Nadler blew his big chance in the Judiciary Committee yesterday

Rep. Jerrold Nadler was hoping for redemption yesterday, having earlier been so inept that Nancy Pelosi gave Adam Schiff's House Intelligence Committee the opportunity to hold "impeachment inquiry" hearings, even though Nadler's Judiciary Committee would have the responsibility of drawing up articles of impeachment.  But yesterday's hearing continued excavating the hole that the Democrats' collective Trump Derangement Syndrome has dug for them.

Nadler's first mistake was to start with law professors lecturing us on their hatred and contempt for Donald Trump.

Most people don't go to law school, and most lawyers didn't go to the elite law schools at which the three lawyers summoned by the Democrats teach — mainly because most people don't have the patience or interest in arcana of the law.  But the three dazzled nobody with their clear and compelling analyses of constitutional law.  (Professor Jonathan Turley, summoned by the Republicans, was, in contrast, erudite, humane, relatable, and compelling.)

Instead, they displayed their own contempt, epitomized by Stanford professor Pamela Karlan's (see AT's Patricia McCarthy today for more on her) nonsensical but nasty attack on President Trump's youngest offspring, Barron, for having a name that is a homonym for a title of nobility.  John Hinderaker:

The silliness of Karlan's argument is confirmed by her reference to the Constitution's "no title of nobility" clause. What's the point? Her "joke" would have made sense if Trump had tried to make someone a count, or a prince, or a baron. But obviously he has not done, or contemplated, any such thing. The question frequently occurs to me: if Donald Trump is such a terrible president, why do the Democrats so often have to make up things he hasn't done, about which to attack him?

Melania Trump spoke for almost all mothers when she responded on Twitter:

Karlan, an open and childless lesbian in a relationship with a "partner" but also claiming to be bisexual, was unable to offer a sincere apology, after the tweet was read during the committee hearing, and instead turned her faux apology into an inchoate attack on President Trump:

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.

Rep. Matt Gaetz, in less than one minute, demolished any effectiveness they might have had:

As Dov Fischer explains, Nadler is cornered, fighting for his political life, and making very bad decisions.

Nadler has been in Congress for 27 years. Basically, a Liberal Democrat Congressman named Ted Weiss dropped dead literally the day before the 1992 New York primaries, and the party basically gave the open seat to Nadler. It is a super-safe Democrat Liberal district that has not gone Republican for more than a century. Nadler now is in his 70s, no longer a spring chicken. His job is safe and sound as long as he does not face a Democrat primary — and he never does. At age 72, after nearly three cushy decades in the seat, he simply is not up for a primary. Think: Joe Crowley. Nadler is not about to go walking the district, knocking on doors, glad-handing, and begging for votes. After a quarter century, he is like the other septuagenarians in that situation, comfortably ensconced in power, unable to give it up, yet unable to campaign vigorously for it. At the first whisper of "Primary!," they throw in the towel.

Jerrold Nadler has been given marching orders, not so much by Adam Schiff or Nancy Pelosi as by the 11-syllabled Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. If you impeach Trump, then we do not run a primary challenger to replace your Judiciary butt. But if Trump escapes impeachment because your committee fails to nail down Schiff's dirty work, then we primary you and run you out of town. Quid. Quo. In 11 syllables.

Nancy Pelosi just announced that impeachment proceedings will go forward.  She must fear the TDS-obsessed base turning against her caucus and either not voting or running primary challenges against enough members of her party that she would be sure to lose the House majority and her speakership next November.

The Democrats have brought this down upon themselves with their refusal to accept the loss of the presidency that voters handed them in 2016.  They will reap the whirlwind.

Photo credit: YouTube screen grab.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler was hoping for redemption yesterday, having earlier been so inept that Nancy Pelosi gave Adam Schiff's House Intelligence Committee the opportunity to hold "impeachment inquiry" hearings, even though Nadler's Judiciary Committee would have the responsibility of drawing up articles of impeachment.  But yesterday's hearing continued excavating the hole that the Democrats' collective Trump Derangement Syndrome has dug for them.

Nadler's first mistake was to start with law professors lecturing us on their hatred and contempt for Donald Trump.

Most people don't go to law school, and most lawyers didn't go to the elite law schools at which the three lawyers summoned by the Democrats teach — mainly because most people don't have the patience or interest in arcana of the law.  But the three dazzled nobody with their clear and compelling analyses of constitutional law.  (Professor Jonathan Turley, summoned by the Republicans, was, in contrast, erudite, humane, relatable, and compelling.)

Instead, they displayed their own contempt, epitomized by Stanford professor Pamela Karlan's (see AT's Patricia McCarthy today for more on her) nonsensical but nasty attack on President Trump's youngest offspring, Barron, for having a name that is a homonym for a title of nobility.  John Hinderaker:

The silliness of Karlan's argument is confirmed by her reference to the Constitution's "no title of nobility" clause. What's the point? Her "joke" would have made sense if Trump had tried to make someone a count, or a prince, or a baron. But obviously he has not done, or contemplated, any such thing. The question frequently occurs to me: if Donald Trump is such a terrible president, why do the Democrats so often have to make up things he hasn't done, about which to attack him?

Melania Trump spoke for almost all mothers when she responded on Twitter:

Karlan, an open and childless lesbian in a relationship with a "partner" but also claiming to be bisexual, was unable to offer a sincere apology, after the tweet was read during the committee hearing, and instead turned her faux apology into an inchoate attack on President Trump:

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.

Rep. Matt Gaetz, in less than one minute, demolished any effectiveness they might have had:

As Dov Fischer explains, Nadler is cornered, fighting for his political life, and making very bad decisions.

Nadler has been in Congress for 27 years. Basically, a Liberal Democrat Congressman named Ted Weiss dropped dead literally the day before the 1992 New York primaries, and the party basically gave the open seat to Nadler. It is a super-safe Democrat Liberal district that has not gone Republican for more than a century. Nadler now is in his 70s, no longer a spring chicken. His job is safe and sound as long as he does not face a Democrat primary — and he never does. At age 72, after nearly three cushy decades in the seat, he simply is not up for a primary. Think: Joe Crowley. Nadler is not about to go walking the district, knocking on doors, glad-handing, and begging for votes. After a quarter century, he is like the other septuagenarians in that situation, comfortably ensconced in power, unable to give it up, yet unable to campaign vigorously for it. At the first whisper of "Primary!," they throw in the towel.

Jerrold Nadler has been given marching orders, not so much by Adam Schiff or Nancy Pelosi as by the 11-syllabled Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. If you impeach Trump, then we do not run a primary challenger to replace your Judiciary butt. But if Trump escapes impeachment because your committee fails to nail down Schiff's dirty work, then we primary you and run you out of town. Quid. Quo. In 11 syllables.

Nancy Pelosi just announced that impeachment proceedings will go forward.  She must fear the TDS-obsessed base turning against her caucus and either not voting or running primary challenges against enough members of her party that she would be sure to lose the House majority and her speakership next November.

The Democrats have brought this down upon themselves with their refusal to accept the loss of the presidency that voters handed them in 2016.  They will reap the whirlwind.

Photo credit: YouTube screen grab.