Home


Articles of Impeachment: Jerrold 'Jerry' Nadler

Jerry Nadler's 'Family' Values

By Mary Grabar

Congressman Jerrold Nadler is currently playing a lead role in a grand drama aimed at removing President Trump from office. As chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the ultra-partisan Nadler is handing out subpoenas left and right. On May 8, the day Judiciary Committee Democrats voted -- at his prompting -- to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt, Nadler declared a “constitutional crisis.” 

This is the same Nadler who, during the Clinton impeachment proceedings, objected to even releasing the Ken Starr report and likened the impeachment to a “partisan coup d’etat.” And during Bill Clinton’s last days in office, as he was handing out 140 pardons (many as thanks for helping his wife’s successful senatorial bid), Nadler had nothing to say. In fact, he was instrumental in getting a pardon for a convicted terrorist. This was Susan Rosenberg, sister soldier in a bloody alliance between the Weather Underground and Black Liberation Movement.

Rosenberg’s role in the “Family,” as this confederation of white and black domestic terrorists called themselves, was to use her “white privilege” to do such things as acquire weapons, purchase vehicles, and rent apartments for safe houses and storage units for explosives and weapons. In 1981, she allegedly drove a getaway car in the Brink’s armored car holdup in Rockland County, N.Y., in which two policemen and a guard were murdered. Authorities nabbed her in 1984 when she and Timothy Blunk were caught in New Jersey unloading the following from a U-Haul truck to a storage unit: 640 pounds of stolen explosives, an arsenal of weapons, manuals on terrorism, and false IDs.

Rosenberg has steadfastly maintained her innocence of involvement in the Brink’s murders. During her trial, however, she proclaimed herself not a criminal, but a revolutionary. In “An American Radical,” published 10 years after Jerry Nadler helped her out of prison, she proclaims herself to be a political prisoner.

She recalls how she had met Blunk when both were organizing against the Ku Klux Klan — presumably, in her mind, a right-wing hate group on the ascendancy in the northeastern United States in 1979. She describes being indicted in a federal conspiracy case and charged with participating in the prison break of Joanne Chesimard -- and in the Brink’s robbery. Her own imprisonment, claims Rosenberg, stemmed from “being part of a group of white radicals who aided and abetted a group of black revolutionaries in their attempt to build a revolutionary organization.”

“The Brink’s robbery,” she conceded, “had been a devastating blow to the Rockland community, where two local police officers, Edward O’Grady and Waverly Brown, died along with a Brink’s guard, Peter Paige. The subsequent investigation into this robbery and multiple deaths led to several prosecutions, grand juries, indictments, trials, and convictions. Many people who were both remotely and closely connected to the events were targeted and I was one of them.”

Rosenberg does not say the three murdered men were shot to death by members of the “Family,” nor does she hint why authorities believe she helped make it happen. Rather, she speaks of herself as more of a bystander, part of a larger, well-intentioned network, remotely “connected to the events.” The Antioch University creative writing program from which she obtained a master’s degree while in prison seems to have taught her quite well how to manipulate language, to use the passive voice to avoid causality and generalities to deflect responsibility.

In this and many other chapters of her memoir, Rosenberg belabors the purity of her motivations. Her activism was spurred by “Seeing [in Vietnam] the B52s dropped from planes, watching the burning of civilians with napalm and Agent Orange,” which a reader supposes is her idea of poetic license. On the home front, the civil rights movement opened her eyes to the fact that “we lived in a segregated society, in a divided country where black people were still slaves.” Several pages of such explanation lead up to “that awful and cold day in November [1984]” when Rosenberg, then 29, was arrested. “[T]here was no immediate, specific plan to use the explosives,” she assures us. “We were stockpiling arms for the distant revolution that we all had convinced ourselves would come soon.”

Blunk and Rosenberg acted as their own attorneys during the trial. Rosenberg screamed revolutionary slogans in court and demanded the maximum sentence. “The truth,” Rosenberg pronounced, was that “revolutionary resistance fighters were defending the world-wide anti-colonial and anti-imperialist peoples and nations.” “The system,” she thought, would not last as long as her sentence. A federal jury, the majority of whom were women, found her guilty, and she was sentenced to 58 years in prison. Rudolph Giuliani, the United States attorney at the time, decided not to try Rosenberg on complicity in the Brink’s case since conviction on the other charges amounted to a virtual life sentence.

