump out of the White House, so Hillary can take her rigfhtful spot.

    txvet2 in reply to Stan25. | March 5, 2019 at 2:32 am

    “…they will violate the husband wife thing….”

    I’ve always been curious about why anybody would think that such a thing existed, given the reality of divorce court. Of course, it’s common knowledge that a wife can’t be compelled to testify against her husband, but maybe one of our local lawyers could explain why there is an assumption (or a legal mandate) that a wife can’t testify against her (current of ex-) husband, if she is so inclined.

In a just world the voters will punish the Democrats in 2020 but do we live in a just world? I think the Democrats are betting we don’t and that Washington and the Media is a world where they have nearly limitless ability to do whatever they want.

You really should have to produce some kind of evidence of wrong-doing to begin this kind of anal probe but that would actually be in a Just America.

    You really should have to produce some kind of evidence of wrong-doing to begin this kind of anal probe but that would actually be in a Just America.

    See: The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    See also: Terry v. Ohio (1968), source of the term “Terry stop” (i.e. stop, frisk, and question), but more broadly describing the legal standard for detaining and questioning possible suspects, consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

    Per Terry, it requires reasonable suspicion, which must be based on “reasonable and articulable facts” and “taken together with rational inferences from those facts”. “[I]nchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch'” is NOT enough.

    Not that I expect the Democrat Chairs of the various House Committees to be overly cautious in requiring normal legal standards before exercising their subpoena powers — especially if their intention is to try Trump in the court of public opinion — but if it goes any further than that the lack of reasonable suspicion will be … problematic for them, at best.

      txvet2 in reply to Archer. | March 5, 2019 at 2:36 am

      Well, they needed to identify a specific crime to appoint a special counsel, but that didn’t seem to bother Sessions at the time. (Yeah, I know. Rosenstein did the deed, but Sessions set it up.)

inspectorudy | March 4, 2019 at 5:16 pm

It used to be that a crime was committed before an investigation was started. It looks like now the investigation has started to find the crime. Isn’t that exactly what the Russians do when they want to convict a political enemy?

Jerk

I believe they’re setting up a perjury trap for these individuals. Anyone who doesn’t have a perfect memory, or whose answers they don’t like, can be taken down for perjury. Is there some reason they can’t all refuse to answer questions based on the 5th amendment and the fact that the questions are designed to entrap them?

    CDR D in reply to OldProf2. | March 4, 2019 at 5:58 pm

    They should refuse to show up. Give Nadler the finger. He can’t do a damn thing about it. (see: Eric Holder)

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to CDR D. | March 5, 2019 at 8:34 am

      I’m not a lawyer or well-versed in how all this works, so, I will ask this: would refusing to show up then result in a contempt of Congress charge?

        Yes, it would. But if Holder is an example of what consequences of such holdings mean, it is toothless.

          The Friendly Grizzly in reply to CDR D. | March 5, 2019 at 11:55 am

          Holder is Holder. He knows where a lot of bodies are buried. I don’t think that you or I would skate.

          Milhouse in reply to CDR D. | March 6, 2019 at 5:58 pm

          Holder is free because the US Attorney for DC declined to prosecute him for his contempt. Presumably Trump can ensure the current US Attorney takes the same attitude.

    Lester in reply to OldProf2. | March 5, 2019 at 9:31 am

    just take a page out of the democrat handbook… “I don’t recall”

Saw this in extended commentary while doing a Bible study in Acts:

“Envy provides the mud that failure throws at success.” Anon.

“the goal of the probe was ‘to present the case to the American people about obstruction of justice, corruption and abuse of power’ within the Trump administration.”

Not to a criminal court, not to the House for consideration of impeachment. “To the American people” means “to the press”, which will keep “Trump is a Poopy-Head” in the headlines for the next two years.

They’ve lost any substantive battle, and know it. So they’ll just crank up the propaganda, where fact doesn’t matter.

“Over the last several years, President Trump has evaded accountability for his near-daily attacks on our basic legal, ethical, and constitutional rules and norms”

Just what you’d expect a slimy swamp creature to say. “Attacks” are, of course, a First Amendment thing, and the President doesn’t lose his rights just because he’s speaking from the Oval Office. And it’s nice to see they’re not giving up on that “norms” stuff. Nobody ever accused the D’rats of being the party of new ideas.

Notably, the House panel didn’t include Trump’s oldest adult daughter, White House adviser Ivanka Trump

Hahaha, I’ll bet they didn’t. Imagine how that would look—like a Storm Trooper stomping on that little angel you put at the top of a Christmas tree. The D’rats are weak on ideas, and not too good on ethics or morals, but they’re not completely stupid.

I wonder if DJT’s best tactic wouldn’t be to be as “helpful” as he can, individually—which means free to run rings around them, as usual—and everyone else to stonewall about everything.

So is there anything wrong with responding to the House’s “Requests” with a long string of responses for six years that go more or less:

We are currently examining what records we are legally obligated to provide to your committee, and will take every step needed to prove every document we determine applies.

“To present the case to the American people about obstruction of justice, corruption and abuse of power”

Translation: To try Trump in the court of public opinion.

Read: NOT to ascertain the facts or the truth. That’s already known.

This is not a “probe”; the common understanding of the word implies a fact-finding mission. This is a deliberate smear campaign — backed by all the power and resources of the U.S. House of Representatives — disguised as a legitimate government investigation.

Anyhow, don’t they usually have to have some indication or evidence of wrong-doing before they open a full investigation and start issuing subpoenas and expending federal government resources on a witch hunt?

Evidence besides being in some way “associated with Donald J. Trump”?

From collusion with agents in London and Kiev, to spying on the Republican party candidate, to a multitrimester warlock hunt, to harassing people in restaurants and at home, to rape… Democrats double down on a progressive path.

    us navy cop in reply to n.n. | March 6, 2019 at 7:12 am

    First off I’m not a lawyer, but reading the Watkins v US opinion these two excerpts seem to be on point. The first is:

    We start with several basic premises on which there is general agreement. The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws, as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste. But, broad as is this power of inquiry, it is not unlimited. There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress. This was freely conceded by the Solicitor General in his argument of this case. [Footnote 8] Nor is the Congress a law enforcement or trial agency. These are functions of the executive and judicial departments of government. No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress. Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to “punish” those investigated are indefensible.

    And the second is:

    The Government contends that the public interest at the core of the investigations of the Un-American Activities Committee is the need by the Congress to be informed of efforts to overthrow the Government by force and violence, so that adequate legislative safeguards can be erected. From this core, however, the Committee can radiate outward infinitely to any topic thought to be related in some way to armed insurrection. The outer reaches of this domain are known only by the content of “un-American activities.” Remoteness of subject can be aggravated by a probe for a depth of detail even farther removed from any basis of legislative action. A third dimension is added when the investigators turn their attention to the past to collect minutiae on remote topics, on the hypothesis that the past may reflect upon the present.

    It appears to me that the House’s statement that they need to inform the public of the illegalities of the Trump admin/Trump businesses fits the reasons the USSC ruled against the House in 1957. It’s a criminal investigation which is not in the House’s wheelhouse

Make it simple Mary “House Judiciary Chairman Opens Investigations Into All Things Trump”.

The Wadler won’t give up until 20 January 2025 when Donald J. Trump starts returning his pension to the US Treasury – if The Wadler and assorted other Socialist-Democrats haven’t caused his personal and business bankruptcy before then.

Cool. Can the senate now start investigating Mrs & Mr Pelosi’s finances?

    txvet2 in reply to Milhouse. | March 5, 2019 at 2:38 am

    But, but, that wouldn’t be nice.

