—
If only this were “important” enough ...
Nadler: 'There certainly is' justification for impeaching Trump
by KYLE CHENEY and ANDREW DESIDERIO, Politico — 05/31/2019
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 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.
[...]
Yes but, it’s not “important” enough — yet …
Poll: Majority oppose Trump impeachment, but most Democrats support it
A majority of polled voters oppose impeaching and removing President Trump but a strong majority of Democrats are in favor of doing so, according to the latest Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll survey.
The survey found that a plurality of voters, 43 percent, favor no action against the president, including 44 percent of independents.
Thirty-seven percent support impeaching and removing the president. Sixty percent of polled Democrats say the president should be impeached and removed, but only 36 percent of independents are in favor. Twenty percent of voters say Trump should be censured by Congress.
[...]
In the modern world of sound-bite media, a different approach is required to reach your target demo ...
“Importance” is in the eye of the “attention span” of the beholder ...
Axis.com — May 29, 2019
[...]
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.
[...]
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.
[...]
First, the [OLC] 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.
[...]
So how do you like those apples, America … as dense and unappetizing as they may be ...
—
__
In Trump’s America, that’s just the way things are.