Yes and yes. A good example is the Mueller Report which is being pursued through both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. I’ve been double posting in the header when it’s a joint effort or joint hearing.
Republicans in the Senate would quash Impeachment proceedings almost immediately.
GOP senators say that if the House passes articles of impeachment against President Trump they will quickly quash them in the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has broad authority to set the parameters of a trial.
While McConnell is required to act on articles of impeachment, which require 67 votes — or a two-thirds majority — to convict the president, he and his Republican colleagues have the power to set the rules and ensure the briefest of trials.
“I think it would be disposed of very quickly,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham(R-S.C.).
More financial records – yes! The focus of this subpoena will be foreign payments made to Trump. He will also be requested to testify (not sure whether that’s in person or in writing) – it will be interesting to see how that unfolds.
Democrats from the House and Senate have told a federal judge they’d like to begin pursuing President Donald Trump’s personal financial records and corporate records next month as part of a lawsuit over his business properties.
The request has not yet been approved by a judge. But if the timeline is approved, this case would add yet another layer to various pursuits by members of Congress of Trump’s financial history.
Democrats claim they did not have the opportunity to consider and approve Trump’s business proceeds from foreign governments when he became President. So they want to begin collecting evidence – both documents and depositions – from banks, from Trump Organization subsidiaries and from his trust account beginning in late June.
They’re specifically seeking information about Trump companies that accept certain benefits from foreign governments, such as through intellectual property and other regulatory approvals, and payments from the governments toward Trump licensing, real estate and hotel rooms, conferences and events.
The Democrats claim Trump has violated the Constitution by not allowing them to review his business interests, and noted that he’s flouted the practice of past presidents who’ve divested their holdings while in office and notified Congress of what they accept from foreign powers. …
Congressional Democrats also said they may want to ask Trump limited questions and would seek his personal financial records, according to Tuesday’s court filing.
They say this would take a “marginal amount of the President’s time” and far less than the Supreme Court allowed previously in a lawsuit against Bill Clinton during his presidency.
They would also like to depose people from the Trump Organization and other corporations "in which the President has an ownership interest," the filing said…
“If the President succeeds in running out the clock, an entire presidential term will have gone by with the nation’s highest officeholder making countless foreign policy decisions while under a cloud of potentially divided loyalty and compromised judgment caused by his enrichment from foreign states,” lawyers for the Democrats wrote in the court filing.
Encouraging news, but I’m irked by the fact that this reporter keeps talking about “Democrats” without naming any of them. I mean, isn’t that in “Reporting 101”? It would be nice to know who is leading the charge here. A link to the actual filing would also be welcome. I’ve googled around a bit, but so far I can’t find any of the names or the filing itself. Weird. Will report back if I do.
Great news…so far The House Financal Services Commiittee headed by Maxine Waters has gotten Wells Fargo and TD bank records. This group have been stalled on receiving others…so perhaps they are doing an all out push to get them. Or perhaps Rep Richard Neal house Ways and Means whom the Right is criticizing for creating phoney reasons why they need to get tax returns.
Review of the Dem House Committes
Thx…always great to see the fight underway on many fronts.
Chairman Nadler Response to Special Counsel Mueller’s Statements on Conclusion of Investigation
Washington, D.C. –Today, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) delivered the following statement in response to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s press conference on the conclusion of his investigation into President Trump and his associates:
"We would like to thank Special Counsel Robert Mueller for his service to our nation over the past two years. In his statement this morning, Special Counsel Mueller reaffirmed his report, which found substantial evidence that Russia attacked our political system and that the President sought to obstruct Mueller’s investigation over and over again. He alsoconfirmed three central points: he did not exonerate the President of the United States of obstruction of justice, obstruction of justice is a serious crime that strikes at the core of our justice system, and the Constitution points to Congress to take action to hold the President accountable.
"Although Department of Justice policy prevented the Special Counsel from bringing criminal charges against the President, the Special Counsel has clearly demonstrated that President Trump is lying about the Special Counsel’s findings, lying about the testimony of key witnesses in the Special Counsel’s report, and is lying in saying that the Special Counsel found no obstruction and no collusion. Given that Special Counsel Mueller was unable to pursue criminal charges against the President, it falls to Congress to respond to the crimes, lies and other wrongdoing of President Trump – and we will do so. No one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law."