President Clinton’s eleventh-hour pardon of Rosenberg in 2001 elicited a chorus of outrage, including from then-Mayor Giuliani, New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, Rockland County police union official David Trois, and even Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer. Without question, it stunned the widows and children of those men murdered by Rosenberg’s coadjutors. In an editorial headlined “Pardons on the Sly,” the New York Times editorial board agreed.

The Times specifically condemned the pardon of Rosenberg, for whom “Representative Jerrold Nadler, a Manhattan Democrat, served as a courier ... forward[ing] pardon information to the White House.”

Nadler’s involvement seems to have originated at his synagogue, B’nai Jeshurun, on New York’s Upper West Side. In 1990, the synagogue’s social action committee showed the documentary “Through the Wire,” about the Lexington, Ky., prison that housed Rosenberg. It was described by Walter Goodman in the New York Times as leaving the impression that Rosenberg and fellow internees Silvia Baraldini and Alejandrina Torres “were not convicted for their connection with explosives or attempted prison breakouts or bank robberies or seditious conspiracy, but because they happened to be attending a rally in Central Park.”

Her father and Rabbi Marshall Meyer were on a discussion panel. Meyer, as Rosenberg writes, accepted her father’s view that she was “a political prisoner being repressed by the Reagan and then Bush administrations.” Meyer’s friend, Rabbi Rolando Matalon, began to work for her release. As Rosenberg attests, her parents were longtime “supporters” of Democrats, including of Nadler and his predecessor, Ted Weiss, who died unexpectedly of heart failure one day before the primary election in 1992. Nadler was put on the ticket and won the general election. They had helped found the anti-nuclear organization SANE (in 1957) and the antiwar organization Peace Now (in 1978).

In 1993, Susan Rosenberg’s mother and Rabbi Matalon met with Nadler to enlist his aid in getting permission for Rosenberg to visit her dying father. As Nadler told Truthout, a far left news outlet, in a 2011 interview (shortly after Rosenberg’s book came out), “The story was that she was in jail for a long time, her father was dying.” So Nadler spoke to the head of the Bureau of Prisons.

In that interview, Nadler admitted to helping obtain a commutation of Rosenberg’s sentence, though not by applying “pressure.” He does not mention, however, his efforts to get her paroled in 1994. His letter of July 18, 1994, to the parole board cited Rosenberg’s work in the AIDS education program, reports of the staff psychologist, her 4.0 grade point average, two awards from the PEN American Writing Center’s Prison Program, and Rabbi Matalon’s glowing assessment based on his “regular in-depth interviews with her for several years.” Matalon was so convinced that she had altered “her views about social change” that he promised her “a full time position as coordinator of social and community projects at his own congregation.”

Mary Jo White, U.S. attorney in New York City at the time, opposed parole. Despite the decision not to charge Rosenberg in the Brink’s heist, compelling evidence pointed to her complicity, White wrote to the parole board in a Nov. 8, 1994 report. This letter may have had the desired effect: The parole board wrote Nadler on December 5, 1994, saying that it had been informed on Nov. 22 through Rosenberg’s attorney that Rosenberg had signed the I-22 form “waiving parole consideration.”

However, Rosenberg’s attorney, Mary K. O’Melveny, asked Nadler on July 23, 1998 for additional help. Since the government had not prosecuted Rosenberg in the Brink’s case, O’Melveny argued for Rosenberg’s unfair treatment -- given that her accomplice, Timothy Blunk, had been released in March 1997 “after being convicted of the identical charges and receiving the identical sentence.”

Nadler told the Truthout interviewer in 2011 that he thought Rosenberg’s case was “a failure of due process.”

“She was accused of involvement in the Brinks [sic] robbery,” he explained, “in which a couple of cops were killed. She proclaimed that she was innocent of that. There were two Brinks trials. And in the second trial, which she could have been a member of, the evidence was so overwhelming that five of the seven accused were acquitted by the jury. Meanwhile, she was caught red-handed in possession, and of having transferred over state lines, dynamite and small arms, and other stuff. For this, she was sentenced to 58 years in jail, which was a hell of a sentence, you know, 59 months for this stick of dynamite, 59 months for that stick of dynamite.” The “sticks” of dynamite, as Nadler must have known, were 640 pounds of explosives, enough to level a city block.

