Latest-News

First Lady Attacks Law Professor, And Other Highlights from Judiciary Committee’s Impeachment Hearings

For anyone who believes in the rule of law, the testimony of three Democrat liberal law professors at the Jerry Nadler impeachment farce of a hearing was both painful and alarming. How could such a lack of evidence with no first-hand corroboration whatsoever meet even the minimum criteria of provable wrongdoing?

The obvious answer to that troubling indictment of three paragons of American jurisprudence was made clear: They hate President Trump with the searing, reason erasing white heat of a thousand suns.

Take the Hillary Clinton clone and Elizabeth Warren supporter Pamela Karlan, for example. She wanted to sound like an erudite, upstanding defender of the U.S. Constitution, but her mouth wouldn’t let her. This Stanford University elitist has been stewing in the sour juices of her own denial syndrome since her pants-suited mentor blew the 2016 election.

In a lame effort to demonstrate her expertise mixed with satirical humor, Karlan Quipped, “The Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility, so while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron.”

The nasty comment about the minor child of the President elicited some chuckles, but clearly chastened by the negative response of Baron’s mother and First Lady, she apologized. However, the damage was done, and her credibility was shattered.

The First Lady tweeted, “A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it.”

After learning that the First Lady had been upset Karlan used her teenage son to score cheap political points, Karlan apologized, “I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president’s son. It was wrong of me to do that. I wish the president would apologize, obviously, for the things he’s done that’s wrong, but I do regret having said that.”

Then there was Harvard professor Noah Feldman. He probably caught the Democrat staffers’ attention with a mile-long anti-Trump paper trail of writings and columns. Feldman assured the Judiciary Committee that it was Adam Schiff’s report that finally convinced Feldman that Trump had to go. Turns out that Feldman has written countless columns and articles siding with Democrats, and he has done so throughout the Trump administration.

The third Democrat pointy-headed liberal was University of North Carolina Professor Michael Gerhardt. He was a Bill Clinton transition team member. This guy is marinating in the publicity and excited that this debacle coincides with his new edition of a textbook on impeachment.

While Gerhardt likes to project an aura of academic impartiality, he’s on record with comments that President Trump should be impeached for collusion and being “too racist.”

The only voice of reason and sanity in this gaggle of show-trial witnesses was George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley. If it had been up to Adam Schiff, Turley would have been banned. However, Chairman Jerrold Nadler had to go off the Democrat script and introduce someone who actually was fair.

Professor Turley admitted at the outset of his statement that he was no fan of Donald Trump. However, Turley recognized a weak case when he saw it. He noted that Schiff’s impeachment findings are based on “a relatively small number of witnesses with largely second-hand knowledge of the position.”

Predictably, the mainstream news media soundbites focused on Democrat witness histrionics and hyperbole. Pamela Karlan did a pretty good impression of Karla the sharp-tongued barista on the 90s sitcom Cheers. Her indignant response to the suggestion that she and her Democrat cohorts couldn’t have read the testimony and come to their conclusions was that she was insulted.

Then there was the dopey, self-serving comment by witness Gerhard, “If this isn’t impeachable nothing is.” The “this” would be unsupported charges by people who had no direct knowledge other than rumor and gripes by whining deep-state actors.

Anyone watching this farce will be eager to see Act 2 in the U.S. Senate. In the meantime, law school graduates of Stanford, Harvard, and the University of North Carolina might want to ask for a tuition refund.


Most Popular

These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More