On Sunday, House Judiciary Chair Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” where he rehashed the long-debunked argument that Donald Trump “tried to work with the Russians to rig the 2016 election.” But something else the portly congressman said was even more revealing.
“There is ample evidence, overwhelming evidence. Any jury would convict in three minutes flat that the president betrayed his country by breaking the law,” he proclaimed. It doesn’t require much of a leap to arrive at the conclusion that Nadler has made up his mind about how he intends to vote.
Presidential hopeful Michael Bloomberg was even less equivocating, openly admitting that if he were a senator, he’d vote to convict Trump. “I’d have to swallow two or three times,” told NBC’s Craig Melvin on the “Today” show but I would say I would vote to convict because there’s just so much evidence that he acted in appropriately.”
Much of the “ample, overwhelming evidence” the Democrats are so fond of citing exists in their minds only. If they had had concrete proof of real crimes and misdemeanors committed by Trump, they wouldn’t have had to settle for such historically weak articles of impeachment at the conclusion of their House investigation.
But back to the title question: Why are Democrats so hell-bent on calling witnesses of their choosing while fighting tooth and claw against the appearance of Republican witnesses, such as Hunter Biden? The answer seems to be “for posterity.” By going through the motions of a trial the conclusion of which they have already preordained, the Democrats are hoping the history of the period will judge them to have been thorough in their charade.