The slain “couple of cops” Nadler mentioned were Edward O’Grady, married with three children -- the youngest of whom was 5 months old -- and Waverly Brown, the first black man to serve on the Nyack police force and father of a 17-year-old son.

A Feb. 18, 2001, Daily News article quoted Brown’s son, Gregory, then a 36-year-old U.S. Postal Service sergeant, about how difficult his last year of high school had been: “My father was supposed to help me, he was supposed to be there. I was looking for guidance from him.” When people asked how he felt, he usually replied, “‘I don’t have the words.’”

His four children knew their grandfather only by his scrapbooks. O’Grady’s widow, Diane, had to move away from the area of such painful associations to raise her children. In 2001, she proudly spoke of the two youngest who were in college and the oldest who was a Navy helicopter pilot. “I never believed in my heart [President Clinton] would do this,” she said. “After [the federal office building attack in] Oklahoma, how could you pardon anybody who was caught in this country with weapons of mass destruction?”

Although Nadler admitted that the court was understandably “hostile to Rosenberg because she called the judge a pig, she advocated violence, she made all kinds of crazy statements,” he claimed Rosenberg was a changed person. The parole board, he said, should not have postponed the possibility of parole for another 15 years after the last appeal in 1998 because of the Brink’s charge, which “she denied and was never convicted of.”

Rosenberg by then was in the Danbury, Conn., facility where her job was to teach fellow inmates about HIV/AIDS prevention and black history based on the teachings of Marcus Garvey, Robert Williams, Bobby Seale, Eldridge Cleaver, Stokely Carmichael, Malcolm X, and various communist writers. Teaching the class, Rosenberg recalled, “brought into sharp relief the fact that the United States has always been in the business of human bondage, first through slavery, and now through the criminal justice system.” Her Antioch thesis adviser, Henry Bean, “a prominent screenwriter,” introduced her to Howard Gutman, who worked for Williams & Connolly, “the biggest and most prominent law firm in Washington,” one that boasted a senior partner who was Bill Clinton’s lawyer.

Rosenberg hoped for a pardon from Clinton, a president who she noted had “apologized for slavery” and, more to the point, commuted the sentences of 12 members of FALN, the fringe Puerto Rican Marxist organization that set off more than 138 bombs in the U.S. in the 1970s and 1980s, killing six Americans. She thought he “could understand my motivations and consider clemency.”

She wrote to Gutman and sent copies to her group of advocates, including O’Melveny, Matalon and Jane Aiken, “head of the prisoners’ rights teaching clinic” at Washington University Law School. Through the Antioch program she met a short story writer whose husband, John Marks, was working as a producer for “60 Minutes.” He and senior producer Steve Reiner, a former member of SDS, visited her. That led to her four-hour conversation with Morley Safer and a “60 Minutes” segment that, according to National Review’s Jay Nordlinger, gave “the impression that Rosenberg was basically a political leafleteer, perhaps caught with the wrong crowd.”

Six weeks after it aired, on Dec. 19, 2000, Clinton announced his first round of pardons. Although Rosenberg was not on the list, she seemed to realize another round was coming. When she “heard that an important congressman had seen President Clinton at a dinner and had handed him a letter from Rabbi Matalon that contained another letter from Elie Wiesel asking to grant me a pardon, I thought I might really get out.” By the time her pardon was announced -- within the hour before George W. Bush’s inauguration -- she had already sent home some of her papers and books to clear out her cell.

Susan Rosenberg’s dreams of a Marxist revolution in America brought about with explosives and guns did not come to fruition. But she left prison with a master’s degree and accolades from prisoner advocates for her “poetry.” She no doubt hoped to land the same kind of cushy teaching job enjoyed by fellow Weathermen, like Mark Rudd, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Kathy Boudin. Her partner in explosives transportation, Timothy Blunk, has parlayed his experience as a “political prisoner” for “over 13 years in some of America’s most notorious prisons for his activism in resistance to racism, US support for apartheid in South Africa, and involvement in Central America during the 1980s,” into a career as a performance artist, curator, theatrical set designer, and college instructor, recently at Bergen Community College in New Jersey, according to his website.

The truckload of explosives is apparently not worthy of mention.

