FoxNews.com reports that

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler Thursday accused President Trump of putting his own personal interests above national security and American democracy and charged that Trump is the only president in history to violate his oath of office so flagrantly.

“No president has ever used his office to compel a foreign nation to help him cheat in our elections — prior presidents would be shocked to the core by such conduct and rightly so,” Rep. Nadler, D-N.Y., said in kicking off day two of the House impeachment managers’ opening statements.

“This conduct is not America First,” Nadler said, borrowing Trump’s campaign slogan. “It is Donald Trump first.”

Once Trump was caught pressuring Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election by seeking investigations into Joe and Hunter Biden, he launched an unprecedented effort to stonewall Congress’ inquiry by denying documents and witnesses, Nadler charged.

“It puts even President Nixon to shame,” Nadler said.

Nadler’s tough talk set the scene for the second of three days of the House managers’ opening arguments against Trump, with a deep dive on the first article of impeachment, abuse of power.

On the first day of the opening arguments, Rep. Adam Schiff and his team used more than seven hours to make their case. That left 16 hours and 42 minutes on the opening statement clock between Thursday and Friday for the House Democrats. Then on Saturday, Trump’s lawyers take the floor.

As the public case continued before the camera, another political campaign was underway behind the scenes over the issue of calling new witnesses. Democrats are seeking four GOP senators to join them in demanding new evidence in the trial, but Republicans are actively trying to avoid any GOP defections. No new witnesses would mean a speedy trial and a quicker vote to acquit the president.

Democrats are demanding the Trump administration cough up documents they’ve withheld related to Ukraine dealings and allow testimony from new witnesses who failed to show in the House inquiry, including former National Security Adviser John Bolton.

They were especially galled that Trump was in Davos, Switzerland, earlier this week and “gloat[ing]” that he as “all the material” and the Democrats don’t, while warning that calling Bolton would be a national security risk.

“It is beyond belief — beyond belief — that the president of United States would even go to Davos in the middle of an impeachment trial, and then make statements like that to intimidate the jury, and to gloat over the fact that he has not turned documents over,” Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said Thursday.

Some GOP senators have promoted witness reciprocity and called for Hunter Biden to testify about what he was doing on the board of the Ukraine energy company Burisma.

“Hunter Biden is a material witness, and if we’re going to call witnesses, I want to see him on the stand and those questions need to be asked,” Sen. Joshua Hawley, R-Mo., said Thursday.

After opening statements from both sides, there will be another vote on whether to allow for new witnesses and documents in the coming days.

Hawley wouldn’t predict whether there would be GOP defections but said the caucus is in regular talks to keep tabs on where senators stand.

“There’s an ongoing conversation, informal, on what people are thinking. We are spending a lot of time together,” Hawley said of the marathon trial sessions.

This latest Liberal Act of Desperation by Jerry Nadler clearly demonstrates how desperate the Democrat House Managers are to somehow make the Senate Republicans believe that President Donald J. Trump has actually done something impeachable.

For Nadler to state that the nonexistent “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” of President Trump are more Impeachment-worthy than the Break-in at the Watergate Hotel which led to the resulting threatened Impeachment and subsequent resignation of President Richard M. Nixon is not only incredulous…it’s downright idiotic.

As my 12 year old grandson would say,

Seriously, Grandpa?

Yep.

Early in the morning of June 17, 1972, several burglars were arrested inside the office of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), located in the Watergate building in Washington, D.C. This was no ordinary robbery: The prowlers were connected to President Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign, and they had been caught while attempting to wiretap phones and steal secret documents. While historians are not sure whether Nixon knew about the Watergate espionage operation before it happened, he took steps to cover it up afterwards, raising “hush money” for the burglars, trying to stop the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from investigating the crime, destroying evidence and firing uncooperative staff members. In August 1974, after his role in the Watergate conspiracy had finally come to light, the president resigned. His successor, Gerald Ford, immediately pardoned Nixon for all the crimes he “committed or may have committed” while in office. Although Nixon was never prosecuted, the Watergate scandal changed American politics forever, leading many Americans to question their leadership and think more critically about the presidency. (courtesy of www.history.com)

Actually, Former Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton has more in common with Watergate that President Trump does.

