Taking Back Our Stolen History
Nadler, Jerry
Nadler, Jerry

Nadler, Jerry

« Back to Glossary Index

Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, House Rep. (D-NY) since 1992 who has, without any acknowledgement from the MSM, been paying a foreign agent at least $1000/month for 17 years with ties to Russia (yet Trump is the Russia-colluder?) and corrupt Qatar. What is this all about? In charge of copyright laws and reform, he’s long been deeply in the bag for the recording industry and cashes in annually with a Grammy’s party for $5k per person. His partisan hearings on the phony Russia collusion attempted coup were a disgrace and he showed his complete hypocrisy from the 1998 impeachment hearings of Bill Clinton juxtaposed to Trump’s. Everything he fought for and against then are a complete reversal.

A Democratic staffer told the New York Post that Nadler has earned a nickname from his peers: “Rock-A-Bye Baby.” It is apparently a well-kept secret that the abrasive congressman falls asleep during meetings – frequently. Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, an outspoken Republican member of the Judiciary committee, told the Post, “Staff regularly have to wake him up during hearings.” More at TGP…

Russian Agent

Congressman Jerry Nadler pushed Russia collusion with President Trump and his associates, but it’s Nadler himself who has ties to the Kremlin. In 2019, One American news investigated congressman Jerry Nadler’s shady financial ties and discovered public disclosures that he had been paying a foreign agent named Azra Friedlander to the tune of $1,000 every month for 16 years through his campaign committee, even when there was no election going on. Nadler’s foreign agent was contracted by a Russian journalist with ties to Rossia Savonia, one of the Kremlin’s most important media outlets. While being paid by Nadler, Friedlander was also paid $50,000 for his service to the US.

Officially, the agent and his group, TFG, were 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.

Nadler ties to a Qatari Oligarch

Friedlander  also ties Nadler to shady characters in Qatar such as Hassan Ali Bin Ali. Qatar seeks to control the White House by proxy and buys public officials in through “advisory services”.


Friedlander tried to bring Qatari “oligarch”, Hassan Ali Bin Ali, to the USA in 2018 after the Trump administration clamped down on them. Recall this 2017 article about internal pushback – Qatar blockade exposes rifts in Trump administration’s ‘peculiar’ foreign policyWhile Donald Trump backs the Saudi-led ultimatum, the state and defense departments are openly critical – a mixed message that could worsen the crisis.

Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) Dirty Dealings

Nadler, as chair of the House Judiciary Committee, is in charge of any copyright reform proposals. He hosted a party for music industry lobbyists at the Grammy’s in 2019 (along with Chair of the Democratic Caucus, Hakeem Jeffries). To party with party animals Nadler and Jeffries at the Grammys — the recording industry’s biggest event of the year — you “only” had to pay $5,000 per ticket. What a bargain.

Whether or not you believe this is outright corruption, it certainly meets Larry Lessig’s definition of “soft corruption.” That is activity that may be perfectly legal, but to the vast majority of the public certainly feels corrupt, and raises questions about who’s influencing our elected officials. Nadler, of course, has long been deeply in the bag for the recording industry. Years back, he pushed a bill that was little more than a bailout for the RIAA, and he’s attacked the idea that if people buy something, they then own it as “an extreme digital view.”

But it appears that the more mainstream media is beginning to notice Nadler’s conflicts. His hometown NY Daily News has a whole article that talks about Nadler’s money grab at the Grammys as well as much, much more.

Jerry Nadler is rockin’ and rollin’ in campaign cash from the music industry and other intellectual property businesses that he oversees as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, a review of recent federal records reveals.

Nadler, who is one of the point men pounding the drums against President Trump’s various alleged improprieties, banked at least $65,000 from corporate music industry political action committees, industry executives, and their lobbyists and lawyers, a Daily News search of Nadler’s campaign receipts found.

He also spent more than $30,000 to hold his own Grammy Awards party — at the Grammy Awards in Los Angeles in February.

Yeah. The Daily News doesn’t mention that tickets to the party were advertised to lobbyists at $5k a pop. The Daily News points out that this is all legal, but does certainly suggest it appears pretty freaking sketchy:

A spokeswoman for Nadler’s campaign insisted there was nothing improper in dropping $27,250 for a suite at the Staples Center where the Grammys are awarded, $2,290 for food and drinks, $1,835 at the Beverly Hills Hilton and another $2,650 at the Sheraton Grand, all so industry execs could fill Nadler’s campaign coffers and schmooze with the chairman.

The article notes that “in a perfect world” members of Congress who run committees regulating industries probably wouldn’t be allowed to host parties at those industry events, selling expensive tickets to get in. But, hey, it’s not a perfect world.

“For many Americans, our corrosive fund-raising system calls into question whether members of Congress are acting in the public interest, or for some private financial interest,” Scherb said.

