Nadler's such a hypocrite, even CNN questions his motives on impeachment

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has been such an incredibly big fat hypocrite over the Trump impeachment proceedings that even the Comedy News Network's (CNN) Dana Bash called him out on it.

During the Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings in 1998, the big fat hypocrite Nadler sung a different tune. "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. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come.”

Bash played the clip for Nadler on Sunday, saying, “So, right now, you are moving forward with impeachment proceedings against a Republican president without support from even one congressional Republican.”

This took Nadler by surprise coming from the one major cable news network that hates Trump so much they developed a plan on how to attack him in the media.

“Is it fair to say that this impeachment, in your words from back then, will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come?” Bash asked, knowing that the big fat hypocrite was not going to give an honest answer, if he answered the actual question at all.

“No,” Nadler lied, claiming that Trump was the one who was responsible for the “bitterness and divisiveness into our politics.”

Nadler in 1998 

“So, you are willing to impeach the president with no Republican votes, correct?” Bash pressed.

“We’re going to impeach the president – if we’re going to impeach the president, we will impeach him on adequate and urgent grounds to defend our democratic republic,” Nadler responded.

“And if there’s no Republican votes, so be it?” Bash asked.

“It’s up to them to decide whether they want to be patriots or partisans,” Nadler responded with a typical leftist false choice.

On Tuesday, Nadler, along with Maxine Waters, one of the most corrupt congress members standing next to him, and Nancy "and her dancing dentures" Pelosi with a fake solemn facial expression, announced the charges against President Trump. And they are the most ridiculous charges imaginable. Remember, they were originally thinking of three charges, but the one they left out is bribery. That would be the only real charge that's impeachable, but they had no evidence that it took place so they dropped it.

Instead, the Dems went full-out crazy and had no proof of "high crimes and misdemeanors."  So they made stuff up.

Charge number one is "abuse of power." Nadler claimed that "it is an impeachable offense for the President to exercise the power of his public office to obtain an improper personal benefit while ignoring or injuring the national interest."

Ignoring or injuring the national interest? Can Nadler be more vague than that? In any case, it isn't an impeachable offense, even if you don't like what Trump did. That phrase cannot be interpreted with any limiting principle and is as useless as the impeachment inquiry was.

Nadler has no proof of intent--if Trump thought Biden was guilty of some kind of corruption, that would be fully permissible to investigate. Trump may have been concerned with Biden's behavior in 2016, instead of trying to undermine him for the 2020 election. If the former, then Trump is acting in the public interest, not against it for personal gain.

And ignoring the national interest is not a standard of intent. If that were the case, Obama would have been fair game for impeachment with his open mic statement to Russian President Medvedev when, just before his second term he told the Russian that after the election, he would have more flexibility. Do you believe that Obama didn't have a personal benefit in doing this?

The second charge, which is even more absurd than the first, is "Obstruction of Congress."

This is ridiculous on so many levels, but the first that comes to mind is that a President cannot obstruct a co-equal branch of government. If they called him in to testify and he refuses, he has the absolute right to do so. Then if Congress has the court subpoena him and he refuses, that's obstruction of justice--not Congress.

If anyone actually obstructed Congress, it is Adam Schiff, who refused to testify about his report.

But the good news is that once this goes to the GOP majority Senate, Schiff and his cronies are going to be under oath and will have to testify if properly subpoenaed.


Please consider following this blog and visit the ads on this page.   




Tweet