Discussion: Nadler: DOJ Policy On Mueller Evidence Could 'Turn It Into A Cover-Up'


Donald Trump: US House committee seeks proof of obstruction and abuse
Judiciary committee chairman Jerrold Nadler told ABC news that 60 individuals and entities would be receiving subpoenas from Monday.
Mr Nadler said he believed Mr Trump had obstructed justice.


A cover-up? You think?


Indeed, Trump is counting on exactly that.


This is what would occur in a dictatorship, but is completely unacceptable here in America.

First of all, he should be indicted if the evidence demonstrates he committed crimes. But if DoJ is going to insist the President is above indictment, then the evidence must be released to the American people who need to know and have a right to know, least of all because he’s running again in 2020.


If the special counsel is looking very specifically at crimes related to Russian interference, and then extending outward, that’s great. But the House should acknowledge whatever the legal limits are there by extending its oversight to everything else, criminal or abuse of power-related, that this administration is clearly to be suspected of. That should keep them occupied for many a rainy afternoon.


DOJ leadership is corrupt. I’m going with this hypothesis until it’s disproven.


Sounds like the old Nixon defense:
Richard Nixon: Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.
Of course he was talking about national security, not treason.


Among those receiving the requests would be Donald Trump Junior.



"you’re saying the president cannot be held accountable.”

To which they will respond Congress has oversight and investigative powers so go ahead and subpoena, do whatever you have to do. Then bring articles of impeachment, but we aren’t going to cooperate. Unless it’s about a Democrat with an email server or a laptop loaded with selfies he sent to his girlfriend.


The Chair informs DOJ employees that they, too, can go to jail for conspiracy to obstruct justice.


E.J. Dionne Jr. nailed this one during Barr’s confirmation.

Barr asserted that “there is no legal prohibition . . . against the President’s acting on a matter in which he has a personal stake.” The attorney general and Justice Department lawyers, Barr said, citing a 1922 case, are merely the president’s “hand.” Barr added that “the discretion they exercise is the president’s discretion.” Barr went on to argue that “the Constitution’s grant of law enforcement power to the President is plenary.” Barr used the word “plenary” six times. Merriam-Webster defines it as “absolute, unqualified.”

There’s more in that column. Definitely worth reading.


Corrupt presidencies are always brought down by the coverups not the crimes? Is there anyone including Barr who wants to end up on that side of history…again?


The headnote to that infamous DoJ memorandum opinion states “The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”

Treating that assertion as a simple true or false premise, if false then there should be no prohibition on indicting a sitting president when you have sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. If true, then the Constitutional solution is provided by the 25th Amendment - either the president or the Vice President and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments simply “transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” The 25th also protects the president from, in the GOP fear mongering du jour, an attempted coup d’état. The president simply “transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, [whereupon] he shall resume the powers and duties of his office.”

@outis A word search for “golf” returned “Adobe Acrobat Reader has finished searching the document. No matches were found.”

@ralph_vonholst The rules of succession that automatically elevate the VP only apply in the event of the death or resignation of the president.


You mean it doesn’t explicitly say anything about golfing?


I’m pretty sure the founders of our Constitution did not want to have a king, by George. That’s why they wrote in the impeachment process. For Barr the ends (a permanent Republican run government) justify the means. (obstructing Congressional oversight)


Technically true, although it may be difficult or impossible to implement.

1 Like

Then why do we have a Vice President? My bet: We could get along just fine without Trump and the constitution would still be there the morning after he was indicted. What? Is it going somewhere? Is this magick? Will the VP go away? There are rules of succession.


Thanks for the noting this article. It looks like this will be Trump’s defense such as it is until he leaves office.

But time marches on faster in an election cycle. Barr’s efforts may be for nothing. Why deal with a messy Constitutional battle when you can weaken and wound Donald daily with financial revelations? Polling must show that the mortal damage has already been done or there wouldn’t be so many people throwing their hats in the ring. So when does Kaisch make his move?


It should have been an independent counsel. That said, thank God we have Democrats in charge of the house.