Susan Rosenberg came close to landing a position at Hamilton College, an elite liberal arts college in upstate New York. Nancy Rabinowitz, the professorial head of the Kirkland Project for the Study of Gender, Society and Culture -- a lavishly funded social-justice redoubt at the college -- quietly redefined an “artist-in-residence” position to an “activist-in-residence” position in order to hire Rosenberg.

The month-long course, to begin in January 2005, was to be called “Resistance Memoirs: Writing, Identity, and Change.” Rabinowitz is the daughter-in-law of Victor Rabinowitz, attorney who partnered with Leonard Boudin to form, arguably, the most radical-left law firm in American history. Boudin’s daughter, Weatherman Kathy Boudin, was the Family member in the Brink’s robbery who pleaded with Officer O’Grady to put his gun away just before he and Waverly Brown were ambushed by six men with automatic weapons jumping out of the back of the U-Haul. Boudin, paroled in 2003, ended up teaching at Columbia University.

Thanks in large part to a timely op-ed by Roger Kimball in the Wall Street Journal and the published objections of Hamilton College history professor Robert Paquette (who would go on to found The Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization), public outrage over the appointment of Rosenberg to a teaching position at Hamilton erupted. Alumni expressed their outrage and threatened to end donations to the college.

At the kickoff to a major fundraising campaign at the New-York Historical Society, trustees, administrators, and alumni had to pass through a gauntlet of angry, placard-carrying police officers before entering the building. Under considerable pressure, the college announced that Rosenberg had “withdrawn” from the appointment.

Following Rosenberg’s release, Congressman Nadler provided a most sympathetic and disingenuous account of her past while downplaying his role as minor and pointing to his rabbi. But recently Nadler also added his signature to a list of “notable supporters” for Judith Clark, another member of the “Family” who served as a driver of a getaway vehicle in the Brink’s robbery. This came after he signed a letter urging her release in 2017. In an amazing confluence of talent, it seems that Clark too has done work in the AIDS/HIV prison counseling field and is a PEN award-winning poet. Thanks to the overflow of support from politicians like Nadler and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and academics in the field of prison abolition, Clark was released without notice on May 10, five days earlier than the announced date, apparently to avoid media attention and possible protests.

Clark’s writing is thematically similar to Rosenberg’s, evoking sympathy for the imprisoned, but not quite as ideologically honest as “An American Radical.” Rosenberg’s book suggests that her time behind bars taught her how to soft-pedal the radical ideology she still clings to. She speaks of taking “up the radical choice of trying to help make a revolution” as “part of the left that grew out of the 1960s.” It was a “different time,” she explains, a “time when I — and thousands of people like me — believed that ‘you’re either part of the solution or part of the problem’ … a time of massive civil conflict.”

Rosenberg’s “narrative” about the “prison industrial complex” has become a common theme on college campuses. Her past as a terrorist brought her invitations to participate in PEN panels, including in 2007 and in 2011, on “The Prison Industry.” According to her memoir, she has worked since 2004 as communications director for a “faith-based human rights organization” and has participated “in prison reform, women’s studies and legal conferences around the country.”

She has given lectures at law schools at Yale, Stanford, Georgia State University, and Washington University, as well as in other departments at Columbia, Rutgers, Brown, New York University, University of Michigan, University of Massachusetts, and CUNY Graduate Center. One assumes the postmodern campus offered honoraria commensurate with her radical heroine status. No doubt the fact that her memoir is on the “prison abolition syllabus,” recommended for classroom use at such places as Duke University, boosts her royalty payments. Perhaps we shall see a similar piece of creative writing from Judith Clark.

In 2011, when House Speaker John Boehner sought to open the 112th Congress by reading from the Constitution, Jerrold Nadler objected and called it “nonsense,” and little more than an act of “propaganda.”

In 2019, Nadler’s machinations as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee would suggest disdain for that very document in his use of congressional power to advance partisan aims. His claims of a “constitutional crisis” are about as valid as the claims of members of the terroristic “Family” he has helped spring and who have contributed to the new academic discipline of prison abolition studies.

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Susan Rosenberg obtained a master's degree from Antioch College. She earned it at Antioch University.

Mary Grabar holds a Ph.D. in English and is a resident fellow at The Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization.

