Rep. Nadler's 1998 statements About Impeachment

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,623.00
Faith
Non-Denom
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?
 

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,772
17,072
✟1,389,183.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"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

I surmise that most Americans didn't think that a President lying about sex was a threat to the constitutional order. It remains to be seen if most Americans think a President using his executive power to dig up dirt on a potential political opponent warrants impeachment.

As for the rest of Nadler's 1998 comments - I disagree. When one party places the President above the country, the opposing party should act.
 
Upvote 0

Sparagmos

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
8,632
7,319
52
Portland, Oregon
✟278,062.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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?
if some congressmen seem to have contradictory views of impeachment now than they did in 1998, what does that say about them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: durangodawood
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,623.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I surmise that most Americans didn't think that a President lying about sex was a threat to the constitutional order.

That's NOT why Clinton was impeached.

It remains to be seen if most Americans think a President using his executive power to dig up dirt on a potential political opponent warrants impeachment.

What do you mean it remains to be seen. The evidence has been heard. Americans are pretty much evenly split on the issue which certainly is NO overwhelming consensus. Many equally believe Biden's name mentioned was a side thing and not the main intent of the President's motives for making the statement. He was concerned about general corruption in Ukraine and was wanting the Europeans to be giving their fair share of aid.

As for the rest of Nadler's 1998 comments - I disagree. When one party places the President above the country, the opposing party should act.

And of course the opposing party doesn't believe that's what they're doing but very well....just know this though......you can look for future President's to be impeached over the slightest things and all you need is a simple majority in the House. Impeachments could become a common thing in the future with not too many talented people seeking to want the job which I contend is a shame. Without an overwhelming consensus the next President that's impeached might be someone you like.
 
Upvote 0

GoldenBoy89

We're Still Here
Sep 25, 2012
23,802
25,692
LA
✟551,673.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
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?
20 years ago his opinion would have made more sense in the context of the politics of that time but a lots changed since 1998 and the way we engage each other in politics is almost entirely different now. I can’t hold it against him if his opinion has changed at all in two decades.
 
Upvote 0

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN

My dad died 1/12/2023. I'm still devastated.
Jul 1, 2007
17,258
5,042
Native Land
✟321,432.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That's NOT why Clinton was impeached.
Yes it was . There was no good reason for Bill Clinton to be impeach.
But , the moral police had to make Bill look so bad. But Trump is 100 percent +worse, than Bill Clinton. But Trump is a Conservator ,so who cares. I will never respect Conservative Christians again.
 
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,623.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I will never respect Conservative Christians again.
So what! People on the right can be prone to say they'll never respect those on the left. I'd suggest those who are wiser appreciates there's good and admirable things about others of which they disagree. Chips carried on people's shoulders can get quite heavy after a while.
 
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,623.00
Faith
Non-Denom
20 years ago his opinion would have made more sense in the context of the politics of that time but a lots changed since 1998 and the way we engage each other in politics is almost entirely different now. I can’t hold it against him if his opinion has changed at all in two decades.

Well now that Nadler is now carrying the torch of this you should know his former position on this will be broadcast far and wide. I heard it actually on a Fox show with a video clip of his speech but I put down a CNN link in my OP. You might not hold him to it but I think people who demand consistency from politicians might and in large numbers. Nadler spoke before about how horrible it would be for the nation to pursue an impeachment without an overwhelming consensus of the population in favor. Not only doesn't he have that if anything could be said he has the opposite as two in his party voted against it. And you think how we engage in politics is different now? I'd suggest you need to study the politics of the time of the framers. Things weren't always great then either.
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,772
17,072
✟1,389,183.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What do you mean it remains to be seen. The evidence has been heard. Americans are pretty much evenly split on the issue which certainly is NO overwhelming consensus. Many equally believe Biden's name mentioned was a side thing and not the main intent of the President's motives for making the statement. He was concerned about general corruption in Ukraine and was wanting the Europeans to be giving their fair share of aid.

The trial has yet to occur. And if that is the defense, I submit a jury would find him guilty. But of course the jury in this case is the US Senate.

It's not complicated: "...we need you to do us a favor, though"
 
  • Agree
Reactions: GoldenBoy89
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,772
17,072
✟1,389,183.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And of course the opposing party doesn't believe that's what they're doing but very well....just know this though......you can look for future President's to be impeached over the slightest things and all you need is a simple majority in the House. Impeachments could become a common thing in the future with not too many talented people seeking to want the job which I contend is a shame. Without an overwhelming consensus the next President that's impeached might be someone you like.

That horse left the barn already. I suggest you review the impeachment of Bill Clinton...and the years of Whitewater investigations that preceded it. Or go back even further to Gary Hart...when the so called "Moral Majority" made sex an issue in our national campaigns...that is until Donald Trump showed up.
 
Upvote 0

GACfan

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2019
1,958
2,257
Texas
✟77,930.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Technically speaking, he was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice. But we all know what it was all about: lying about sex.

Yes, basically that's true. He was impeached for committing perjury under oath.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,809
36,106
Los Angeles Area
✟820,394.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
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


That was 9 days before the impeachment vote. We'll have to wait and see where the country is at that point in the future to see whether Nadler is inconsistent in any way.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,408
15,557
Colorado
✟427,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
.....So why does this good man make all the big change now?
R's will submit to any misbehavior from Trump. So their opposition to impeachment is not indicative at all of the merits of the case. Thats the age we're in now. Party first!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: GoldenBoy89
Upvote 0

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,129.00
Faith
Atheist
Nadler isn't the only person doing an about face. Both Democrats and Republicans are more concerned about politics than they are about the good of the country. Their position for or against impeachment is usually more about political benefit than it is a reflection of moral judgement or Constitutional adherence.

Lindsey Graham is one clear example of a Republican changing 180 on his principles regarding impeachment:


 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GACfan

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2019
1,958
2,257
Texas
✟77,930.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But , the moral police had to make Bill look so bad. But Trump is 100 percent +worse, than Bill Clinton. But Trump is a Conservator ,so who cares. I will never respect Conservative Christians again.

If Trump had stuck to his liberal views and had campaigned as a Democrat, then it's more likely that he would have been publicly condemned by conservative Christians before he had the chance to have his first campaign rally. The conservatives who faithfully support Trump can use whatever excuse they can think of, but none of their excuses will change the fact that they are now seen as hypocritical. And no amount of willful attempts to justify voting for and supporting Trump will change that fact.

The reputation of the current Republican Party has been torn to shreds because of Trump and because he's being repeatedly defended by many conservatives Christians, despite his unchristian behavior. A Christian cannot have an effective and respectable witness if they are seen as hypocritical and accused of compromising their moral convictions. Sadly, that's what has been happening to the conservatives who support Trump because they are being accused of abandoning Christian principles. They are also being accused of selling out to politically support an immoral and unethical President. It's a sad reality.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,623.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Nadler isn't the only person doing an about face. Both Democrats and Republicans are more concerned about politics than they are about the good of the country. Their position for or against impeachment is usually more about political benefit than it is a reflection of moral judgement or Constitutional adherence.
So why don't the Democrats stop the charade therefore and show some leadership recognizing they do not have an overwhelming consensus to move forward with this. You might argue that the Republican politicians are holding just as firm but the elephant in the room is the American people! They can read the transcript and there IS NOT an overwhelming consensus to impeach.
 
Upvote 0

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,129.00
Faith
Atheist
So why don't the Democrats stop the charade therefore and show some leadership recognizing they do not have an overwhelming consensus to move forward with this. You might argue that the Republican politicians are holding just as firm but the elephant in the room is the American people!

Why didn't the Republicans stop the charade in 1998 with Clinton. There was no overwhelming consensus then, either.

I can guarantee that if Trump is actually forced to testify under oath, he would perjure himself, just as Bill Clinton did.

They can read the transcript and there IS NOT an overwhelming consensus to impeach.

No one can read the transcript because it hasn't been released. They released a summary of the transcript which many people have testified that it was incomplete. The fact that Trump and his supporters keep making the false claim about the transcript is evidence of his lack of truthfulness in this process.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,026
23,935
Baltimore
✟551,730.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
So why don't the Democrats stop the charade therefore and show some leadership recognizing they do not have an overwhelming consensus to move forward with this. You might argue that the Republican politicians are holding just as firm but the elephant in the room is the American people! They can read the transcript and there IS NOT an overwhelming consensus to impeach.

Wait... You're arguing that Democrats should demonstrate leadership by giving up in the face of a challenge? I must have missed that sentiment in Buzzfeed's list of top 20 Vince Lombardi quotes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whatbogsends
Upvote 0