Goldman, Nadler, what are you prepared to do about it?

 

Can't help judging THAT book by its cover.  Where did they find that giant hayseed?

UPDATE 06/19/2025:

Trump 2.0 - Police state

 

UPDATE 07:31 pm:

There are Dems against impeaching Donald Trump

[C]omments from Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) were met with applause from lawmakers and backed up by former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), according to six sources familiar with the matter.

Nadler, the former top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, called Rep. Shri Thanedar's (D-Mich.) efforts "idiotic" and urged Democrats to vote for a Republican motion to kill his articles of impeachment.

  Axios

Nancy, Jerry, time to fight or retire.

Thanedar has ruffled feathers with his impeachment efforts, which many lawmakers believe is tied to his contested Democratic primary — a suggestion he denies.

Whether it is or is not, Trump has racked up numerous violations and crimes to be impeached.

Nadler was among the four lawmakers who were briefly listed as co-sponsors on the measure before withdrawing.

Sources previously told Axios that Thanedar wrongly led colleagues to believe leadership was supporting his efforts and added them as co-sponsors without notifying their staffs.

Okay, that's bad. Recall Thanedar.

[Nadler] said that unity against the measure would help protect House Democrats who are politically vulnerable — either to primary challengers who say they need to do more to fight Trump, or general election opponents who would use a vote for impeachment against them.

The time to be timid is well and truly gone.

"People's sense is that it's a total distraction and waste of time given [that there is] no path to victory," a senior House Democrat who was in the room told Axios.

You do it because it's the right thing to do.

Thanedar said in a statement to Axios, "I'm pursuing impeachment because the president has committed clear, impeachable crimes."

"I've heard from my constituents and people around the nation that they want this President held accountable and that's what I am doing," he added.

Bravo, but you don't do it by crooked and false pretense. That's impeachable, too.

Pelosi, who as speaker oversaw Democrats' two impeachments against President Trump in his first term, echoed Nadler's criticism but did not explicitly urge Democrats to vote to table, sources said.

She said that, in the past, the party has always adopted a measured strategy when it comes to impeachment in order to avoid the appearance it being a purely political.

So get to work.

Jerry Nadler calls out Republicans

Nadler, a Jew, explains his vote against the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023.

[T]here are three extant definitions [of antisemitism]. One is by IHRA. One is the Nexus definition and the other is the Jerusalem definition. [...] The chief author of the IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern, said don’t codify this. Don’t make it part of any law because these are examples that may indicate antisemitism but don’t necessarily in every case, and to enshrine it into law — he thought and a lot of other people think — would be destructive of free speech. It could make criticism, under certain circumstances, of Israeli government policy antisemitic, which it clearly isn’t.

[...]

[T]he point [of the bill] is to define antisemitism.

I suppose the purpose is to make it easier for the Office of Civil Rights to enforce the law. But the bill, for reasons unknown to me, enshrines the IHRA definition and says disregard the other two. There’s no rational reason for that. They’re all equally valid. They’re all made by committees of scholars and experts on antisemitism. Second of all, if you want to fight antisemitism through Congress, there are two things you can do. There is a bicameral, bipartisan bill, the Manning bill co-sponsored by many, many Democrats and Republicans in the House and in the Senate to set up a whole of government approach to antisemitism, which makes far more sense and doesn’t violate civil liberties.

The other thing you should do is increase the budget for OCR. The Office of Civil Rights is in charge of enforcing Title VI, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, etc. on college campuses. Because of the huge increase in antisemitism, the Biden administration last year for the fiscal year 2024 budget asked for a 25-percent increase in the OCR budget to enforce strictures against antisemitism. The Republicans pushed for a 25-percent cut in that budget — mostly, I think, because they were afraid it might be used not only against antisemitism, but against anti-LGBTQ prejudice. The result was that the funding stayed flat despite the need for an increase because of the increase in antisemitism.

[...]

The Republicans are [...] talking about antisemitism while indulging in antisemitism. Donald Trump has made antisemitic comments — you know Charlottesville, “There were fine people on both sides.” — and he’s been meeting with known antisemites. And they don’t say anything.

[...]

I am delighted we got 70 Democratic no votes. It’s more than I expected. It’s very easy to support something that claims to be against antisemitism, and it’s hard to start explaining to your constituents the nuances of why you didn’t.

[...]

