Posted on 12/10/2018 8:14:18 PM PST by Kaslin
Was Chris Matthews suddenly struck by some semblance of fairness? Or is the Bill Clinton fan, and the man who has described notorious womanizer JFK as a "hero," reluctant to condemn presidents for their peccadilloes?
On his Hardball show this evening, Matthews suggested that impeaching a President over sexual misbehavior would be a "witch hunt." Said Matthews, posing the question to Dem Rep. Hakeem Jeffries:
Chris Matthews: 'Witch Hunt' to Impeach Trump for Covering Up Affairs
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Do you think you can actually impeach a President for basically covering up sexual misbehavior? I mean, we had this with Clinton. Everything is different in life, but it was somewhat related. And it never seemed right: that that would be the basis for throwing a guy out of the presidency. To a lot of, certainly progressives and middle-of-the-roaders --and journalists in some cases. It seemed to be a witch hunt, to use the phrase used lately. How do you impeach a President for his sexual misconduct, covered up, even if it is illegal?
It's not just shocking that Matthews would employ a Trumpian term. Twenty years ago, when Hardball was on CNBC, Matthews was seen as tough on Bill Clinton's adultery with Monica Lewinsky. Last year, he confessed to Stephanie Ruhle "I'm trying to make up for the fact that I think I was too tough on Clinton." Ruhle had insisted "We called it the Lewinsky scandal, we didn't call it the Clinton scandal, and we looked at Monica Lewinsky as a villain—come on, Chris, she was a victim."
Note: before posing his question to Jeffries, Matthews lavished praise on the New York congressman:
"You've got a big role in the Democratic party now. I know all about it. I'm watching your career. I've spotted you, you are on your way. Congratulations. You may be Speaker at some point fairly soon."
I’m sure Chris will get an attitude adjustment from upstairs at the network for that.
Lol
Like one witch hunt was not already enough, huh, MatthewsIdiot?
Can’t impeach a President for something that happened before he took office.
Trump denies having had an affair with either of the women who blackmailed his campaign. Mathews wants to further the notion in the public’s mind that the affairs actually happened.
Leni
Must have been a Freudian slip.
Leni
How was what Trump did illegal? Both sides agreed to a legal contract with attorneys and courts/arbiters involved.
NADLER'S INCIPIENT ALZHEIMERS?
freebeacon.com BY: Jack Heretik, August 26, 2018
NY Democrat Jerry Nadler was confronted about his commentsmade during former President Bill Clinton's impeachmentsaying a president can't commit obstruction of justice. NBC's MTP's Chuck Todd asked Nadler about his past comments, in which he was defending Clinton during the impeachment proceedings against him.".......back in 1999, during the debate about whether or not Bill Clinton obstructed justice, you said at the time you were not convinced that a president could obstruct justice," Todd said. "Do you feel that way, that it's not one of the quote might not be impeachable, put it this way, that obstruction of justice might not be an impeachable offense?"
A DEMOCRAT-INDUCED MEMORY---- "Well, I don't remember saying that, but if I said it, I said it, but no, I don't agree with that today. A president, anybody can obstruct justice," Nadler said. "Obstruction of justice under certain circumstances might be an impeachable offense. Remember, there is a very big difference between a crime which may or may not be impeachable and an impeachable offense which doesn't have to be a crime."
=================================
Nadler has been a member of Congress since 1992 and was part to the Clinton impeachment proceedings. In a 1998 floor speech, Nadler said Clinton perjuring himself was not an impeachable offense."Perjury is a serious crime and, if provable, should be prosecuted in a court of law. But it may or may not involve the presidents duties and performance in office. Perjury on a private matter, perjury regarding sex, is not a great and dangerous offense against the Nation. It is not an abuse of uniquely presidential power. It does not threaten our form of government. It is not an impeachable offense," Nalder said.
At the time Nadler said Clinton's perjury with regard to a private sexual affair did not threaten the Constitutional order; it is a crime but was not an impeachable offense. Perjury regarding an attempt by a president to subvert the Constitutional order, to aggrandize power probably, would be an impeachable offense."
======================================
That was then:
Nadler defended Clinton "eloquently," arguing the lewinskied Clinton shouldn't be impeached for lying to conceal his affair with an intern.
This is now:
incoming chair Nadler is itching to impeach Trump using discredited witnesses like porn star Stormy Daniels and her sleaze lawyer Michael Avenatti.
Unfortunately the House is the judge of what is an impeachable offense. Constitution does not define high crimes or limit them to the presidential term.
bookmark
Look up Nadler’s “pink” background at www.keywiki.org and then you’ll understand what a piece of Marxist shit he is.
No further comment needed at this time.
Not illegal. This is a show, for 2020 politics.
“Do you think you can actually impeach a President for basically covering up sexual misbehavior?”
Make that alleged sexual behavior. I don’t think he screwed either of those women. He said he didn’t. Stormy is a public health risk. Don’t know anything about the other lady. There’s no convincing evidence of either happening.
It never happened
What is his position on the Congress cover up?
I know that.
It’s just absurd that these treasoncrats think they can impeach President Trump for something that allegedly happened before he took office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.