HYPOCRITICAL? Remember When Jerry Nadler Wanted Clinton Report Kept Confidential? We Do.

Democrat hypocrisy and malfeasance truly knows no bounds. Between Rep. Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, the credibility of their party is eroding by the day. Nadler, in particular, is making a fool of himself by calling for a complete and unredacted release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Report.

During the 1998 investigation into President Bill Clinton’s conduct, Nadler was explicit in his opinion that certain sensitive information should not be made available to the public. Now that a Republican is “on trial,” and that Republican happens to be Donald Trump, Jerry has suddenly changed his tune.

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz is very clear in regards to how this sensitive information should be handled.

No court should order the AG of the executive branch to release grand jury material.https://t.co/45qxNo2Oxg

— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) April 2, 2019

President Trump on whether turning over any amount of information will ever quell the Democrat’s thirst for 2016 election revenge:

Pres. Trump on possible House vote to subpoena full Mueller report: “Anything we give them will never be enough.”

“It’s 400 page report, right? We could give them 800 pages, and it wouldn’t be enough.” https://t.co/EOOcIn3dYj pic.twitter.com/CYVhp40lWt

— ABC News (@ABC) April 2, 2019

…more Twitter-verse reaction:

.@realDonaldTrump is right!

In 1998, @RepJerryNadler opposed release of the Starr Report “as a matter of decency”

“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.” – Nadler pic.twitter.com/qETt0yMxaJ

— Brian Anderson (@AZBrianAnderson) April 2, 2019

Coverage of Jerry Nadler’s hypocrisy, courtesy of Fox News, goes into the minute details of how the Representative’s opinion on the matter has changed now that a Republican is in the crosshairs.

“House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler is being accused of hypocrisy by Republican critics for moving to subpoena Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report,as vintage video surfaces from the Clinton days showing him urging caution regarding the release of details from then-Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s report.

Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins, R-Ga., blasted Nadler, D-N.Y., on Wednesday for voting to authorize subpoenas, noting that in 1998, Nadler sought to protect grand jury material.

‘But now a different political landscape compels the chairman to adopt new standards of fairness, ignore existing law and demand the material he once considered “unfair to release,”‘ Collins said Wednesday. ‘As much as the chairman or I may want to view this material, it is a fundamental underpinning of our justice system and law that we cannot.’

Nadler maintains he has been consistent in both cases — calling in 1998 and the present day for the committee to first review the documents, acknowledging in both cases concerns about the release of grand jury materials to the general public.”

If Republicans believe for one second that House Democrats, led by Chairman Nadler, won’t leak anything and everything they get their hands on, they’re fooling themselves. It doesn’t appear to be that way, so GOP voters can breathe a sigh of relief.

Hopefully, strong oppositional voices, like Ranking Member Collins, will continue to stand strong against the Democrats and their petty attempts to politicize every shred of information they can squeeze out of the Mueller Report and elsewhere.

Moreover, it looks like Attorney General Bill Barr has enough spine to resist the Democrats and mainstream media’s collusive effort to force his hand in releasing the details of the Special Counsel’s Report. That is of paramount importance, ensuring the privacy of those whose lives were examined thoroughly by the full force of Mueller’s team, who, by the way, found no evidence of a crime.

The Western Journal reported on Chairman Nadler’s stance, back in 1998, following then-Special Counsel Kenneth Starr’s Report.

“House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler — who is calling for the full Mueller report to be released unredacted — argued in 1998 it would be ‘unfair’ to release independent counsel Ken Starr’s complete report regarding Bill Clinton because it contained ‘salacious’ material and unverified testimony.

…

[Attorney General Bill] Barr has promised to deliver as much of the Mueller report as he legally can to Congress, without redactions, by the middle of April.

The attorney general has noted that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) prevents him from disclosing matters occurring before a grand jury, including the testimony of witnesses, without a judge’s approval.

…

In a 1998 interview on PBS’ Charlie Rose show, Nadler, then a member of the Judiciary Committee, cited rule 6(e) as a reason much of the Starr report could not be released publicly.

‘It’s grand jury material,’ he said. ‘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.'”

Now, the nuance in this particular case is that Chairman Nadler is technically calling for AG Barr to release the full unredacted report to his committee so that they can look it over and decide what should and shouldn’t be released to the public.

In 1998, as both Fox News and the Western Journal aptly point out, Nadler took issue with the House Judiciary Committee releasing certain information—information they already possessed. Yet, as I stated earlier, the political stakes are far too high in this particular instance.\

Practically every entity and individual involved in the Trump-Russia investigation and its coverage, who happens to oppose President Trump on various grounds, has proven to be unable to remain objective and make decisions on a fair and non-partisan basis. Why would that change now?

The answer is, it wouldn’t. That is why so many are frustrated with clowns like Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff on the one hand playing into every lunatic fringe-leftist indulgence, while simultaneously maintaining that they are the epitome of impartiality, justice, and fairness.