Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Nadler Confirms House Judiciary Committee Launched ‘Formal Impeachment Proceedings’ Against Trump

Nadler Confirms House Judiciary Committee Launched ‘Formal Impeachment Proceedings’ Against Trump

Nadler insisted that Pelosi “has been very cooperative” with his committee.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tukYc1Or37U

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) confirmed the committee has launched “formal impeachment proceedings” against President Donald Trump even without Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s blessing. From Fox News:

“This is formal impeachment proceedings,” Nadler said. “We are investigating all the evidence, we’re gathering the evidence and we will at the conclusion of this, hopefully by the end of the year, vote to, vote articles of impeachment to the House floor or we won’t. That’s a decision that we’ll have to make. But that — that’s exactly the process we’re in right now.”

“All right, so when you say formal impeachment proceedings, have you started drafting or preparing articles of impeachment should you need them?” host Erin Burnett asked.

“There are articles of impeachment introduced a number of months ago and referred to the committee,” Nadler responded. “As the investigation proceeds, we may want to draft our own articles of impeachment that may more closely fit the evidence. We’ll see.”

Nadler and his committee have received some pushback from Pelosi. She has described impeachment proceedings as divisive, a way that could impede the Democrats from winning in 2020.

Nadler insisted that Pelosi “has been very cooperative” with his committee.

Hearings will begin in the fall “with key witnesses whose testimony would be part of the committee’s impeachment deliberations.”

The committee took that first step this week when it filed a lawsuit against Don McGahn, the former White House counsel. He “has defied the panel’s subpoena for testimony about allegations that Trump obstructed justice when he sought to constrain or otherwise end the Mueller investigation.”

The committee believes McGahn is their “most important fact witness in its consideration of whether to recommend articles of impeachment.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

DemsHateAmerica | August 9, 2019 at 3:14 pm

“We are investigating all the evidence, we’re gathering the evidence…” lol You don’t have any evidence.

healthguyfsu | August 9, 2019 at 3:15 pm

“There are articles of impeachment introduced a number of months ago and referred to the committee,” Nadler responded. “As the investigation proceeds, we may want to draft our own articles of impeachment that may more closely fit the evidence. We’ll see.”

Sounds an awful lot like fishing to me.

    guinspen in reply to healthguyfsu. | August 9, 2019 at 8:33 pm

    “Sounds an awful lot like fishing to me.”

    Follows raw footage of the Nadler – Pelosi confab.

    Edited for coherency by the Foggy Mountain Boys.

    Crawdad Hole

      Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to guinspen. | August 11, 2019 at 1:58 pm

      Smells a whole lot like desperation from here. Two years and no results, the 2020 elections are coming like a freight train.

    artichoke in reply to healthguyfsu. | August 10, 2019 at 9:52 am

    So was Watergate. A burglary that Nixon had nothing to do with. Nixon had just been reelected in a historic landslide, winning 49 states.

    And they got Nixon out.

    The Dems really are playing for keeps. The press might start playing up these hearings. Going against them is that unlike Sam Ervin and Howard Baker, nobody wants to look at Jerry Nadler.

It’s a threat.

Nadler – Continue exposing the deep state Russian antics and we’ll impeach you.

McConnell will deliver the message – the senate will convict.

President Trump will say – “Hold my non-alcoholic beer”

Since when do Democrats need evidence. You are just going through the Courts because you hitched your horse to a loser. By the time the Courts decide everything it will all be moot.

@Barry

Senate won’t convict

too many Republicans would have to crossover

besides, impeachment could only get by the House by barely half the floor vote

maybe 1-2 RINOs cross but not enough to survive a veto

    Barry in reply to fishstick. | August 9, 2019 at 4:29 pm

    “Senate won’t convict”

    2/3 of the senate. They start with almost half. This means they need about 2 votes more that 1/6 of the republicans.

    The GOPe has been at war with President Trump since before the election. Many of the members may have exposure to this coup attempt.

    If you believe they would not consider voting to impeach, the Brooklyn bridge is for sale, $50 bucks. Trump may be able to put the fear of god in them.

      Close The Fed in reply to Barry. | August 9, 2019 at 4:39 pm

      GOPe senators might not “support” Trump, but they aren’t idiots. They know where the voters are, and the voters aren’t against Trump.

      Most voters are quite happy with the state of the economy.

