Deceptive House Dems Nadler & Schiff Are Already Calling The Impeachment Trial Rigged
The House Dems are already trying to put a negative spin on the Senate Impeachment proceedings. Schiff and Nadler are complaining that the trial is not to their liking to the extent that Schiff feels it is a "rigged" trial. Nadler also complained saying the Senators would be complicit in a cover-up if no witnesses were called.
Schiff mainly just whined about having to present the evidence for 12 hours a day for two days, claiming that Americans wouldn't be able to watch for that long. (McConnell has since changed the resolution so it would only be up to 8 hours a day for three days instead.) But really what 40 hours/week-plus working American is going to have time to watch the full impeachment trial anyway? Most Americans at best are going to watch clips or hope the news breaks it down for them.
Both Schiff and Nadler also argued that witnesses were a crucial part of the evidence and were bitter that the Senate was not immediately calling them in.
Nadler went on a rant about the fairness of the trial and contradicted himself. He had the following to say about the impeachment proceedings so far.
"I just want to add that this fixation on the Clinton precedent is weird," Nadler started. "The Clinton trial was conducted fairly but distorting what happened there shouldn't make a difference. The question is should you have a fair trial now. Any intelligent person knows, that in any trial, whether it is for robbing a bank or for subverting the constitution of the United States. The accusers, in this case, the House of Representatives, brings in all the witnesses and all evidence, the defenders can bring in all the evidence they want, that's how you have a trial. To be debating whether you should have the evidence admitted, to be debating whether you should allow witnesses is to be debating whether you should have a coverup. By definition, there's no other way to look at it. It doesn't matter how it was done some time ago, it was done very fairly as it happens some time ago, but it doesn't matter it can not be used as an excuse.
The only reason to oppose bringing a witness: is to cover up, because you are afraid of what the witness will say. The question before the Senate is do the Republican Senators want to be complicit in the cover-up of the president? Any Senator who votes to deny a witness, who votes to deny evidence, is voting to coverup the president's crimes and subversion of the constitution. There is no other way about it. There is no conceivable reason to deny witnesses. To say you can not bring in the evidence, the house of reps can not bring in the evidence, there's no reason. And it's obvious to say what do they fear? Why won't they bring in the witnesses? Because they are afraid of what the witnesses will say. But there is no trial in this country in which you wouldn't admit the relevant witnesses in which it is even a question," Nadler concluded.
You Can Watch The Video Here.
WATCH LIVE: Congressional Democrats issue remarks ahead of Trump impeachment trial
Posted by PBS NewsHour on Tuesday, January 21, 2020
Nalder repeatedly claimed that the Clinton Impeachment trial was fair and for some reason finds it odd that there is a fixation on it. But that's B.S. Court cases are all about precedent. Courts use previous cases regularly to determine what to do and how to punish people. So the fixation here is obvious. Clinton's Impeachment trial was the most recent Impeachment proceeding, so it is completely understandable as to why the Senate would use it as a template.
Since they are using the Clinton Impeachment trial as a basis, which Nadler admits was a very fair trial, there should be no argument about not calling witnesses in right away. In Clinton's trial, they didn't introduce witnesses until all the other evidence was presented, and then it was more of taped depositions rather than having them actually appear. So Nadler is full of it.
In fact, if you look at what Nadler previously said about Impeachments he is way off base in general.
"There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other,” he said then.
“Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions," he added."
So a younger and apparently wiser Nadler would say that this whole Impeachment case is illegitimate.