House Judiciary Chair Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) got the judiciary committee impeachment hearings off to a riveting start Wednesday, Dec 4. His opening statement in several ways mirrored those made by Rep. Adam Schiff, chair of the Intelligence Committee, and the 300-page report released on Tuesday.
“On July 25, President Trump called President Zelensky of Ukraine and, in President Trump’s words, asked him for a favor,” Nadler read, his voice an even monotone. “That call was part of a concerted effort by the president, and by his men, to solicit a personal advantage in the next election—this time, in the form of an investigation of his political adversaries by a foreign government. To obtain that private, political advantage, President Trump withheld both an official White House meeting from the newly elected president of a fragile democracy and vital military aid from a vulnerable ally.”
Nadler said that when Congress found out about this scheme and began to investigate, “President Trump took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to cover up his effort and to withhold evidence from the investigators. And when witnesses disobeyed him—when career professionals came forward and told us the truth—he attacked them viciously, calling them traitors and liars, promising that they will ‘go through some things.’”
Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA), ranking Republican on the committee, said, “Grab your popcorn because today we have a rerun of the same hearings we already had in this committee in July,” in a loud and agitated voice. He described the hearings as nothing more than a “railroad job…a waste of time” and that “there is no whistle blower.”
Among the witnesses on the first day were Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan and Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, who concluded in his statement that Trump’s actions amounted to high crimes and misdemeanors, which was echoed by Karlan. She also had a few barbed comments aimed at Collins, stating that she was insulted by his remarks that she had not seriously examined the facts.
From this bristling beginning we can expect a lot more fire from the judiciary committee, both pro and con. Plus, unlike the Intelligence Committee, there are more members, and there is no indication how many legal experts will testify.