        CTF, the voters aren’t paying them, but they are getting paid.

        One Name. Paul Ryan.

        You have no clue if you think the GOPe is clean.

      rdm in reply to Barry. | August 9, 2019 at 8:33 pm

      20/53 is not one sixth. You fail at math.

        Barry in reply to rdm. | August 9, 2019 at 11:55 pm

        Heh, definitely earned an F on that one. I don’t even remember how I arrived at that, but probably did 1/6 of the whole senate plus a couple, which would be close but not quite. I think I gave the progs 48 instead of 47…

        So, 38% required. The GOPe easily counts that.

      rdm in reply to Barry. | August 9, 2019 at 8:35 pm

      Your math leaves you nine votes short.

    BerettaTomcat in reply to fishstick. | August 9, 2019 at 8:59 pm

    The President doesn’t get to veto a Senate impeachment conviction.

    Barry in reply to fishstick. | August 10, 2019 at 12:11 am

    Somebody needs to read the constitution.

    Impeachment requires a simple majority in the house, or 218 votes.
    Conviction requires 2/3 or 67 votes in the senate.

    There is no “veto” possible.

    The supreme court will not intervene. They cannot intervene. No appeal to the court is possible.

    artichoke in reply to fishstick. | August 10, 2019 at 10:02 am

    Point of information: the president doesn’t get to veto an impeachment resolution nor a vote of the Senate on conviction.

He’s just blowing smoke because he’s facing heat from his whack-o base after promising them Impeachment hearings for a year. He’s counting on them being stupid enough to believe that “yeah, these are impeachment hearings!” when in fact, no, they’re not at all.

And given how the Dem’s have been conditioning the supporters to believe any stupid like they’re told, this might just work as far as Nadler is concerned. “Worked” in this case meaning “Keeps the chumps happy and donating”.

    artichoke in reply to Tom Servo. | August 10, 2019 at 10:04 am

    They are officially impeachment hearings, and he says this will help him subpoena witnesses including Don McGahn.

    If they get McGahn to say something that interests them, then they’ll go further. In Watergate, all it took to pile more on was for “Deep Throat” to say something, supposedly, to a corrupt journalist.

@dystopia

I think these impeachment proceeding are a deflection to what is happening with AG Barr’s counter investigation

the IG report will likely be written by Horowitz to say he found loads of evidence showing the Trump team was maltreated but since he is a swamp-rat he will once again recommend no charges because of “no intent”

the problem the Democrats have though is how the AG and his special prosecution team will interpret all the findings (evidence)

Bitterlyclinging | August 9, 2019 at 4:45 pm

San Francisco has its poop and needle littered streets. Baltimore has its decades old garbage littered streets.
NYC has Jerrold Nadler.
The aroma all three cities give off is about the same.

    We are sorry and embarrassed for sending you AOC and Nadler. We’re not sending you our best.

    But we also gave you Donald J. Trump. So overall, we’re heroes.

The standard for impeachment of a US President is a showing of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

I want to know what crime you think this President has committed. State the crime, the applicable section of law, each of the elements, and the evidence you have that fairly meets each element.

Nadler had been saying that he have evidence of a crime committed by the President for the last three years. Before, he said he had evidence that this President colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election.

Now we have the Mueller Report, which says that there was no such collusion, by this President, or any American.

So, it is only fair to ask the basis for the “impeachment” proceeding.

I would also like to know why no reporter has asked him this kind of question. It is crucial.

    OnPoint in reply to Valerie. | August 9, 2019 at 5:39 pm

    No reporter will ask it and Jerry will dodge the question for as long as possible. The best you’re ever going to get is going to be “obstruction of justice,” and they will never give you specifics.

      Valerie in reply to OnPoint. | August 9, 2019 at 5:45 pm

      Reporters used to ask Democrats such questions. It’s been a while, but they used to do that.

        artichoke in reply to Valerie. | August 10, 2019 at 11:54 am

        He was asked by a reporter, and he repeated talking points from the “obstruction” section of the Mueller Report, interpreting them as clear crimes.

        He’s a world class BS’er. With ugliness like that (he looks worse than Chris Christie, and I didn’t know that was possible) he needs top political skills to survive in this career.

    Valerie in reply to Valerie. | August 9, 2019 at 5:43 pm

    Oh for an edit button, and a stable page to write on!