I’ve taken unpopular stances before. I was the only Jewish member in the tri-state region to buck every single Jewish organization and support the Iran deal. I think I was proven right. I had a primary as a result of it. I did very well in that primary. If you’re serving in public office, you have to do it for the right reasons and you can’t only be a slave to reelection.

[...]

Netanyahu is doing everything he can to sabotage the peace talks, even at the cost of the hostages. He has every motive for keeping the war going as long as possible. Because when the war is over, number one, there’ll be a commission of inquiry. Number two, there’ll be an election, and he’s polling at about 20 percent. And number three, he’ll have to face the felony charges that are outstanding against him.

He’s insisting on this Rafah operation, which is absurd. You can’t defeat that kind of an enemy that way, as we discovered in Mosul and for that matter in Vietnam.

[...]

[Israel should not] go into Rafah; negotiate a cease-fire deal in which Arab troops from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, other places come in and occupy Gaza; start rebuilding it and have them work with the Palestinian Authority to reform it so that you can eventually have a Palestinian Authority in charge of Gaza and the West Bank and have a two-state solution. Now, Netanyahu does not want a two-state solution and this is something else he’s going to have to answer for once this war is over to the Israeli public. He was telling Qatar to fund Hamas before the war started. Why? Because he wanted Hamas to be in opposition to the Palestinian Authority so there couldn’t be a two-state solution.

[...]

In foreign policy, you have to work with a lot of people who you don’t like on other bases. To set up that peace structure, which would cement peace in the Middle East for a long time and also cement an alliance against potential Iranian aggression, is a very worthy objective and makes a lot of sense.

  Politico

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

When will Roger Stone be behind bars?

I assume Jack Smith will charge Stone and any others involved in plotting the insurrection once Trump's trial is over. But since Trump commuted Stone's sentence when he was convicted of obstruction, witness tampering, and lying to Congress by Mueller's Russia probe, it will have to involve separate crimes. I feel certain Stone would fight any charge as double jeopardy, even though Smith's charges would be for plotting the insurrection. Smith would win that one, but it will be a long battle, no doubt. 

Weeks before the 2020 presidential election, infamous political operative Roger Stone sat across from his associate Sal Greco at a restaurant in Florida.

At the time, Greco was an NYPD cop working security for Stone on the side. Their conversation, at Caffe Europa in Fort Lauderdale, focused on two House Democrats for whom Stone harbors particular animosity, Jerry Nadler and Eric Swalwell.

In audio of the conversation obtained exclusively by Mediaite, Stone made threatening comments about the two lawmakers.

“It’s time to do it,” Stone told Greco. “Let’s go find Swalwell. It’s time to do it. Then we’ll see how brave the rest of them are. It’s time to do it. It’s either Nadler or Swalwell has to die before the election. They need to get the message. Let’s go find Swalwell and get this over with. I’m just not putting up with this shit anymore.”

A source familiar with the discussion told Mediate they believed Stone’s remarks were serious. “It was definitely concerning that he was constantly planning violence with an NYPD officer and other militia groups,” the source said.

[...]

Stone was convicted of obstruction, witness tampering, and lying to Congress in the Mueller investigation. Prosecutors sought a nine-year prison sentence for the longtime Republican operative, but Trump’s Justice Department reportedly intervened to impose a less severe sentence. Stone’s sentence was eventually commuted by Trump days before reporting to prison.

The intervention from the Justice Department prompted Aaron Zelinsky, the prosecutor and Mueller deputy who led the case against Stone, to recuse himself from the case in protest. Mediaite reported last week that Stone was caught on tape in December 2020 urging Greco to “punish” Zelinsky.

“He needs to be punished,” Stone told Greco in the audio. “You have to abduct him and punish him. That has to be done. It will be easy to abduct him because he is a weakling.”

Stone denied making those comments, claiming they were generated by AI.

[...]

Greco did not deny the comments.

[...]

Greco, who acted as security for Stone and was with the operative during the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol soon after the 2020 election, was fired by the NYPD over his association with Stone.

  Mediaite

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

WTF

Jesus Christ, Nadler.  That's the same excuse you all gave for not impeaching Trump until you were forced to do the right thing.  

Democrats are absolutely pathetic.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Pricks

Guidance from the Capitol physician issued late Tuesday, which was requested by Pelosi, said masks are now required for any House meetings “in a limited enclosed space, such as a committee hearing room, for greater than 15 minutes.”

