Making a sham of the impeachment process one day before he writes articles of impeachment, 72-year-old House Judiciary Chairman Jerold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said any jury would find 73-year-old President Donald Trump guilty in “three minutes flat.” Nadler knows that there’s been no trial where both prosecution-and-defense call and cross-examine witnesses. House Democrats have called witnesses without cross-examination to make their open-and-shut case. But without cross-examining witnesses, Nadler knows there’s no due process and any jury would have to listen to both sides of the case. So far, jurors in the Democrat Party, press and public have only heard the prosecution’s side, leaving the defense without its day in court. Nadler told his kindred spirit CNN,that he had “rock solid” evidence against Trump, breaching his oath of office in dealing with Ukraine.
As far as Democrats and liberal news outlets like CNN and MSNBC, yes Trump’s been convicted of all the charges, but only because they’ve presented a one-sided case. Nadler, House Democrats and the press have rushed to judgment, not hearing the other side of the story. While Nadler invited Trump to participate, Trump knew the deck was stacked against him, refusing to participate in the House Intelligence Committee and Judiciary hearings. Nadler assumes the facts in evidence prove that Trump coerced 40-uyear-old Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden and his 50-year-old son Hunter. All of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Nadler’s witnesses proved their theory of the case. Without letting Trump’s attorneys to cross-examine witnesses, Schiff and Nadler have no case at all.
Calling Trump’s alleged behavior “a real and present danger to the integrity of the Nov. 4 presidential election,” Nadler believes he’s proved beyond-a-reasonable-doubt that Trump’s guilty of an illegal quid pro quo with Zelensky. Schiff and Nadler haven’t proved anything except to themselves because it’s been a one-sided case. Trump’s stated emphatically that he wasn’t interested in the 2020 election but trying to ascertain the extent of Ukrainian corruption before releasing military aid. Schiff and Nadler insist that Trump tried to change the outcome of the 2020 election by getting Zelensky to investigate Joe and his son Hunter. Yet Hunter was the one who earned millions on the board of Urkaine’s Burisma Holdings. It was his father Joe, while former President Barack Obama’s Vice President, that landed him the cushy job. But no one’s allowed to ask anything about Joe’s involvement in Ukraine when he was running Obama’s anti-corruption task force.
When Nadler sends articles of impeachment to the Senate tomorrow, they’ll be forced under the Constitution to conduct a fair trial, interviewing all witnesses to determine whether or not Trump should be removed from office. Joe already said he won’t have anything to do with any Senate trial, even if he’s subpoenaed as a witness. It only makes sense that Republicans will want to know Biden’s take on his son earning millions from a Ukrainian energy company. If Republicans are forced to prove that Trump was not meddling in the 2020 election but investigating corruption in Ukraine,they’lll have to call Biden as a witness. Democrats can’t have it both ways: Impeach Trump with a one-sided case, then, at the same time, expect the public to buy it. Nadler hinted he may use the Mueller Report to raise other alleged impeachable offenses, although Mueller found none.
Nadler’s admission before the Senate trial that any jury would find Trump guilty in “three minutes” exposes the extreme prejudice with which he and House Democrats operated. Nadler said in 2018 that any impeachment must be bipartisan, having at least one or more Republicans for consensus. But tomorrow, Nadler will be the first to write articles of impeachment without one Republican vote. Unlike impeachment proceedings for President Richard Nixon in 1973 or President Bill Clinton in 1998, there’s not one opposing party member that agrees. Nadler writes articles of impeachment knowing there is no bipartisan consensus. If there were anything truly convincing about Schiff and Nadler’s impeachment case, they would have convinced at least one Republican to go along. Republicans defended Trump not because he’s Republican but because the evidence is not compelling.
Nadler said, “we have a very rock solid case. I think the case we have, if presented to a jury, would be a guilty verdict in three minutes flat.” Nadler knows that he can’t have a “rock solid” case unless his witnesses are subjected to cross-examination, like any other criminal trial. Calling the House impeachment hearings “completely baseless,” the White House expects to present a vigorous case in the Senate. At the heart of Democrats’ case is a “whistleblower” complaint in which there are real questions as to whether it was concocted by Schiff. Schiff lied telling the Intelligence Committee he had no contact with the “whistleblower” before he-or-she released the Sept. 25 complaint. A week later, Schiff admitted Oct. 3 that his committee had contact with the “whistleblower” before the complaint was filed. When it comes to a Senate Trial, Democrats know all bets are off.