    Barry in reply to Valerie. | August 9, 2019 at 6:14 pm

    High crimes and misdemeanors are whatever the house says they are.

      BerettaTomcat in reply to Barry. | August 9, 2019 at 9:02 pm

      I doubt SCOTUS would uphold the House fabricating a crime.

      tom_swift in reply to Barry. | August 9, 2019 at 10:33 pm

      High crimes and misdemeanors are whatever the house says they are.

      Not quite. The House can’t do anything useful on its own. The Senate has to play along. And it won’t, unless the House can come up with some evidence of an actual crime.

    iowan2 in reply to Valerie. | August 9, 2019 at 11:04 pm

    Valarie; This in not criminal law. This is removing a President by political mechanics. Removing the President by the will of the people. Our system of government is always checks and balances. The Check on the House of Representatives is their always impending election. If the House goes rouge and prosecutes a purely political hit job, the voters will remove them from office.
    If Republicans were Just like the Democrats, they would return the favor for the next Dem President. But Republicans actual care about the constitution.

    artichoke in reply to Valerie. | August 10, 2019 at 10:10 am

    Impeachment is a purely political act. “High crimes and misdemeanors” means whatever members of the House and Senate want them to mean. Nadler says there were collusion with Russia as well as actual crimes of obstruction, and that’s how he would answer your question.

    He is free to ignore the fact that Mueller obviously wanted to find them and could not. It’s not a criminal standard. It’s a pretext for televised hearings, subpoenas, and if Pelosi deems it expedient, a vote.

    Nixon was gone even before the vote.

say hello to President Pence and no current dem in the field could beat him either

That guy needs a series of enema treatments.

Democrats have to impeach, even if they can’t get a conviction in the Senate (although there may be enough open-borders GOPe to make it interesting). Failure to impeach will mean (1) the Khmer Rouge wing of the Party will run challengers in Nadler’s and other Soviet Central Committee Democrats’ districts, and (2) a decreased turnout by the depressed Democrat base in 2020 means Trump’s margin could be outside the margin of theft.

    They can continue the “hearings” through the election and still work on the other side. They got Nixon shortly after he was reelected winning 49 states. Nobody can hope Trump will win 49 states.

Bring it, Jerry.

Now we know the faith, quasi-religion (“ethics”), and ideological temperament of the witch hunters and warlock judges.

The Question he will never get from a MSM ‘reporter’: Generally, before a court in the US has a trial, they have a criminal charge to place against a defendant. The Mueller report has just been released, and there were no criminal acts in it that were directed at the President or his campaign. What specific criminal act do you think Donald Trump committed as President?”

(wait patiently for the expected non-answer)

“But specifically, what action did Donald Trump take as President that violates the law? Firing the FBI director is actually within his authority as President, and nobody can possibly argue that Director Comey deserved to remain. Even the Clinton campaign wanted him fired. So what actual crime did Donald Trump commit?”

Except it isn’t. You had a vote, you lost. This is an attempt to circumscribe judicial review of subpoena’s and executive privilege. The Constitution is pretty clear that impeachment is for the body of the whole, and not a committee that did not exist or was contemplated when the Constitution was adopted.
What you have here is still an ordinary investigation. You don’t even have a crime other than your imagination. You can make an impeachment recommendation, but you accorded no special privileges while you waste your time.
Pull up your belt, Nadler. You look like an angry circus clown.

    Barry in reply to puhiawa. | August 9, 2019 at 6:16 pm

    Once Pelosi gives the OK, the house will vote on articles of impeachment and it will pass.

      artichoke in reply to Barry. | August 10, 2019 at 11:50 am

      Pelosi wouldn’t call the vote unless it would pass, therefore what you say is trivially true — except I think it’s far from certain it will get to where Pelosi would feel comfortable holding the vote.

        Barry in reply to artichoke. | August 10, 2019 at 7:45 pm

        I didn’t say Pelosi would.

        But I think it more likely than it was, and still unlikely.

        It all depends on what we see out of the DOJ. If they whitewash the investigation of the investigators, Pelosi will go for impeachment IMO. If the DOJ prosecutes and calls out the coup plotters, Pelosi will shut the hell up.

