By Jon Dougherty
For a congressman, Jerrold Nadler makes a pretty lousyÂ federlal prosecutor — since he’s never been inside a courtroom arguing cases on behalf of the government.
And yet, for some reason, Nadler feels qualified to claim that special counsel Robert Mueller, who does have extensive federal prosecutorial experience, supposedly ignored vast amounts of ‘evidence’ that should have led him to bring charges against the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr.
Fox News notes:
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-NY, argued on Sunday that, despite Special CounselÂ Robert MuellerÂ deciding not to charge President Trump with obstruction of justice, he believes there is still plenty of evidence of obstruction by the president.
Nadler, who filed a subpoena Friday for Muellerâ€™s full, unredacted report, said that Mueller only restrained fromÂ charging TrumpÂ with obstruction of justice because of the longstanding Justice Department opinion that a sitting president canâ€™t be indicted. …
Nadler on Sunday questioned why Mueller did not level charges against the presidentâ€™s son, Donald Trump Jr., for taking a meeting with Russian operatives in Trump Tower to allegedly get compromising information on Trumpâ€™s 2016 Democratic presidential opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
â€œMueller says that although a thorough FBI investigation might very well show evidence of obstruction of justice with the president, â€˜weâ€™re not going to do that because of the Department of Justiceâ€™s legal opinion that a president, a sitting president, can’t be indicted and it would be unfair to lay out the facts justifying an indictment without giving the president the opportunity and a trial to clear his name,â€™â€ Nadler said on Sunday during an appearance on NBCâ€™s â€œMeet The Press.â€
He added: â€œI do not understand why he didn’t charge Don Jr. and others in that famous meeting with criminal conspiracy. [Mueller] said that he didn’t charge them because you couldn’t prove that they didn’t willfully intend to commit a crime, well you don’t have to prove that.â€
Wow, doesn’tÂ that sound familiar? Because that’sÂ just what critics of another establishment hack, James Comey, were saying whenÂ he refused to recommend charges against Clinton though he said she definitelyÂ did mishandle classified information.
According to the Espionage Act, which covers such violations, you don’t have show “intent” — just “gross negligence,” which she did (until that is, Comey changed the wording to something else).
But Mueller did not insinuate that there was no intent on the part of Don Jr.; rather, he noted there is nothing to the allegation that it was a violation of the law.
“All you have to prove for conspiracy is that they entered into a meeting of the minds to do something and had one overt act. They entered into a meeting of the minds to attend a meeting to get stolen material on Hillary. They went to the meeting. Thatâ€™s conspiracy right there,” said Nadler.
But is itÂ really?
Because why would it be? Even if there had been an exchange of damaging information about Clinton — and there wasn’t — collecting it is not against the law. In fact, in the course of a presidential campaign, that’s calledÂ campaigning.
Now, if Nadler wants to make a fuss about foreign opposition research in which real collusion between a 2016 presidential campaign and Moscow took place, he should look no further than the “Russia dossier” which was commissioned by Fusion GPS, compiled by a former British spy using Russian sources, and paid for by the Clinton campaign.
The fact is Mueller — who is as much against Trump sitting in the Oval Office as any other elitist member of the Washington establishment –Â knew he couldn’t bring an obstruction charge because POTUS didn’t ‘obstruct’ anything. Or Don Jr. Or anyone else associated with the campaign.
But there’s Nadler on a Sunday morning news show to declare that Mueller’s got plenty of evidence to indict and, presumably, convict, both the president and his son.
He also trashed Attorney General William Barr, another very experienced federal prosecutor type who is now a two-time AG. â€œ[Attorney General William] Barr misinterpreted that, or misrepresented that I should say, to say they didn’t find obstruction. Thereâ€™s plenty of evidence of obstruction,” Nadler claims.
In fact, Nadler — who is a lawyer — has never practicedÂ law. He went straight from high school in Brooklyn to Columbia University to night school at the Fordham University School of Law to…politics.
In fact, he received his law degree while serving in the New York State Assembly, where he stayed from 1977 to 1992 — until being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he’s been ever since.
No, Nadler is no federal prosecutor. He’s not even a legal expert; how could he be if he’s never practiced law?
Citing Democrat talking points and making up “crimes of conspiracy and collusion” do not qualify as federal crimes. Never has and, unless Jerry Nadler gets his way, it never will.
- Follow Jon Dougherty on Twitter at @JonDougherty10