And, her ethics were and are similar to those of the burglars.

In the spring of 1974, Hillary Rodham (Not-yet-Clinton) became a member of the presi­den­tial impeach­ment inquiry staff, advis­ing the Judicia­ry Commit­tee of the House of Repre­sen­ta­tives during the Water­gate Scandal. Her boss back then, Jerry Zeifman, now-retired gener­al counsel and chief of staff of the House Judicia­ry Commit­tee, tells a very reveal­ing story concern­ing her work there. According to Zeifman, a lifelong Democ­rat, Hillary got a job working on the inves­ti­ga­tion at the behest of her former Yale Law Profes­sor, Burke Marshall, also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquid­dick affair. When the Water­gate Inves­ti­ga­tion was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the commit­tee staff and refused to give her a letter of recom­men­da­tion. That made the Future First Lady and Secre­tary of State one of only three people who earned that badge of dishon­or in Zeifman’s 17-year career. Why? Accord­ing to Zeifman,

Because she was a liar. She was an uneth­i­cal, dishon­est lawyer. She conspired to violate the Consti­tu­tion, the rules of the House, the rules of the commit­tee and the rules of confi­den­tial­i­ty.

Zeifman claims that she was one of sever­al individ­u­als includ­ing Marshall, Special Counsel John Doar, and Senior Associate Special Counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum, who plotted to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the inves­ti­ga­tion.

Zeifman believes  that they were death­ly afraid of putting the break-in’s master­mind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by Counsel to the Presi­dent.  The reason being, Hunt had the goods regard­ing some dirty dealings  in the Kennedy Admin­is­tra­tion that would have made Water­gate look like a kid busting open his Piggy Bank…dealings which purport­ed­ly includ­ed Kennedy’s complic­i­ty in the attempt­ed assas­si­na­tion of Fidel Castro.

Hillary and her associates were acting direct­ly again­st the decision of top Democ­rats, up to and includ­ing then-House Major­i­ty Leader Tip O’Neill, who all believed that Nixon clear­ly had the right to counsel.

The reason that Hillary and the rest came up with the scheme is because they believed that they could gain enough votes on the Judicia­ry Commit­tee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon.

In order to pull off this scheme, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraud­u­lent legal brief, and confis­cat­ed public documents to hide her decep­tion.

Hillary wanted to present in her brief that there was no right to repre­sen­ta­tion by counsel during an impeach­ment proceed­ing. Zeifman told Hillary about the case of Supre­me Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeach­ment attempt in 1970….

As soon as the impeach­ment resolu­tions were intro­duced by (then-House Minor­i­ty Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judicia­ry Commit­tee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer.

Douglas was allowed to keep counsel by the Judicial Commit­tee in place at the time, which clear­ly estab­lished a prece­dent. Zeifman told Hillary that all the documents estab­lish­ing this fact were in the Judicia­ry Committee’s public files.

That was  a mistake, per Zeifman…

Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was locat­ed, which at that time was secured and inacces­si­ble to the public.

Hillary then wrote a legal brief which argued that there was no prece­dent for the right to repre­sen­ta­tion by counsel during an impeach­ment proceeding…ignoring the Douglas case complete­ly.

The brief was so laugh­ing­ly fraud­u­lent, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had ever actual­ly submit­ted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary and her associates had succeed­ed, members of the House Judicia­ry Commit­tee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witness­es, and denied the oppor­tu­ni­ty to even be a part of the draft­ing of articles of impeach­ment again­st Nixon.

Wait just a cotton-pickin’ minute…

A bunch of high ranking Democrats, including at least one unethical, dishonest, lying lawyer conspiring to violate the Constitution in order to Impeach and remove a sitting President.

Now, why does that sound familiar?

The names have changed…but the political party and their relative morality and situational ethics remain the same.

Until He Comes,

KJ