Pelosi Statement on Special Counsel Mueller’s Press Statement Reiterating the President’s Obstruction
San Francisco – Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued this statement after Special Counsel Mueller made a press statement reiterating the extent of Russian efforts to disrupt our elections and that President Trump was not exonerated of obstructing the Trump-Russia investigation:
“It is with the greatest respect for Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the deepest disappointment in the Department of Justice holding the President above the law, that I thank Special Counsel Mueller for the work he and his team did to provide a record for future action both in the Congress and in the courts regarding the Trump Administration involvement in Russian interference and obstruction of the investigation.
“Special Counsel Mueller made clear that he did not exonerate the President when he stated, ‘If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.’ He stated that the decision not to indict stemmed directly from the Department of Justice’s policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted. Despite Department of Justice policy to the contrary, no one is above the law – not even the President.
“The Special Counsel’s report revealed that the President’s campaign welcomed Russian interference in the election, and laid out eleven instances of the President’s obstruction of the investigation. The Congress holds sacred its constitutional responsibility to investigate and hold the President accountable for his abuse of power.
“The Congress will continue to investigate and legislate to protect our elections and secure our democracy. The American people must have the truth. We call upon the Senate to pass H.R. 1, the For The People Act, to protect our election systems.
“We salute Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team for his patriotic duty to seek the truth.”
Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III Makes Statement on Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel’s Office.
The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.
I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking today because our investigation is complete. The Attorney General has made the report on our investigation largely public. And we are formally closing the Special Counsel’s Office. As well, I am resigning from the Department of Justice and returning to private life.
I’ll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office’s written work speak for itself.
Let me begin where the appointment order begins: and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.
As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.
The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.
And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election.
These indictments contain allegations. And we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.
The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.
That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.
Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate.
The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.
And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.
The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.
As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.
We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.
It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.
The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.
The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:
First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.
And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.
And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.
So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office’s final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.
We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the Attorney General—as required by Department regulations.
The Attorney General then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and the American people.
At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. I do not question the Attorney General’s good faith in that decision.
I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision myself—no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.
There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.
The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.
In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.
So beyond what I have said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress.
It is for that reason that I will not take questions here today.
Before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals, who spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel’s Office, were of the highest integrity.
I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.
That allegation deserves the attention of every American.
Representative Nadler Response to Robert Mueller Statement
Following Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s statement on the Russia probe, Judiciary Committee Chair Jerold Nadler says it now falls to Congress to hold the president accountable. On the question of impeachment, he says “all options are on the table.”
Chairman Schiff Response to Special Counsel Mueller’s Statements on Conclusion of Investigation
LOS ANGELES, CA – Today, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, released the following statement:
“First and foremost, I want to thank Robert Mueller for his lifetime of public service, not just as Special Counsel, but also as a Marine, at the Department of Justice, and as FBI Director. Only someone of his caliber and integrity could have conducted an investigation of this importance in such a fair and impartial way.
“Mueller confirmed today that Russia engaged in multiple systematic efforts to interfere in the 2016 election and the U.S. political system, and underscored that this ‘deserves the attention of every American.’ These facts are indisputable, spelled out in great detail in his report, and lay bare the sinister and sophisticated nature of Russia’s attack.
“Despite the president’s ‘no collusion’ mantra, Mueller in fact found countless contacts between Russian officials and agents, and Trump campaign associates. These communications and actions were deeply compromising, and raise serious counterintelligence concerns that the Committee must follow. Perhaps most damning of all, Mueller found that Trump and his campaign sought to benefit from a hostile foreign intelligence operation. The Special Counsel determined that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy, but this should not inure us to how unethical and corrupt these actions were and how they undermined our national security.
