Share This Article with a Friend!

Mining CSPAN for Democrat Impeachment Gold

Jerold Nadler











Our friend Ben Weingarten has been busy mining the CSPAN archives for the statements made by Democratic Party leaders the last time the impeachment of a president came before the U.S. House of Representatives – and the first vein he hit is pure gold.

Editors Note: Ben Weingarten has shown there is a Mother Lode of material in the CSPAN archives of the Clinton impeachment. We urge CHQ readers and friends to follow his lead, dig through it and share your findings with CHQ or other conservative publications.

To put the Democrats’ hypocrisy on what is and is not an impeachable offense in context Weingarten cites comments made by Rep. Jerold Nadler, the Democrats’ incoming Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, following the release of the sentencing memorandum for the president’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen.

The sentencing memorandum alleged that Cohen had engaged in campaign finance violations at the behest of then-candidate Trump, and as Ben Weingarten documented, Nadler took to the airwaves to lodge his most serious claim yet regarding presidential impeachment. Here’s the relevant exchange from CNN’s “State of the Union” with Jake Tapper:

TAPPER: If it is proven that the president directed or coordinated with Cohen to commit these [two federal campaign finance] felonies…are those impeachable offenses?

NADLER: Well, they would be impeachable offenses…even though they were committed before the president became president, they were committed in the service of fraudulently obtaining the office. That would be the — that would be an impeachable offense.

Nadler, noted Weingarten, was careful to hedge, caveating that “You don’t necessarily launch an impeachment against the president because he committed an impeachable offense.”

Nadler, concluded Ben Weingarten, appears to be applying a dumbfounding double standard brought into stark relief when one reviews his record on the matter of presidential impeachment. Twenty years ago this month, the Democratic congressman from New York took to the House floor to deliver an impassioned defense of then-President Bill Clinton against impeachment.

Nadler began by declaring: “[I]mpeachment is reserved under the Constitution only for abuses of presidential power that undermine the structure or functioning of government, or of constitutional liberty.”

The congressman continued: “It [impeachment] is not intended as a punishment for crimes, but as a protection against a president who would abuse his powers to make himself a tyrant…” How does the attempt to hide private sexual matters during an election qualify as a tyrannical abuse of power?

Weingarten then unravels Nadler’s argument further:

Nadler proceeded to the crux of the Democrats’ defense of then-President Clinton: “Perjury in a private matter, perjury regarding sex is not a great and dangerous offense against the nation. It is not an abuse of uniquely presidential power. It does not threaten our form of government. It is not an impeachable offense.”

Why is “perjury regarding sex,” and while in office, “not a great and dangerous offense against the nation,” but an alleged campaign finance violation regarding sex that occurred prior to entering office impeachable? How do two-year-old hush money payments affect “the president’s duties and performance in office?” In what world are alleged campaign finance violations concerning $280,000 “great and dangerous offense[s] against the nation?”

Definitionally, says Weingarten, the payments are not abuses of “uniquely presidential power” (emphasis mine). Nor do they “threaten our form of government.” So how could they qualify as impeachable offenses?

Thus, Ben Weingarten concluded, Nadler excused Clinton for the same kind of conduct alleged in Trump’s case, and proven in Clinton’s.

There’s much more in Weingarten’s article for The Federalist and we encourage you to click through and read the entire piece because it adds a great deal of support and meat to a point we made previously, and that we think explains a lot about the Democrats’ obsession with undermining the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s presidency, rather than debating the merits of his policies.

As we noted in our article “The Democrats’ Delusions Drive The Trump Impeachment Narrative as the evidence for Russian collusion has evaporated, or proven to be a fabrication bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democrats, the narrative has begun to shift.

Notice, that while the narrative has shifted from Russian collusion to real or imagined campaign finance violations, the underlying concept that Donald Trump was “fraudulently” elected President hasn’t shifted at all.

Democrats have convinced themselves that Donald Trump’s election was obtained by fraud and they will go to any length to prove that the 2016 election did not constitute a radical and long overdue revolution against the Leftwing establishment consensus in Washington.

The Democrats may invent some new campaign finance crime with which to impeach the President, but their charges against President Trump are undermined both by their hypocrisy on what constitutes an impeachable offense and their failure to grasp that one of the things that elected Trump was public revulsion to the two-tiered system of justice Democrats have constructed to protect Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Share this