PC had a number of takeaways from yesterday’s epic failure by Democrats’ impeachment scheme.
They took a kill shot at the President of the United States and missed. Even worse for them, the Democrats kill shot did find a target. They shot themselves in their collective feet.
Worse, through their questions Democrats on the committee exposed themselves as lightweight legal scholars and partisan hacks. That is never a good combination but in an election year when voters will be deciding your future it is particularly bad.
Second, where did Nadler (and whoever is advising him) find the law professors that served as witnesses for the prosecution? Except for Jonathan Turley, they presented a good case for home-schooling or even self-education.
This was a disastrous day for Democrats who chose leftist professors, filled with rage but devoid of facts, to present the same partisan arguments that we’ve been hearing from CNN and MSNBC for the past three years.
We get it, you don’t like Donald Trump. That is not grounds for impeachment. If it had been, Obama would never have seen a second term.
Do not let media reports fool you, there wasn’t a Trump supporter among the four witnesses. Jonathan Turley, who was identified as the lone GOP witness, admitted to voting for Hillary Clinton. Regardless, he is an honest Constitutional scholar:
This is a must-watch discussion. pic.twitter.com/DpJqh9XJkf
— Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) December 4, 2019
Dems did everything they could to minimize Turley’s cogent arguments but couldn’t.
Liberal Constitutional law school, Alan Dershowitz, used Twitter to provide running commentary on the sham proceedings:
Third, this brings us to the Dems’ larger failure.
Their smokescreen, timed to overlap with the release of the Inspector General’s report on FISA abuse that took place under the Obama administration, and the now-criminal investigation into the origins of that illegal surveillance operation against a political opponent (or many political opponents), is smelling more like a bad fart.
Fourth, this raises the question as to why a smart political strategist like Nancy Pelosi ever went down this road?
Draw your own conclusions:
“Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt establishment with a new government, controlled by you the American people.
“The Washington establishment and the financial and media corporations that fund it exists for only one reason, to protect and enrich itself.
“The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election for those who control the levers of power in Washington.
“And for the global special interests they partner with, these people that don’t have your good in mind, our campaign represents a true existential threat…
Ask yourself why Obama’s campaign manager tweeted this in June of 2016, if a future President Trump didn’t represent a “true existential threat” to their control of the “trillions of dollars for those who control the levers of power in Washington.”
Funny thing. Democrat witnesses argued that maladministration is grounds for impeachment. In his first three years in office, President Trump has proven that the Obama administration was guilty of maladministration on many different fronts.
It’s a standard they shouldn’t want to be held to.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. The only question that remains is whether Democrats who supported Obama were guilty of crimes in furtherance of protecting their maladministration.
This level of desperation, masquerading as abject stupidity, suggests that criminal offenses did indeed take place.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) December 5, 2019
Democrats are trying to convince Americans that President Trump should be ousted for trying to “dig up dirt” on a rival. They’d have more credibility if they didn’t abuse their surveillance powers for drive-by smears of Republicans and a free press.
Final takeaway; desperate Dems threw a Hail Mary into gale force winds and the ball failed to cross the line of scrimmage.