And with House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi appearing to be unwilling to go along with the impeachment wing of her Party, some are getting more desperate.
And chief among them in New York Rep. Jerry Nadler who wants to go to court to get grand jury evidence from the Mueller investigation, Reuters reported.
U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said on Friday that he will go to court on Friday to seek access to grand jury evidence compiled by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s 22-month probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
A second pending legal move by Democrats, a federal lawsuit to compel testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn about Republican President Donald Trump’s efforts to impede the Russia probe, will come early next week, Nadler told CNN.
McGahn, a star witness in the 448-page Mueller report released in April, told federal investigators that Trump directed him to seek Mueller’s removal and then to deny that he had been instructed to do so.
Democrats view the alleged episode as an act of obstruction of justice that could lead to impeachment proceedings against Trump.
“We will win the court fight because the legal excuses the White House has been using are extraordinarily weak from a legal point of view,” Nadler told CNN.
Nadler described the pending legal actions, particularly the McGahn lawsuit, as a potential watershed that could dismantle recent White House efforts to stonewall congressional investigators by directing current and former Trump aides to defy subpoenas and refrain from providing testimony.
“It will open up the floodgates to all, to enforce all the subpoenas and get all the testimonies because they’re all the same nonsense legal argument,” he said.
Mueller testified in Congress on Wednesday in back-to-back hearings that Democrats hoped would focus public attention on Trump’s alleged misconduct and boost support for an impeachment inquiry.
But his halting and reticent performance changed few opinions, leaving House Democrats to accelerate a congressional probe that could take months to bear fruit.
Nadler was expected to appear at a noon EDT (1600 GMT) news conference in the U.S. Capitol.
Mueller found insufficient evidence to allege that the Trump campaign conspired with Moscow in its effort to help Trump get elected in 2016, although campaign officials met with Russians.
His report made no conclusions on whether Trump tried to obstruct Mueller’s inquiry.
But Democrats say that testimony from McGahn about Trump’s efforts to remove Mueller could give them the evidence they need for an impeachment inquiry. McGahn declined to testify earlier this year after the White House directed him not to cooperate with the committee.
Reuters contributed to this report.
Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.
After Mueller flop, a Nadler-Pelosi fight?
This article was sourced from Hot Air
How do we know that the decision to put Robert Mueller in front of TV cameras all day Wednesday went badly for Democrats rather than Republicans? Look where the rifts have opened or are widening.
The Daily Beast spots a major fault line between two top leaders in the House Democratic caucus — Jerrold Nadler, one of the architects of the Mueller stunt, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi:
Publicly, his colleagues and his party’s leadership praise [Nadler’s] handling of oversight into the Trump administration. But behind the scenes discontent is mounting over what some view as a less-than-smooth process in handling investigations into President Trump and his advisers.
“There is constant battling. The speaker is very much directing the major decisions,” said one Democratic lawmaker. “I think this is a strategy [by Nancy Pelosi] to try and slow-walk this process and shift some of the attention away from her not moving forward. She puts it on the Judiciary Committee, saying, ‘Oh they haven’t yet done all the investigative work yet. They are being meticulous and taking their time.’ It’s a way to slow-walk it.”
All committee chairs and House speakers have disagreements over jurisdiction, power, and strategic direction. But the relationship between Nadler and Pelosi is particularly sensitive now given the stakes of the issues they’re tackling. The special counsel’s office has closed, its report made public, and its director, Mueller, has testified on Capitol Hill about its contents. Now that the Russia investigation, as the American public understands it, has all but come to an end, both leaders are left answering questions about what comes next.
For Pelosi, the answer is simple: Stay the course. For Nadler, that course is becoming increasingly difficult to trek with members from his own committee, and constituents back home, calling not only for impeachment proceedings but for tougher posture toward a White House that seems hell-bent on making his oversight work impossible.
There’s been a lot of this excuse in the past 36 hours for the failure of Democrats’ Mueller stunt. Trump made us do it because he won’t cooperate! That’s a load of nonsense. Congress has legitimate oversight authority over the executive branch, but Democrats have (a) made it clear from Day 1 of their House majority their goal is impeachment, not good government, and (b) have stretched it so broadly as to attempt oversight over the Trump family’s businesses. Hostility has been met with hostility, which may not be entirely the fault of Democrats, but they own a large share of the blame.
Besides, Mueller’s report was the investigation that Democrats demanded. They still insisted — until Wednesday, anyway — that Mueller’s findings were all they needed. It only required the American people to watch a dramatic reading of it to generate a wave of outrage that would force impeachment and removal! Or so Nadler and Adam Schiff thought until their strategy blew up in their face on Wednesday.
Does Nadler really want to square off against Pelosi after this debacle? At the moment, his judgment looks much worse than hers. That’s not the question for the rest of us, though; it’s just worth noting that one side is about to have an internecine leadership fight after the Mueller stunt … and it ain’t the Republicans. That tells us all we need to know about how Wednesday worked out.
