Nadler’s right- we are in a Constitutional crisis

Loading

 

The pompous toad who now runs the House Judiciary committee, Jerry Nadler, has declared that the United States is now in the midst of a Constitutional crisis. Here is his hyperbolic rant:

During a press conference after the House Judiciary Committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt on Wednesday, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler (D-NY) stated that we “are now in a constitutional crisis.”

Nadler said, “We’ve talked for a long time about approaching a constitutional crisis. We are now in it. We are now in a constitutional crisis. … Now is the time of testing whether we can keep a republic, or whether this republic is destined to change into a different, more tyrannical form of government, as other republics have over the centuries.”

Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) reminded Nadler of his hypocrisy

Buck said, “Mr. Chairman, you said in 1998 that a report of this kind is ‘a prosecutor’s report,’ by its nature a one-sided report.”

The Colorado Republican also referenced Nadler’s comments that grand jury testimony is often “unverified” and could be “salacious,” and its release would be “unfair.”

“You said it would be ‘grossly unfair’ to allow members of the Judiciary Committee to see the materials in relation to a report involving obstruction of justice by a Democratic President,” Buck said.

“Given your position, I offered an amendment several weeks ago to protect those materials [grand jury material], and the Democrats on this committee objected and voted against my amendment,” Buck added.

Congressman Buck said that during the Richard Nixon impeachment proceedings, the committee adopted rules to protect against leaks but, “I note for the record, we have not.”

“Mr. Mueller said no collusion, no provable obstruction,” Buck added.

Congressman Buck then said that Nadler said that impeaching Clinton would amount to a “partisan coup d’etat.”

Not surprisingly, the media is equally hypocritical

But the same media in 2012 derided the contempt vote for Eric Holder as cynical political grandstanding, if not outright abuse of power.

On June 19, 2012 (the evening before the House’s contempt vote for Holder), Matthews repeatedly compared the gesture to a demeaning (and perhaps racist) “stop-and-frisk”: “Is this sort of stop-and-frisk at the highest level? Go after the Attorney General, get him to empty his pockets, stand under the spotlight as long as they can and see if anything happens?”

The following day, CNN’s Brooke Baldwin grilled Republican Congressman John Mica on why such a vote was even necessary: “Why go ahead with a contempt vote? Why?” Baldwin later added: “For a lot of people, this is Republican versus Democrat, and they say, ‘This is just theater, it amounts to nothing.’”

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes dismissed the development as sheer politics, opening his June 23 show by remarking: “Given what we know about the Republican Party — and the way the House of Representatives conducts itself when run by Republicans and with a Democrat in the White House — it shouldn’t really count as news when a House committee finds the Democratic Attorney General in contempt of Congress.”

California rep Jackie Speier threatened to put Barr in handcuffs:

Speier said, “I think, before long, you’re going to see more and more people willing to be very aggressive. I think, frankly, our membership has been very respectful and has tried to accommodate everyone in terms of having them come without subpoena. I think subpoenas are going to fly now, and when they are not complied with, we have what’s called inherent contempt proceedings. Which means we send the sergeant [at] arms out to handcuff the individual who is declining to testify.”

Host Chris Matthews then asked, “Who are you going to handcuff?”

Speier responded, “Well, I’m going to start with Mr. Barr and bring him in. And –.”

Matthews asked, “Are you really serious about that threat? Because he’s laughing at that.”

Speier answered, “Well, you know, he won’t get the last laugh. I mean, he has to comply with the subpoena. And, so far, he has been — it’s all been negotiated, but once there are specific subpoenas, and he does not comply with them, he can be brought before the House. He can be tried. He can either be held there to testify, or he can be punished. And there is actually a jail in the Capitol, which has been used as recently as 1930.”

Back in 2012, Eric Holder was held in contempt for withholding documents pertinent to his screw-up of Fast and Furious. Just imagine, if you will, the reaction had Republicans threatened to put Holder in chains,er, I mean handcuffs.

You will recall that Nadler voted against holding Holder in contempt.

But Nadler may have a point. We really are in a Constitutional crisis, but it’s one of democrats’ making. They are voting to hold Barr in contempt for failing to violate the law.

“The only side who has made accommodations is the Attorney General, who made extraordinary efforts to provide Congress and the public with information about the Special Counsel’s work,” the DOJ noted in a press statement Wednesday. Barr is unable “to comply with the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena without violating the law, court rules, and court orders,” the statement added.

“It is deeply disappointing that elected representatives of the American people have chosen to engage in such inappropriate political theatrics,” the statement added. The House Judiciary Committee, led by New York Rep. Jerry Nadler, voted to hold Barr in contempt for not giving the committee special counsel Robert Mueller’s full, unredacted report.

