- LifeZette - https://www.lifezette.com -

One of Nadler’s ‘Star’ Impeachment Witnesses Misrepresented Himself During Sworn Testimony


Rep. Jerry Nadler’s (D-N.J.) impeachment hearings [1] before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday were a bust, in my opinion.

The event actually made Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-Calif.) circus [2] look legitimate — and that’s saying a lot.

During the eight-hour (or longer) spectacle, Nadler trotted out three elitist and anti-Trump law school professors to share their “feelings” and “opinions” about why they think President Donald Trump should be impeached.

What a waste of time and taxpayer money.

Much like the Schiff impeachment charade of several weeks ago, Nadler’s hearing featured a panel of people — three of whom suggested or revealed in one way or another that they are Trump haters.

They had was no firsthand knowledge of anything — no evidence.

Related: Kellyanne Conway Blasts Pamela Karlan for ‘Looking Down at Half of America’ [3]

It was just a resistance rally, to my mind, for people who passionately dislike this president.

While Schiff’s witnesses [2] were insufferable, Nadler’s were both insufferable and downright mean.

One of them even misrepresented himself.

Related: Winners and Losers at House Judiciary Impeachment Hearing [1]

Law professor Noah Freeman of Harvard Law School (shown at the very top of this article) said under oath that he was an “impeachment skeptic” until July 2019.

You can watch the video below:

However, investigative journalist Mike Cernovich says, “Not so fast.”

It turns out that Feldman [1] had been in favor of impeachment for quite some time now.

Related: House Dems’ Push Against Trump: It’s ‘More Rage Than Reason’ [7]

So does this mean he lied during his sworn testimony on Wednesday?

If so, will anything be done about it?

Don’t hold your breath.

Check out this section of a compelling report from Cernovich.com [8]:

Noah Feldman’s own words contradict his testimony.

In a May 17, 2017 story in Vice about the Comey firing, Professor Feldman said: “What the president did is an outrage. It’s impeachable, and obstruction of justice in the sense of being a ‘high crime and misdemeanor.’ But it’s almost certainly not a crime of obstruction of justice.”

When pressed to provide more nuance about impeachment, Professor Feldman said: “So just to clarify, this looks like obstruction of justice in the high crimes and misdemeanors sense but not in the Jeff Sessions-led Justice Department will do anything about it sense? Correct.”

“And frankly, breaking the norm of politicizing law enforcement — it’s a great basis for impeachment. It’s not a crime, and in fact it’s in the president’s constitutional authority, but it’s still impeachable. That’s the whole point — the president can do things within his legal constitutional authority where the only sanction available under our system is impeachment.”

Feldman doesn’t qualify his statement. He doesn’t express skepticism or doubt. He is clear with his words: “What the president did is an outrage. It’s impeachable.” (source: Cernovich.com) [8]

Cernovich cites even more examples of Feldman’s impeachment frenzy in his piece.

I encourage you to read more here [8].

A version of this piece originally appeared in WayneDupree.com; [9] this article is used by permission.

Read more at WayneDupree.com:
Injury-Plagued Detroit Lions Just Dealt Colin Kaepernick One Final, Humiliating Blow [10]
Starbucks Manager Fired for Writing ‘Pig’ on Cop’s Coffee Cup Says She Was Treated ‘Unfairly’ [11]
Watters Humiliates Williams with Facts: ‘Impeachment Underwater in Every Swing State’ [12]