Amidst a lengthy investigation of the president over possible obstruction of justice, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) declared that his accusers were attempting a coup d'état, and insisted, “Members of Congress have no power, indeed they have no rights, to arrogate to themselves the power to nullify an election absent such a compelling threat.” One problem: As The Daily Signal notes, “Nadler’s remarks came as the House Judiciary Committee was considering articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton.”

Oh how times change!

Nadler, who’s spearheading Phase II of Democrats’ crusade to obstruct President Donald Trump, has requested numerous documents from Trump associates in an attempt to further this effort by ensnaring Trump in his hush-money payments to mistresses.

But, again the Signal points out, back in 1998, Nadler sang a different tune: “Perjury is a serious crime, and if proven, should be prosecuted in a court of law, but it may or may not implicate the president’s duties and performance in office. Perjury on a private matter, perjury regarding sex, is not a great and serious offense against the nation. It is not an abuse of uniquely presidential power, it does not threaten our form of government.”

1998: “The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election. We must not overturn an election and remove a president from office except to defend our very system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat. And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and of their representatives in Congress of the absolute necessity.”

2019: “There could be grounds for impeachment [in Robert Mueller’s report], there could be grounds for other actions, there could be things the American people ought to know. You know, you can commit shameful acts, you can commit complete betrayals of the public interest without committing impeachable acts. And if you did that, the public ought to know that too. And the standard here is not an impeachment. The standard is we have to protect the public from presidential misconduct.”

Are we really to believe Nadler has merely gained wisdom with age, or is there — maybe, just perhaps — a partisan political agenda at play?