Trump's impeachment was unconstitutional
-
Sez Jerry Nadler?
A new book reveals that House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., was at odds with how House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi handled impeachment proceedings against former President Trump, insisting that the methods used by the prominent Democrats were "unconstitutional" and could be used to attack the party.
The revelation comes in a book set to be released on Oct. 18 titled, "Unchecked: The Untold Story Behind Congress's Botched Impeachments of Donald Trump," written by Politico Playbook co-author Rachael Bade and Washington Post reporter Karoun Demirjian. The book chronicles the methods Democrats used to target Trump.
In October 2019, amid the Democrats' plan to hold a full House vote on a resolution outlining the structure of impeachment proceedings against Trump, Nadler, according to the book, took issue with how Schiff, who was tapped by Pelosi to lead impeachment efforts, was prepared to proceed with the impeachment without due process for Trump.
Worried about the situation and the likelihood that his Judiciary Committee would not be able to cross-examine witnesses as the committee had done traditionally, Nadler confronted Schiff about the planned process and, according to the book, said, "It’s unfair, and it’s unprecedented, and it’s unconstitutional."
"I don’t appreciate your tone," Schiff allegedly responded. "I worry you’re putting us in a box for our investigation."
Sidelined by Pelosi to handle impeachment proceedings in the House, the book claims Nadler made an "effort to get back into Pelosi’s good graces" and that his "aides sucked up to her staff relentlessly" in an attempt to show that his panel was prepared to step in and assist.
Striving to earn approval from Pelosi, Nadler hired attorneys and had his team review records and books from the impeachments of former Presidents Nixon and Johnson. Those efforts worked and led Pelosi and Schiff to reconsider the Judiciary Committee's involvement in the process, although they had "their own ideas about how he should run his committee process," according to the book.
"She didn’t want the Judiciary panel to interview witnesses at all," the book's authors wrote. "Pelosi simply didn’t trust the panel — which was stacked with liberal crusaders and hotheaded conservatives — to handle the rollout of the complex Ukraine narrative with the careful, compelling treatment it required. She couldn’t afford another Nadler screwup. The Judiciary chairman could focus on the legal business of crafting the articles of impeachment and have academics testify, she allowed. But that was it."
Nadler's frustration with the pair of Democrats grew. Research conducted by his team proved that presidents facing impeachment from Congress had been allowed to defend themselves before the House Judiciary Committee, with attorneys for the president having the opportunity to attend hearings as well as cross-examine testifying witnesses or call their own.
That did not matter to Schiff, the authors wrote, and the fact that Trump would not be able to face his accusers before being impeached did not sit right with Nadler, who warned Pelosi and Schiff of the ramifications it would have in the long run.
"If we’re going to impeach, we need to show the country that we gave the president ample opportunity to defend himself," Nadler told them, according to the book.
-
Worse than unconstitutional, it was stupid.
-
What’s the argument that it was unconstitutional, @George-K ?
Sounds to me like Nadler (who used to be my rep) was just angling for a bigger role for himself/his committee.
-
What’s the argument that it was unconstitutional, @George-K ?
Sounds to me like Nadler (who used to be my rep) was just angling for a bigger role for himself/his committee.
@jon-nyc said in Trump's impeachment was unconstitutional:
What’s the argument that it was unconstitutional,
You'd have to ask Nadler. All the article says is that he was denied the right to cross-examine "witnesses." No due process.
My two bits? "Unconstitutional?" probably not.
Wrong? Yup.
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump's impeachment was unconstitutional:
What’s the argument that it was unconstitutional,
You'd have to ask Nadler. All the article says is that he was denied the right to cross-examine "witnesses." No due process.
My two bits? "Unconstitutional?" probably not.
Wrong? Yup.
@George-K said in Trump's impeachment was unconstitutional:
@jon-nyc said in Trump's impeachment was unconstitutional:
What’s the argument that it was unconstitutional,
My two bits? "Unconstitutional?" probably not.
Wrong? Yup.
I agree with this.
