Donald Trump Impeachment Inquiry To Look At Broad Range Of Offenses | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC

Donald Trump Impeachment Inquiry To Look At Broad Range Of Offenses | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC


Hisamitsu.>>>YOU’RE SAYING THIS IS Hisamitsu.>>>YOU’RE SAYING THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS WHAT WE ALL EXACTLY THE SAME AS WHAT WE ALL CALL FORMAL IMPEACHMENT CALL FORMAL IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS BY A ANOTHER NAME? PROCEEDINGS BY A ANOTHER NAME?>>THIS IS FORMAL IMPEACHMENT>>THIS IS FORMAL IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. PROCEEDINGS. WE ARE INVESTIGATING ALL THE WE ARE INVESTIGATING ALL THE EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE. WE GATHER THE EVIDENCE AND WE WE GATHER THE EVIDENCE AND WE WILL AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS WILL AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS HOPEFULLY BY THE END OF THE YEAR HOPEFULLY BY THE END OF THE YEAR VOTE TO — VOTE ARTICLES OF VOTE TO — VOTE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT TO THE HOUSE FLOOR IMPEACHMENT TO THE HOUSE FLOOR OR WE WON’T. OR WE WON’T. THAT’S A DECISION WE’LL HAVE TO THAT’S A DECISION WE’LL HAVE TO MAKE. MAKE. BUT THAT — BUT THAT –>>THIS IS FORMAL IMPEACHMENT>>THIS IS FORMAL IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, ACCORDING TO THE PROCEEDINGS, ACCORDING TO THE MAN WHO GETS TO SAY WHETHER OR MAN WHO GETS TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS SO. NOT THAT IS SO. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CONGRESSMAN JERRY COMMITTEE CONGRESSMAN JERRY NADLER OF NEW YORK WHO JOINS US NADLER OF NEW YORK WHO JOINS US HERE NOW LIVE ON SET. HERE NOW LIVE ON SET. IT’S NICE TO SEE YOU. IT’S NICE TO SEE YOU.>>GOOD TATTOO SEE YOU.>>GOOD TATTOO SEE YOU.>>YOU SAID EARLIER THIS EVENING>>YOU SAID EARLIER THIS EVENING THIS SHOULD BE SEEN AS WHAT WE THIS SHOULD BE SEEN AS WHAT WE COLLOQUIALLY COLLOQUIALLY COLLOQUIALLY DESCRIBE AS COLLOQUIALLY DESCRIBE AS IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. WHY HAS THIS BEEN FUZZY AS WHY HAS THIS BEEN FUZZY AS WHETHER OR NOT THEY’RE UNDER WHETHER OR NOT THEY’RE UNDER WAY? WAY?>>I DON’T THINK WE SHOULD GET>>I DON’T THINK WE SHOULD GET HUNG UP ON SEMANTICS. HUNG UP ON SEMANTICS. WE’VE MADE IT CLEAR THE WE’VE MADE IT CLEAR THE COMMITTEE IS HOLDING AN COMMITTEE IS HOLDING AN INVESTIGATION. INVESTIGATION. WE’RE LOOKING INTO THE VARIOUS WE’RE LOOKING INTO THE VARIOUS CHARGES OF MALFEASANCE, CHARGES OF MALFEASANCE, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, ABUSE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, ABUSE OF POWER BY THE PRESIDENT. POWER BY THE PRESIDENT. AND WE ARE CONSIDERING WHAT TO AND WE ARE CONSIDERING WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT INCLUDING POSSIBLE DO ABOUT IT INCLUDING POSSIBLE VOTING OF ARTICLES OF VOTING OF ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. IMPEACHMENT.>>WHEN YOU SAID THAT YOU EXPECT>>WHEN YOU SAID THAT YOU EXPECT THERE WILL BE A VOTE BEFORE THE THERE WILL BE A VOTE BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR ON WHETHER OR END OF THE YEAR ON WHETHER OR NOT TO APPROVE ARTICLES OF NOT TO APPROVE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. IMPEACHMENT.>>WELL, IF WE DECIDE TO DO>>WELL, IF WE DECIDE TO DO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WE’LL ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WE’LL HAVE A VOTE. HAVE A VOTE. IF NOT, WE WON’T HAVE A VOTE. IF NOT, WE WON’T HAVE A VOTE.