I am surprised that they spoke so severely and stridently and launched right into stating conclusions, applying the law to the facts, and expressing these conclusions in a tone I'm used to seeing in the movies, where hammy actors argue to a jury.and later, she wrote In the complicated emotional manipulation that was yesterday's lawprof hearing, one almost random thing stuck way out.
I can only guess what goes on in other people's head. It was hard enough for me as a law professor to understand how much law students were getting out of a discussion, and those were carefully selected participants who were supposed to have read a text that was exactly what we were talking about. But what did Americans get out of yesterday's hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, where professors jabbered all day, prodded by posturing politicos professors?Referring of course to Dr Karlans injudicious invocation of Barron Trump's name. But first, from Sundance, Professor Jonathan Turley Opening Statement – Video and Transcript…. If you haven't you should watch it. Turley did a pretty good job of making the points that you can be anti-Trump and anti-impeachment; that this impeachment is being rushed, and that there is actually very little that can be pointed to as an actual crime. John Sexton at Hot Air, Jonathan Turley: ‘This Is Not How You Impeach An American President’ yet. The Lid, aka Jeff Dunetz, Jonathan Turley Destroys Dems Fast-Track Trump Impeachment, Charge By Charge. Breitbart, Turley: Under Democrats’ ‘Abuse of Power’ Standard, Obama Could Have Been Impeached. Tyler O'Neil at PJ Media, WATCH: Law Prof DESTROYS Democrat Claim That Trump's Ukraine Call Was 'Bribery'
. . .
So who am I to guess at what was going on inside 100 or so million heads? What, if anything, got from that hearing into the mind of the voter? Maybe mostly just a vague sense of reinforcement in whatever level of hostility or support they already felt for Donald Trump. But I think there was one thing that rose about the chaotic verbiage: The Child!
"It's a dangerous thing to take a crime like bribery and apply a boundless interpretation," the law professor warned. "These crimes have meaning."Twitchy, ‘It’s YOUR abuse of power’: Jonathan Turley wallops Dems with a HEAVY dose of self-awareness
"You can’t accuse a president of bribery and then, when some of us note that the Supreme Court has rejected your type of boundless interpretation, say, 'Well it’s just impeachment. We really don’t have to prove the elements.' That’s a favored mantra," he explained.
"This isn’t improvisational jazz. Close enough is not good enough," Turley quipped. "If you’re going to accuse a president of bribery, you need to make it stick — because you’re trying to remove a duly-elected president of the United States."
All three Democrat witnesses agreed that Trump should be impeached over nearly everything, and some things that hadn't been thought of. yet. Of the Democrats, Dem Witness: If You Don’t Impeach Trump, Democracy Is Dead, Or Something. (Capt. Ed). But then, the witness, Noah Feldman was on record as wanting to impeach Trump over mean tweets a few weeks in March 2017.Turley flips the Dem argument on impeachment on its head:— The First (@TheFirstonTV) December 4, 2019
"If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing exactly what you’re criticizing the president of doing." pic.twitter.com/j32p5vXuWI
Trump's wiretap tweets raise risk of impeachment https://t.co/jYXbswpKVu via @BV— Noah Feldman (@NoahRFeldman) March 7, 2017
Insty HARVARD LAW PROF TELLS A BIG FAT ONE:
House Judiciary Committee Democrats led their hearing this morning with Harvard’s Noah Feldman. Later in the day under intense questioning by Rep. Matthew Gaetz (R-Flor.), Feldman claimed he “was an impeachment skeptic before July 25.”But the most interesting moment came when Prof. Karlan decided to use a child to make her argument that American Presidents are not kings. Da Wire, Democrat Impeachment Witness Pamela Karlan Takes A Shot At Barron Trump
That’s a flat-out misrepresentation by Feldman of his views because he was among the early advocates of impeachment, beginning March 7, 2017, barely six weeks after President Donald Trump’s inauguration. See three more examples in 2017 and 2018 of Feldman clearly pushing impeachment of Trump: here, here and here.