        Barry in reply to artichoke. | August 10, 2019 at 7:49 pm

        Pelosi is pulling the strings on all this, the fat Nadler is just a puppet.

    artichoke in reply to puhiawa. | August 10, 2019 at 11:51 am

    Pelosi (on behalf of the body as a whole, formally) approved Nadler’s subpoenas to go out.

When did the committee hold a vote to begin impeachment proceedings?

    artichoke in reply to gbm. | August 10, 2019 at 10:16 am

    The committee chair probably controls the schedule. That’s Nadler. If not, the Dem majority on the committee would vote as a bloc to approve that schedule.

He should institute proceedings against his pot belly.

It’s about swaying the congressional and presidential election in 2020. It seems to me that they plan to drag this out and have a vote in the House next spring, just in time for the elections, where they will use the Senate vote on impeachment against republicans, and the long drawn out process to further demonize Trump.

I also think the hearings will happen. My elected reprehensible, Gerry Connolly, sent the following email 2 days ago. This guy always makes sure which way the wind is blowing before he commits to anything. There is nothing new and no facts are presented to back up the allegations, just talking points, which furthers my view that this is just more “Orange man bad!”

+++++++++++++++++++
It’s Time.
Dear Neighbor,

In their wisdom, the Founders rejected the idea of an executive branch that could go unchecked, and granted the power of impeachment to Congress – one of the most serious means of oversight we can undertake – to hold accountable those in high office, including the President. It is a serious action that must not be rushed, abused, or taken lightly. But after careful thought and consideration, I believe the time has come for the House of Representatives to begin an impeachment inquiry into President Donald J. Trump. Four reasons lead me to this conclusion.

First, the gravity of the revelations in the Special Counsel’s report and testimony before Congress should trouble all Americans. The report details at least ten instances in which the President of the United States obstructed justice. Further, it chillingly warns, “The protection of the criminal justice system from corrupt acts by any person – including the President – accords with the fundamental principle of our government that “[n]o [person] in this country is so high that he is above the law.” I firmly believe, but for the flawed Justice Department opinion, President Trump would be indicted for his actions.

Second, I have seen firsthand the Trump administration’s across the board defiance of Congress’ legitimate investigations and subpoenas on everything from adding a citizenship question to the census to this Administration’s cruel and inhumane child separation policy. If these constitutionally-mandated oversight responsibilities are left undefended, our very democracy is threatened.

Third, the American people have also been witness to a president who at every opportunity has chosen to disregard the rule of law and our constitution for his own enrichment. He continues to violate the emoluments clause and his conflicts of interest are rampant. He makes decisions not for the good of the country, but for his own benefit.

Finally, I caution that we cannot allow ourselves to become so desensitized to the President’s behavior that there are no consequences. This is a man who continues to debase the office he holds. He has instilled fear and incited violence. He has called American communities infested, he has told members of Congress to go back to where they came from, he stoked the flames of white supremacy by repeatedly referring to an invasion of foreigners, and he has questioned the allegiance of our fellow Americans. At every moment, whether it was in the aftermath of Charlottesville or El Paso or Dayton, he has failed to heal our country and call us to our better angels. Instead, he has stained the Oval Office with his racism, xenophobia, and bigotry.

We stand at a perilous moment for our country. No individual should be above the law. No individual should act the way this president behaves without consequence. No administration should be allowed to disregard the constitution at their whim. Now more than ever, Congress must assert its constitutional role and that is why I believe we must immediately start an impeachment inquiry into President Trump.

Sincerely,
Gerald E. Connolly
Member of Congress

Now all they need is a hitherto unknown woman to accuse Trump of raping her decades ago, on an unknown date at an unremembered location.

It’s a proven strategy, right?

Funny thing: He’s confirming something that is not actually true. This is an escalation of his claim that his committee filing that lawsuit is a de facto formal impeachment inquiry. Yes, that is using de facto as a modifier for de jure; the committee hasn’t actually held a vote to open a formal impeachment inquiry within the committee. Nadler simply views the lawsuit as the launch of such an inquiry by inference, which he intends to bolster his case before the judge of the gravity of his request.

I would have held back, but I saw a Tweet by a Republican Congressman raising these same points last night. If other members of Congress don’t know that he’s held a new vote, even within just his committee, I feel safe assuming that none exists.

