Nadler: 2020 Election May Not Be 'Fair' If Trump Is Acquitted
- 1.1K Views
The reasoning behind the Democrats' impeachment inquiry is becoming more and more clear as the 2020 election gets closer.
During an interview on Sunday with MSNBC host Chuck Todd, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said that it would be hard to be President Trump in 2020 if he is acquitted in the Senate impeachment trial.
“Let me ask this, if he is acquitted, do you think we’ll have a fair election in 2020?” Todd asked.
Nadler replied, “I don’t know. The president, based on his past performs performance will do everything he can to make it not a fair election, and that is part of what gives us urgency to proceed with this impeachment.”
Nadler also made his way to CNN on Sunday to continue with his anti-Trump impeachment charade. During an interview on the far-left network, Nadler claimed that a jury would vote to impeach the President in "three minutes flat."
“We have a very rock solid case,” the far-left Democrat said on Sunday morning. “The case we have if presented to a jury would be a guilty verdict in about three minutes flat.”
Nadler claimed that there was "direct evidence" that President Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine until they started an investigation into the Biden family.
“There is considerable direct evidence,” Nadler said, also noting that “it ill behooves a president or his partisans to say you don’t have enough direct evidence when the reason we don’t have even more evidence is the president has ordered everybody in the executive branch not to cooperate with Congress in the impeachment inquiry.”
Nadler then claimed that Republicans had no credible defense.
“If he had any exculpatory evidence, they would have brought it forward. The fact that Republicans and the president have basically not contested the evidence at all … any fair judge would have to say that it has been proven thoroughly and uncontested,” Nadler said.
On what he would include in the articles of impeachment, Nadler said: “What is the level of proof for the various allegations? How do they relate together? What is the level of support in our caucus and in the House for them? What might we persuade the Senate of. All of these things have to be taken into account, realizing again that the central allegation, it’s all of a pattern."
Nadler's impeachment report makes many questionable claims. On Saturday, the House Judiciary Committee released an impeachment report which argued that President Trump could be impeached for his "motives" even if his conduct was "legally permissible."
The report says: “The question is not whether the President’s conduct could have resulted from permissible motives. It is whether the President’s real reasons, the ones in his mind at the time, were legitimate.”
Breitbart goes into detail about more questionable claims made in the report:
3. The report invents an absurdly broad standard for “bribery.” The report, backed by selective and misleading claims about the Framers’ intent, declares: “Impeachable bribery occurs when the President offers, solicits, or accepts something of personal value to influence his own official actions.” That standard would implicate every elected official in the United States, all of whom accept campaign contributions in return for policy promises.
5. The report invents an absurdly broad “abuse of power” standard. Sunstein wrote in 2017 that “abuse of power” was, by itself, too vague: “Almost every American president has, on more than one occasion, passed the bounds of his power, in the sense that his administration has done something that it is not lawfully entitled to do.” (They cite his book on impeachment, but ignore that point.) Notably, “abuse of power” is not in the Constitution.
9. The report claims that Trump has more rights than Nixon and Clinton did. That false claim ignores the fact that unlike his predecessors, Trump has not been allowed legal representation in the key fact-finding stage of the process, which Democrats — for the first time — moved to the secretive Intelligence Committee. Moreover, it ignores that Republicans have been denied the ability to object to witnesses called by the Democrat majority.
What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below!