Jerry Nadler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, just made the first move in the Democrats plan to impeach the President.
In an interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett Nadler said “our goal is to hold the administration accountable for the obstruction of justice, the abuse of power, and the corruption. Our goal is to vindicate the rule of law, to protect the rule of law in this country.”
That clearly sounds like a man who has made up his mind on impeaching the President and is now laying out the Democrat’s case. Byron York agrees, saying Nadler basically is making the case for impeachment, albeit during a different interview:
Nadler’s talk with ABC was the clearest indication yet that Democrats have decided to impeach Trump and are now simply doing the legwork involved in making that happen. And that means the debate among House Democrats will be a tactical one — what is the best time and way to go forward — rather than a more fundamental discussion of whether the president should be impeached.
Watch as Jerry Nadler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, tees up Democrats first move to impeach the President:
Burnett: And “Outfront” tonight, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Democratic congressman, Jerry Nadler. Chairman, I appreciate your time. So you have this list, 81 names on it, thus far. And these are people from every aspect of President Trump’s life. Some of them have already testified before Congress. What is your goal?
Nadler: Well, our goal is to hold the administration accountable for the obstruction of justice, the abuse of power, and the corruption. Our goal is to vindicate the rule of law, to protect the rule of law in this country. And that’s our core function as a Judiciary Committee of the Congress. And we have to find out what’s been going on and we have to lay out a case to the American people and reveal it. Because we have not seen an administration in a long time, prior to this, in which there were so many attacks on the rule of law, attacks on the justice Department, attacks on the press, attacks on the judiciary, attacks on the norms we depend upon to protect democratic government.
Burnett: But when you say, we have to lay out a case, is that what you’re trying to do?
Nadler: To lay out what’s going on. I don’t mean a case to establish anything in particular, but what’s been going on, what have they been doing, and how do we fix it? How do we it protect the rule of law? That’s the real question. How do we protect the judiciary against the incessant attacks? How do we protect the press against the incessant attacks. How do we protect the role of government so that it is not used for personal enrichment in violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution?
Burnett: So I want to ask you a few questions. Lots of people on the list. The president’s son is on the list, his son-in-law is on the list, but his daughter is. She was crucial to the campaign. Top executive in hissed by for a long time. Why isn’t she on it?
Nadler: I’m not going to answer why any particular person is or isn’t on it. We think anybody on it has information of use to the committee in establishing things and we may add other people.
Burnett: All right. So one person on your list today was Randy Credico, who of course is related to Roger Stone and Wikileaks and Julian Assange. In your alert to him, you ask, in part, for any contacts involving Wikileaks or anyone associated with it. I spoke to Randy Credico today. He said he’s not going to give you any communications with Julian Assange. What do you do about that?
Nadler: Well, he will give us any information of which we credibly ask him, as will everybody else, otherwise they will be subject to a subpoena and eventually to contempt. It’s not up to them to decide what information to give. One can resist a subpoena by saying there’s some privilege, but that’s very difficult.
Burnett: Right. So you’re willing to go to subpoena if you need to go to subpoena?
Nadler: Absolutely. We need to get the information here to vindicate, you know, for two years, the Trump Administration has been attacking the core functions of our democracy and the Congress has refused to do any oversight. They’ve refused to — they’ve shielded him. They’ve acted more as shields than as what the Congress is supposed to do, which is to be a check and a balance. We are going to be the check and the balance. We are going to find out, we are going to lay out the facts for the American people. And see what we can do about it and protect the rule of law.