“Finally, in a direct rebuke of Attorney General William Barr—who deliberately and repeatedly misled the American people—Mueller today confirmed that he was unable to consider criminal charges of obstruction of justice against the President specifically because of Department of Justice policy prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president. Mueller reiterated that ‘if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.’ Instead, he made clear that, because of the Department’s own policy, it is left it to Congress—not the Attorney General—to evaluate and further investigate the president’s misconduct.
“We look forward to Mueller’s testimony before Congress. While I understand his reluctance to answer hypotheticals or deviate from the carefully worded conclusions he drew on his charging decisions, there are, nevertheless, a great many questions he can answer that go beyond the report, including any counterintelligence issues and classified matters that were not addressed in his findings.
“The Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the president accountable and ensure that our democratic system is not influenced or attacked by foreign adversaries. We will continue to do both because no one is above the law, not even the President of the United States.”
Maxine Waters took to Twitter for her statement today.
So did Elijah Cummings
…unfair, eh. B/c the (to name only a fucking few) immigration and white supremacist violence, the obliteration of abortion and trans rights, and stolen federal/supreme court seats all tearing us to fucking bits is so fair.
I know he’s an institutionalist and he is expecting Congress to do their properly-institutionalist-next-step part and start impeachment, but that “unfair” makes me so angry I’m almost not anymore.
And Speaker Pelosi sticking with her message that we the people are not worth congress DOING THEIR FUCKING JOB…I knew better than to expect anything good from today but still, I am sick.
Um, yeah, if Congress doesn’t do something soon, our government will be abdicating their constitutional duty and handing Trump essentially a dictatorship with no congressional oversight.
Congress is Article One, this isn’t Article One behavior! Democracy is teetering on a knife’s edge right now. It’s really, really bad guys.
So today is Thursday. I’m checking the House calendar and the committees schedules…so far nothing…
Full list and counting. Still only one Republican.
Appeals of the House subpoenas for bank records get fast tracked for Mid-July in similar two cases.
“for the earliest possible sitting week” after all the court filings are made. The final filing is due by July 18.
A similar case is playing out in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, where judges will hear oral arguments in mid-July over a House Oversight and Reform Committee subpoena for Trump’s financial records from the accounting firm Mazars.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said on Friday that there “certainly is” justification for launching impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, but cautioned that the public first must agree that it’s warranted.
“Impeachment is a political act, and you cannot impeach a president if the American people will not support it,” Nadler (D-N.Y.) said during an appearance on WNYC. “The American people right now do not support it because they do not know the story. They don’t know the facts. We have to get the facts out. We have to hold a series of hearings, we have to hold the investigations.”
Nadler emphasized that he intends to use the next few weeks to bring special counsel Robert Mueller’s report “to life,” providing for a television audience the dramatic evidence that Mueller compiled about Trump’s efforts to thwart the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Part of that will include testimony from Mueller himself, Nadler said, even if Mueller sticks to his promise to limit his comments to the findings of his report.
Nadler said revealing Mueller’s words and findings to a television audience would educate Americans about the president’s conduct in a way they haven’t been to this point.
Yeah, no duh, dude.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff demanded on Friday that the nation’s intelligence community report to Congress any effort by Attorney General William Barr to declassify national security secrets over their objections.
Schiff made his demand in a letter to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, calling on Coats to brief his committee in person and to share any information that Barr has requested as part of a review of the origins of the FBI’s investigation of links between Russia and the Trump campaign. Last month, Barr announced his intention to review the decisions that led to the Russia probe, which later was taken over by special counsel Robert Mueller. But Democrats have argued the effort is a politically driven attempt to appease Trump and feed his unsupported claims that the FBI was attempting to mount a “coup” against him.
Former Republican Federal Prosecutors Speak Out Against President Trump’s Obstruction of Justice
“Must watch” video clearly explaining the crimes of obstruction committed by Trump – and this is even more compelling since it was created by three highly respected Republican attorneys. They conclude the video by asserting that conservatives have always stood for enforcing the rule of law and upholding the Constitution. In contrast, Trump has trampled on these traditional conservative values and must be held to account.
An ongoing list of who is in favor of impeachment, who wants more oversight, and who does not support impeachment now.
Rep Adam Schiff is not in favor of full blown impeachment…and falls in the middle group.