>>WHY THE END OF THE YEAR YOUR>>WHY THE END OF THE YEAR YOUR TIME FRAME? TIME FRAME?>>IT’S AN ASSUMPTION TO HOW>>IT’S AN ASSUMPTION TO HOW LONG THESE COURT FIGHTS WILL LONG THESE COURT FIGHTS WILL TAKE AND HEARINGS WITH TAKE AND HEARINGS WITH WITNESSES. WITNESSES. WE’LL SPEND I ASSUME SEPTEMBER WE’LL SPEND I ASSUME SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER ON HEARINGS WITH AND OCTOBER ON HEARINGS WITH WITNESSES WE DON’T HAVE TO GET WITNESSES WE DON’T HAVE TO GET THROUGH COMPULSORY PROCESS IN THROUGH COMPULSORY PROCESS IN COURT. COURT. HOPEFULLY THE COURT PROCEEDINGS HOPEFULLY THE COURT PROCEEDINGS WILL GET US THE WITNESSES LIKE WILL GET US THE WITNESSES LIKE McGAHN AND OTHERS AFTER THE END McGAHN AND OTHERS AFTER THE END OF OCTOBER. OF OCTOBER. AND IF THAT IS CORRECT, THEN AND IF THAT IS CORRECT, THEN THAT’S AN APPROXIMATE TIME THAT’S AN APPROXIMATE TIME FRAME. FRAME.>>AND THIS LAWSUIT THAT YOU>>AND THIS LAWSUIT THAT YOU FILED THIS WEEK TO TRY TO COMPEL FILED THIS WEEK TO TRY TO COMPEL DON McGAHN’S TESTIMONY, TO TRY DON McGAHN’S TESTIMONY, TO TRY TO MAKE HIM RESPECT YOUR TO MAKE HIM RESPECT YOUR SUBPOENA, I BEEN DESCRIBING SUBPOENA, I BEEN DESCRIBING THIS — AND I REALIZE I’M THIS — AND I REALIZE I’M DESCRIBING THIS ON THE BASIS OF DESCRIBING THIS ON THE BASIS OF OTHER PEOPLE LIKE ME DESCRIBING OTHER PEOPLE LIKE ME DESCRIBING THIS AND I SHOULD CHECK IT OUT THIS AND I SHOULD CHECK IT OUT WITH YOU — BUT THE WAY I LOOK WITH YOU — BUT THE WAY I LOOK AT THIS IS THIS IS ABOUT GETTING AT THIS IS THIS IS ABOUT GETTING McGAHN’S TESTIMONY BUT IT SEEMS McGAHN’S TESTIMONY BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THROUGH THIS LAWSUIT YOU TO ME THROUGH THIS LAWSUIT YOU WERE ESSENTIALLY TRYING TO WERE ESSENTIALLY TRYING TO UNLOCK WHAT HAS BEEN BLOCKING UNLOCK WHAT HAS BEEN BLOCKING OTHER WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING. OTHER WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING.>>THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT.>>THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT. THE LEGAL ISSUES IN McGAHN ARE THE LEGAL ISSUES IN McGAHN ARE EXACTLY THE SAME LEGAL ISSUES EXACTLY THE SAME LEGAL ISSUES FOR HOPE HICKS AND ALL THE OTHER FOR HOPE HICKS AND ALL THE OTHER WITNESSES. WITNESSES. SO WHEN HOPEFULLY WE WIN THE SO WHEN HOPEFULLY WE WIN THE McGAHN LAWSUIT ALL THE OTHERS McGAHN LAWSUIT ALL THE OTHERS WILL FOLLOW. WILL FOLLOW. THE WHITE HOUSE IS ASSERTING THE WHITE HOUSE IS ASSERTING ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTEES WHICH IS PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTEES WHICH IS AN ABSURD CLAIM AND THAT’S AN ABSURD CLAIM AND THAT’S ESSENTIALLY WHAT THEY’RE ESSENTIALLY WHAT THEY’RE ASSERTING. ASSERTING. IF THE COURTS, GOD FORBID, WERE IF THE COURTS, GOD FORBID, WERE TO UP HOLD SUCH A CLAIM THAN TO UP HOLD SUCH A CLAIM THAN NEVER MIND THE IMPEACHMENT, NEVER MIND THE IMPEACHMENT, THERE’D BE NO CONGRESSIONAL THERE’D BE NO CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF THE EXECUTIVE AT OVERSIGHT OF THE EXECUTIVE AT ALL BECAUSE YOU COULD SIMPLY SAY ALL BECAUSE YOU COULD SIMPLY SAY ANYONE WHO DEALS WITH THE ANYONE WHO DEALS WITH THE PRESIDENT, ANYONE IN THE PRESIDENT, ANYONE IN THE ADMINISTRATION DOESN’T HAVE TO ADMINISTRATION DOESN’T HAVE TO TESTIFY AT ALL. TESTIFY AT ALL. AND THAT WOULD DESTROY THE AND THAT WOULD DESTROY THE SEPARATION OF POWERS. SEPARATION OF POWERS. IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY MAKE THE IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY MAKE THE PRESIDENT UNACCOUNTABLE TO PRESIDENT UNACCOUNTABLE TO CONGRESS AND THEREFORE TO THE CONGRESS AND THEREFORE TO THE PEOPLE AND MAKE HIM A KING, PEOPLE AND MAKE HIM A KING, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION DID FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT WANT TO DO. NOT WANT TO DO.