Watch: Jim Jordan Obliterates Dems For ‘Predetermined Impeachment’ Effort

House Republican Jim Jordan has consistently been the guy to stand up to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders who are continuing to push for President Trump’s impeachment.

During Wednesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing with constitutional scholars over the impeachment clause and its origins and meaning, Jordan again defended Trump and claimed Democrats were just going through the motions of an otherwise “predetermined impeachment.”

This is not due process, but an accusation that the president is guilty before the trial, Jordan claimed.

“Before Speaker Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry on September 24th, before the phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky on July 25th, before the Mueller hearing in Judiciary on July 24th—before all that—sixteen of them,” Jordan said pointing to the Democrats on the committee, “voted to move forward with impeachment.”

“Sixteen Democrats on the committee already voted to move forward with impeachment yet today we’re talking about positions they’ve already taken are constitutional?” Jordan asked. “Seems a little backward to me.”

Jordan then went to describe the unfair process in which Democratic members made rules to benefit themselves—to get everything they wanted, forcing Republicans to simply be spectators on the sidelines.

The Ohio Republican then argued four facts of the investigation remain clear: (1) There was no “quid pro quo” in the released phone transcript, (2) Neither Trump nor Zelensky claimed to be pressured during the call, (3) The Ukrainian government did not know military aid was being withheld, and (4) The Ukrainian government never launched an investigation into Joe Biden.

Watch Jordan’s comments below:

— Advertisement —

At another point of the committee hearing, Jordan chastised one of the Democratic “expert” witnesses on the use of context in a quotation.

BizPac Review reports:

The Ohio Republican confronted Stanford Law School professor Pamela Karlan during the House Judiciary Committee’s first impeachment hearing on Wednesday, tearing into her for her double standard in remarks she made about Trump’s July phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Karlan, who at one point had attacked Trump’s 13-year-old son Barron, testified that when the president asked Zelensky to “do us a favor,” he was actually meant the favor as something personal and not for the country.

“When the president said, ‘do us a favor,’ he was using the ‘royal We’ there. It wasn’t a favor for the United States. He should have said ‘do me a favor,’ because only kings say ‘us’ when they mean ‘me.’,” Karlan testified.

“Context is important, isn’t it?” he asked Karlan who responded that in the affirmative.

“It seems to me you don’t want to apply the same standard to the president,” Jordan exclaimed.

The Republican member pointed out how Trump was speaking on behalf of the country, not from any potential personal or political gain when he was speaking with the Ukrainian president.

Jordan asked the “expert” witness if she even knew the following two words that Trump used in the publically available transcript—after the quotation she was using to argue Trump was acting as a “royal we.”

She didn’t.

BizPac Review continues:

The congressman clarified how the president wasn’t referring to himself but to the United States in his phone call, emphasizing the next words, “our country,” to drive home the point that Trump was speaking for the nation the U.S. had been through so much.

Jordan told the leftist professor that her words “ignored the entire context” of Trump’s statement, pointing out how the phone call occurred the day after Robert Mueller had testified before Congress, noting that the president even ended that part of his conversation with Zelensky by referring to the former special counsel by name.

“This is the basis for this impeachment?” Jordan asked per the report. “It couldn’t be further from the truth. Somehow that standard doesn’t apply to the president. That is ridiculous.”

Watch this interaction below:



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here