Posted on 12/10/2018 12:28:23 AM PST by JonnyFive
Yep. The impeachment is the cover up, and the real obstruction of justice.
The comments by Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., on CNN's "State of the Union" were striking in part because the 71-year-old congressman was on the Judiciary Committee when it voted to impeach former President Bill Clinton, which Nadler said at the time was tantamount to an attempted coup and a gross abuse of the impeachment power.
NADLER'S INCIPIENT ALZHEIMERS?
freebeacon.com BY: Jack Heretik, August 26, 2018
NY Democrat Jerry Nadler was confronted about his comments–made during former President Bill Clinton's impeachment–saying a president can't commit obstruction of justice. NBC's MTP's Chuck Todd asked Nadler about his past comments, in which he was defending Clinton during the impeachment proceedings against him.".......back in 1999, during the debate about whether or not Bill Clinton obstructed justice, you said at the time you were not convinced that a president could obstruct justice," Todd said. "Do you feel that way, that it's not one of the quote ‘might not be impeachable,’ put it this way, that obstruction of justice might not be an impeachable offense?"
A DEMOCRAT-INDUCED MEMORY---- "Well, I don't remember saying that, but if I said it, I said it, but no, I don't agree with that today. A president, anybody can obstruct justice," Nadler said. "Obstruction of justice under certain circumstances might be an impeachable offense. Remember, there is a very big difference between a crime which may or may not be impeachable and an impeachable offense which doesn't have to be a crime."
=================================
Nadler has been a member of Congress since 1992 and was part to the Clinton impeachment proceedings. In a 1998 floor speech, Nadler said Clinton perjuring himself was not an impeachable offense."Perjury is a serious crime and, if provable, should be prosecuted in a court of law. But it may or may not involve the president’s duties and performance in office. Perjury on a private matter, perjury regarding sex, is not a great and dangerous offense against the Nation. It is not an abuse of uniquely presidential power. It does not threaten our form of government. It is not an impeachable offense," Nalder said.
At the time Nadler said Clinton's perjury with regard to a private sexual affair did not threaten the Constitutional order; it is a crime but was not an impeachable offense. Perjury regarding an attempt by a president to subvert the Constitutional order, to aggrandize power probably, would be an impeachable offense."
======================================
That was then:
Nadler defended Clinton "eloquently," arguing the lewinskied Clinton shouldn't be impeached for lying to conceal his affair with an intern.
This is now:
incoming chair Nadler is itching to impeach Trump using discredited witnesses like porn star Stormy Daniels and her sleaze lawyer Michael Avenatti.
Yup!
Thanks for posting that.
I mentioned this in a conversation with friends last week and several of them challenged me with, “how do you know there is such a fund?” Sadly, I could not answer because I don’t know. I have heard it reported many times here on FR, but have never heard what the source is. Can anyone help me out with an answer?
How are campaign finance laws possibly violated when personal funds are used for for campaign?
“This media propaganda is insane.”
Right. And the democraps too.
My understanding -a President can only be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors committed while in office. That being said, since when does the truth or the Constitution matter to the democraps?
Here is the thing.....this ongoing coup against DJT is not about him, it is about us, the people who elected him. The swamp considers his election as POTUS an uprising by the people against them, the swamp. They are forcing us into submission.
Nadler sure cannot stick to just one opinion about impeachment, can he?
Seems the only one who isn’t a member of the Deep State in Washington is Trump himself.
Attempted coup and a gross abuse of the impeachment power.
But they are going to try it anyway big mistake for them,new issues about to jump on them.
Obama 2008 campaign fined $375,000
https://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-2008-campaign-fined-375000-085784
1. It will be NYState, not Mueller, that may charge Trump with such a violation.
2. It will be a charge, a claim, not a conviction.
3. They will lose - his personal money is not “campaign finances from the campaign funds” and it’s use for “hush money” - hush money over matters that were not themselves illegal, was not illegal to begin with - was not a “campaign expenditure”, regardless of how it may have helped Trump personally.
4. If they manage to bring Trump to court while he is in office, it will end when it is clear they cannot convict him for what was not a crime; and Congress will have nothing for “impeachment”.
5. If they are unable to bring Trump to court while he is in office, there were not only not be a conviction, but there will only be an untried claim, allegation, and Congress will have nothing for “impeachment”.
Yet, that will not stop the Dims from trying to impeach the unimpeachable, not on commtted “high crimes and misdemeanors” but an mere allegations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.