Nadler: A jury would convict Trump in 'three minutes flat'

[babylonsister]

Nadler: A jury would convict Trump in 'three minutes flat'
By Rebecca Klar - 12/08/19 10:18 AM EST


House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Sunday that he is confident in the case against President Trump ahead of a vote on impeachment.

“We have a very rock-solid case,” Nadler said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“I think the case we have, if presented to a jury, would be a guilty verdict in about three minutes flat,” he added.

The top Judiciary Democrat also dismissed Republicans' "nonsense about hearsay evidence," saying there is "considerable direct evidence."

“And it ill behooves a president or his partisans to say you don’t have enough direct evidence when the reason we don’t have even more direct evidence is the president has ordered everybody in the executive branch not to cooperate with Congress in the impeachment inquiry, something that is unprecedented in American history and is a contempt of Congress by itself,” Nadler said.

Link to tweet

“The only testimony we have are from public spirited, patriotic people in the CIA, the Pentagon, the White House itself who came forward and defied the president's orders and testified,” he added.

Nadler said that if the president or Republicans had “any exculpatory evidence, they would have brought it forward.”

more...

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/473560-nadler-a-jury-would-convict-trump-in-three-minutes-flat

[triron]

1. To the second?

[keithbvadu2]

2. A real jury - not the Senate republicans who have already announced their verdict.

A real jury - not the Senate republicans who have already announced their verdict.

Even a juror like Lindsey Graham who refuses to look at the evidence.

[tavernier]

3. After she droned on with her question,

why did she feel the need to interrupt him as he was answering?

Some of these people frustrate me to hives!