Posted on 01/22/2020 5:03:42 AM PST by Kaslin
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler -- one of the impeachment managers prosecuting President Donald Trump -- believes perjury and obstruction of justice need not be impeachable offenses.
Or that is what Nadler claimed in 1998, when he was a dissenting minority member on a Judiciary Committee that approved four articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton.
Clinton -- like Nadler -- was a Democrat.
The full House voted to approve two of the four articles against Clinton -- with five Democrats voting for each of the approved articles.
One article alleged Clinton committed perjury in a federal grand jury.
"The Committee concluded that, on August 17, 1998, the President provided perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to a Federal grand jury concerning the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee," said part of the committee's summary of that article.
The other article the House approved alleged Clinton obstructed justice.
The committee cited seven different ways it concluded Clinton had done this. The first it summarized as follows: "The Committee concluded that on or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading."
Nadler said he did not believe the committee had proven these charges -- but that, even if true, they were not impeachable.
"The conduct alleged -- even if proven -- does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense," he said in the committee's Dec. 10, 1998 hearing.
"We should not dignify these articles of impeachment by sending them to the full House," he said. "To do so would be an affront to the Constitution and would consign this committee to the condemnation of history for generations to come."
Nadler further argued that a partisan impeachment vote must never happen.
"There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other," Nadler said in that 1998 hearing.
That night, Nadler appeared on CNN's "Crossfire" -- where he argued a president could commit "serious crimes" but not merit impeachment.
"Now, I can understand where you say you don't think it's proven," host Pat Buchanan said to Nadler. "I don't understand how you sit there and say it's not serious."
"Oh, I didn't say it's not serious," said Nadler. "I said it's not impeachable. It's a different question. If those charges are proven, they are crimes. They are serious crimes and the president is subject to prosecution -- to indictment and prosecution."
"All right," said Buchanan, "if they're serious, serious crimes, are you saying that a president of the United States can commit serious crimes and remain the chief law enforcement officer of the United States?"
"Yes, I am," said Nadler.
Three days before that, Nadler said on CNN it would be wrong for the House to impeach Clinton if members believed the Senate would not remove him.
"It is almost a crime against the country to vote -- for the House to impeach the president, if they are morally certain that the Senate would not convict," Nadler said.
Nadler made an issue of this point in a hearing that day.
He asked Sean Wilentz, a Princeton history professor, to comment on "the propriety of voting for impeachment if you think (of it), as a punishment in and of itself, and if you think the Senate will probably not convict on the evidence you have?"
"There has never been a case where a House of Representatives has decided to move on (an) impeachment proceeding with the idea that the Senate would not convict," Wilentz said in part of his answer.
Nadler also argued that Republicans seeking impeachment were attempting to nullify an election -- "absent the fundamental threat to our democratic form of government that would justify" such an act.
"Members of Congress have no power, indeed they have no rights, to arrogate to themselves the power to nullify an election absent such a compelling threat," he said.
Last month, Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University School of Law, explained to Nadler's committee why Clinton's impeachment was correct.
Turley stated that an impeachment could be "based on a non-criminal allegation of abuse of power," but rebutted the argument that the crimes alleged against Clinton were not impeachable -- even if proved.
"There was not a debate over whether Clinton lied under oath," Turley said in written testimony. "Indeed, a federal court later confirmed that Clinton had committed perjury even though he was never charged. Rather, the issue was whether some felonies do not 'rise to the level of impeachment' and, in that case, the alleged perjury and lying to federal investigators concerning an affair with White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.
"My position in the Clinton impeachment hearing was simple and remains unchanged," Turley said. "Perjury is an impeachable offense. Period."
Now Nadler will try to convince a Republican-controlled Senate that a Republican president should be removed even though the articles of impeachment against him allege no crime -- and won not a single Republican vote in the House.
Will this consign Nadler -- to use his own terms -- "to the condemnation of history"?
Bill Clinton didn’t just lie under oath. His team paid OTHERS to lie under oath and they threatened and intimidated other witnesses.
GoNadler sure has some big gonads but he hasn’t seen them in several years.
In the post Davos summit press conference President Trump said and I quote: “Nadler is a scumbag, everybody knows it”. I almost fell off the couch i was laughing so hard.
The impeachment of Trump was more partisan than the imposition of Obamacare on America, the most partisan vote in recent history. No Republican voted for Trumps impeachment.
A partisan impeachment deserves a partisan exoneration of Trump and any Republican senator that votes for Trump’s conviction should consider themselves persona non grata in the Republican party.
As for Collins and Romney... Voting for Trump is easily justifiable... Voting against him is not and no excuse will wash away that stain.
I’m satisfied that, absent a deathbed conversion, he will be condemned. Period.
nadler consigned himself to the condemnation of God...
"The censure came after Mr. Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, infuriated Mr. Cipollone by telling Republican senators they showed all the signs of being ready to aid the president’s “coverup” in voting down a measure to compel John R. Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser, to testify during the trial.
Nadler has been a perfect *sshole most of his life, so he's familiar with being censured and admonished.
I hope everyone realizes that to a New Yorker “scumbag” has a very real, very specific meaning. To those not privy to it, “scumbag” refers to a used prophylactic.
This interview should be read chapter and verse at these hearings. Many times.
The politician in question was Jerrold Nadler, Don Jr. commented that "since his first day as an assemblyman, for whatever reason--jealousy, probably--Nadler has hated my father."
Yuck!
I heard a guy in Florida make the perfect analogy. Schiff and Nadler are synonymous with Abbott and Costello...
Ah, yes, the legendary Coney Island Whitefish... ;)
‘Guilty till proven innocent’ tard........nuff said.
Boss Hogg and Roscoe P. Coletrain from the Dukes of Hazard also come to mind. ...nuk nuk my little fat buddy. ..nuk nuk. ..
President singled out Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, one of the members of the House team arguing for impeachment.
“First of all, Jerrold Nadler, I’ve known him a long time, he’s a sleazebag. Everybody knows that,” he told reporters about the New York Democrat.
Nadler lost it last night in the wee hours and was scolded by Chief Justice Roberts. Nadler was frustrated they weren’t going to get a single amendment and then dismissed POTUS having “obstructed” by claiming “executive privilege and other NONSENSE”. Cippeloni (sp) said the POTUS counsel was trying to be respectful of the institution but Nadler had gone too far & Jay Sekulow noted what the Chairman of the House Judiciary thought of our constitution. Then the Chief Justice weighed in and referred back to an impeachment of a judge a hundred years ago or something and that a member of the House Managers can be rebuked for lack of decorum. It was quite the moment and, more than the above, further sealed Nadler’s pathetic performance in life in general.
Dan Bongino called them “Ren and Stimpy” I laughed my butt off!
More proof, two-faced lying ba$tard!
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.