Mueller report shows evidence Trump committed crimes, House Judiciary chairman says

[oeb11]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...wEt?li=BBnb7Kz
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The top Democrat on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee said Sunday he believes there is "substantial evidence" that President Donald Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors, and he plans to ask former Special Counsel Robert Mueller to present those facts at a congressional hearing on Wednesday.
"The report presents very substantial evidence that the president is guilty of high crime and misdemeanors, and we have to let Mueller present those facts to the American people and then see where we go from there," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said on "Fox News Sunday."
"The administration must be held accountable, and no president can be above the law."
Nadler's comments are significant because evidence of such crimes would be required if Democrats pursue impeachment proceedings against the president.
© Reuters/Leah Millis FILE PHOTO: Politicians on the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington In two nationally televised back-to-back hearings on Wednesday before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees, Democrats are expected to try and get Mueller to focus his testimony on specific examples of Trump's misconduct.
By having Mueller lay bare the unflattering details of how Trump tried to stymie the investigation into his campaign, Democrats hope they can build support for their ongoing investigations into the president and potentially, impeachment proceedings.

Some Democrats in Congress support impeaching Trump, but they have not managed to win traction from House Democratic leadership including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has preferred a more cautious approach that entails conducting congressional fact-finding investigations into Trump's conduct.
Last week, the House voted 332-95 to table an impeachment resolution.
Mueller completed his nearly two-year long probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election in March, and the Justice Department released a redacted copy of his report in April.
The report laid out numerous contacts between Russian officials and Trump's campaign, but found no evidence of a criminal conspiracy.
It also gave examples of 10 incidents in which Trump sought to hinder the investigation, but it did not draw any conclusions on whether Trump obstructed justice.
Attorney General William Barr later concluded he did not see enough evidence to bring obstruction charges.
Whether Democrats will get Mueller to discuss Trump's conduct in detail remains to be seen.
Mueller has made it clear he has no desire to appear before Congress, saying the report is his testimony, and he is also notorious for being tight-lipped and for giving one-word answers in hearings.
Nadler said Democrats plan to ask very specific questions about Trump's obstructive conduct and ask Mueller to read passages from the report aloud.
"We hope it won't end up being a dud," he said of the hearing.
Meanwhile, Nadler said Sunday he plans to go to court "within a couple of days" after the Mueller hearings to enforce a subpoena, after the White House ordered former White House Counsel Don McGahn not to testify about incidents he witnessed which many say show Trump tried to obstruct justice.


Nadler plans to ask Mueller to "read passages aloud from the report"!
Fat ass Nadler is again waving ;McCarthyite paper in his hand. Mueller will not react well to being directed to "read aloud" -ala kindergarten-- what is in the public forum.
Time to show us the "Evidence' - Schiff and Nadler. Or, STFU.

[matchingmole]

[the_real_Barleycorn]

The left narrative: Donald Trump committed many impeachable crimes. He did it with the Russians. He did it with hookers (who doesn't). He did it with his daughter.
Reality calling: Do you have any evidence, proof, or witnesses to any of this?
The left implosion: No...but that doesn't mean you shouldn't believe us. After all, look how well Obama care turned out.

[oeb11]

Well done RBC

[Austin Ellen]

-

[matchingmole]

[eccieuser9500]

Congressmen and women are being challenged within the party by patriots running on the impeachment platform. Let's run the ball behind the left end. Not the left tackle. Are you ready for some FOOTBALL? A (democratic) Socialist Par-TAY!















Now he sees the evidence?

Even without McGahn

[bb1961]

You talk code no one understands....how do you entertain yourself as long as you do.

[eccieuser9500]

Do you speak for everyone?

Originally Posted by matchingmole

Or is it just you that can't follow?

[bb1961]

You ASSUME I'm talking about you...STRANGE!!
Are you the guilty party...Hummm.
As usual you don't have a clue...what's new??

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Congressmen and women are being challenged within the party by patriots running on the impeachment platform. Let's run the ball behind the left end. Not the left tackle. Are you ready for some FOOTBALL? A (democratic) Socialist Par-TAY!


Now he sees the evidence?

Even without McGahn

so impeach Trump. Demand it. see how that works out for ya?


BAHHAHAHAHHAAA

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

-

And he heads a committee...SCARY!!

[Jaxson66]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

The left narrative: Donald Trump committed many impeachable crimes. He did it with the Russians. He did it with hookers (who doesn't). He did it with his daughter.
Reality calling: Do you have any evidence, proof, or witnesses to any of this?
The left implosion: No...but that doesn't mean you shouldn't believe us. After all, look how well Obama care turned out.

Volume ll page 120

Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn's account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President's conduct towards the investigation.
Several facts support that conclusion. The President made repeated attempts to get McGahn to change his story. As described above, by the time of the last attempt, the evidence suggests that the President had been told on multiple occasions that McGahn believed the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel terminated. McGahn interpreted his encounter with the President in the Oval Office as an attempt to test his mettle and see how committed he was to his memory of what had occurred. The President had already laid the groundwork for pressing McGahn to alter his account by telling Porter that it might be necessary to fire McGahn if he did not deny the story, and Porter relayed that statement to McGahn. Additional evidence of the President's intent may be gleaned from the fact that his counsel was sufficiently alarmed by the prospect ofthe President's meeting with McGahn that he called McGahn's counsel and said that McGahn could not resign no matter what happened in the Oval Office that day. The President's counsel was well aware ofMcGahn's resolve not to issue what he believed to be a false account of events despite the President's request. Finally, as noted above, the President brought up the Special Counsel investigation in his Oval Office meeting with McGahn and criticized him for telling this Office about the June 17, 2017 events. The President's statements reflect his understanding-and his displeasure-that those events would be part of an obstruction-of-justice[B inquiry.[/B]

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

so impeach Trump. Demand it. see how that works out for ya?


BAHHAHAHAHHAAA

They decided instead to go home for 6 weeks to "mu(e)ll(er)" it over.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Trump could have legally and constitutionally terminated the special counsel position at any time. He didn't. Trump maintains his innocence and an innocent person would very likely complain about his persecutors. Those complaints would not be evidence of guilt by either an innocent or guilty man. We hold to the standard that innocence is assumed unless there is sufficient evidence of guilt. Trump is innocent until PROVEN guilty and words of complaint by even a president does not constitute guilt.

You got anything else?