    CDR D in reply to Milhouse. | March 5, 2019 at 11:01 am

    That would keep them busy for a long time, especially if they go into her father’s dealings with tentacles reaching back to Lucky Luciano.

    iconotastic in reply to Milhouse. | March 5, 2019 at 11:13 am

    Don’t stop there.

    The DoJ can investigate campaign finance irregularities of AOC and her curious campaign manager, the immigration irregularities of Illhan Omar, the corruption of Maxine Waters, etc., etc.

    Barry in reply to Milhouse. | March 5, 2019 at 11:45 pm

    “Can the senate now start investigating Mrs & Mr Pelosi’s finances?”

    If we had American senators that’s precisely what would happen. You counter bad conduct by making the conductors receive the same.

    But we have very few American’s in the senate anymore. Most are just corrupt lapdogs.

what goes around, comes around but republicans are always reluctant to play politics the democrat way and have to be beaten over the head by their abuses of power. hopefully when the republicans take back the congress when the Trump wave sweeps the elections they have the balls to play hardball the way the democrats do.

let’s face it, democrats are better at dirty deeds.

So, perhaps the House could appoint a committee to look into these charges? With (of course) the authority to subpoena witnesses and compel testimony. Especially regarding any dealings between Trump business entities and Russia.

Perhaps we could call it “The House Un-American Activities Committee”?

“the goal of the probe was ‘to present the case to the American people about obstruction of justice, corruption and abuse of power’ within the Trump administration.” – Jerry Nadler.

The irony in that statement is, in itself, supreme irony. All of the “Get Trump” activities of the last three years have been designed to do one thing, to KEEP the case of obstruction of justice, corruption, abuse of power and other criminal wrongdoing, engaged in by Democrats, in general, and high ranking members of the Obama Administrations, in particular, FROM the American people.

The Mueller dog and pony show is winding down, because it is losing the protection of senior DJ officials. The “criminal activity” which it was allegedly established to investigate NEVER existed and this is now becoming overwhelmingly clear. So, as the fairy tale becomes clearer, to the average American, it is time to fold the tents and take this circus out of town. And, there were no “collusion” elephants in this circus. But, the threats presented to Obama officials and the DC Establishment, by a Trump Presidency, still exist. So, the attacks switch to the Democrat Controlled House of Representatives and focus changes from Russia Collusion to any potential crime committed by the President, his family and their supporters, since birth. This is the most gigantic public government fishing expedition in American history. But, Establishment has no choice.

Donald Trump represents the first populist president elected in 100 years. He was elected by the people, not by the Establishment. Worse, he was elected in spite of the best efforts of the Establishment to block his election. This is an existential threat to the control of the US Government and the nation itself, by Establishment special interests. It is also a direct threat to all of the people who engaged in illegal activities during the Obama Administration. It is bad enough that the danger of criminal indictments of these actors is still possible for the next two years of Trump’s term, but, if Trump is reelected, it is almost assured that some of these actors will be charged with crimes. And, despite the attacks upon Trump and his associates, many of them false, his popularity is not slipping appreciably. He would stand a very good chance of being reelected no matter which Dem runs against him. It is doubtful that a third party challenger, designed to draw off some of his support, would be effective. And, the fact that any Dem challenger has to run slightly to the left of Joseph Stalin to secure the nomination, makes it doubtful that any of them can tack back to the center sufficiently to beat Trump. So, all that is left is to pull out all of the stops to force Trump out of office or, at least, to secure impeachment just before the election; or assassinate him.

This is all unlikely to end well, in the short run.

I think they should go back to see if Trump ever said, “No, honey, that outfit doesn’t make your butt look fat,“ when actually it DID.

Dear congress critter, I am unable to testify to Congress because I am unable to pay for competent legal representation. As you are requesting me to testify under oath and with potential criminal repercussion, I feel it necessary to have representation.

I will be more than glad to testify if you either grant me full and complete immunity, or prepay all travel fees and costs of legal representation.

Thank you very much.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend