If you’re wondering whether Jerrold Nadler’s Impeachment 2.0 reboot hearings in the House tomorrow might be worth taking time away from more important things, like online Christmas shopping or baking gingerbread cookies, here’s a reminder of why they definitely are not:
Unlike the first round, the so-called “witnesses” the Democrats will allow to be called aren’t even witnesses to third-hand office scuttlebutt. They’re just four academics, three of whom have a record of backing liberal causes and writing anti-Trump op-eds, being trucked in to “explain” to us all why the Democrats’ impeachment circus is really and truly legitimate because Orange Man Bad or something.
You see, the Democrats are convinced that the reason public support for impeachment is cratering isn’t because we wasted part of our lives we’ll never get back watching their stupid hearings and realized they were a kangaroo court that produced no actual evidence of wrongdoing. No, it's because (as is so often the case in their view) we smelly Walmart-shopping Deplorables are just too dense to comprehend what our superiors are trying to tell us, so we need to be “educated” until we agree with them.
If this sounds familiar – having a snotty leftist who’s been told what to think by a radical college professor lecturing us on how we’re ignorant if we disagree with them – it’s probably because this is the same tactic they used last week in encouraging brainwashed college students to ruin Thanksgiving dinner by hectoring their Trump-voting relatives with DNC talking points. I’d call it arrogant and condescending, but they probably think we’re all too dumb to know words with that many syllables.
To counter all the nonsense they plan to spew on our dime while avoiding doing their real jobs, like passing the USMCA Trade Deal, I will offer the following comments on impeachment from a genuine expert. He's a graduate of Fordham University law school with years of experience in government, including one of the highest positions in Congress related to legal and judicial issues:
“The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election. We must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to defend our very system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat. And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and of their representatives in Congress of the absolute necessity…
There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come, and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.”
Those comments were made in 1998 by then-Congressman/now House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, in talking about the Bill Clinton impeachment, which at least had an actual, proven crime behind it. How about if he just reads that into the record, calls for adjournment, and lets the House actually go to work to do something positive for the American people for the first time since the Democrats took over?