Comparing Nadler’s Impeachment Views From Clinton To Trump | NBC News Now

Channel: NBC News
Published: 12/04/2019

Description
NBC News’ Steve Kornacki takes a look at Rep. Jerry Nadler’s position on impeachment in 1998 with former President Bill Clinton to President Donald Trump’s proceedings. » Subscribe to NBC News: http://nbcnews.to/SubscribeToNBC » Watch more NBC video: http://bit.ly/MoreNBCNews NBC News Digital i...



Transcript
So the next round of impeachment hearing is about to kick off this time. It won't be in front of the intelligence committee and adam schiff, who chaired the last round of hearings this time, it'll be the judiciary committee, the house, judiciary committee and its chairman, jerry nadler and nadler, is interesting to focus on here, because nadler was also a crucial Player in the last impeachment dri ...
e in congress. This was about two decades ago. Bill clinton was the president republicans moved to impeach and adler was defending clinton was opposing the idea of impeachment in 1998. He gained a lot of notoriety. A lot of democrats. A lot of liberals around the country really liked jerry nadlerin 1998 leading the case against impeachment. Of course, democrats were the minority party in the house. In 98, now their majority party nader will chair the judiciary committee in its impeachment proceedings against donald trump. So we felt we would take a look back at what nadler was saying 20 years ago on the subject of impeachment, and how does it hold up to what he says now: here's an area where nadler it sounds the same. I think this is where he describes what he thinks: the tool of impeachment the constitutional tool of impeachment, what he thinks it's for, how he thinks it should be used. This was what he said back in 1998.

It is infact a peaceful procedure for protecting the nation from despot by providing a constitutional means for removing a president who had misused his presidential power to make himself a tyrant or otherwise to undermine our constitutional form of government to impeach a president. It must be that serious, of course back then he was saying that what bill clinton was accused of perjury to cover up an extramarital affair. He was basically saying that did not rise to that constitutional level he's describing, but certainly the way he's described. Donald trump's conduct these days would seem to fit in with that. So you see right there that that explanation, that that nathir gave that's probably almost word-for-word the kind ofexplanation he would give right now, president can be impeached only for two things: only for misuse of presidential power, while president or for cheating in the election that gave him The presidency there may be crimes that are not impeachable and impeachable offenses, don't have to be crimes the different tests. Well, here's something that nanner was saying 20 years ago about impeachment. It sounds very different than what he says right now take a listen to this. They 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 the vist of this and bitterness inour politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions. So there you have jerry nadler, making the case in 1998, that you can't have a one-party leading the drive for impeachment and the other party being against it. He'S you need to have bipartisanship. He was saying, of course back then it was basically every republican just about every republican.

There were a few exceptions in favor of impeaching bill clinton and basically every democrat against it, but of course, 20 years later that lack of bipartisanship still very much a thing. You had that house vote to open the impeachment inquiry. Every republican voted against the two democrats voted againstit every other democrat voted for it. If you have no republican member of congress supporting it. Does that mean it can't happen when you start the inquiry, you know what the evidence is. You should know enough of the evidence. Otherwise, you shouldn't start the inquiry, but if you think that the evidence is so stark about deeds, so terrible that by the end of the inquiry, when it's laid out, then you'll have some republican support of a future book. Then you can do it. Basically, this is a very partisan thing. Now it was a very partisan thing back then that nadler stood on. That, though, has changed a little in these years, we intend to secureaccountability for any wrongdoing, because no one is above the law, not even the president of the united states, hey nbc news fans, thanks checking out our youtube channel subscribe by clicking on that button down here And click on any of the videos over here to watch, the latest interviews show highlights and digital exclusives thanks for watching.


Watch Next

Loading...