Never mind that one is "Baron" and the other is "Barron". Even if the AP doesn't get the difference, Allah Pundit does, Dem Witness On Presidential Power: Trump Can Name His Son “Barron” But He Can’t Make Him A Baron; Update: Karlan ApologizesDemocrat "witness" Pamela Karlan is completely UNHINGED.— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) December 4, 2019
She is now attacking @realDonaldTrump's 13 year old son Barron Trump in an attempt to smear President Trump.#StopTheMadness #JerryRigged pic.twitter.com/4aktNR2Tps
Via the Wombat's In The Mailbox: 12.04.19 (Afternoon Edition) Twitchy: “Only In The Minds Of Crazed Liberals” – Trump Campaign Responds To Prof. Karlan’s Cheap Shot At Barron Trump. Sundance at CTH, Stanford Professor Becomes Face of “Resistance TDS” With Ridicule of President Trump’s Son… John Hinderacker, Power Line, The Karlan Catastrophe and Jim Treacher, PJ Media, Impeachment Witness Pamela Karlan Insults Barron Trump for Some Reason. Even the First Lady tweeted from Air Force One,Classless move by a Democratic “witness”. Prof Karlan uses a teenage boy who has nothing to do with this joke of a hearing (and deserves privacy) as a punchline. And what’s worse, it’s met by laughter in the hearing room. What is being done to this country is no laughing matter.— Stephanie Grisham (@PressSec) December 4, 2019
and as noted by Allah in his update, Karlan did issue an non-apology apology later in the session, when it had become clear that the comment had backfired badly.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.— Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) December 4, 2019
Professor Karlan is so upset about Trump that she has to cross the street to avoid walking in front of the Trump hotel in Washington, DC, but she is a dispassionate professor:Pamela Karlan: "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 that he's done that's wrong, but I do regret having said that." pic.twitter.com/7lYiRWCKjw— CSPAN (@cspan) December 4, 2019
Ace has a smattering of amusing hearing highlights in Impeachment Catch-Up Thread. OK, just one more, from Sundance, Righteous Matt Gaetz Stands the Gap – Eviscerates Impeachment Sanctimony and Defends President Trump’s Family…Professor who testified today in favor of Trump impeachment says that she has to cross the street when walking past a building with Trump’s name on it pic.twitter.com/V9w2USSC2P— Reagan Battalion (@ReaganBattalion) December 4, 2019
But impeachment nonsense doesn't end. The Schiff "wire taps" continue to claim attention. From Sundance, Devin Nunes Discusses Impeachment and Schiff’s New Found Authority – Congressional Subpoenas for Private Phone Records…
Victoria Taft, PJ Media, Holy Schiff! Phone Records Show Schiff Spied on Giuliani, Rep. Devin Nunes, and a 'Hill' Reporter, Bookworm Beat 12/4/19 — Trump, Schiff’s Schpy-gate, and more, and from Eric Erikson at the Resurgent, I Don’t Find It Outrageous That Adam Schiff Got These Phone Records
What's outrageous is that they got all of this and they're still flailing about. That they can get the phone records and everything else and cannot penetrate the voters or a GOP wall, but are instead losing their own members over impeachment, is just another reminder this should be settled at the ballot box, not in the Senate.Adam Schiff Still Won’t Say If He ‘Supports Impeaching’ Trump And The ‘Senate Removing Him From Office’ (Da Caller) while the WSJ reports Democrats Signal Trump Impeachment May Go Beyond Ukraine "Judiciary Committee hearing includes questions about breadth of alleged wrongdoing" and from Da Hill, Rep. Al Green blasts Judiciary Committee for lack of diversity in impeachment witnesses. Think's Jeremy Lott The impeachment report by House Democrats is too muddled to change any minds.
Take me: I am almost reflexively pro-impeachment. The presidency is too large and too powerful. The only way to hack it back down to something approaching its constitutional limits is to impeach and remove a president from office and thereby set an example for successors. And yet, as I was reading this report, I kept muttering things like, “Really? That’s the best you could do? Amateurs!”It was never really meant to, just a check mark on the road to impeachment. Impeachment, a how too guide
538 does the math and finds The Impeachment Hearings Just Confirmed Voters’ Preexisting Opinions, while the Victory Girls peer Down the Democratic Rabbit Hole of Impeachment.
Joe Biden says he will refuse to testify in Senate impeachment trial if called
From Capt. Ed. McConnell’s Warning Shot: Senate Dems Better Cooperate In Impeachment Rules, Or Else. If you can have your silly rules, we can have ours.
Linked as blog of the day at Pirate's Cove in If All You See . . . Thanks, Teach!
Post a Comment