Nadler then vs. now: Perjury and obstruction of justice are not impeachable offenses

Nadler then vs. now: Perjury and obstruction of justice are not impeachable offenses
Jerrold Nadler then and now (Images: Twitter screen grab)

Perhaps when the doctors stapled Jerrold Nadler’s stomach, they put a few into his brain also. Either that or he puts his party before the truth. Putting aside that his bloviations about Donald Trump’s purported lying and obstructing justice are totally bogus, in 1999, during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, Nadler entertained the opposite view views about what offenses should lead to impeachment.

A New York Times article dated Feb. 1, 1999 celebrated Nadler as the leading voice in the House fight over the Clinton charges.

Thanks to all-impeachment-all-the-time television, Mr. Nadler has won national prominence for his ardent — critics say strident — defense of the President in the House Judiciary Committee last year. And while his performance, which included calling impeachment a ”partisan coup d’etat,” unleashed a flurry of catcalls from conservatives, it also endeared him to scads of New York voters.

Whether one believed the Clinton impeachment was deserved or not, there is a big difference between the action against Bubba, where we knew what he did but America was divided on whether it reached the level of impeachment, and Nadler’s attempt to nail Trump, which is a plot to overturn the 2016 election hatched by some unknown Trump-haters in the “deep state.”

Trending: So it begins: The Greta Thunberg mystique begins to unravel

In 1999, Nadler’s defense of Clinton was that neither perjury or obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense.

Mr. Nadler said he was not convinced that Mr. Clinton committed perjury or obstructed justice, but that even if the President did, the offenses would not be impeachable.

Nadler also had some very unkind words about Ken Starr, the independent counsel who headed the investigation of Clinton:

”We have seen some really nasty conduct” from the independent counsel’s office, Mr. Nadler said. ”To what degree was that nasty conduct because Starr is a jerk, to what extent is it because there was a failure of supervision by the Attorney General, and to what extent was it because of the inherent failure of the law?”

But the new fat-stapled Nadler sang a different tune over the past two-plus years when any criticism was directed at Robert Mueller and his team or the conspicuous anti-Trump bias some members had exhibited.

Nadler also insists that just about everything Trump said or did during the investigation was meant to make witnesses stay quiet. But when Clinton was the target of the investigation?

…[W]hen Republicans theorized that Mr. Clinton gave Monica Lewinsky a teddy bear to signal her to stay quiet about their affair, Mr. Nadler said, ”I think the bear was a warning from the President that the stock market was going to tank and she should put her money in bonds.”

Jerrold Nadler may have changed all of his beliefs about impeachment, but one thing described about the congressman in the Times article hasn’t changed:

Mr. Nadler, himself an unabashedly liberal Democrat who has represented the area in Albany and Washington for 22 years.

Nadler is still an unabashedly liberal Democrat and thanks to his push for impeachment today and his support of Iran deal in 2015, has proven again that he doesn’t care about this country — only his career and his party.               

Cross posted at the Mental Recession

Jeff Dunetz

Jeff Dunetz

Jeff Dunetz is editor and publisher of the The Lid, and a weekly political columnist for the Jewish Star and TruthRevolt. He has also contributed to Breitbart.com, HotAir, and PJ Media’s Tattler.