As first Predicted here on TUT– 'Will Jerry Nadler Lead Trump Impeachment Hearings?'

ed note–As discussed recently involving the case of Sen. Al Frankenstein’s political demise, John Conyer’s sudden fall from grace was more than likely not the result of Trump’s Hurricane Harvey, but rather the result of machinations put into motion by Judea, Inc who wanted Nadler in as the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee where all impeachment business begins.

Recall that it was Nadler who was the very first member of Congress to begin stoking the fires of Trump’s impeachment a mere few weeks after Trump took office and that he–along with fellow Hebrew Congresscreature Steve Cohen from Tenneseee–very publicly announced he would not attend Trump’s inauguration as he considered Trump to be an ‘illegitimate’ President.

The Forward

Rep. John Conyers’ resignation from Congress following accusations of sexual misconduct created a race to replace him as the top-ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. The Democratic House caucus will decide this week between Jerry Nadler of New York and Zoe Lofgren of California, both vying for a position that has become pivotal in the Trump era.

As Politico reports, leading the Democrats in the Judiciary committee, and potentially heading the committee if Democrats take over the House in 2018, could place the winner of the Nadler-Lofgren race at one of the most important crossroads of American politics – heading potential impeachment hearings of President Trump.

Both candidates for the position are careful not to seem too eager to pursue impeachment. Nadler noted that before taking this dramatic step, Democrats must make sure they have support from at least some on the Republican side and among certain swaths of Trump voters.

“If you are actually going to remove a president from office, you are in effect nullifying the last election. Certainly the people who voted for him will think you’re nullifying the election,” Nadler told Politico. “It’s OK to do that. It may be necessary to do that — as long as you have persuaded a sufficient fraction of the president’s former supporters, the people who voted for him, that you have to, that it’s necessary.”