[...]

Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) directive that House committee leaders enforce a new mask requirement quickly encountered some GOP resistance on Wednesday, with several Republicans participating in legislative markups without facial coverings.

  The Hill

They should be removed.

The new mask requirement in House committees came just a day after Rep. Tom Rice (R-S.C.) revealed that he had tested positive for the coronavirus.

Rice was seen without a mask during a House session on May 28. He told CNN at the time that he wears a mask when he can't stay at least six feet away from other people, such as on an airplane.

[...]

While most lawmakers in both parties have been wearing masks in public, the handful who haven't are all conservative Republicans.

You don't say! You could knock me over with a feather.

Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, has been among the GOP lawmakers seen without a mask on Capitol Hill in recent weeks. He initially wore a mask at the start of Wednesday's Judiciary Committee markup of police reform legislation but later removed it.

About two hours later, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)] briefly admonished Jordan and Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) for not wearing masks.

“I would remind the gentleman, and other gentlemen, that for the safety of their colleagues and the decorum of the House, they should be wearing masks. Mr. Jordan,” Nadler said, turning to look directly at Jordan.

[...]

Nadler [later] announced that he would not grant speaking time to any lawmaker not wearing a mask.

[...]

[Nadler said,] “In light of the attending physician's new guidance, I therefore fully expect all members on both sides of the aisle to wear a mask at all times that you are not speaking. If for whatever reason you are not willing to wear a mask, the House rules provide a way to participate remotely from your office without being physically present in this room."

Oh, no. They have a point to make.

He then initially ignored a request from McClintock – who was still not wearing a mask – for speaking time, but ultimately relented

Then blame Nadler for aiding and abetting. No wonder they pay no attention to him.

"I consider masks much more effective at spreading panic and much less effective at stopping a virus," McClintock said.

Is McClintock a doctor?

In the end, McClintock put on a mask and secured recognition from Nadler to speak again about 30 minutes later.

I wonder why he put the mask on.

Several GOP members were seen not wearing masks, including Reps. Sam Graves (Mo.), the panel’s top Republican, and Greg Pence (Ind.), the brother of Vice President Pence.

“It’s very unfortunate that people are more focused on who’s wearing a mask than the important task of reforming policing in America," a spokesman for Republicans on the Judiciary Committee said when asked about the mask compliance.

If you assholes would just wear a mask, that wouldn't be the focus. You're making it the focus.

Like DeFazio, many Democrats on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee participated in the markup remotely. But at least one Democrat, Rep. Stephen Lynch (Mass.) was physically present in the room with Republicans – and he was also spotted without a mask.

Afraid he'd get razzed?

The mask requirement does not apply while lawmakers are speaking on camera, due to concerns about people watching on television with hearing issues being unable to read lips. The exemption could limit the effectiveness of the requirement, given warnings from public health experts that speaking without a mask can spread viral particles.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Do more of this

Did he know this was coming?*

Nadler showed a two-decade-old video of Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is now one of the senators deciding Trump’s fate, but at the time was a House manager in Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial. Let’s cut to the tape:

“I think that’s what they meant by ‘high crimes,'” Graham said in 1999. “Doesn’t even have to be a crime. It’s just when you start using your office, and you’re acting in a way that hurts people. You committed a high crime.”

  Mother Jones

Nadler played a Dershowitz clip from 1998, when the House was considering Bill Clinton’s impeachment.

“It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of President and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime,” Dershowitz said then.

  TPM

That's gonna be good warm up for Dershowitz, who it is reported is going to present an argument saying just the opposite in a couple of days.

Nadler also presented a 2018 memo written by Barr, before he was appointed by Trump, that referenced impeachment while arguing against criminally indicting a President.

Barr wrote that the fact that the President “is answerable for any abuses of discretion and is ultimately subject to the judgment of Congress through the impeachment process means that the president is not the judge in his own cause.”

“In other words, Attorney General Barr, who believes, along with the [Justice Department] Office of Legal Counsel, that a president may not be indicted, believes that that’s okay, we don’t need that safeguard against a president who would commit abuses of power. It’s okay, because he can be impeached,” Nadler said.

[...]

Nadler also pointed to an op-ed written by law professor Jonathan Turley, as well as Turley’s testimony in front of Congress last year. Turley, a favorite on Fox News, was the Republicans’ witness at one of the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearings, where he argued that the House had not gathered enough evidence to prove the Trump conduct it alleged.

