在特朗普弹劾案的审判中，杰瑞·纳德勒展示了1999年时任众议员林赛·格雷厄姆说弹劾不需要犯罪的视频。
为了对唐纳德·特朗普总统进行弹劾，众议院民主党人，特别是纽约的杰瑞·纳德勒，使用了共和党人林赛·格雷厄姆1999年的一段视频，这与他最近为特朗普辩护的论点背道而驰。
纳德勒周四在参议院展示了这段视频，这是弹劾审判开始辩论的第二天。在视频中，当时的众议员格雷厄姆呼吁弹劾前总统比尔·克林顿。
“什么是高犯罪率？格雷厄姆在1999年的视频中说:“如果一个重要的人伤害了一个低收入的人，会怎么样呢？”。“这不是很学术性，但我认为这是事实。我认为这就是他们所说的高犯罪率。这甚至不一定是犯罪。只是当你开始使用你的办公室，你的行为伤害了别人，你就犯下了严重的罪行。”
纳德勒展示了这段视频，因为格雷厄姆在视频中提出的观点与一些主要论点完全矛盾，他和其他共和党议员一直在用这些观点来反对特朗普的弹劾。
“我可能会说和那时一样的话——众议院经理林赛·格雷厄姆，”纳德勒在播放视频前说，“在克林顿总统的审判中，他断然拒绝了可弹劾的罪行仅限于违反既定法律的观点”，这与他目前为特朗普辩护的观点完全矛盾。
尽管许多共和党人继续辩称，针对特朗普滥用权力和阻挠国会的两项弹劾条款并不构成可起诉的罪行，但这两项条款与1999年针对克林顿的弹劾条款非常相似，前者源于指控特朗普敦促乌克兰官员调查前副总统乔·拜登(Joe Biden)及其儿子亨特(Hunter)。
1999年，克林顿因宣誓说谎、妨碍司法公正、篡改证人和滥用权力而被弹劾，最后一次被格雷厄姆称为可弹劾的罪行。
尽管两起审判有相似之处，而且格雷厄姆在1999年称滥用权力为重罪，共和党人仍继续反对特朗普的弹劾。
周三，格雷厄姆表示，弹劾首席经理纳德勒、加州民主党人亚当·希夫和众议院议长南希·佩洛西“正在讨伐这位总统”
同样，在众议院通过弹劾条款之前，俄亥俄州共和党众议员史蒂夫·夏博特(Steve Chabot)表示，“这位总统甚至没有被指控犯罪。宪法非常清楚什么构成可弹劾的罪行:叛国、贿赂和其他重罪和轻罪。这不是叛国、贿赂和其他重罪和轻罪或其他任何罪行。”
夏伯特继续反对弹劾特朗普的论点，提出了弹劾希拉里的审判，并表示，“在弹劾[·理查德·尼克松和希拉里的案件中，滥用权力是一项附加指控——在这些案件中，远不如对他们两人指控的实际高犯罪率重要。”
为了记录在案，尼克松从未被弹劾或正式指控，他在投票前辞职。
AT TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, JERRY NADLER PLAYS 1999 VIDEO OF LINDSEY GRAHAM SAYING IMPEACHMENT DOESN'T REQUIRE A CRIME
During Trump impeachment trial, Jerry Nadler shows 1999 video of then-Representative Lindsey Graham saying impeachment doesn't require a crime.
In an effort to make their impeachment case against President Donald Trump, House Democrats, specifically Jerry Nadler of New York, used a 1999 video of Republican Lindsey Graham, which goes against his recent arguments defending Trump.
Nadler showed the video on the Senate floor on Thursday, the second day of opening arguments for the impeachment trial. In the video, then-Representative Graham can be seen calling for the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.
"What's a high crime? How about if an important person hurts somebody of low means," Graham says in the video from 1999. "It's not very scholarly, but I think it's the truth. I think that's what they meant by high crimes. It doesn't even have to be a crime. It's just when you start using your office and you're acting in a way that hurts people, you've committed a high crime."
Nadler showed the video because the points Graham makes in it completely contradict some of the main arguments, he and other GOP lawmakers have been using against Trump's impeachment.
"And I might say the same things as then–House manager Lindsey Graham," Nadler said prior to showing the video, "who in President Clinton's trial flatly rejected the notion that impeachable offenses are limited to violations of established law," which completely contradict his current arguments defending Trump.
While many Republicans continue to argue that the two articles of impeachment against Trump, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, which stem from accusations that he urged Ukraine officials to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, do not constitute a prosecutable crime, they are very similar to the ones used against Clinton in 1999.
In 1999, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, obstruction of justice, witness-tampering and abuse of power, the last of which at the time Graham called an impeachable offense.
Regardless of the similarities between the two trials and the fact that in 1999 Graham called abuse of power a high crime, Republicans have continued to argue against Trump's impeachment.
On Wednesday, Graham said that Nadler, lead impeachment manager and Califiornia Democrats Adam Schiff and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were "on a crusade to destroy this president."
Similarly, prior to the impeachment articles being passed in the House, Ohio Republican Rep. Steve Chabot stated that "this president isn't even accused of committing a crime. The constitution is pretty clear what constitutes an impeachable offense: treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. It's not treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors or whatever else."
Continuing his argument against Trump's impeachment, Chabot brought up the Clinton impeachment trial and stated, "In the [Richard] Nixon and Clinton impeachment, abuse of power was a tacked-on charge—far less important in those cases than the actual high crimes charged against both of them."
For the record, Nixon was never impeached or formally charged, he resigned before a vote was taken.
