Speaking today at a House of Representatives press conference, 72-year-old Judiciary Chairman Jerold Nadler [D-N.Y.] touted 75-year-old Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony before his committee July 24. Touting Mueller’s testimony, Nadler tried to bolster his continued investigation against 73-year-old President Donald Trump. Before Mueller released his final report March 22, Nadler accepted Mueller’s report as final with regard to any crimes related to Russian collusion in the 2016 campaign. But once Mueller said Trump and his campaign had no ties to Russia, Nadler changed his tune, deciding together with the horde of pro-impeachment Democrats, to continue the investigation. What Mueller couldn’t find with 19 seasoned prosecutors and budget of $25 million over the course of 22 months, Nadler’s now asks the public to believe he’ll reach different conclusions.
Nadler’s so egregiously partisan, he’s willing to say-and-do anything to continue the Mueller investigation into Trump’s alleged criminal behavior. Nadler announced today that he’s going to court to get all the secret grand jury testimony and transcripts, promising to reach his own conclusions. Before Mueller’s report cleared Trump of Russian collusion, Nadler promised that Mueller’s report would be final. Only after Mueller didn’t give him the results he wanted did he vow to continue cherry-picking the report to get different results. “To do so, the House must have access to all the relevant facts and consider whether to exercise its full . . . powers, including a constitutional power of the utmost gravity, recommend articles of impeachment,” Nadler said. Nadler’s statement invalidates the Mueller Report, saying, in effect, he’d do a better job of determining criminal behavior.
Nadler’s remarks are so egregiously partisan that they break new ground in hypocrisy. Saying he’d accept Mueller’s findings as final, Nadler now says he has to cherry-pick the report, reinterpret witness testimony to find Trump guilty of high-rimes-and-misdemeanors. Neither Nadler nor House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) care about the law, they only want to damage Trump politically as much possible before the 2020 election. There’s an ongoing debate inside the Democrat Party about whether or not to proceed with impeachment, not knowing how it would affect the 2020 election. House Speaker Nancy Pelosic (D-Calif.) worries that a loss in the U.S. Senate could backfire on Democrats. But Nadler and Schiff have their own agenda, rejecting the Mueller Report, telling their base they’re in a better position to serve as the legal charging authority than the Special Counsel.
Nadler and Schiff point often to evidence that Trump told his former White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller, which he never did. But whatever Trump said or didn’t say to his lawyer, Mueller was never fired, nor was his investigation impeded. Nadler likes to cite Trump refusal to testify and evasive answers to the Special Counsel’s questions as proof of Trump culpability. But, in the U.S. criminal justice system, no defendant is forced to testify. Nadler insists it “critically important for out ability to examine witnesses, including former White House counsel Don McGahn, and to investigate the president’s misconduct,” Nadler said. But Mueller and his team of 19 experienced prosecutors already carefully examined the grand jury testimony and determined that Trump and his campaign team did not collude with Russia, or, for that matter, obstruct justice.
Atty. Gen. William Barr and former Deputy Director Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller Special Counsel May 17, 2017, reviewed Mueller’s Report and determined that there was no legal grounds to charge Trump with obstructive of justice. While it’s true Trump expressed frustration with the Special Counsel investigation, often hazarding his own opinions on Twitter, he did nothing, confirmed by Mueller, to impede the investigation. Nadler and Schiff contend that Trump obstructed justice because he didn’t testify or gave evasive answers to interrogatories. Barr and Rosesntein considered all those actions and determined that there was still no legal basis for charging Trump with obstruction. Yet if you listen to Nadler and Schiff, they’ve concluded long ago that Trump committed Russian collusion and obstruction. Nadler wants nothing less than to appoint himself the trier-in-fact.
Nadler and Schiff tout Mueller as a great American but, at the same time, don’t accept the findings of his March 22 report. When the report cleared Trump of Russian collusion, they went into overdrive to cherry-pick the findings to draw their own conclusions. Since they must find Trump guilty-as-charged, Nadler and Schiff won’t stop until they’ve drawn their own conclusions about Trump. Neither Nadler nor Schiff want any part of Barr’s ongoing investigation into the origins of the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Trump or his campaign associates or the legal basis for the Special Counsel probe. If the White House were smart, they’d file for injunctive relief in federal court over Double Jeopardy, something expressly prohibited in the U.S. Constitution. Once the Special Counsel completed its Final Report March 22, you can’t litigate the same case without violating Double Jeopardy.