You don’t say. There are still a number of important copyright issues likely to come before Congress in the near future. Does anyone actually believe that Nadler will take the interests of all sides into account? Or does he have at least 65,000 reasons to focus mainly on the views of the RIAA in determining what copyright bills are even considered?2

Trump Impeachment Hearings / Impeachment

As chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Nadler railroaded proceedings with total disregard to the Republicans, just like pencil neck Adam Schiff. Here’s an example:

Defending Terrorists?

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, advocates for all prisons to be abolished, and sits on the board of Black Lives Matter Network, Inc.

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. (source)

Then and Now: The Impeachment Hypocrisy

In 1998, after the special prosecutor completed his report, a congressman of the president’s party accused the president’s accusers of attempting a “coup d’etat.” The congressman raised questions about the integrity of the investigation into the president, was dismissive about obstruction of justice, and contended that offenses aren’t impeachable if not committed against the state. Most of all, in his staunch defense of the president, the congressman said Congress should not overturn a presidential election.

“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,” Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said in December 1998.

Nadler’s remarks came as the House Judiciary Committee was considering articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton. The House eventually voted out articles of impeachment accusing Clinton of committing perjury and obstructing justice in connection with covering up his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Today, as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Nadler sought to force the Justice Department to provide the full, unredacted investigative report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The New York Democrat also tried to make the Trump administration and Trump family businesses turn over vast numbers of documents, many related to matters before the president entered the White House.

Here are three areas comparing where Nadler stood, then and now, on investigating and impeaching a president.

1. Private Behavior Unrelated to Presidential Power

Nadler has requested information in 81 different document requests on various matters, including allegations that Trump paid hush money to two former mistresses. The House Judiciary Committee also sought information from the Trump Organization and the president’s family members about the family’s private businesses, which include hotels, casinos, and golf courses.

“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,” Nadler said in the Clinton impeachment. “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.”

Nadler added:

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.

2. Impeachment Threshold

After the 2018 midterm elections, Nadler said impeaching Trump would require a strong case with public opinion solidly behind it, and a case that Trump is a threat to the Constitution.

In 1998, he made an impassioned statement about the gravity of impeachment:

We have received testimony from some of the nation’s leading scholars and historians, who agree that impeachable offenses are those which are abuses of presidential power that undermine the structure of functioning of government or constitutional liberty.

Benjamin Franklin called impeachment ‘a substitute for assassination.’ It is in fact, a peaceful procedure for protecting the nation from despots by providing a constitutional means for removing a president who misuses presidential power to make himself a tyrant or otherwise to undermine our constitutional form of government.

Regarding Trump more than 20 years later, Nadler took a serious tone, without quoting Franklin.

“If you’re serious about removing a president from office, what you’re really doing is overturning the result of the last election,” Nadler told Roll Call in the post-election interview. “You don’t want to have a situation where you tear this country apart and for the next 30 years half the country’s saying, ‘We won the election, you stole it.’”

Nadler’s view of broad support for impeachment apparently wouldn’t require buy-in from GOP lawmakers.

“I’m talking about the voters, people who voted for Trump,” he said. “Do you think that the case is so stark, that the offenses are so terrible, and the proof so clear, that once you’ve laid it all out you will have convinced an appreciable fraction of the people who voted for Trump, who like him, that you had no choice?”

3. Starr Report and Mueller Report

The House’s conclusions in voting out articles of impeachment against Clinton were based largely on the findings of the report from independent counsel Kenneth Starr, whose job was to submit a report directly to Congress.

In 1998, Nadler strongly opposed Congress’ making the Starr report public. Fast forward more than twenty years, Nadler voted with fellow Judiciary Committee Democrats to prepare a subpoena to obtain the 400-plus page report from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, which found no conspiracy between Moscow and Trump or his campaign to help him win the 2016 election.

“Chairman Nadler is asking for secret grand jury testimony and classified information that he knows is illegal to reveal,” White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley told The Daily Signal, referring to regulations governing the work of special counsels. “That’s ridiculous,” Gidley said. “This is not oversight, this is overreach.”

In 1998, Nadler told interviewer Charlie Rose, speaking of the Starr report on Clinton: “It’s grand jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses, salacious material, all kinds of material that it would be unfair to release.”

Knowing his history, Trump accused Nadler of hypocrisy. “The fact is that Jerry Nadler was on the opposite side of this [in 1998] and he thought it was a disgusting, terrible thing to even think about giving the Starr report. But now we should give the Mueller report,” Trump told reporters. “Jerry Nadler thought the concept of giving the Starr report was absolutely something you could never do,” Trump said. “But when it comes to the Mueller report, which is different on our side, that would be something that he should get. It’s hypocrisy and it’s a disgrace.” (source)