“The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense,” Turley said in written testimony Nadler displayed on the screen.

Nadler also read what Turley had to say in a recent op-ed about Trump’s current legal arguments.

“It is an argument that is as politically unwise as it is constitutionally shortsighted,” Turley said in the op-ed.

Of course Nadler is taking the chance that somebody's going to play a clip of himself during the Clinton impeachment trial saying the opposite of what he's saying now.  But I say, go for it.  There are some videos of McConnell to be used, too.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

*UPDATE:  "He was the only senator not in his seat when that clip was played...the senators get these little pamphlets that have some of the slides on it..."

Republicans foiled again

Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) recessed the impeachment articles markup after 11 p.m., saying that the committee would reconvene to cast the impeachment votes Friday at 10 a.m.

[...]

The outraged Republicans wasted no time blasting Nadler for what they saw as a procedural cheap-shot — one designed solely to allow Democrats more time before the TV cameras on Friday.

“You chose not to consult the ranking member,” Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) said, looking at Nadler stunned.

Collins, then stepping off the dais in a huff, described the chairman's move as a sign that trust between him and Nadler has broken down.

[...]

Collins then rushed outside the hearing room to a bank of TV cameras to air his frustrations further.

[...]

"We weren't sure if they had more amendments, they wouldn't tell us that," said Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.). "And what the chairman's spirit was: we want to make sure we do this in the light of day. We don't want to vote on such an important article, or articles, that matter to the American people [and] to this president, in the late of night."

The move came after Republicans introduced one amendment after another in an effort to protest the articles of impeachment, dragging out the hearing 14 hours as Democrats voted down their efforts to scrub the two articles of impeachment they are seeking to pass, which charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of justice.

A Democratic aide, when asked for the reasoning of the sudden move, said they felt Republicans were trying to run out the clock so that the vote would happen with the least eyes on them.

“We felt like they wanted us to pass this in the middle of the night, so we felt the American people deserved to see this historic vote. And it should be passed in the daylight and not in the middle of the night,” the aide said.

[...]

Thursday’s postponement is not expected to alter the outcome of the debate: Judiciary Democrats are set to pass the two articles on Friday, sending them to the full House, where votes are likely to take place next Wednesday.

[...]

“Hard to convey how upset everyone is,” said one Republican Judiciary aide, adding that “people had flights booked.”

  The Hill

And they only have themselves to blame.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

For dragging it out with no defense.  It's not the "witch hunt" that's tiresome.  It's you.

UPDATE:

A different explanation:

UPDATE:  The votes...

Just in: Nadler announcing Articles of Impeachment

1)  Abuse of power

2)  Obstruction of Congress


There was a good bit of debate over what should be included, and obstruction of justice was one article that most people assumed would be included.  It was speculated in one thing I read that they didn't include it because they didn't have complete support of even all the Democrats in the House to vote for impeachment on anything outside the Ukraine affair.  Maybe we'll get some info on their deliberations later.


UPDATE:

I think Mueller laid out the obstruction of justice case quite clearly, but I understand that would have brought in a whole can of worms.

The major problem with not using that as an article is that when the Senate votes against impeachment, Trump will still be left with a talking point that he DIDN'T obstruct justice, because if he had, the Dems would surely have used it as an article.

My Summary of today's hearing

Chairman Nadler is no Adam Schiff.

Sad.

UPDATE:

Frankly, I've taken to muting the sound when the craziest of the crazies starts talking.  

Trump's declination of invitation to appear

Trump's lawyer (Pat Cipollone) wrote to Jerry Nadler to decline the invitation to appear at the Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearing this week.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

He won't be accepting the invitation to the Judiciary Committee hearing

President Donald Trump and his lawyers will not participate in a congressional impeachment hearing this week, the White House has said, citing a lack of “fundamental fairness”.

  The Guardian

I didn't think they should have invited him in the first place, since this is not yet the trial. But maybe they knew he'd decline, and if he declined, it would add to the impression that he's got no defense.

Trump’s aides responded defiantly on Sunday to the first of two crucial deadlines he faces in Congress this week as Democrats prepare to shift the focus of their impeachment inquiry from fact-finding to the consideration of possible charges of misconduct over his dealings with Ukraine.

[...]