Georgia Republican Doug Collins:

“Chairman Nadler knows full subpoena compliance requires Attorney General Barr to break the law. Yet, instead of introducing legislation allowing the attorney general to provide Congress grand jury material, Democrats move to hold him in contempt,” Collins said in the statement.

Surely Nadler knows this, which makes him reckless and unethical. democrats were quick to hit Devin Nunes with ethics violations in order to sideline him from digging into the Russian hoax. It’s time for Republicans to file ethics charges against Nadler for this abuse of power and his farcical demand that the Attorney General violate the law.

It’s unconstitutional. A criminal conspiracy.

Of course, this nonsense is simply more kabuki to harass Trump and distract from the coming tsunami which will likely bury the democrats.

Now here’s the side-splitter. The contempt charge against Holder was just settled- yesterday. So if the democrats pursue this charade, it will longer on in the courts for years, well into the second Trump term and perhaps beyond.

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
27 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Listening to a Democrat speak of honor, decency, the Rule of Law, respect for the Constitution, love of America, etc., is like sitting through a lecture by a hooker discussing the importance of fidelity and chastity.

Those on the intelligence committees of both house know there is a storm brewing
https://www.judicialwatch.org/video-update/jw-inside-report-with-john-solomon-fbi-played-political-dirty-trick-on-donald-trump-over-alleged-russia-collusion/
about 28 minutes long.
Revealing bit of info on Ryan, he was not a white hat not even close.

We’ve been in a constitutional crisis ever since these would-be Stalinists decided to overturn the 2016 election if not sooner as in whenever BHO weaponized intel and law enforcement assets to spy on his “enemies’.

Many have noticed, I’m sure, that I have repeatedly asked our resident liberals how they feel about all the sure, dead-bang, ample, readily available, mountain of evidence showing, beyond any possible doubt, that Trump colluded with Russians to control the outcome of the 2016 election just suddenly evaporating… as if it never existed. Of course, the only response I got was, “Meh.” They don’t care about being lied to, indicating they KNOW they are lies all along.

So now, we see the Democrats showing their constituents exactly how stupid they think they are… and it is really, really stupid. Democrats promised their constituents they would impeach Trump when they got control of the House, remove him from office if they got the House and Senate. Now that they have the House, their leadership is advising caution; impeachment would be politically disastrous. Oh, by the way, we have no CAUSE to impeach… so just calm down.

But, they have not a single issue to campaign on; no policies they can offer that people want, over and above what they are getting from Trump. They cannot imagine competing with 3.6% unemployment, lowest unemployment for women and minorities, rising wages, return of GOOD jobs and a growing economy, so they have to appeal to more visceral impulses. Now, they are holding Barr in contempt for refusing to break the law. They are issuing subpoenas for the investigatory information, as if they lost faith in Mueller being able to do his job and feel they must conduct the investigation all over again. They want to question Mueller to ask him, “When you reported ‘no collusion’, what you meant to say was ‘Trump colluded’….right?”. They have had to create imaginary “crisis” just as they created imaginary evidence of collusion and obstruction and then acted on those false accusations. All to make sure their constituents’ hateful lust for revenge and vengeance stays strong and burns bright.

No one can accuse liberals of assuming their followers are going to outsmart them.

@NITZAKHON:

Or like listening to Donald Trump speak of truthfulness, honor, integrity, honesty, fidelity, the rule of law, compassion, duty…

Manufactured constitutional crisis, with no parts, its all in their minds, and those are so small as to be infinitesimal
They are however in a panic as Trump has nothing better to do than deal with decades old welfare world supported by American tax payer via the trade deals. The systematic self destruction of the victim Party is fun to watch . The closer we get to declassification the more strident they will become.

@Deplorable Me:

Many have noticed, I’m sure, that I have repeatedly asked our resident liberals how they feel about all the sure, dead-bang, ample, readily available, mountain of evidence showing, beyond any possible doubt, that Trump colluded with Russians to control the outcome of the 2016 election just suddenly evaporating…

If there’s nothing there, why is the Trump administration attempting to deny Congress closed-session access to the unredacted Mueller report; to all of the underlying evidence that Mueller’s team collected at taxpayer expense; to all relevant records from all sources, both public and private; and to all witnesses who have already provided relevant testimony, to the extend of ordering people to ignore lawful Congressional subpoenas? Why is he ordering federal department appointees to break their oaths of office and defy Congressional oversight powers?