************

Jerry Nadler Corruption Requires Full Investigation by Federal Prosecutor

By |2019-12-17T03:00:05-05:00December 17th, 2019

According to his listing on the legal firm Gibson Dunn’s web pageMichael Nadler is a member of the firm’s Litigation Department. Junior Nadler’s practice has mostly entailed representation of leading companies in the financial, health care, and technology sectors in all phases of civil litigation before both trial and appellate courts.

“Mike Nadler is a well-connected trial lawyer thanks to his dad Jerry Nadler’s Democratic Party, New York City Tammany Hall, and Deep State political ties,” said former New York police inspector Matthew Bellingham.

Inspector Bellingham explained that Tammany Hall, the New York Democratic political organization, is best known for its scandals, corruption, embezzlement, fraud, and rigged elections. He said that the young blacks, Jews and other minorities in post-civil war New York were recruited by the Tammany Hall bosses to “get out the vote’ for Democrats.  They were also used as “bagmen” for the party’s elites and for top administrators.

“Congressman Jerry Nadler, along with guys like Congressmen Charlie Rangel and Jose Serrano, was a loyal foot-soldier whose tactics at times resembled organized crime gangs,” said Bellingham.

With all the details regarding former senator and vice president Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden appearing in the news media,, one would think Michael Nadler and his dad would raise a few ‘red flags.’

“His son Michael got a job with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP in 2018.  That’s convenient because Jerry Nadler and the Democrats just won control of the House in 2018.  Gibson Dunn & Crutcher hire Jerry’s son and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher are the main Nemesis against Trump and the Trump Administration on numerous lawsuits.

“Now the Nadler family will gain access to thousands of Trump documents via Jerry’s subpoenas,” said corporate security director Chuck Maniard, who investigates corporate crime and abuse.

Mike Nadler’s firm Gibson Dunn represented CNN’s Jim Acosta in his lawsuit against the Trump White House after President Trump revoked Jim Acosta’s press credentials for creating a disturbance in a press briefing and making physical contact with a female White House intern.

In December Gibson Dunn announced that it was representing the Center for Reproductive Rights in its lawsuit against the Trump State Department concerning abortion language in Trump administration human rights reports.

Also, Gibson Dunn’s global co-chairman Ted Boutros sued President Trump in a bid to protect the DACA Dreamer program.

Nadler’s Russian Connection

One America News Network (OANN) featured a disturbing story regarding Rep. Nadler:

Earlier this year, several law enforcement officers who support President Trump demanded a full investigation into the criminal actions of Democrat Jerry Nadler, who has been secretly and underhandedly paying a Russian agent a salary every month for the past 16 years. Democrats also falsely accuse Republicans of doing the dirty, criminal things that the Democrats are already doing, as a way to insulate themselves from their crimes.

Recently One American News began our investigation of congressman Jerry Nadler’s shady financial ties. We told you that we had discovered public disclosures that Nadler had been paying a foreign agent to the tune of $1,000 every month for 16 years through his campaign committee, even when there was no election going on.

That foreign agent, we later learned through disclosures, was Azra Friedlander. Why would Nadder have a foreign agent on payroll, and why would he be paying him so much money for all these years?

To learn more we dug into the archives of the Friedlander group. Last time we told you about Nadler’s ties to a Qatari oligarch. This time we’ll tell you about his ties to Putin’s Russia.

First, let’s explain what FARA is.

Foreign agents operating in the United States are required to register with the Department of Justice under the FARA Act.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) is a United States law passed in 1938, requiring that agents representing the interests of foreign powers in a political, or quasi-political, capacity, disclose their relationship with the foreign government and information about related activities and finances.

The purpose is to facilitate evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements and activities of such persons.

As of 2007 the Justice Department reported their approximately 1700 lobbyists representing more than 100 countries before Congress, the White House and the Federal government.

Nadler’s foreign agent, this time, has been contracted by a Russian journalist with ties to Rossia Savonia, one of the Kremlin’s most important media outlets.

This agent was paid $50,000 for his service to the United States. All while also being paid by Nadler.

Officially, the agent and his group, TFG, have been hired by Irina Wyszynski, the wife of a Russian reporter jailed in Ukraine on charges of spreading Kremlin propaganda throughout the Crimean situation and during the Ukraine coup.

Named in the payment section of the disclosure documents is Dmitry Kiselev, who is the head of Rossiya Savonia Roseus of Vodka and RT, which is Russia’s English-language outlet. Both share the same editor-in-chief.

Now, all of this begs several questions.

  • Is Nadler’s foreign agent lobbying on behalf of a Russian outlet?
  • Where exactly did this 50,000 dollars come from?
  • And how long is this contract going to go – how much more money is coming into this contract.
  • Has Nadler himself met with any representatives of the Russian government to discuss this case?
  • What is the level of involvement Nadler has with the Russian government’s interest in this case?

For now, Nadler’s office has denied meeting with the Russian government in this matter, yet we know that this information is correct because of the public disclosure documents filed by Nadler’s own campaign committee and Friedlander’s own FARA registration.

These serious questions do remain for Nadler to answer, regarding his own foreign ties.

© 2019 NWV – All Rights Reserved

************

Nadler Confronted on Comments His From Clinton Era That President Can’t Commit Obstruction of Justice

-

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.) was confronted on Sunday about his comments–made during former President Bill Clinton's impeachment–saying a president can't commit obstruction of justice.

NBC's "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd asked Nadler about his past comments, in which he was defending Clinton during the impeachment proceedings against him.

"Let me ask you this final question here, back in 1999, during the debate about whether or not Bill Clinton obstructed justice, you said at the time you were not convinced that a president could obstruct justice," Todd said. "Do you feel that way, that it's not one of the quote ‘might not be impeachable,’ put it this way, that obstruction of justice might not be an impeachable offense?"

"Well, I don't remember saying that, but if I said it, I said it, but no, I don't agree with that today. A president, anybody can obstruct justice," Nadler said. "Obstruction of justice under certain circumstances might be an impeachable offense. Remember, there is a very big difference between a crime which may or may not be impeachable and an impeachable offense which doesn't have to be a crime."

Naddler has been a member of Congress since 1992 and was part to the Clinton impeachment proceedings. In a 1998 floor speech, Nadler said Clinton perjuring himself was not an impeachable offense.

"Perjury is a serious crime and, if provable, should be prosecuted in a court of law. But it may or may not involve the president’s duties and performance in office. Perjury on a private matter, perjury regarding sex, is not a great and dangerous offense against the Nation. It is not an abuse of uniquely presidential power. It does not threaten our form of government. It is not an impeachable offense," Nalder said.

"Certainly I said at the time that perjury with regard to a private sexual affair did not threaten the Constitutional order, is a crime but was not an impeachable offense. Perjury regarding an attempt by a president to subvert the Constitutional order, to aggrandize power probably, would be an impeachable offense," Nadler told Todd.

************

Jerry Nadler's Troubling History

Posted: Sep 17, 2019 12:01 AM

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler is still desperately continuing his quest to impeach Donald Trump. At a hearing last week in a veiled attempt to advance it, Nadler said he "no longer cared about the nomenclature." And he told CNN "it is not necessarily called an impeachment inquiry...it is however, what we are doing." An aggressive schedule of hearings will begin Tuesday, starting with former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.  

But Nadler also has a long and disturbing history of supporting and facilitating the release of some of America's deadliest terrorists, even including this past year. 

In August of 1999, Bill Clinton offered clemency to 12 members of the notorious FALN, the Puerto Rican nationalist group that had wanted to align with Cuba. The small group, who had no popular support on the island, had set off more than 130 bombs around the U.S. between 1974 and 1983 killing six and injuring scores more. It was eventually discovered that Hillary's advisers supported the scheme wrongly thinking it would help her gain the Puerto Rican vote in New York. The Clinton team fashioned that the terrorists sign a statement expressing remorse, but they all had refused to sign it, and then unbelievably were given a month to decide. As time was running out, both the House and Senate composed resolutions condemning Bill Clinton's action, which they would soon pass overwhelmingly, 

A day before the House vote, it was announced that 11 of the 12 who had signed the statement would be leaving numerous Federal prisons in just two days. On the day of the House debate and vote on September 9, 1999, Nadler took to the floor for six and a half minutes and defended Clinton's action as well as the FALN itself, saying there was no proof, even though at the time four of their members had been convicted of making bombs and a fifth had been convicted of killing someone with a bomb. The group had also claimed credit for many of their attacks in communiques, including their deadliest attack at Fraunces Tavern in lower Manhattan in 1975, killing four and injuring 60, which also happens to be located in Nadler's district since he had arrived in Congress in 1992. 

Even though Nadler had approved the FALN clemencies, his involvement with aiding the release of dangerous and deadly terrorists would be even more direct and hands on, and it would involve Susan Rosenberg and Judith Clark, members of the May 19th Coalition, which was an offshoot of the Weather Underground after the Vietnam war ended. The group wanted to overthrow the government, and teamed up with Black Liberation Army (formerly Black Panthers). In 1979, they helped convicted cop killer Joanne Chesimard escape from prison, and then jointly committed a series of armored car robberies. 

In June of 1981, a Brinks security guard was killed in a robbery in the Bronx, and that October, a Brinks security guard was killed in a robbery in suburban Nanuet, New York. Minutes later, two police officers were killed at a roadblock in nearby Nyack. Rosenberg and Clark were in lookout and getaway vehicles and both fled the scene, with an officer in pursuit. Rosenberg escaped, but Clark wrecked and disabled her car and attempted to lure and kill the officer that arrested her. 

Rosenberg continued her major terrorist activity after her escape. She was finally caught in 1984, hauling 730 pounds of bombs and several illegal weapons, and some of the cache of bombs had been used in several bombings in New York and Washington, including one at the Capitol in 1983, which did severe damage to the historic building. In 1994, when Rosenberg was first up for parole, Nadler sent a letter to the New York Parole Board recommending her release, which they rejected. As Bill Clinton's term was ending in 2001, Nadler made a direct pitch to him, and Rosenberg was freed in Clinton's final 15 minutes in office that January. She now publicly praises other terrorists and murderers and also advocates for all prisons to be abolished.

And after Judith Clark had been arrested during the deadly Brinks robbery, she eventually tried every desperate attempt to gain freedom, including an escape attempt as well as suing the government for not providing her an attorney during her trial, which she had originally refused. In 2013, Governor Cuomo recommended her release to the State Parole Board, and Nadler sent a letter with other far left members of the House to the Board urging freedom, but they unanimously rejected Clark 3-0, and she then filed suit against them. And earlier this year, before the board was due to vote again, Nadler sent a another letter to them that they should release "Judy" Clark. This time the parole board, which now includes more Cuomo appointed members including one with a suspect history, controversially released Clark on a 2-1 vote. 

Nadler's history shows that he should sit in judgement of no one. His blatant hypocrisy in defending Bill Clinton during his impeachment in 1999 as opposed to his obvious bias now should easily preclude him. But what is far worse is his behavior in helping free some of America's most dangerous terrorists.

************

Jerrold Nadler Is Caught in His Own Quid Pro Quo

He’d hate to be ousted by the next Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Life is interesting, isn’t it? And when the Democrats roll out “the Resistance,” their pathetic public corruption of our social contract, life also takes on aspects of shamefulness and hypocrisy.

Take, for example, Act Two of their seasonal theatrical production, the Phantom of the Congress.

We the audience now return from intermission to find Adam Schiff, the villain of Act One, missing and replaced by Jerrold Nadler, who seems less despicable because, beneath the surface, he is oh-so-vulnerable, oh-so-compromised, and oh-so-neutered. We wonder what has transpired during the period that the intermission passed over: Legislation to reduce the cost of prescription drugs and to get control over health care? Passage of the USMCA Trade Agreement among Mexico, Canada, and the United States? Military funding authorizations?

Nope. None of it. It turns out that the intermission happened in real time, like Jack Bauer’s 24 television series. And nothing happened during intermission. Meanwhile, the stage hands have changed the scenery from the House Intelligence Committee to the House Judiciary Committee, while borrowing some of the props from the previous scene, including the big leather chair. And now we find Nadler presiding over the “judicious” contemplation of the Intelligence Committee Report, comprised of a Schiff-load of malarkey derived from hearings — some “star chamber” secret and some public — that were tailored to deny Republicans the right to call critical witnesses, interrupted and cut off Republicans sometimes mid-sentence, and ultimately defaulted to resting on hearsay, innuendo, guessing, and presumptions.