White House counsel Pat Cipollone wrote to committee chairman Jerrold Nadler, according to a copy of a letter seen by Reuters: “We cannot fairly be expected to participate in a hearing while the witnesses are yet to be named and while it remains unclear whether the judiciary committee will afford the president a fair process through additional hearings.”

Lame.

[Judiciary Committee chair Jerry] Nadler also set a second deadline of 5pm on Friday for Trump to say whether he or his legal counsel would participate in further proceedings expected next week to examine evidence against him.

[...]

Democratic US Representative Don Beyer said on Twitter in response to the White House letter: “Not one process complaint made by the president and his Republican allies in Congress so far has turned out to be genuine.”

[...]

The first in a series of expected judiciary proceedings will hear testimony on the impeachment process established under the US constitution from a panel of legal experts that has yet to be named.

Hearings before the committee, which has responsibility for crafting any formal charges against Trump, are a major step toward possible charges.

There'll be charges. I have yet to hear whether the Republicans will now move Gym Jordon to the Judiciary Committee.

“We may consider participating in future judiciary committee proceedings if you afford the administration the ability to do so meaningfully,” Cipollone wrote, laying out a list of demands, including allowing Trump’s Republicans to call additional witnesses.

Cipollone also complained that Democrats had scheduled Wednesday’s hearing – “no doubt purposely” – to overlap with Trump’s absence from the US to attend a Nato summit in London.

Or maybe because that's when they'd all be back from Thanksgiving break?

Three investigating panels, led by the House Intelligence Committee, are due to release a formal report this week when lawmakers return on Tuesday from a Thanksgiving recess. The report will outline evidence gathered by the intelligence, foreign affairs and oversight committees.

Jerry Nadler's Judiciary Committee announced its first hearing

But why are they bowing to GOP pressure?

The hearing will be titled, “The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump: Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment.” The witnesses, who have yet to be announced, will face questions from lawmakers about technical aspects of the impeachment process, including what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor as defined in the Constitution.

[...]

[A]hearing schedule that would ensure the House could wrap up the impeachment inquiry by the end of the year — a priority for senior Democrats.

  Politico

Do a thorough job, not a rush job for political purposes. If you're having a hearing to argue the merits, it merits thoroughness.

The Judiciary Committee is expected to hold at least one more hearing allowing Democrats to present their case against Trump, which could come the second week of December. Trump’s lawyers will also have an opportunity to respond, although it is unclear if the president will participate.

I'm sure he won't. How is that not clear to anyone?

And since this is not the trial phase of an impeachment, but still the investigatory phase to decide if there will be articles of impeachment, why the fuck are the president's lawyers involved? Because Trump, Inc. has been bitching for weeks that they're not getting a fair shake, when they clearly are. Stop bowing to those lawless fucks. The House Judiciary Republicans have lawyers. They're the ones who should be arguing the merits of impeachment. Trump's lawyers are there for the fucking trial, FFS.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

Trump and his lawyers won't be there.

The question of whether it's an impeachment inquiry is important

Actually, Nadler was careful not to call it an inquiry, even while saying inquiry and investigation are the same thing.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Inquiry-investigation

If, as Nadler says here, there's no legal difference between the terms investigation and inquiry, why, when he later starts to say inquiry, does he correct himself to say investigation?

Josh Barro and Ken White discuss this announcement.

Is Jerry Nadler shrinking before our very eyes?

His shirt and jacket look like they belong to someone twice his size.

Is he announcing the opening of an impeachment inquiry?  Or just talking around it?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Terror as a bargaining chip

Trump sees the weekend's terrorist tragedies as a bargaining chip to back his racist policies.

President Trump on Monday suggested tying stronger background checks on gun buyers to immigration reform legislation after a pair of mass shootings over the weekend.

"Republicans and Democrats must come together and get strong background checks, perhaps marrying this legislation with desperately needed immigration reform" the president tweeted in the morning.

"We must have something good, if not GREAT, come out of these two tragic events!"

  The Hill

So begins his backtracking on yesterday's forced denunciation of hate (without mentioning white supremacy, of course).

And he keeps going, blaming media.



Enough about that.  Next up...



...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

UPDATE:



UPDATE:



So, Jerry, get that formal impeachment inquiry underway.

UPDATE:

George Conway (Kellyanne's husband) yesterday:







So far, he's spot on.

