Jerry Nadler was on CNN's OutFront and claimed that they heard enough from witnesses to prove their case "beyond any doubt" against President Donald Trump, as reported by Ian Hanchett on Breitbart.
Nadler believes the two articles of impeachment and statements from witnesses are enough to prove the case against Trump, but there's also many who believe the complete opposite.
Many are wondering why Nancy Pelosi stalled on voting and sending the impeachment articles to Senate. Congress went on holiday vacation and now here we are, halfway through January, and the Democrats finally sent it over.
Nadler on the other hand, seems to be firm in his ways, despite the odd delay and based on what we know so far.
Hanchett's article covered Nadler's statement on it:
Nadler said, “We brought the articles of impeachment. Because, despite the fact that we didn’t hear from many witnesses we should have heard from, we heard from enough witnesses to prove the case beyond any doubt at all. But we still — but now, the Senate — or some of the senators are saying, Sen. McConnell is saying, that there shouldn’t be any witnesses at all, and that’s a travesty.”
Wouldn't the best witness be Ukraine's President Zelensky?
Didn't he suggest before there was no quid pro quo or pressure to act on investigating Joe or Hunter Biden?
If we go by the article posted on The Hill, then yes - Zelensky suggested there was no terms and therefore, no quid pro quo.
*** 24% off Patriotic Face Masks - Get One Now! ***
Why don't Democrats take the President of the Ukraine's words seriously?