The democrats’ clown show in the impeachment/coup continued today with a bunch of anti-Trump law professors masquerading as Constitutional scholars. The testimony of one of these “experts” sums up exactly how poor the democrats’ case is against the President. Stanford Law professor Pamela Karlan had so little to offer that she actually took a cheap shot at Trump’s 13-year-old son Barron. There is no depths too low for liberals to sink to undo the will of the American people.
I’m sure when House Intelligence Committee bobblehead Adam Schiff was writing the script for Wednesday’s hearing before the Judiciary Committee, he thought it would be awesome to drag President Trump’s young son into things. Pamela Karlan did her part and went to a place that should be off-limits.
Check out this expert legal opinion:
Pamela Karlan: “The president can name his son Baron, he can’t make him a baron.”#ImpeachmentHearing pic.twitter.com/UhNW2JsWGC
— Jeremy Art (@cspanJeremy) December 4, 2019
“I will give you one example that shows you the difference between [President Trump] and a king, which is, the Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility. So while Trump can name his son ‘Barron,’ he can’t make him a baron,” said Karlan.
The peanut gallery laughed and Karlan was satisfied she had delivered the zinger of the day.
Just so we are clear on these democrat-run impeachment proceedings, Joe Biden’s corrupt crackhead son is off limits, but President Trump’s 13-year-old is fair game. That’s really all anyone needs to know about what a farce this is.
Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz ripped into Karlan for this cheap shot.
“When you invoke the president’s son’s name here, when you try to make a little joke out of referencing Barron Trump, that does not lend credibility to your argument. It makes you look mean! It makes you look like you’re attacking someone’s family — the minor child of the President of the United States,” Gaetz reprimanded.
Gaetz also got Karlan to admit that she hates conservatives and has donated money to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Elizabeth Warren.
Making Karlan an even less credible witness, she gave her qualifications as being a “scholar of the law of democracy.” What the hell does that even mean? Isn’t she supposed to be a Constitutional expert? The United States is not a democracy and the Constitution doesn’t lay out the blue prints for a democracy. Was she called in to testify about ancient Greece?
Karlan’s dig at Trump’s son is even dumber when you consider how completely irrelevant it is to the impeachment proceedings. The President isn’t accused of bestowing a title of nobility upon his son or anything even remotely related. It’s this liberal anti-Trump nut’s “expert” opinion that the President should be impeached for something he never did, which is on par with the democrats’ case.
Phase 1 of the impeachment hearings was a group of anti-Trump bureaucrats giving their biased opinions about events that had not witnessed first hand. Phase 2 is a group of anti-Trump law professors giving their biased opinions on events they have not witnessed. The thing that really seems to be missing here is anyone who can testify that President Trump committed an impeachable offense, which should be the only kind of witnesses in an impeachment proceeding.