Frank Hammond | August 9, 2019 at 8:33 pm

The Penguin will face a tough AOC backed candidate in the 2020 primary. Nadler doesn’t have the energy to fight someone 40 years younger with Social Media Savvy. This is his last shot at fame. The Penguin will be on ice after 2020.

The Democrats seem to be trying to recreate some kind of horror movie that goes from one disaster and destruction to the next.
I would not have thought Nadler to be so stupid or insane. He is in a safe district and can deflect and ignore. Instead he goes full squad.
Is there a red flag law that can pull a politician out of his office while a sanity check is done?

    guinspen in reply to tz. | August 10, 2019 at 6:28 am

    “I would not have thought Nadler to be so stupid or insane.”

    Perhaps he suffers from Rumination Syndrome.

    artichoke in reply to tz. | August 10, 2019 at 10:21 am

    He notes that Pelosi has been helpful and approved his subpoenas. This is a Nancy Pelosi production. Don’t focus on the ugly fat blob in front of the camera; the planning goes all the way to the top.

    This way the “establishment” Dems can prove their relevance and fend off the Muslim insurgency on their left, by giving the progs something else.

    Mueller seemed ridiculous and unreal at the start too. There was no basis for that, then all of a sudden Sessions stepped out of the way and it was on!

A lot of smoke and mirrors going on with Wadler and his Judiciary committee. His problem is that the WH is going to assert Executive Privilege over the testimony of almost anyone Wadler wants to get to testify. And the only people he really wants to get to testify are close enough to Trump that Executive Privilege will work. Not the sort of 5th level bureaucrats that Obama tried to shield, but people who deal with POTUS on a day to day basis – and that is because all Wadler and the Dems have is the half baked, legally almost frivolous, Obstruction theory posited by Weissman and the other prosecutors on the Mueller investigation. They figure that if they interview enough people who dealt closely with Trump, they can dig up something that looks almost plausibly like Obstruction of Justice (ignoring, of course, that legally, for a number of reasons, it isn’t, including the rewriting of the statutes to change the Mens Rea from specific intent to general intent, as well as Article II Executive power, etc). And the only way that Wadler has a chance at overcoming Executive Privilege is if he is investigating impeachment.

But this is a slippery slope, camel’s nose under the tent, sort of argument. IF all it takes for a Judiciary Committee to override Executive Privilege, is to declare that they are investigating impeachment, then that is exactly what they are going to do henceforth, and Executive Privilege will become a nullity. Both parties, when House and Presidency are split partywise. House subpoenas someone. WH asserts EP. House Judiciary chair claims Impeachment. Which is why it isn’t going to work. The Judiciary doesn’t like getting stuck between the other two branches in Separation of Powers political disputes, and is almost assuredly going to ultimately agree with the Executive here, given the obvious political nature here of Wadler’s moves, and that a two year SC investigation failed to find probable cause for a single crime by Trump.

No matter what Wadler calls it, it isn’t an official impeachment investigation, because the House hasn’t voted to open one. And isn’t going to, because any Trump district Dem House member who votes to open impeachment for such nakedly partisan reasons, can kiss his seat goodbye. Pelosi can count votes, and knows that a vote for opening an impeachment investigation is a pretty good guarantee that she will be a one term Speaker. So, it isn’t going to happen, because the motion would apparently have to come from the Rules Committee, which is also called the “Speaker’s Committee”, since it is the mechanism that Speakers use to control the House agenda.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Bruce Hayden. | August 10, 2019 at 3:55 pm

    One of the corollaries to this is that opening a formal impeachment investigation is highly risky, politically. The impeachment of Clinton hurt Republicans politically, despite having found actual law breaking on Clinton’s part. And, that, is how it probably should be. Wadler is attempting to have his cake and eat it too – he wants the power of an impeachment investigation, without the political cost that his party would necessarily pay by opening an impeachment investigation of a President that his party’s Members from swing districts had voted for. Wadler, and likely most of his committee members are from districts that are extremely safe for Democrats. They aren’t the ones who would risk their seats by voting for an impeachment investigation.

    It is that political risk, that distinguishes where we are now with Wadler and his committee, and where they would be with a formally authorized impeachment investigation, and that very lack of political risk is why I very much expect that the Judiciary will ultimately reject Wadler’s subpoenas on the basis of Executive Privilege. If the Dems want impeachment that badly, let them put up control of the House in the next Congress as their ante. They won’t.

Disgusting phatso says what?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend