So now Jerrold Nadler takes over the impeachment process. Well let's look at a few things he said about this on Dec 10th, 1998 :
"We must not overturn and election and remove a president from office except to defend our very system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat. And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and their representatives in congress of the absolute necessity.
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. 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."
Transcript: Opening statement of Rep. Nadler - December 10, 1998
So the question to ask this fine gentleman.....what happened to wanting to make sure what you were doing had legitimacy? What about the divisiveness and bitterness for years to come?
What about the legitimacy or the political institutions drawn into question?Does it matter anymore? And does he have an overwhelming consensus of the American people? And what about not doing it if it were largely opposed to the other party? And not only is it not largely opposed by the other party but it's 100% opposed to the other party! And not only 100% opposed by the other party TWO of his own party voted against it.
Didn't he point out the type of restraint he felt should be applied to the Constitutional aspect of impeachment in the time which was past? So why does this good man make all the big change now?
"We must not overturn and election and remove a president from office except to defend our very system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat. And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and their representatives in congress of the absolute necessity.
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. 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."
Transcript: Opening statement of Rep. Nadler - December 10, 1998
So the question to ask this fine gentleman.....what happened to wanting to make sure what you were doing had legitimacy? What about the divisiveness and bitterness for years to come?
What about the legitimacy or the political institutions drawn into question?Does it matter anymore? And does he have an overwhelming consensus of the American people? And what about not doing it if it were largely opposed to the other party? And not only is it not largely opposed by the other party but it's 100% opposed to the other party! And not only 100% opposed by the other party TWO of his own party voted against it.
Didn't he point out the type of restraint he felt should be applied to the Constitutional aspect of impeachment in the time which was past? So why does this good man make all the big change now?