Not sure Nadler understands the criminal justice system.
From the NY Post:
“We have a very rock solid case,” the New York Democrat said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday. “The case we have if presented to a jury would be a guilty verdict in about three minutes flat.”
“There is considerable direct evidence,” Nadler said, adding that “it ill behooves a president or his partisans to say you don’t have enough direct evidence when the reason we don’t have even more evidence is the president has ordered everybody in the executive branch not to cooperate with Congress in the impeachment inquiry.”
“If he had any exculpatory evidence, they would have brought it forward. The fact that Republicans and the president have basically not contested the evidence at all … any fair judge would have to say that it has been proven thoroughly and uncontested,” Nadler said.
IANAL, but it would appear that Nadler’s experience in a trial is vastly different than what happens in a court of law. He’s making the false claim that his evidence is uncontested and that a jury would convict the president within minutes. He also makes the Schmalfeldtian argument that because Trump hasn’t presented any exculpatory evidence, he’s even more guilty. Presumption of innocence is thrown out along with the federal rules of evidence and procedure.
It’s almost like there are some Team Kimbergarten influences at work.