by Renee Parsons<\/p>\n
Despite an inadequate performance last week by Constitutional law experts before the House Judiciary Committee, Chair Jerrold Nadler released a unilateral committee report on Saturday entitled \u201cConstitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment<\/i>.\u201d \u00a0 <\/span>The Report came the day after Speaker Nancy Pelosi\u2019s press conference<\/a> in which she directed the formation of Articles of Impeachment.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n As has become apparent to any objective observer; that is one who prefers facts over fiction, the Democrats remain locked in an imaginary world struggling to maintain a relevance, a stature of standing that no longer exists.\u00a0 <\/span>Presumably with no Quid Pro Quo, no allegation of criminal conduct, no legally substantial evidence or factual basis and no bipartisan support, in defiance of previous impeachment norms, the Democrats are hell-bent on making public jackasses out of themselves.<\/p>\n In a hearing with Constitutional legal experts <\/a>expected to score big legal points in support of impeachment, the witnesses instead turned out to be smug, hyper partisan activists as they were consistently unpersuasive and unimpressive<\/a>.\u00a0 <\/span>All three displayed not a whit of objectivity or neutrality while touting their own personal political agenda with a foreign policy ax to grind, leaving the unmistakable impression that their testimonies were nothing short of conflated.<\/p>\n Condescending as if pontificating to a class of mediocre law students, Professor Noah Feldman<\/a> had suggested in 2017 that Presidential tweets could be grounds for impeachment, indicative of the depth of his thinking as he repeatedly impressed himself with his own rhetoric.\u00a0 <\/span>Professor Pamela Karlan<\/a> opened with a shrillness that grew into a hyperbole spewing divisiveness among the American people and went on to revisit the Russiagate and foreign electoral influence myth ad nauseam. \u00a0 <\/span>Those dim-witted Democrats on the committee repeated the mantra as if held in a spellbound trance whenever \u201cRussiagate\u201d was mentioned.\u00a0 <\/span>There was no mention of Israel interference in US elections. \u00a0 <\/span>Testimony of Professor Michael Gerhardt<\/a>.<\/p>\n Stating that he had not voted for Trump in 2016, GWU Law Professor Jonathan Turley<\/a> who is a registered Democrat (as is yours truly) opened with a brilliant statement<\/a> as he set the tone for an extraordinarily compelling testimony throughout the day, carefully explaining to the Democrats why they had not met a credible legal threshold for impeachment.\u00a0 <\/span>Factually concise with rational, impartial explanations, Turley effectively disputed Democratic claims that an abuse of power stemming from a presumed<\/i><\/span> effort to help one\u2019s own re-election is \u201cinferred<\/i>\u201d and does not constitute proof of intent or direct knowledge of what was in the President\u2019s mind.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n However, it did not appear that any of the Democrats had the acute sensibility to understand Turley\u2019s point as there is an edge of lunacy to the collective Democratic mind these days.\u00a0 <\/span>What the Democrats fail to grasp is the double-standard that every politician makes decisions based on what is best for their reelection just as the Dems are hoping to benefit electorally in 2020 with the farcical impeachment.<\/p>\n After his testimony, Mr. Turley<\/a> tweeted. \u201cBefore I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with (death) threatening messages and demands that I be fired from GW.<\/i>\u201d<\/p>\n While it was surprising that there was no Democratic Star on either the Intel or Judiciary Committees who stepped forward to make a credible, cogent case for impeachment,\u00a0 <\/span>it was somewhat surprising that the Republicans had an energetic array of participating Members not limited to Intel ranking member Devin Nunes (Calif), Judiciary ranking minority Rep. Doug Collins (NC), Rep. Jim Jordan (Oh) , Rep. John Ratcliffe (Texas) and Rep. Mark Gaetz (R-Fla) all of whom can be expected to continue their Bulldog approach as the Committee begins preparing Articles of Impeachment.<\/p>\n For instance, Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala) asked the defining question regarding the purpose of the hearing with \u201cno fact witnesses<\/i>\u201d via a process that has been \u201cinsufficient, unprecedented and grossly inadequate<\/i>.\u201d Roby pointed out that the Dems had apparently not considered: that a constitutional law panel should come \u201conly after specific charges have been made known and underlying facts presented in full due to an exhaustive investigation. <\/i><\/span> How does anyone expect a panel of law professors to weigh in on legal grounds for impeachment prior to knowing what the grounds brought by this Committee are going to b<\/i>e? <\/span><\/p>\n At her news conference the day after the Judiciary committee hearing, Pelosi was asked by a reporter\u00a0 <\/span>\u201cDo you hate President Trump<\/a>?\u201d\u00a0 <\/span>Pelosi responded with a shaky false piety as if she knows the votes are not there:<\/p>\n \u201cWe don\u2019t hate anybody.\u00a0 <\/span>Not anybody in the World. <\/i> And as a Catholic, I resent your using the word \u2018hate\u2019 in a sentence that addresses me.\u00a0 <\/span>I don\u2019t hate anyone.\u00a0 <\/span>I was raised in a way that is full – a heart full of love and always pray for the president,\u00a0 <\/span>And I still pray for the president.\u00a0 <\/span>I pray for the president all the time,\u00a0 <\/span>So don\u2019t mess with me when it comes to words like that.<\/i><\/span>\u201d <\/i><\/p>\n It is a curiosity that with the 2020 election a scant twelve months away, the Democrats have not made the case for the urgency of why impeachment needs to occur right now, immediately, before the Christmas holidays when the Spirit of Good Cheer, Universal Love and Peace for all Americans should take precedence over the Democrat\u2019s divisive animosity, pitting one American against another.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n In 2018, thirty-one new Democrats were elected to the House; predominately from districts that voted for Trump in 2016 assuring a tough 2020 re-election campaign.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s assume that every one of those 31 newbies have been paying very close attention to the Intel and Judiciary committee hearings with two questions in mind:<\/p>\n Is there sufficient legal evidence to convince my constituents to support Articles <\/span> of Impeachment and is this flawed impeachment campaign worth losing my seat <\/span> in Congress<\/span>? \u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Did any of those 31 notice when the Constitutional law experts were asked by Rep. Matt Gaetz \u201cCan you identify one single material fact in the Schiff Report?<\/i><\/a> – all four remained silent.\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n