The rest of the Daily Beast’s report is well worth reading for more depth on the developing fight. Nadler’s defenders chafe at the restrictions Pelosi has put on him, while Pelosi’s defenders take aim at Nadler’s other questionable strategies. For instance, Nadler demanded that William Barr testify shortly after the release of the report, which Barr agreed to do — but then Nadler wanted Barr interrogated by staff attorneys rather than committee members. What was the point of that? No one’s quite sure:
In an interview, Cicilline defended the decision, saying it was important to establish that the committee controlled the construct of the hearings and not the witnesses. But months after the fracas, Barr still hasn’t spoken to the lower chamber and some wonder: What was gained?
“The whole thing about the staff interviewing Barr was stupid,” said the senior aide. “Was that a hill to die on? A hill that no one understands!”
Thanks to the seniority system and House Democrats’ need to project calm, Nadler won’t be going anywhere, so the caucus is stuck with both of them. But that just means that the meltdown will have no real end until at least the 2020 election, when both Nadler and Pelosi might well change jobs if this civil war continues — to ranking member and Minority Leader, respectively. Republicans will have to do more work than simply passing the popcorn to make that happen, but perhaps not a lot more work.
After Mueller Debacle, Where Do Democrats Go?
This article was sourced from TheNewAmerican
The Democrats who were looking to cast Robert Mueller as the star in a TV special, “The Impeachment of Donald Trump,” can probably tear up the script.
They’re gonna be needing a new one.
For six hours Wednesday, as three cable news networks and ABC, CBS and NBC all carried live the hearings of the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, the Mueller report was thoroughly trashed.
The special counsel stood by his findings. His investigation was not a “hoax” or “witch hunt,” he said. He admitted that he had found no Trump-Russia conspiracy. He denied he exonerated Trump of obstruction of justice.
All this we knew, and all of it we have heard for months.
What was new, what was dramatic, what was compelling was how the House Republicans arrived with their war paint on and ripped Mueller and his investigation to such shreds that viewers were feeling sorry for the special counsel at the end of his six hours of grilling.
The Republicans exposed him as only vaguely conversant with his own report. They revealed that he had probably not written his own statement challenging the depiction of his findings by Attorney General Bill Barr.
Mueller’s staff of lawyers, Republicans showed, reads like a donors list for Hillary Clinton. The FBI contingent that started the investigation was a cabal so hateful of Trump that some had to be fired.
Republicans raised questions about the origins of the investigation, tracing it back to early 2016 when Maltese intelligence agent Joseph Mifsud leaked to a staffer of the Trump campaign, George Papadopoulos, that Russia had Clinton’s emails. That and subsequent meetings have all the marks of an intel agency set-up.
Repeatedly, Republicans brought up the dossier written by British spy Christopher Steele, who fed Russian-sourced disinformation to Clinton campaign-financed intel firm, Fusion GPS, who passed it on to the FBI, which used it as evidence to justify warrants to spy on Trump’s campaign.
To many in the TV audience, this was fresh and startling stuff.
Yet Mueller’s response to all such allegations was that they were outside his purview and that other agencies were looking into them.
Wednesday’s hearings often proved painful to watch.
Mueller, a 74-year-old decorated Marine veteran of Vietnam and a former director of the FBI, sat mumbling his dissents as one charge after another was fired at him, his associates and his investigation.
For this disaster, the Democrats are alone to blame.
Mueller had wanted to file his report and leave it to the attorney general and Congress to act, or not act, on its contents. His job was done, and he did not want to testify publicly.
Democrats, desperate for impeachment hearings, wanted him to recite for the TV cameras every charge against the president.
What Democrats hoped would be a recital of Trump’s sins, Republicans turned into an adversarial proceeding that ended Mueller’s public career in a humiliating spectacle lasting a full day.
Where do Democrats go from here?
Their goal from the outset has been to persuade the nation that Trump colluded with Putin’s Russia to steal the 2016 election, and that the progressives are the true patriots in seeking to impeach and remove an illegitimate president and prosecute him for acts of treason.
The Republican position is that, for all his flaws and failings, Trump won the 2016 election fairly and squarely. He is our president, and the drive to impeach and remove him is an attempted constitutional coup d’etat by a “deep state” terrified that it cannot win against him in 2020.
The rival narratives are irreconcilable.
The Republican message of Wednesday: Proceed with hearings to impeach and there will be blood on the floor.
Democrats are in a hellish bind.
Should they proceed with hearings on impeachment, they will divide their party, force their presidential candidates to cease talking health care and start talking impeachment, and probably fail.
Impeachment hearings would fire up the Republican base and energize the GOP minority to prepare for combat in a Judiciary Committee where they are already celebrating having eviscerated the prosecution’s star witness.
If Democrats vote impeachment in committee, they will have to take it to the House floor, where their moderates, who won in swing districts, will be forced to vote on it, splitting their own bases in the run-up to the 2020 election.
If Democrats lose the impeachment vote on the House floor, it would be a huge setback. But if they vote impeachment in the House, the trial takes place in a Senate run by Mitch McConnell.
Trump would go into the 2020 battle against a Democratic Party that failed to overthrow the president in a radical coup that it attempted because it was afraid to fight it out with the president in a free and fair election.
Photo of Patrick J. Buchanan: Bbsrock — Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM
This article was sourced from TheFederalistpapers