Getting closer

Just days into the long summer recess, a number of House Democrats have endorsed the drive to impeach President Trump, inching the number of supporters closer to a majority of the House Democratic Caucus in what could pose new challengers for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her bid to defuse the effort.

Supporters of the impeachment strategy had predicted support would only grow as lawmakers traveled home for the six-week break to gauge the temperature of voters. And they haven’t been disappointed.

On Monday, Reps. Emanuel Cleaver (Mo.) and Dina Titus (Nev.) endorsed the push, joining at least a dozen other Democrats who have signed on since last Wednesday, when former special counsel Robert Mueller testified before Congress.

  The Hill

Hopefully when they're out of the bubble that is DC, they'll hear enough constituents asking for impeachment to give them courage.

That list includes a pair of freshmen — Reps. Mike Levin (Calif.) and Kim Schrier (Wash.) — who flipped Republican-held seats in last year’s midterms; Rep. Derek Kilmer (Wash.), who heads the centrist group of New Democrats; and a member of leadership, Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.), the vice chairwoman of the caucus.

Other lawmakers signing on in recent days are Democratic Reps. Lori Trahan (Mass.), John Garamendi (Calif.), Peter DeFazio (Ore.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (R.I.), Ann Kuster (N.H.), Chris Pappas (N.H.), Suzan DelBene (Wash.) and Denny Heck (Wash.).

[...]

That means pro-impeachment Democrats are just a dozen votes shy of 118 — a “majority of the majority,” or more than half of the 235 Democrats in the lower chamber.

It’s likely impeachment backers will reach that symbolic mark in the coming days or weeks. Heck, for instance, said there are “at least” 20 to 30 on-the-fence Democrats seriously considering their endorsement heading into the long break.

[...]

[S]ome supporters of an impeachment inquiry cautioned against reading too much into the 118-vote milestone; 218, the number of votes needed to formally launch the inquiry, is the only number that matters, they said.

[...]

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) is going a long step further. On Friday, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee announced an effort to secure grand jury information underlying Mueller’s investigation by specifically referencing impeachment as the basis for the court request.

Nadler has reportedly been at odds with Pelosi over whether to launch an impeachment inquiry in his committee. His latest strategy keeps impeachment near at hand without launching the formal process — or forcing uncomfortable votes on vulnerable colleagues before there’s more public support for ousting the president.

“My personal view is that he richly deserves impeachment. He has done many impeachable offenses. He's violated the law six ways from Sundays,” Nadler said on CNN’s “State of the Union” program Sunday.

“But that's not the question,” he added. “The question is, can we develop enough evidence to put before the American people?”

Yes.

UPDATE:

Moving on impeachment

Three months ago, Special Counsel Robert Mueller completed his investigation into Russian election interference and President Donald Trump’s obstruction of justice. When the redacted report finally became available to Congress and the American people, it painted a damning picture of a corrupt president who welcomed and encouraged an attack on our country, capitalized on it, and then tried to cover up what he had done.

[...]

Congress has patiently tried to work within traditional means to get to the bottom of this extraordinary situation. Committees have called witnesses and requested evidence, only to be stonewalled by Trump and his associates. The president’s refusal to comply with the Constitution, statutes, and established congressional oversight defies the rule of law.

Mueller’s testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees was a watershed moment. At this point, it is up to Congress to act on the evidence of multiple counts of obstruction of justice committed by the president, and to continue our investigation into whether he has committed other high crimes and misdemeanors.

[...]

We have now filed a petition in court to obtain the grand-jury documents referenced in the special counsel’s report. In that filing, we have made clear that we will utilize our Article I powers to obtain the additional underlying evidence, as well as enforce subpoenas for key witness testimony, and broaden our investigations to include conflicts of interest and financial misconduct.

While many people believe that beginning an impeachment investigation can begin only with a vote of the full House of Representatives, this is not true. Article I authorizes the House Judiciary Committee to begin this process.

As members of the House Judiciary Committee, we understand the gravity of this moment that we find ourselves in. We wake up every morning with the understanding of the oath that binds us as members of Congress, and the trust that our constituents placed in us to uphold that oath. We will move forward with the impeachment process.

  The Atlantic

At least they're calling it an impeachment process now.  They're not shying away from the word.

Our investigation will seriously examine all the evidence as we consider whether to bring articles of impeachment or other remedies under our Article I powers.

Our Constitution requires it. Our democracy depends on it.

Nadler made the announcement: