Gregg Jarrett: Impeachment-obsessed Democrats ignore logic and law as 4 professors testify at hearing [Great summary]
It is tempting to describe Wednesday’s impeachment hearing before the House Judiciary Committee as a farce. But it was worse than that. It made a travesty of fairness.
With Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. at the helm of the Judiciary Committee, there was no real chance that President Trump would be treated equitably. After all, Nadler’s confederate and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., had already obliterated any semblance of due process in impeachment hearings before his committee.
The Schiff hearings were a lollapalooza of hearsay, opinion and grotesque speculation. So there was no reason to believe that Nadler’s Judiciary Committee hearing would be anything less than a theater of the absurd.
Sure enough, Nadler assembled a team of three liberal law professors who were already on record as antagonistic to President Trump. During their daylong testimony, the hostility was palpable.
There was little effort to disguise the relentless Democratic agenda to remove Trump from office by hell or high water. Obsessions are like that. They know no bounds and defy all sensibility.
Republicans were afforded just one witness. Fortunately, his sagacity and eloquence offered a persuasive counterbalance. For one day at least, numerical superiority did not prevail.
Here is a summary of what unfolded, looking at the testimony of the four law professors who testified.
Harvard University Law Professor Noah Feldman
Feldman had already prejudged Trump’s guilt on an impeachable offense when he penned a column two months ago declaring that Trump had committed an unconstitutional “quid pro quo” in asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to look into the conduct of former Vice President Joe Biden.
This, of course, conveniently ignored the fact that no evidence of a quid pro quo exists anywhere in the record of the Trump-Zelensky phone call of July 25.
(Excerpt) Read more at
foxnews.com ...
Three Trump-haters were given a platform to say how much they hated Trump and accuse him of whatever they wanted. No demand for evidence, no cross examination, no asking that they refrain from speculation. Just a group of gossipers being allowed to rip to their hearts’ content.
The partisanship and hate from the 3 Dem witnesses was a disaster for the Dems. All 3 were unprofessional beyond belief. They acted like radical activists, not legal scholars. It may provide red meat for the far left base, but it is a huge turnoff for moderates and independents, and will only steel even reluctant Trump supporters. Whatever microscopic veneer of legitimacy that remained was stripped away yesterday.
Stanford University Law School should be hanging their collective heads in shame, but more likely they are busy spin-doctoring an excuse for their professor after she made a complete ass of herself. And her “apology” was a verbally diarrhetic dump.
Turley, probably shocked the room with his statements. I doubt even the Republican’s that called him were expecting what he said. Clear concise and was the only one that made any sense of the 4 testifying....a clear continuation of the "Schitt Show"!