>>DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU’RE>>DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU’RE HOPING FOR IN TERMS OF THE TIME HOPING FOR IN TERMS OF THE TIME FRAME ON A RESOLUTION OF THIS FRAME ON A RESOLUTION OF THIS McGAHN CASE? McGAHN CASE? IF HIS TESTIMONY IS KEY TO YOUR IF HIS TESTIMONY IS KEY TO YOUR INQUIRY AND ON ITS OWN TERMS BUT INQUIRY AND ON ITS OWN TERMS BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF UNLOCKING OTHER ALSO IN TERMS OF UNLOCKING OTHER WITNESSES SO YOU COULD HEAR — WITNESSES SO YOU COULD HEAR –>>WE DON’T KNOW THE TIME FRAME.>>WE DON’T KNOW THE TIME FRAME. WE’VE ASK THAT BE EXPEDITED AND WE’VE ASK THAT BE EXPEDITED AND WE’VE ASKED AN IMPEACH LT WE’VE ASKED AN IMPEACH LT PROCEEDING AND IS IN OUR LEGAL PROCEEDING AND IS IN OUR LEGAL PAPERS YOU’RE ENTITLED TO THE PAPERS YOU’RE ENTITLED TO THE HIGHEST DEGREE THAT AREN’T HIGHEST DEGREE THAT AREN’T PRESENT IPNORMAL OVERSIGHT. PRESENT IPNORMAL OVERSIGHT. HOPEFULLY WE GET A DECISION FROM HOPEFULLY WE GET A DECISION FROM THE LOWER COURT ION’T KNOW A THE LOWER COURT ION’T KNOW A NUMBER OF WEEKS, AND FROM THE NUMBER OF WEEKS, AND FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS IN A COUPLE OF COURT OF APPEALS IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS AND HOPEFULLY IT DOESN’T MONTHS AND HOPEFULLY IT DOESN’T GO BEYOND THAT. GO BEYOND THAT.>>WITHIN A COUPLE OF MONTHS,>>WITHIN A COUPLE OF MONTHS, IT’S ALREADY AUGUST, SO IT’D BE IT’S ALREADY AUGUST, SO IT’D BE SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, IF YOU’RE SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, IF YOU’RE LOOKING AT HOPEFULLY VOTING Wii LOOKING AT HOPEFULLY VOTING Wii THE END OF THE YEAR, IF YOU THE END OF THE YEAR, IF YOU DECIDE TO PROCEED WITH ARTICLES, DECIDE TO PROCEED WITH ARTICLES, THAT’S A QUICK TIME FRAME. THAT’S A QUICK TIME FRAME.>>YEP, IT’S A QUICK TIME FRAME.>>YEP, IT’S A QUICK TIME FRAME. I’M NOT SAYING THE END OF THE I’M NOT SAYING THE END OF THE YEAR, COULD BE SOONER, COULD BE YEAR, COULD BE SOONER, COULD BE LATER. LATER. WE HAVE TO DO WHAT WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. DO. BY THE WAY, WE’RE NOT LIMITED BY THE WAY, WE’RE NOT LIMITED NOR WILL WE BE LIMITED BY McGAHN NOR WILL WE BE LIMITED BY McGAHN AND THE OTHER PEOPLE I MENTIONED AND THE OTHER PEOPLE I MENTIONED ARE VERY KEY TO CONSIDERATION OF ARE VERY KEY TO CONSIDERATION OF AN IMPEACHMENT FOR OBSTRUCTION AN IMPEACHMENT FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND ABUSE OF POWER, OF JUSTICE AND ABUSE OF POWER, ALL OF THE THINGS IN THE MUELLER ALL OF THE THINGS IN THE MUELLER REPORT. REPORT. BUT WE HAVE OTHER GROUNDS WE BUT WE HAVE OTHER GROUNDS WE HAVE TO LOOK INTO, TOO, AND HAVE TO LOOK INTO, TOO, AND VIOLATIONS OF THE EMOLUMENTS VIOLATIONS OF THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION. CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION. AND JUST THE FACT OF WITHHOLDING AND JUST THE FACT OF WITHHOLDING OR OPPOSING CONGRESSIONAL OR OPPOSING CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS, THAT WAS ARTICLE III SUBPOENAS, THAT WAS ARTICLE III OF THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT. OF THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT. AND HERE HE’S GONE WAY FURTHER AND HERE HE’S GONE WAY FURTHER EVEN TO THE EXTENT OF SAYING EVEN TO THE EXTENT OF SAYING WE’LL OPPOSE ALL