While there’s a lot of talk about the blatant bias and lousy, lazy legal scholarship of “expert” witnesses on impeachment yesterday (Jonathan Turley the lone exception), we shouldn’t overlook the fact that a couple of them are also proven liars.
Now, I don’t use that term lightly. Unlike the anti-Trump media, I would never claim someone is “lying” when they express an opinion I disagree with or make a different interpretation of facts. I’m talking about making demonstrably, provably, deliberately false statements while masquerading as an allegedly honest and unbiased expert. I mean flat-out, bald-faced whoppers on the level of a TV weather forecaster swearing on his professional reputation that it’s raining meatballs outside.
For instance, take Stanford Law Professor Pamela Karlan (please!) It wasn’t bad enough that the Democrats brought in a known far-left radical so filled with unhinged partisan bile that she mocked the President's 13-year-old son’s name and admitted to once crossing the street because she couldn’t emotionally handle walking in front of a Trump hotel. She also has a demonstrated history of making blatantly false statements about Republican Presidents while posing as a legal expert.
Former US civil rights federal attorney J. Christian Adams reminds us that in a published law review article, Karlan (who worked in the Obama DOJ) wrote this: “For five of the eight years of the Bush Administration, [they] brought no Voting Rights Act cases of its own except for one case protecting white voters.”
At the link, Adams (who worked on the case fighting the discrimination against white voters and won it) lists the many such cases brought during the Bush years. There was only one year in which there were no federal lawsuits filed under the Voting Rights Act by Bush’s DOJ. In four of the years, there were multiple cases, and four cases in 2008 alone. Remember, Kaplan’s false claim was in a published law review article for which she was presented as a reliable, unbiased expert. As Adams notes, she has never retracted that false claim, nor been held to account for it by her peers.
And there’s no excuse for Congress not knowing of her history of bias and dishonesty, since Adams writes, “I even testified to the House of Representatives about her dishonest scholarship in 2012.” (Maybe that’s when Democrats made note of her name for future reference.)
And let’s not overlook fellow argument against sending your kid to an Ivy League law school, Harvard Prof. Noah Feldman. He stated to the House during his testimony:
“Until this call (to Ukraine’s President) on July 25th, I was an impeachment skeptic.”
At this link, journalist Mike Cernovich compiled a Twitter thread of Feldman’s many arguments for impeaching Trump, dating all the way back to shortly over a month after he took office in 2017.
His multiple previous claims of Trump’s definitely impeachable offenses range from Tweeting that Trump Tower was wiretapped (we later learned it was) to “Russian collusion” (which was later confirmed to be a hoax.) In other words, he has a long history of claiming that practically everything Trump does is an impeachable offense. Yet he testified to Congress that up until this July phone call, he was an “impeachment skeptic.”
That wasn’t a tossed-off remark, it was meant to bolster his status as an honest, unbiased and dispassionate legal expert. Or as some might say, it was a lie designed to mislead Congress and the American people.
Ask yourself, if any conservative legal expert had a clear record of such bias and dishonesty, would House Democrats ever allow them to testify?
Okay, that’s a trick question: Even if a conservative legal expert had a 100% spotless reputation for unbiased honesty, these House Democrats would still never allow them to testify.
The terrible reviews of Wednesday’s House “impeachment” hearing are rolling out all over, with even an analyst at NBC.com admitting it was an unconvincing failure (FYI: “The trial was a pig circus, he never had a chance” is a Bob Dylan lyric, not a commentary on the Schiff/Nadler hearings.)
Ann Althouse is a law professor, not a media figure, so her pan of the proceedings is especially interesting and carries real weight.
But for pure entertainment value, you can never beat Kurt Schlichter.
There are two other reactions to the hearing worth noting. One, surprisingly, was a perfectly appropriate reaction that actually came from chairman Jerrold Nadler, who at one point represented all of America when he appeared to fall asleep:
And this has to be the Line of the Day, the best and most succinct description of this entire “impeachment” fiasco that I’ve heard anywhere. Glenn Reynolds (a real law professor) of the Instapundit blog spotted it on Facebook and quoted it without attribution:
“It’s like Watergate, but with morons.”
In what I assume is a play for the small number of remaining Kamala Harris supporters’ votes, Joe Biden teased that he might pick her to be his Vice Presidential running mate. He told reporters, “Senator Harris has the capacity to be anything she wants to be. I mean it sincerely.”
(Pro Tip: Always be skeptical when a politician tells you anything during an election year and follows it with “I mean it sincerely.” If he really meant it, he wouldn’t need to add “sincerely.”)
He went on, “She is solid. She can be President someday herself.”
To unpack why he probably doesn’t mean any of that, sincerely or otherwise: Being Vice President doesn’t necessary mean you’re Presidential material. Some might argue that applies to Joe, who made two disastrous Presidential runs before Obama chose him for Veep (in 2008, he dropped out after garnering less than one percent in the Iowa Caucuses.) When Harris dropped out, she was at 7% in her own home state.
Of course, there are always miracle comeback stories, like Nixon in 1968. And maybe Joe will actually clinch the nomination on his third try, although if so, it’s largely because the rest of the field is so awful. But that includes Harris, who was actually losing badly to Joe Biden!
But if Biden does become the nominee, is he sincere about picking Harris as his VP? Why? Even if she were wildly popular in her home state, it’s California. The Democrats could run Bonnie & Clyde and win California. They need someone who can help them carry one of the swing states they lost to Trump. When Harris dropped out, she was at 3% in Michigan and 1% in Pennsylvania (no wonder Democrats hate the Electoral College!)
Maybe the DNC poohbahs would pick Harris as an identity group candidate, thinking she would attract black and female voters. Personally, I think it’s insulting to believe people will vote for a candidate whose policies are harmful to them just because they share the same race or gender, but that’s the current mindset of the Democratic Party (it worked out so well with demanding that all women vote for Hillary or be called traitors to their sex.)
So sure, there’s a chance that Biden could pick Harris. But if the Democrats want to “balance” Joe with a younger, female minority running mate, I assume they’re smart enough to find one from a state they lost in 2016 and that they need to win.
And when I say "I assume they’re smart," I mean that sincerely.
She’s “Deluge-onal”: Hillary Clinton claims she has been “deluged” with requests to run for President again. Even if that were true, I’m assuming most of the requests are from Republicans.