Two days after incoming House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler told a group of reporters that he intends to put the kibosh on a House probe into allegations of political bias at the highest levels of the DOJ and FBI, Nadler told CNN's Jake Tapper during an appearance on the cable channel's "State of the Union" Sunday show that, if President Trump is found to have directed payoffs made to two former mistresses (as Special Counsel Robert Mueller alleged in Cohen's sentencing memo), it would "certainly" be "an impeachable offense."

However, in keeping with the Democratic leadership's position not to pursue impeachment proceedings against Trump, Nadler argued that just because somebody committed "an impeachable offense" doesn't mean they should be impeached.

"They would be impeachable offenses. Whether they are important enough to justify an impeachment is a different question, but certainly they’d be impeachable offenses because even though they were committed before the president became president, they were committed in the service of fraudulently obtaining the office," Nadler said.

Cohen, whom recently admitted to lying to Congress, promised to testify that Trump ordered him to facilitate payoffs to former adult film actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy centerfold Karen McDougal. If true, this would constitute a gross violation of campaign finance laws.

But President Trump has insisted that Cohen is lying to avoid a lengthy prison sentence (an eventuality that, as fate would have it, appears to be unavoidable now that prosecutors have recommended that a federal judge impose a term of more than 40 months).

CNN's @jaketapper: “If it is proven that the President directed or coordinated with Cohen to commit these felonies … are those impeachable offenses?”



Democratic Rep. @JerryNadler: “They would be impeachable offenses.” #CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/tmfKSnSLyb — State of the Union (@CNNSotu) December 9, 2018

Later in the interview, Nadler called on Congress to "get to the bottom" of Trump's alleged involvement in the payoffs, before clarifying that the House "shouldn't necessarily launch an impeachment" against the president, even if they find evidence of wrongdoing. That's because an impeachment is "an attempt to...change the results of an election", something that should only be undertaken in the most dire of circumstances.

"There are several things you have to look at. One, were there impeachable offenses committed? How many? And secondly, how important were they? Did they rise to the gravity where you should undertake an impeachment?" he said. "An impeachment is an attempt to, in effect, overturn or change the result of an election," Nadler continued. "You should do it only for very serious situations."

But Nadler insisted that there's nothing in the Constitution that would save Trump from being indicted.

"This country originated in a rebellion against the English king," he said. "We did not seek to create another king. Nobody - not the president, not anybody else - can be above the law."

While we applaud Nadler's transparency, we're not sure why he felt compelled to compare Trump with a king. Because the last time we checked, Trump is subject to the same term limits that applied to his predecessors.