Well, here’s the latest addition to the category of “Headlines I Never Thought I’d See”…
Not that Trump’s first sham impeachment trial wasn’t unconstitutional; we know it was, and so do they. But did Jerry Nadler actually admit this? The headline says “reportedly” --- could the report be wrong? News reports are often wrong, but not the ones from PJ MEDIA.
Who could forget Trump’s first impeachment, based on a phony-baloney “whistleblower” complaint about a phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy? The complaint completely mischaracterized the call –- fortunately, Trump released the transcript –- fraudulently making it seem as though Trump were pressuring Zelenskyy into investigating Joe Biden, his potential rival in the 2020 election.
Trump had not done that, and even if he had, it likely would have paled in comparison to what the Biden administration routinely does now to damage Trump, Biden’s potential rival in the 2024 election. It’s all incredibly egregious Third-World stuff that we don’t have to go into again right now.
Anyway, a report on a forthcoming book by Rachael Bade and Karoun Demirjian, of POLITICO and the WASHINGTON POST, respectively, reveals that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler was decidedly not on board with the way House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Select Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff planned to handle the impeachment. Keep in mind that you can’t judge a book by its cover --- more on that below --- but the title of this one is a winner: UNCHECKED: THE UNTOLD STORY BEHIND CONGRESS’S BOTCHED IMPEACHMENTS OF DONALD TRUMP.
According to this book, Nadler took issue with Schiff about how they were planning to proceed with impeachment without due process for Trump. (Now, there’s a sentence I never thought I’d write.)
According to the book, Nadler confronted Schiff and said that “it’s unfair, it’s unprecedented, and it’s unconstitutional.” It says that Nadler had many concerns.
The book says that Schiff responded, “I don’t appreciate your tone...I worry you’re putting us in a box for our investigation.” If only there really had been a big box for Schiff and Pelosi, secured with a strong padlock. Oh, we’d leave a few air holes. On second thought, maybe just one little hole, so they’d have to share.
It seems from this account that Nadler actually put up a good fight. It says that “Nadler went out of his way to prove that in previous impeachments, the Presidents who were accused at least had the chance, through their attorneys, to face their accusers and mount a defense in front of the Judiciary Committee.”
Yet recall that when Nadler went before the cameras, he gave no hint of any of these behind-the-scenes conflicts. One thing about Democrats: party always comes first! Remember this next time Nadler goes before cameras again to say anything at all.
Side note: Adam Schiff really does not come off well here. But then, he never does.
The full story is a must-read. It’s easy now to understand how Pelosi could’ve gone as far as she has to undermine due process in her January 6 Kangaroo Kourt. Crushing her political enemies in any way possible is second nature to her, like breathing, and the two impeachments of President Trump were just a warm-up for this.
FOX NEWS has more, with the specifics of some of those conversations.
By the way, in case you were wondering how writers from POLITICO and the WASHINGTON POST could have written a book that acknowledges injustices done to Trump, I think the following promotional blurb will clear that up: “A revealing, behind-the-scenes examination of how Congress twice fumbled its best chance to hold accountable a President many considered one of the most dangerous in American history.”
Seems as though their real concern isn’t that Trump faced injustices –- only that those injustices got in the way of holding Trump “accountable.” Accountable for what?
Speaking of the J6 Kangaroo Kommittee, they'd planned to have a hearing today (Wednesday), but it’s been postponed. The reason given is that Hurricane Ian is bearing down on Florida today. But apparently, it’s not the unseemliness of holding this political event during a national emergency that made them change it. It’s more the concern that news coverage of the hurricane would pull focus away from their sham “investigation.”
Maybe it’s also because they knew we’d be speculating on which event produced the most wind.