The head of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Gerold Nadler (D-NY), disputed with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff over how the House would handle it. Impeachment proceedings against then President Donald Trump in 2019According to a new book, Nadler argued that the process was “unconstitutional”.
Controversy erupted over Pelosi’s plan to vote on a motion outlining impeachment proceedings against Trump, according to excerpts from “Unchecked: The Untold Story Behind Congress’s Bought Imputations of Donald Trump.” Obtained by Fox News.
Nadler argued with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff (D-Calif.), whom Pelosi tapped to lead the effort, raising concerns that the Judiciary Committee would be unable to cross-examine witnesses as it usually does. .
“It’s unfair, and it’s unprecedented, and it’s unconstitutional,” Nadler told Schiff at one point, according to co-authors Rachel Bade and Karaun Demirjian, journalists for Politico and the Washington Post, respectively.
“I don’t appreciate your tone,” Schiff reportedly replied. “I’m worried you’re putting us in a box for our investigation.”
Trump was facing impeachment over the phone Meeting with President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky, In which he asked the leader to announce an investigation into Hunter Biden and his father, Joe Biden, the then Democratic presidential candidate. I
After being sidelined by Pelosi, Nadler “attempted to get back” in his “good graces” according to Buddy and Demirjian, who pointed out that the longtime Upper West Side rep’s aides “relentlessly sucked on his staff”. Insisted that the panel was set up to help with his impeachment effort.
The brown-nose proved successful and Pelosi and Schiff eventually reconsidered the role of the Judiciary Committee, although they “had their own views on how [Nadler] The process of your committee should be followed.”
According to Fox News, Bade and Demirjian write, “Pelosi simply didn’t trust the panel—which stood with liberal crusaders and hotheaded conservatives—to handle the rollout of the complex Ukraine narrative with careful, compelling treatment.” “He couldn’t stand another Nadler screwup. He allowed that the president of the judiciary could concentrate on the legal business of preparing the articles of impeachment and testify to academics. But that was it.”
In response, Nadler hired lawyers and his staff examined records and books describing the impeachment campaigns against former presidents Richard Nixon and Andrew Johnson.
His team’s research found that both presidents were able to defend themselves in impeachment hearings before the Judiciary Committee and that the president’s lawyers could attend the hearings and cross-examine witnesses, as well as make their own calls. could.
But Schiff was adamant that Trump would not be able to face his accusers, a stand that Nadler could not abide by.
According to the book, Nadler told him, “If we’re going to be impeached, we have to show the country that we’ve given the president ample opportunity to defend himself.”
The authors write that Californians were concerned about what Trump’s lawyers would say at the hearing, and they feared it could jeopardize the message of Democrats ahead of the 2020 election. I
Nadler’s staff said Trump’s impeachment should look “more like Nixon,” but Schiff’s team opposed that plan, saying “F—k Donald Trump,” the authors allege.
“Stay close to the Nixon and Clinton cases,” Nadler warned at one point amid Republican outrage. “You have to prepare yourself against these process complaints.”
In a meeting with Schiff’s people, the book says, Judiciary Committee attorney Aaron Hiller warned Nadler that he would “insist on these hearings.”
but Dan Goldman, Schiff’s lead attorney and now the Democratic nominee for Congress in New York’s 10th District, was not impressed.
“Jerry Nadler? With him, everything is negotiable,” Goldman said at the time, the book claims. I
Tensions escalated when Schiff sent Nadler a draft of a motion setting out the rules for impeachment proceedings, ignoring the New Yorker’s demands.
“These chaotic HPSCI bast-ds!” A Judiciary Committee aide allegedly detonated using the formal abbreviation of Intelligence Committee.
“That’s dumb,” responded another. “It is illegal!”
Nadler confronts Schiff at a later meeting.
“They’re going to argue that we don’t have due process for Trump. Why make that argument real?” Nadler warned Schiff before asking: “I write the rules for my committee, not you. I’m annoyed to tell you how to run my committee. ,
“I really don’t care about your displeasure,” replied Schiff. “Neither the president nor I agree.”
Pelosi, according to the book, wanted to make Trump’s impeachment a “national security issue”
“Eighty Percent-Plus [of Americans] Says it’s not okay for the president to ask for foreign aid [in an election] Despite Trump saying he can do it. I think we need to make this case for rural voters, evangelicals and Republicans,” she said. I
Pelosi also used the words of Judge Andrew Napolitano, then a Fox News contributor, to suggest a way to sell impeachment to supporters of the president.
Pelosi reportedly said, “We need to play Napolitano saying he has committed impregnable offences.” “Public awareness on the details of this is very low … so we need repeated clarity and repetition. ‘Threats to national security.’ ‘abuse of power.’ ‘no one is above the law.'”
Trump was impeached by the House in December 2019, but acquitted by senate in February 2020.