Nadler's Closing statement today. Dec 4

I just finished watching Nadler's closing statement at the hearing today. And it proved to me more than anything else that this entire impeachment is a sham.

The hearing today was to listen to Constitutional Scholars and their views on impeachment in general and the Trump impeachment and consider what they said. And yet...

And yet Nadler closes the hearing with a prepared written statement which he read from.

One which he has already pre-determined Trumps guilt. Ironic considering its the JUDICIARY committee wouldn't you say? The guy has not called for any fact witnesses to listen to. He has not heard any testimony himself beyond what was said in the House Intelligence Committee. He didn't even listen to the Constitutional Scholars as is evidenced by the fact that he read from a prepared written statement that even had a little bit of research in it.

Yet he has already predetermined guilt. Is that really how the Judiciary Committee is supposed to work? The Judiciary Committee is supposed to look after our Judiciary System. Which is supposed to be neutral. Yet it is painfully obvious to even a blind person that Nadler had no intention of even considering anything but "Trump guilty". And has no intention what so ever of being neutral.

 

Dems have two choices:

1. Drop it and look like the fools they are
2a. Take a vote and not have the votes from the 30+ "moderate" Dems
2b. Take a vote and have the votes to send it to the Senate, where the entire sham will be subjected to an autopsy of the Dem's creation....as well as subjecting people to be called to testify that they definitely don't want testifying.

Take your pick Dems.

 

and why was the coverage only about the Dem's side? After Nadler & Co the alphabets returned to regular programming, wouldn't want America to hear the Republican's take on all of this.

 

This IS NOT A TRIAL !!!That will take place in the SENATE if the current committee votes to impeach!!!!

 

The dems' plan is to make Trump look bad until the elections.

 

So, because its not a trial that means that fairness and neutrality go out the window in your book? Anyone can be subjected to anything so long as the majority approves of it? Is this really what you are advocating for?

 

The impeachment inquiry did not begin today. It began nearly three months ago, and Nadler is familiar with the work done by the Intelligence Committee.

Are you? You talk like this began today. Moreover, it isn't over. There will be more hearings and more evidence presented, and it isn't all hearsay.

“I would like you to do us a favor, though.”

This is from the transcript of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky. It was provided by the White House. The following is a quote from Trump.

Good because I· heard you had a prosecutor who· was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor bf New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General.· :Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States,· the woman., was bad news and the people she was dealing with in.the Ukraine.were bad news so I jtist want to_let you know that. The other thing, there's a lot of.talk about Biden's son,. that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you ·can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.

“What you’re describing is a quid pro quo,” asserted a reporter. “We do that all the time,” replied [Trump's chief of staff] Mulvaney. “Did he also mention to me the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about it. But that’s it. That’s why we held up the money … I have news for everybody: Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.” http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/mulvaney-ukraine-get-over-it.html

After the July 25 phone call with Zelensky, as he usually does, Trump doubled down on the Biden investigation. On Oct. 3, in a news conference on the White House lawn, he called on Ukraine and China to look into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

“If they were honest about it, they would start a major investigation into the Bidens,” Trump said when asked what he wanted Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to do about the former veep and his son.

“They should investigate the Bidens,” Trump said. “Likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/trump-calls-for-ukraine-china-to-investigate-the-bidens.html

Those who argue there is no evidence of Trump's abuse of power -- seeking foreign interference in our Presidential election to his advantage, those who say the evidence is all hearsay are ignoring these statements and the statements he made in the July 25 call.

 

It would be a lot fairer if Trump could present White House documents and members of his staff as witnesses along with his lawyers, all of which would provide his side of the story.

But wait! That isn't going to happen. Why? Trump won't allow it.

Now why is that?

 

Because they'd be volunteering to fight with their hands tied behind their back, what with their crossexaminations of certain key witnesses requiring preapproval or be filtered through lawyers first. Theres no sense in participating at all in that. Far better to save it up for a potential senate trial.

 

I have already written a response to what you stated here. But before I post it I would like you to address the main point of my OP.

Why did Nadler have a prepared closing statement if he was going to take into account what the Constitutional Scholars stated? How can ANYONE have a prepared closing statement if they are supposed to take into account someone's statements in a hearing that they JUST got finished with in their closing statement?

 

Easy to answer. The fact that Dems have shown that they have no intention of presenting a fair process would obviously be chief among them. Another reason would be to preserve Executive Privilege. Something that even today's Constitutional Scholars admit is something that he should do.

 

Nadler speaking about the Clinton impeachment. My, how he's changed!

 

That sounds pretty much like the Minority Chair's opening statement, in which he pre-determined Trump's innocence.

I bet you are really outraged about that!

 

Predetermined is the key word. Hasn’t changed from day one of Trumps Presidency for the dem clown show.

 

Yeah! He's much thinner now.

Oh! You mean because back then he believed that getting a blow job was not reason enough to remove a President, but enlisting the aid of a foreign government to obtain dirt on an opponent, extorting the leader of that government, bribery, obstruction of justice, obstruction of Congress, Nepostism, conspiracy to break campaign finance laws, violation of the emoluments clause, violations to his oath of office, abuse of power, .... is?

Hmmm.... I wonder what the difference might be....

 

Yeah, definitely a stark contrast with Past Nadler and Today's Nadler that is for sure.

He was right then.

An Impeachment process that is supported by only one party, and opposed by the other does, and has, indeed caused divisiveness.

And he was right in that Americans overwhelmingly did not support impeachment. Unlike today were its pretty much evenly split...in addition the support for impeachment doesn't even get to 50%. But is instead hovering around 48.3%. An impeachment SHOULD have an overwhelming support by American Citizens. Admittedly like Nadler stated back then, impeachment doesn't NEED any citizens support, just the "muscle". But also like he stated...The American People are Watching, and will not soon forget. Prophetic those words were considering what happened in the election after the impeachment of Clinton. What happened then, will happen again.

 

Why would I be? That is one of the mantra's of the United States. A person is innocent until proven guilty.

 

I watched that video...where did Nadler once mention "getting a blow job" in it?

 

Clinton was not impeached because of a blow job. He was impeached for lying under oath. That was also why he lost his Arkansas law license.

 

We’re still waiting for an under oath defense of the President, zip for everyone.

Although I believe it’s past time our rep’s were sworn in every time they set foot on the floor of either chamber. Silence is golden

 

The problem is that there's no evidence of any of the libelous statements you posted. Wishing they were true as the so-called experts who know nothing about the law rested their opinions on isn't enough to convict anyone of anything or even indict them.

 

I'll agree that our reps freedom to lie with impunity in congress is a problem. Though, I think its less of a problem than if they were unable to speak freely.

Not by much though. Ultimately, the answer lays, as with all our political problems, with The People. We gotta pay attention, call em out and vote em out. Thats all there is, and has ever been, to it.

 

True. Trump hasn't stopped abusing power since day one. Definitely hasn't changed.

 

Yeah, he won the election. That is what the left is still melting down about.

 

True; not a trial- rather a collection of jackasses braying in unison. If it wasn't dangerous for the nation, it would make a typical Southpark episode, and we would all be laughing our asses off. If it were a trial- which in a kangaroo sort of way they tried to make it that- all kinds of crimes would have been committed by the prosecution and witnesses. As it is- we are indeed laughing at them, but also offended that people on the federal payroll can do that on our dollars.