This is not the behavior of a president who has nothing to hide. It’s the un-presidential behavior of a person who has something very serious to hide. It cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. If it stands, a precedent will have been set that will permanently diminish the powers of Congress in relation to the Executive Branch and fundamentally change the nature of our system of government.

I doubt if their exit from the vigil was a pro- or anti-gun statement, either one. It was not the proper occasion for political statements of any sort.

@Greg: Trump is a 1000% more honest and reputable than Nadler or the rest of the Gestapo wanna-be’s.

What, exactly, is Trump denying them? They have the report and it is 95% unredated. Just because they didn’t get the results they NEEDED from the report, they feel compelled to continue investigating the same issue over and over and over and over.

I guess the left will no longer have any problem whatsoever with Trump releasing all the information he has, unredacted… right? I mean, transparency and all.

It’s not Trump that has anything to hide, as shown by Nadler trying to put Barr out of business. Fortunately for the American people, if Barr had any misconceptions that if he gave Democrats the benefit of the doubt it would ease tensions and levels of animosity, those are suitably dispelled and ALL investigations into those involved in and supporting this coup against Trump and the American people can move forward will all dispatch.

I doubt if their exit from the vigil was a pro- or anti-gun statement, either one. It was not the proper occasion for political statements of any sort.

Their statement was they resented the scumbag Democrats coming in and exploiting this tragedy… as they always do.

@Greg: Another case solved Sherlock! Their statement had nothing to do with guns, it had to do with the Adults pushing the agenda at a totally inappropriate time.
Just like congress pushing the resistance when we need them to legislate.

@Deplorable Me:

“Trump is a 1000% more honest and reputable than Nadler or the rest of the Gestapo wanna-be’s.”

Still trying to figure out what planet Deplorable Me posts from. It surely isn’t Earth.

Trump? Honest and reputable? At this point, if you still haven’t figured out that President Trump is a draft-dodging, tax-evading, justice-obstructing, sexual-harassing birther buffoon conman, there simply is no hope. More than 400 former federal prosecutors signed a letter contending that President Donald Trump would have been charged with obstruction of justice based on the findings of the Mueller report if he weren’t president. And Deplorable Me calls Trump “honest and reputable.”

Deplorable Me, you are a precious nutjob.

nadler’s puerile behavior and mentation slightly exceeds that to acosta-a “fake journalist”. pulled this off the internet on the past money behaviour of obese toad nadler:
Nadler received the following dirty money: Communication Workers of America (PAC) $3,500 in 2010 election cycle; $7,000 in 2008 election cycle; $5,000 in 2006 election cycle. Boilermakers Union (PAC) $1,000 in 2010 election cycle; $1,000 in 2006 election cycle. American Federation of Government Employees (PAC) $1,000 in 2008 election cycle; $1,000 in 2006 election cycle. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (PAC) $5,000 in 2010 election cycle; $10,000 in 2008 election cycle; $7,000 in 2008 election cycle. Service Employees International Union (PAC) $10,000 in 2008 election cycle; $10,000 in 2006 election cycle. WHY IT’S DIRTY: Multiple officers and members of these unions, including division presidents, secretary-treasurers and business managers, have been convicted since 2001 of felonies ranging from embezzlement, falsifying official reports to government, mail fraud and conspiracy. The Communication Workers of America and the American Federation of Government Employees have had eight convictions, The Service Employees International Union has had nine convictions, while the IBEW has had 14 members convicted. The amounts of embezzled funds range from over $5,000 to over $100,000. Senior Political Correspondent David Drucker on the expanded Washington Examiner magazine WHAT: Nadler received the following dirty money: PMA Group (PAC) $2,500 in 2008 election cycle; $1,000 in 2006 election cycle

@Deplorable Me, #10:

Trump is a 1000% more honest and reputable than Nadler or the rest of the Gestapo wanna-be’s.

That would be delusional statement.

@Greg: He isnt saying that trump is honest or reputable he is scaling.

@Gary Miller:

Trump? Honest and reputable? At this point, if you still haven’t figured out that President Trump is a draft-dodging, tax-evading, justice-obstructing, sexual-harassing birther buffoon conman, there simply is no hope.

That’s right, for I deal in reality, not from sum butt-hurt perspective where anyone does not give me what I want is a draft-dodging, tax-evading, justice-obstructing, sexual-harassing birther buffoon conman. So, tell me; when it comes to collusion, FBI spying, obstructing, emails, illegal immigrants… who has been lying? Trump or you Democrats?

More than 400 former federal prosecutors signed a letter contending that President Donald Trump would have been charged with obstruction of justice based on the findings of the Mueller report if he weren’t president.

