Somehow a picture of the so-called “unicorn puppy,” appropriately named “Narwhal,” seems appropriate today. The Democratic Party/”resistance”/mainstream media has been pushing its corrupt impeachment plot on the assumption that sufficient Trump-haters would find it cute, but as of yesterday the undemocratic motives and ugliness of the effort stood out like a tail on a puppy’s face. You can’t hide it, and lots of people will convince themselves that it’s attractive. But rationally, the damn thing has to come off.
1. On the Stanford law professor’s joke about Barron Trump’s name. Oddly, perhaps the most harmless part of the otherwise embarrassing testimony of Stanford constitutional law professor Pamela S. Karlan yesterday became the most controversial. “While the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron,” she said.
HAHAHAHAHA! Good one, professor! Gratuitous and completely irrelevant to the issues at hand, but hey, anything to throw fish to the seals! Based on the outrage around the conservative media, most of which only referenced this knee-slapper without quoting it, I assumed that she had actually insulted the teenager. I kept reading about how this was one more example of the double standard: using Obama’s daughters for political warfare was off limits, but now this mean professor was getting laughs from Democrats by making fun of Barron Trump. Laura Ingraham tweeted that this joke was guaranteed to turn the public against the impeachment farce for good. (I don’t think so, Laura. You should get out more.) Naturally the First Lady piled on, tweeting at the professor, “A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it.” Trump 2020 national press secretary Kayleigh McEnany went even more overboard:
“Only in the minds of crazed liberals is it funny to drag a 13-year-old child into the impeachment nonsense,” she wrote. “Pamela Karlan thought she was being clever and going for laughs, but she instead reinforced for all Americans that Democrats have no boundaries when it comes to their hatred of everything related to President Trump. Hunter Biden is supposedly off-limits according to liberals, but a 13-year-old boy is fair game. Disgusting. Every Democrat in Congress should immediately repudiate Pamela Karlan and call on her to personally apologize to the president and the first lady for mocking their son on national TV.”
Oh come ON.
Sure, Karlan exposed herself as an angry, biased, unprofessional and incompetent fool (she was on Obama’s short list for the Supreme Court, and reportedly also a favorite of Hillary’s) , but not with that remark. She mentioned the name of the President’s son! The Horror. She didn’t even make fun of it. Nobody, even the Obama-obsessed, ever held that a President’s children couldn’t be mentioned in public. This was nothing.
Unfortunately, Karlan really is a Trump Deranged wacko, so she issued one of the worst apologies in memory, proving her dead ethics alarms and her ugly bias in one swell foop, a Level 9 and 10 Apology (that’s baaaad) for the ages. To refresh your memory from the Ethics Alarms Apology Scale…
9. Deceitful apologies, in which the wording of the apology is crafted to appear apologetic when it is not (“if my words offended, I am sorry”). Another variation: apologizing for a tangential matter other than the act or words that warranted an apology.
10. An insincere and dishonest apology designed to allow the wrongdoer to escape accountability cheaply, and to deceive his or her victims into “I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president’s son. It was wrong of me to do that. I wish the president would apologize, obviously, for the things that he’s done that’s wrong, but I do regret having said that,” Karlan said.forgiveness and trust, so they are vulnerable to future wrongdoing.
“I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president’s son. It was wrong of me to do that. I wish the president would apologize, obviously, for the things that he’s done that’s wrong, but I do regret having said that,” Karlan said. Wow. Now that’s an insincere apology, mixed with a wild “It’s not the worst thing!” rationalization (#22), plus a sprinkling of #2 A. Sicilian Ethics, or “They had it coming,” #7. The “Tit for Tat” Excuse, and #32. The Unethical Role Model: “He/She would have done the same thing.”
This is an awful woman, and a worse professor. But she had already demonstrated that.
2. The House Democrats, specifically Rep. Nadler, who most have recruited these three hyper-partisan law professors, really did the nation a favor. The three proved so many contentions true that those with any objectivity have been pointing out for three years. Since the President’s election, professionals have, in “Happy Days” terms, jumped the shark, and abandoned the objectivity and supposed wisdom that made them respectable as experts. Bias really does make you stupid, and that’s no hyperbole: it has made historians, journalists, judges, psychiatrists, academics, lawyers and others literally so blinded by hate and bias, plus the desperate desire to be admired by their deranged peer groups, that their IQs have fallen like IPod futures.
And fnally, we got a definative integrity and derangement test for everyone’s social media Trump Hater friends . If a Facebook friend could watch what Ann Althouse called “the posturing politicos professors,” then watch or read Jonathan Turley’s calm, scholarly, measured testimony reducing the impeachment claims to mulch, and still not think, “Oh my God! The Democrats have nothing! This is a complete abuse of the impeachment process aimed at removing an elected President because the Left doesn’t like him! (Or as Althouse’s first commenter put it, mocking Karlan, “If Trump existing isn’t impeachable, then nothing is impeachable.),” then you know they are completely gone, brain melted, judgment wiped out. It isn’t even a close call.
3. Another good comment on the Althouse post: “My takeaway? I sure hope these three nutcases aren’t typical of law school faculty all over the country.” Not typical, perhaps, but there are far too many law professors like them to have any faith in legal education.
Here was perhaps the worst of Karlan’s rant, though it’s a close race, as she posited what a law student might ask her:
What would James Madison think of us right now, can you tell me, professor? How about Hamilton?, what does he think, because we care about what that guy thinks now because of the Broadway musical about him. Well, this is the most impeachable thing that ever came down the impeachment trail. If this isn’t impeachable, then nothing is impeachable, and any President will be able to do anything and it won’t be impeachable!
Turley subsequently pointed out, accurately, that unlike the previous three impeachment inquiries, the Democrats had not even identified an actual crime. Another Althouse commenter reacted to Karlan’s ridiculous hyperbole with this (Either Ann’s progressive commenter have boycotted her like the Ethics Alarms leftists left this forum, or they have all turned against impeachment):
Oh really? If we can’t impeach for White House meetings in exchange for political investigations then we certainly can’t impeach a president for giving the nuclear launch codes to the Chinese. That’s it, sorry, the bar has been set by [this] idiot at the hearing. The last 24 hours were another self-inflicted wound to the impeachment push. The level of incompetence in the affair is so staggering that it’s beginning to look intentional.
4. Read this. Pamela McCarthy at the American Thinker saved me a lot of time with her excellent analysis, hitting virtually ever point I would make. Too bad she writes for an avowedly conservative publication, so it will be routinely ignored. If the New York Times or Washington Post had any integrity, they would be publishing columns echoing her.
5. One final, amusing comment from the Althouse thread, vulgar, but true:
“The Progs like to sneer that Trump supporters have insufficient respect for expertise. Well, expertise just came before Congress and punched itself in the nuts on national TV.”