None of that kind of secondhand guessing matters as evidence or testimony in a real justice system, only in a corrupt sham of a proceeding. Most Americans are not aware of a secret known only to a limited number of law academics and professors — and to those of their students who took good notes and remembered what they learned even after final exams. To wit: There is a legal principle known as the “legislative privilege.” Under that rule, any legislator can say in the Senate or in the House of Representatives any darned thing he or she feels like saying, and the law shields the legislator from being sued for defamation. Thus, Harry Reid can lie on the Senate floor and say that Mitt Romney failed to pay his income taxes for 10 years, with Reid knowing full well that he is outright lying through his teeth, and Romney cannot do a thing about it. In the same way, Schiff can lie all he likes while in the House chamber, and he cannot be sued. Same with all the others. Same in the Senate. Democrat senators can lie about Brett Kavanaugh at his confirmation hearings, and they cannot be sued. Even Blasey Ford could fry-whisper all her lies and cannot be sued based on what she testified in the Senate chamber. That’s the “legislative privilege,” and the protection applies to all who speak inside the House or Senate, even witnesses. Did you know that? Heckuva thing, no?

In the same way that elected representatives can lie without consequence when they stay in their playground facility, they can also make corrupt and deviant rules without consequence. In a real court of law, for example, hearsay is inadmissible. There is a reason, and one does not need to be an attorney to understand this. In all your own life, did it ever happen that someone told you something bad about someone else (the “target”) behind that other person’s back, and then you reported it back to the targeted person or demanded that the targeted person take responsibility for the wrong he or she did — and then that person came back at you and said, “What in the world are you talking about?” And then you told the person what you had been told secondhand, and that targeted person not only denied it but also demanded that you and he together now go to the initial gossiper and confront him or her. And then you went back to the source, the original tale-bearer, with the targeted person standing alongside you, and the gossiper then suddenly said, “I never said that!”

That is why we do not admit hearsay in front of a fact-finder. Rather, if someone has something to say, come on in and testify to it (i) under oath and (ii) in front of the person you are accusing. It is amazing how much a story changes when (i) the witness faces perjury charges if inaccurate and (ii) the target of the bad-mouthing is sitting right in the room, staring at the person as he or she speaks. That is why our Founding Fathers added this tidbit to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights:

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

To be confronted with the witnesses against him. Short, sweet, and to the point. None of this stuff about “I didn’t hear it, but this one told me that he heard it from that one.” Or “I already told you, congressman, I did not hear it. I never said I heard it myself. I was only presuming.”

As the world turns now to Nadler and his House Judiciary Committee, the sham is that Nadler is going to make believe that he and his committee are impartial judges, as they would have the public infer from the name of the committee. They want us to believe that now these impartial judges, with not a whit of personal interest or pecuniary concern and no pre-formed opinions, will objectively evaluate the Schiff-load of documents presented and will objectively, judiciously, fairly, and dispassionately adjudicate whether or not the president should be impeached. Nadler would have the public understand, in evaluating whether or not there was a quid pro quo, that he himself is above it all.

But he is not. And Nadler knows it.

Nadler has been in Congress for 27 years. Basically, a Liberal Democrat Congressman named Ted Weiss dropped dead literally the day before the 1992 New York primaries, and the party basically gave the open seat to Nadler. It is a super-safe Democrat Liberal district that has not gone Republican for more than a century. Nadler now is in his 70s, no longer a spring chicken. His job is safe and sound as long as he does not face a Democrat primary — and he never does. At age 72, after nearly three cushy decades in the seat, he simply is not up for a primary. Think: Joe Crowley. Nadler is not about to go walking the district, knocking on doors, glad-handing, and begging for votes. After a quarter century, he is like the other septuagenarians in that situation, comfortably ensconced in power, unable to give it up, yet unable to campaign vigorously for it. At the first whisper of “Primary!,” they throw in the towel.

Jerrold Nadler has been given marching orders, not so much by Adam Schiff or Nancy Pelosi as by the 11-syllabled Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. If you impeach Trump, then we do not run a primary challenger to replace your Judiciary butt. But if Trump escapes impeachment because your committee fails to nail down Schiff’s dirty work, then we primary you and run you out of town. Quid. Quo. In 11 syllables.

That is what this week will be all about: three Latin words and 11 Latina syllables. Pro. Quid. Quo. Impeachment of Trump or primary for Nadler. A woman named Lindsey Boylan awaits the siren call. That simple. Res ipsa loquitur.

************