Former Special Counsel R. Mueller Claims to Have Evidence of Trump Crimes, House Judiciary Committee Backs This

Nadler of the House Judiciary Committee has expressed his belief in the Mueller report and pledges to ask R.Mueller to present those facts at a hearing.

Nadler is a Democratic representative within the U.S. Judiciary Committee. He has studied the report and claims to have found a considerable amount of evidence. He spoke out last Sunday, saying that the former Special Counsel must be allowed to share his findings. Nadler is certain that the president did, in fact, commit misdemeanors and full-out crime and that the American people need to know it. The evidence must be duly presented, he said, after which the country could move forward.

Nadler culminated his statement by stressing that nothing and no one, neither the administration nor the president, may be above the law.

In order for impeachment proceedings to begin, something most Democrats have wished for since Trump was elected, strong evidence must be presented.

Mueller’s report, rather its retracted version, has been accessible to the public since April 2016. The president has exercised a temporary “protective assertion” to keep the report from being forwarded to Congress. While Volume I of the report is admittedly incomplete, it did assert that systematic interference did happen, and it suggested Trump getting indicted for his part in this matter.

The material found in Volume 2 did not incriminate, nor it exonerated the president, Mueller claimed and suggested  that impeachment should be left at Congress’ discretion.

There are to be two hearings on Wednesday which will be nationally televised, one before the Intelligence Committee and one before the Judiciary Committee. The Democrats will probe Mueller for as many specific details and clear examples of Donald Trump’s guilt as he can give. Only a clear-cut array of evidence of Trump hindering the investigation into his actions will allow for the impeachment to begin.

Not all Democrats are against the president, most notably Nancy Pelosci. Speaking for the House of Representatives, she took a tentative approach, subscribing to congressional investigations which are to find all the facts before any judgement calls.

The week prior, the House of Representatives held a vote which resulted in killing the proposed impeachment, with 95 votes for it and 332 against it.

The Mueller report remains lacking, as it only found evidence of contacts between the administration of Russia and Trump, but this was not enough to prove a criminal conspiracy.

What it does present is ten examples of Trump interfering with the investigation into his camp, but the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove obstruction of justice.

The Democrats are hoping to probe further into the details of the matter, perhaps for something that has been missed and could potentially make a difference. Mueller has clearly stated that he doesn’t want to verbally divulge anything, as everything he had to say on the matter is already in the report. His lips have been effectively sealed since the report was released, and he is notorious for giving one-word comments in hearings.

Speaking for the Intelligence Committee, chairman Schiff said that the goal was to better acquaint the American public with the report. He points out that most people wouldn’t have read it, and that the hearing could make the findings more accessible to the people. It is written in a cut-and-dried, very formal way, and Mueller’s testimony could bring the whole thing to life to greater audiences.

On the other hand, Nadler stated that he wanted to probe the aforementioned Special Counsel on specific issues and to have him read some of the passages out loud.

He further expressed his hopes that he would go to court a couple of days after the hearing. The goal would be to have a subpoena enforced in relation to the White House’s order in regards to its former Counsel D.McGahn. They prevented him from testifying about the events he witnessed, which is just another arrow pointing to Trump’s obstruction of justice.

Whether and how these events will come to pass remains to be seen.