One problem with being a career politician is that words can come back to haunt you.
And things live on the internet for longer than your memory lasts.
Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, learned that lesson the hard way when news resurfaced about his views regarding the independent counsel investigation that led to President Bill Clinton’s impeachment.
As a young congressman back in 1998, Nadler vigorously opposed the release of the full Starr Report, saying that “as a matter of decency and protecting people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties,” certain aspects of the Starr Report “must not be released at all.”
It gets worse. On the very night that Independent Counsel Ken Starr delivered his report to Congress, Nadler rushed to former President Clinton’s defense, saying “It’s grand jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses. Salacious material. All kinds of material that it would be unfair to release.”
And Nadler wasn’t finished fighting AGAINST the release of the special investigator’s report, either. In a separate remark, Nadler claimed that the Starr Report was inherently biased against Clinton, saying, “we should always remember this is a prosecutor’s report — by its nature it’s a one-sided report.” He also argued that Clinton should have been allowed to review the report before it was sent to Congress, saying, “The President is asking for two days. The Republicans say no.”
Notably, the arguments Nadler made about the Starr Report in 1998 are just as relevant to the Mueller Report today. The Department of Justice can’t release grand jury information contained in an investigative report because it’s illegal to do so, and the executive branch has sound legal grounds to preview the report before Congress sees it in case there is a need to invoke executive privilege.
But in 2019, Chairman Nadler is singing a very different tune — demanding the release of the Mueller Report “in its entirety,” without redactions, and before President Trump can review it.
He’s turned the Judiciary Committee into a hyper-partisan circus by using his position to subpoena the Justice Department for the full Mueller Report, even though the special counsel regulations give the attorney general discretion over which parts of the report should be redacted.
The same man who once showed clear favoritism for President Clinton, an admitted perjurer, is now hellbent on continuing the witch hunt against President Trump despite the fact that Trump has been cleared by the special counsel.
Will the hypocrisy never end with this man?
In a recent New York Times opinion piece, Nadler made veiled threats, innuendos, and salacious accusations against President Trump that have since been disproven.
“When the full scope of the president’s misconduct has been revealed, when his lies are debunked and his abuses have been laid bare, I believe that members of Congress on both sides of the aisle will draft legislation to curb the worst of his offenses,” he wrote. “Put another way: If President Trump’s behavior wasn’t criminal, then perhaps it should have been.”
When the shoe was on the other foot, and Clinton had actually committed a crime, Nadler did his best to cover for him. Now that the fake collusion allegations against President Trump have been thoroughly discredited and rejected by the special counsel, he’s looking for crimes that “should have been.”
Nadler’s politically-motivated hypocrisy is too blatant to overlook, and his colleagues on the Judiciary Committee should disavow his actions immediately.
Eric Thomas Bolling (@EricBolling) is a two-time New York Times bestselling author, the host of “AMERICA This Week” on Sinclair Broadcast and the host of “AMericA” on BlazeTV.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.