So dishonest: One of Nadler’s ‘impeachment witnesses’ called for ousting Trump back in 2017

(TNS) The tomfoolery and BS surrounding the Garbage Party’s so-called “impeachment hearings” set to kick off on Wednesday are already drawing controversy because House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler of New York is every bit stricken with Trump Derangement Syndrome as his colleague Adam Schiff.

• Check out “Re-Election Year: Trump is Cooking the Impossible” — download for FREE in Crisis Reports

Nadler plans to begin the hearings with four law professors who will discuss the impeachment process — itself a snoozer given that, if someone has to explain why President Trump must be impeached, then he hasn’t committed any obvious breaches of the Constitution.

The witness list includes: Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman, George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley, Stanford Law professor Pamela Karlan and University of North Carolina Law professor Michael Gerhardt.

But wait.

In September 2017, Feldman called for the president to be impeached in a piece for the New York Review. Then, he based his position on “collusion” between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia which, of course, was always a deep state hoax.

And anyway, even Robert Mueller concluded that didn’t happen.

“As more and more evidence of collusion between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia has come to light, the analogy to Watergate has grown ever stronger,” Feldman wrote.

You Might Like

“Whether or not it is ‘worse than Watergate,’ the Trump-Russia scandal differs from it in ways that bear directly on how impeachment might serve as a remedy today,” he added.

Again…September 2017, just eight months into the Trump presidency.

But even before then, Feldman tweeted in March — less that two months into Trump’s term — that he should be “impeached” for accusing Barack Obama of “wiretapping” his campaign.

Yeah, that ‘wiretap’ thing absolutely did happen. Apparently Feldman missed The New York Times story on Inauguration Day documenting it.

How in the world is this loser supposed to provide an unbiased “historical and constitutional basis of impeachment, as well as the Framers’ intent and understanding of terms like ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,'” as Nadler claims he seeks?

Exactly.

• We need your help to grow, pure and simple. Share our stories, make sure to tell your friends about this site, and click the red bell in the right corner for push notifications. 

GOT SOMETHING TO SAY? COMMENT BELOW

$24.99