SUBPOENAS WHICH WE’LL OPPOSE ALL SUBPOENAS WHICH IS ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING WE IS ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING WE DON’T RECOGNIZE THE SEPARATION DON’T RECOGNIZE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND WE ARE GOING TO OF POWERS AND WE ARE GOING TO AGGRANDIZE POWER TO THE AGGRANDIZE POWER TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WHICH IS CORE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WHICH IS CORE IMPEACHABLE, AND THERE ARE IMPEACHABLE, AND THERE ARE OTHERS, TOO. OTHERS, TOO. SO WE’LL BE LOOKING AT ALL OF SO WE’LL BE LOOKING AT ALL OF THESE THINGS. THESE THINGS.>>HAVE YOU MADE DECISIONS IN>>HAVE YOU MADE DECISIONS IN YOUR COMMITTEE OR HAVE YOU AS YOUR COMMITTEE OR HAVE YOU AS CHAIRMAN MADE DECISIONS AS TO CHAIRMAN MADE DECISIONS AS TO WHAT THOSE GROUNDS ARE? WHAT THOSE GROUNDS ARE? YOU JUST DESCRIBED SEVERAL. YOU JUST DESCRIBED SEVERAL. HAS THAT BEEN THE PROCESS? HAS THAT BEEN THE PROCESS?>>PEOPLE ARE OBVIOUSLY>>PEOPLE ARE OBVIOUSLY SUGGESTING VARIOUS DIFFERENT SUGGESTING VARIOUS DIFFERENT GROUNDS AND WE’LL HAVE TO GROUNDS AND WE’LL HAVE TO PRIORITIZE AND INVESTIGATE AND PRIORITIZE AND INVESTIGATE AND MAKE DECISIONS AS THE NEXT FEW MAKE DECISIONS AS THE NEXT FEW MONTHS GO ON. MONTHS GO ON.>>AND HOW DOES THAT PROCESS>>AND HOW DOES THAT PROCESS WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY? WORK IN YOUR COMMUNITY?>>WELL, THE MEMBERS OF THE>>WELL, THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND STAFF WILL TALK TO COMMITTEE AND STAFF WILL TALK TO EACH OTHER. EACH OTHER.>>IN TERMS OF THIS BEING A>>IN TERMS OF THIS BEING A POINT OF DISCUSSION AND POINT OF DISCUSSION AND CONSTERNATION ON HAVING A LOT OF CONSTERNATION ON HAVING A LOT OF POLITICAL IMPACT, APART FROM THE POLITICAL IMPACT, APART FROM THE SUBSTANCE OF THESE POTENTIAL SUBSTANCE OF THESE POTENTIAL ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT YOU ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT YOU MAY BE LOOKING AT, THERE’S BEEN MAY BE LOOKING AT, THERE’S BEEN SO MUCH DISCUSSION AS TO WHETHER SO MUCH DISCUSSION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS POLITICALLY WISE OR NOT THIS IS POLITICALLY WISE FOR DEMOCRATS AND WHETHER FOR DEMOCRATS AND WHETHER THERE’S POLITICAL APPETITE FOR THERE’S POLITICAL APPETITE FOR IT. IT. HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI HAS HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI HAS BEEN BROADLY DESCRIBED AS BEING BEEN BROADLY DESCRIBED AS BEING AGAINST THIS AS A STEP, AND AGAINST THIS AS A STEP, AND SHE’S DESCRIBED HERSELF THAT SHE’S DESCRIBED HERSELF THAT WAY. WAY. BROADLY SPEAKING. BROADLY SPEAKING. CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT YOUR CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT YOUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SPEAKER ON DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SPEAKER ON THIS AND WHETHER — THIS AND WHETHER –>>ALL I THINK I SHOULD SAY IS>>ALL I THINK I SHOULD SAY IS THAT EVERY COURT FILING WE’RE THAT EVERY COURT FILING WE’RE MAKING, EVERY ASSERTION THAT WE MAKING, EVERY ASSERTION THAT WE NEED THIS INFORMATION FOR NEED THIS INFORMATION FOR IMPEACHMENT CONSIDERATION, ET IMPEACHMENT CONSIDERATION, ET CETERA WERE SIGNED OFF ON BY THE CETERA WERE SIGNED OFF ON BY THE SPEAKER. SPEAKER. THE HOUSE COUNSEL IS BRINGING THE HOUSE COUNSEL IS BRINGING THESE LAWSUITS. THESE LAWSUITS. THE HOUSE COUNSEL REPORTS TO THE THE HOUSE COUNSEL REPORTS TO THE SPEAKER NOT TO THE CHAIRMAN OF SPEAKER NOT TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. WE