Regarding the Nunez committee report

Some ask why isn't the report just issued by the majority (Republican) members of the House of Representatives' Intelligence Committee, chaired by Congressman Devin Nunez, definitive to demonstrate that there is "NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION OR COORDINATION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA TO INFLUENCE THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION" (I am quoting from 45's tweet about it)?


The answer is that such a congressional report is not admissible as evidence in any legal case under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8). For instance, in Anderson v. City of New York, 657 F.Supp. 1571, 1579 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) the court excluded a congressional committee report, pointing out that it was “the result of hearings which lack procedural due process protections” and stating that “while Congressional hearings are so termed, they do not fit closely the judicial meaning of hearings," and “it cannot be denied that hearings and subsequent reports are frequently marred by political expediency and grandstanding.” Another court held the same way in Pearce v. E.F. Hutton Grp., Inc., 653 F. Supp. 810, 814 (D.D.C. 1987), stating that “Given the obviously political nature of Congress, it is questionable whether any report by a committee or subcommittee of that body could be admitted under rule 803(8)(C) . . . too great a danger that political considerations might affect the findings of such a report.”


Chair Nunez ran his committee's hearing without swearing in the witnesses, limited the questioning of them, and did not permit the Democrats to follow up on key points and factual issues. No Democrats signed or supported Nunez's report. In the USA, our justice system works from facts determined by a court based upon reliable evidence. That is the fundamental point of the adversarial system (whether the matter is criminal or civil in nature), with each side presenting what its lawyers believe to be his/her/its best evidence, and an impartial "trier of fact" determining what are the real, operative facts after a full and fair judicial hearing. The Nunez report is not an adjudication. It has none of the traditional indicia of trustworthiness. A federal judge will simply disregard the Nunez report as merely a political or campaign document.


So 45 has NOT been cleared. And the investigation whether he colluded with the Russians so as to cause his election victory must proceed.