Tucker Carlson: Impeachment Witnesses Had No Evidence Against Trump, Just Opinions | Video | RealClearPolitics

Tucker Carlson: Impeachment Witnesses Had No Evidence Against Trump, Just Opinions

|

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: Today, the House impeachment melodrama shifted from Adam Schiff’s intelligence committee to the judiciary committee, run by Jerry Nadler.

Last month, Schiff’s approach to bringing down the president was to bring in a bunch of intelligence and foreign policy professionals and have them talk about how easily their feelings were hurt. The president said nasty things about me on the phone. When he fired me, I wanted to cry. Please make the orange man go away.

Nadler’s approach was a little different. His strategy on Wednesday was to treat impeachment like a faculty meeting at Wesleyan. Produce academics with nice-sounding credentials, have them condemn the president as a very bad man. So long as nobody payed too much attention, or asked too many questions, displays like this might be able to sway the public:

PAMELA KARLAN: The evidence reveals a president who used the powers of his office to demand that a foreign government participate in undermining a competing candidate for the presidency... If we are to keep faith with our Constitution and with our republic, President Trump must be held to account. Thank you. Thank you, Professor Gerhart.

Professor Michael Gerhardt: If Congress fails to impeach here, then the impeachment process has lost all meaning... I stand with the Constitution and I stand with the framers who were committed to ensure that no one is above the law.

NOAH FELDMAN: On the basis of the testimony and evidence before the House. President Trump has committed impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency.


Wow, it all sounds pretty serious. But what would the framers think? Fortunately, Nadler was there to ask that, and witness Noah Feldman had an answer:

Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) If Washington were here today, if he were joined by Madison, Hamilton, other framers. What do you believe they would say if presented with the evidence before us about President Trump's conduct?

Professor Noah Feldman: I believe the framers would identify President Trump's conduct as exactly the kind of abuse of office, high crime and misdemeanor that they were worried about.


Madison! Hamilton! Washington! The left is trying to pull their statues down all the time, so we know they must be very bad men. Presumably, if even they think Trump is rotten, then impeachment is mandatory.

Of course, once you pause and think for even a moment, this all starts to get a little silly. None of today’s witnesses have evidence against the president. They’re literally just giving their opinion. You probably heard enough impeachment opinions from you cousins over Thanksgiving. Why should we listen to these people? Supposedly, it’s because they have exceptional knowledge and expertise, so they can give a fair, balanced, informed opinion on how to proceed. But do they?

Today’s star witness was Pamela Karlan. Look up her biography online and you’ll see that she’s the “Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law” at Stanford. Before that, she clerked for a Supreme Court justice and earned three separate degrees at Yale. She’s written several textbooks on constitutional law. It all sounds so deeply impressive.

But by now, you’ve probably noticed a theme with impeachment. The more you know about things, the less impressed you are. For starters, Karlan isn’t an apolitical academic pulled out of cold storage to testify. She’s an activist, one who donates thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates:

Rep Matt Gaetz (R-FL): I appreciate your testimony. Professor Karlan, you gave two thousand bucks or you gave a thousand bucks to Elizabeth Warren, right?

Professor Pamela Karlan: I believe so.

Rep Matt Gaetz (R-FL): You gave twelve hundred bucks to Barack Obama.

Professor Pamela Karlan: I have no reason to question that.

Rep Matt Gaetz (R-FL): And you gave two thousand bucks to Hillary Clinton?

Professor Pamela Karlan: That's correct.


Does donating to the left prove Karlan is wrong? No. Instead, her own displays of bias did that just fine. Karlan made strange claims, like claiming that delaying military aid to Ukraine was just like cutting off rescue services to Americans after a hurricane.

She engaged in embarrassing political stunts, like ridiculing the president’s son.

SHEILA JACKSON LEE: What comparisons can we make between kings that the framers were afraid of and the president’s conduct today?

PAMELA KARLAN: The constitution says there can be no titles of nobility. So while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron (laughs).


Wonder how long she practiced that one in the mirror.

It was petty, but not surprising. Karlan has made snide remarks like this before. She previously suggested Jeff Sessions was evil because of the name his parents gave him. In 2006, well before the rest of the left embraced the Great Awokening, Karlan was already bashing people on the basis of their skin color, sex, and sexual orientation:

KARLAN: We have to seize back the high ground on patriotism and on love of our country, because we have more reason than they do to love America... The rich, pampered, prodigal, sanctimonious, incurious, white, straight sons of the powerful do pretty well everywhere in the world, and they always have.

This is the legendary scholar, coming down on high to tell us who is good, and who is evil? Please. Karlan’s fellow witnesses were similarly embarrassing. Noah Feldman, the “Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School,” told lawmakers that he was skeptical of impeachment until this past summer, to suggest that his endorsement was more legitimate. But it was a lie. All the way back in March 2017, Feldman suggested Trump deserved to be impeached over his tweet accusing President Obama of monitoring Trump Tower. He said James Comey’s memo of his conversations with Trump was impeachment-worthy too. He even told Slate that the president doesn’t actually have freedom of speech, and should be impeached simply for saying things Feldman didn’t like.

The only witness today who didn’t embarrass himself was George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley. Reporters are describing Turley as a “GOP witness,” implying he is a partisan Republican. But Turley is a member of the far left. He’s advocated legalizing polygamy and wanted George Bush tried for war crimes. He doesn’t like Donald Trump much. But he called an absurdity where he saw one:

TURLEY: I'm not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him. My personal views of President Trump are as irrelevant to my impeachment testimony as they should be to your impeachment vote.

TURLEY: I get it. You're mad. The president's mad. My Republican friends are mad. My Democratic friends are mad.


Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad? Will it only Invite an invitation for the madness to follow every future administration? That is why this is wrong. It's not wrong because President Trump is right. His call was anything but perfect. It's not wrong because the. House has no legitimate reason to investigate the Ukrainian controversy. It's not wrong because we're in an election year. There is no good time for an impeachment. No. It's wrong because this is not how you impeach an American president.)

That’s really all it is. Everyone in Washington is mad about something, and in a mentally fragile age like this one, every setback requires a nuclear response. Donald Trump thinks Haiti isn’t a nice country? He’s a racist. He wants America to have a border? Bigotry. He thinks it’s suspicious when the corrupt, do-nothing son-in-law is paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by a big company in one of the world’s most corrupt countries? Time to impeach.

Washington may be the most powerful city in America, yet at the same time, it’s full of sad people, grasping for things to complain about that they hope might give meaning to their lives. This morning, one Democrat even complained about the witnesses testifying. Not because they were biased, or unqualified, or irrelevant. But because they had the wrong skin colors:

GREEN: It hurts my heart, Mr. Speaker, to see the Judiciary Committee, hearing experts on the topic of impeachment, and not one person of color among the experts.

Washington thinks they want impeachment. What they really want is help.



Comment
Show comments Hide Comments

Latest Political Videos

Video Archives