ASKED THE HOUSE COUNSEL WHAT WE ASKED THE HOUSE COUNSEL WHAT TO DO. TO DO. I CAN’T TELL THEM WHAT TO DO. I CAN’T TELL THEM WHAT TO DO. SO THE SPEAKER IS GOING — THE SO THE SPEAKER IS GOING — THE SPEAKER WANTS TO VINDICATE THE SPEAKER WANTS TO VINDICATE THE CONSTITUTION AND SHE’S BEEN VERY CONSTITUTION AND SHE’S BEEN VERY DIRECT IN DIRECT IN AND THE CONSTITUTION AND SO DO AND THE CONSTITUTION AND SO DO WE. WE. POLL POLL THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE WORST CRISIS WE FACE IN THE WORST CRISIS WE FACE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL LOSS SINCE AFTER CONSTITUTIONAL LOSS SINCE AFTER THE CIVIL WAR IN TERMS OF THE THE CIVIL WAR IN TERMS OF THE POWER TO THE EXECUTIVE AND IN POWER TO THE EXECUTIVE AND IN TERMS OF DENIAL OF CONGRESSIONAL TERMS OF DENIAL OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER AND SEPARATION OF POWERS POWER AND SEPARATION OF POWERS IN TERMS OF THE PRESIDENT IN TERMS OF THE PRESIDENT ASSERTING POWERS HE DOESN’T HAVE ASSERTING POWERS HE DOESN’T HAVE AND USING THEM. AND USING THEM. WE HAVE TO HAVE LIMITED WE HAVE TO HAVE LIMITED GOVERNMENT. GOVERNMENT. WE HAVE TO HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL WE HAVE TO HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT AND ONLY CONGRESS CAN GOVERNMENT AND ONLY CONGRESS CAN DO THIS SO WE HAVE TO DO THIS DO THIS SO WE HAVE TO DO THIS AND THE SPEAKER UNDERSTANDS AND THE SPEAKER UNDERSTANDS THAT, AND WE WILL HAVE TO PURSUE THAT, AND WE WILL HAVE TO PURSUE IT REGARDLESS OF THE POLITICAL IT REGARDLESS OF THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES, BUT OBVIOUSLY, WE CONSEQUENCES, BUT OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE TO TAKE POLITICS INTO HAVE TO TAKE POLITICS INTO ACCOUNT. ACCOUNT.>>THE ANALYSIS THAT THE>>THE ANALYSIS THAT THE PRESIDENT GETTING IMPEACHED PRESIDENT GETTING IMPEACHED WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE PRESIDENT. WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE PRESIDENT.>>I DON’T THINK SO.>>I DON’T THINK SO. I DON’T THINK SO. I DON’T THINK SO. IF — AGAIN, YOU — IF WE DO OUR IF — AGAIN, YOU — IF WE DO OUR JOB PROPERLY, IF WE GET THE JOB PROPERLY, IF WE GET THE EVIDENCE, IF WE HAVE VERY EVIDENCE, IF WE HAVE VERY CONVINCING EVIDENCE AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE AND CONVINCING HEARINGS AND PEOPLE CONVINCING HEARINGS AND PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT’S AT STAKE, I UNDERSTAND WHAT’S AT STAKE, I DON’T THINK THERE WILL BE DON’T THINK THERE WILL BE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES FOR NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES FOR PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION. PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION.>>IF YOU CAN STAY WITH US, MR.>>IF YOU CAN STAY WITH US, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WAS JUST MAKING FUN CHAIRMAN, I WAS JUST MAKING FUN OF YOU FOR YOUR COLLEAGUES FOR OF YOU FOR YOUR COLLEAGUES FOR THE LONG SUMMER VACATION.

11 comments

  1. Mueller, failed investigator.
    Nadler, failed human. (Ever predictive text doesn't know him)
    Madcow, failed ratings. Ha Ha Ha.

  2. This is total lame-assed nonsense. trump's attorney-fixer is in jail as a co-conspirator. And that is just the start of a long dirty-laundry list this thug has created. "Inquiry"…no wonder Americans are apathetic and refuse to vote.

  3. Hey MSNBC, how's that impeachment going?
    I thought that Stormy Daniels was supposed to be the last nail in Trump's coffin. LOL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *