I have an uncle who, civic-minded man that he is, had a foolproof way to get out of jury duty. What he would do was slip in, somewhere during voir dire, that he believed anyone the police dragged in was probably guilty.
He’d reliably be driving home before lunchtime.
Believing someone to be somehow guilty before any formal legal process has begun — or, indeed, even considered — seems to have worked in the opposite fashion on the House Judiciary Committee.
In announcing he wouldn’t be attending Donald Trump’s inauguration, New York Democrat Rep. Jerrold Nadler basically implied the then-president elect was the Muscovite Candidate: “He was legally elected, but the Russian weighing-in on the election, the Russian attempt to hack the election and, frankly, the FBI’s weighing-in on the election, I think, makes his election illegitimate, puts an asterisk next to his name,” Nadler said in January 2017.
So Trump was legally elected, but kinda sorta not really. Any theory the media drags in about Trump’s illegitimacy is probably true. So clearly, Nadler had disqualified himself for the position on the House Judiciary Committee that he so covete– oh no, J/K, the Democrats actually made him chairman when they took over the House after the 2018 midterms.
And now, a man who banged the impeachment drums like Keith Moon long before a single MSNBC viewer knew who Gordon Sondland was is about to take over the impeachment inquiry from Adam Schiff. So if you think things were bad before, hoo doggy.
“The House Judiciary Committee will hold its first hearing next week in the swift-moving impeachment investigation into President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, the panel announced Tuesday,” The Hill reported.
“Behind Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the committee will hear from legal scholars as Democrats weigh whether the evidence turned up in their weeks-long impeachment inquiry warrants the drafting of articles aimed at removing the president from office.”
Gee, and I wonder what position they’ll take?
I haven’t been on the edge of my seat this much since I watched “Miracle” and couldn’t stand the suspense over whether the U.S. was going to hold onto that 4-3 lead in that hockey game against the Soviets during the 1980 Winter Olympics. Did you know that movie was based on real events? Wild stuff.
Neither Nadler nor his aides will reveal which constitutional scholars are going to be testifying, but at last check the betting odds that any of them will be members of the Federalist Society remain low.
The House Judiciary Committee chairman has written to the White House and requested that they participate in the hearings, promising “a fair and informative process.”
“I am hopeful that you and your counsel will opt to participate,” he added.
Yeah. The hearing is being called “The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump: Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment.” I wouldn’t be waiting for that RSVP.
“We expect to discuss the constitutional framework through which the House may analyze the evidence gathered in the present inquiry,” Nadler wrote. “We will also discuss whether your alleged actions warrant the House’s exercising its authority to adopt articles of impeachment.”
“The Committee intends this hearing to serve as an opportunity to discuss the historical and constitutional basis of impeachment, as well as the Framers’ intent and understanding of terms like ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,'” the letter added.
This is the panel that’s supposed to decide whether or not Trump’s dealings with Ukraine were impeachable. It’s being run on a vulgarized fast track by a guy who thought Trump was “illegitimate” from the start. Yet, if Trump’s doesn’t participate, Nadler says, there’s no room to complain about fairness.
“At base, the president has a choice to make: he can take this opportunity to be represented in the impeachment hearings, or he can stop complaining about the process,” Nadler said in a statement.
Participate in our rigged process or don’t complain how the process is rigged. Sounds about right.
If this is the kind of logic we used in other proceedings, my uncle would have made a fine jury foreman.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.