Except that is in no way what Mueller’s report says, so it appears you and your 400 other crybabies are living in a dream world… one where stupidity is the currency of the realm.

@Greg:

That would be delusional statement.

Nadler should be censured for abusing his power trying to compel someone to break the law.

Oh, and Trump has publicly proclaimed that Kerry should be arrested and put on trial for violating the Logan Act, which he most certainly has done. Until one of the liberal despots-in-the-wings gets charged and suffers punishment for their anti-American acts, those acts will only get worse.

Nadler knows full subpoena compliance requires Attorney General Barr to break the law. Yet, instead of introducing legislation allowing the attorney general to provide Congress grand jury material, Democrats move to hold him in contempt.
The Dems are insisting Barr go to court and make legal changes FOR THEM, like what would motivate him to do that?
And why not at least 1st look at the almost all unredacted report before screaming “contempt?”
Because Nadler is looking to slander Trump with cover.
Unless more people are allowed to see a totally unredacted report, the Dems cannot falsely claim it says X or Y.
Just a Harry Reid lied when he claimed Mitt Romney hadn’t paid ANY taxes for 10 yrs, only to laugh later that, “They can call it whatever they want. Romney didn’t win did he?” Dems are now looking for cover of many people seeing a totally unredacted report because the parts the public cannot be shown could be lied about as if Trump did X or Y.
And, maybe that, too, would work.
Do, unless Dems get off their butts and change the law themselves, they’re not going to get permission to go down that path.

@Gary Miller: It’s up to 800 now

@Gary Miller:

More than 400 former federal prosecutors signed a letter contending that President Donald Trump would have been charged with obstruction of justice based on the findings of the Mueller report if he weren’t president. And Deplorable Me calls Trump “honest and reputable.

It’s amazing how your party manufactures this tripe, and has it blasted by their owned media, into the electorate to snare the simple-minded and the hate-filled.

This is partisan b.s. You don’t like Trump. I don’t care. He won the election, like Obama did. Plenty of people didn’t like him…or Bush..or Clinton…or Daddy Bush…or Reagan…and…etc…

Just focus on the next election and find a viable candidate. The country isn’t majority Democrat just because CNN, SNL, and the View told you so.

And if you believe Barr should be charged (because he merely passed on information), you believe Holder should be charged. Same rules, same stuff. If you only want Barr charged, you’re a partisan idiot who is easily dismissed. Your handlers have told you to go all out on this farce, and it’s going to cost your Party the next election. Already has.

@Nathan Blue:

Just focus on the next election and find a viable candidate.

Ah. There’s the problem. They’ve looked at their array of “candidates” and determined they have a better chance with a coup.

@Nathan Blue:

This is partisan b.s. You don’t like Trump. I don’t care. He won the election, like Obama did. Plenty of people didn’t like him…or Bush..or Clinton…or Daddy Bush…or Reagan…and…etc…

The fact that somebody got elected does not mean that all bets are then off, and he can do anything he wants for the next four years.

@Michael: He has to do something with his time as the Democrats are not putting any bills on his desk.

@kitt:

He has to do something with his time as the Democrats are not putting any bills on his desk.

You’re missing the point. I’m saying that getting elected doesn’t mean that everything one does after that point is perforce legal or acceptable. Even a president who has been elected must follow the laws; one would hope that he’d follow tradition and propriety, as well.

@Michael: There is no proof he hasnt followed the laws, the other two are you dont like his behavior well tough.
You dont have the right to not be offended.
He doesnt have to live up to Mikes expectations.

@Michael: I don’t think any politician has been as investigated as Trump has, legally and illegally, yet you’ve yet to find anything Trump has done that is illegal or even unethical. At some point, you are simply going to have to face that truth.

@Michael:

Even a president who has been elected must follow the laws; one would hope that he’d follow tradition and propriety, as well.

Uh, every president can be accused of your bullsh*t rationale. Clinton (Obvious), Bush (Obvious), Obama (Obvious). They all did things that the other party cited as “illegal” and “unbecoming” and all that.

The opposing party who lost the election will always invoke “tradition and propriety” in their partisan whining to convince their electorate to vote, because it’s the end of the world.

Blah blah blah.

Get some life experience, junior. Or at least think a little more before you type.

All the presidents build off each other. Funny how it was cool for Obama to read tweets live on SNL and attack people, but when Trump tweets incendiary statements, its suddenly a break from “tradition and propriety”.

Trump wins the EC and popular vote in 2020, mainly because of the loss of faith in Democrats due to the Mueller report.

@Nathan Blue: And let us remember Obama mincing around the White House taking selfies of himself to be cute and edgy. If only he could have done something to improve the economy or stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.