DimWit Politics

Professor Karlan Puts Trump Derangement Syndrome On Display

 Breaking News

Professor Karlan Puts Trump Derangement Syndrome On Display

Professor Karlan Puts Trump Derangement Syndrome On Display
December 10
16:43 2019

During the first session of the now-official Impeachment Hearing, the Democrats continued to establish rules and a format that is fundamentally unfair.  This was supposed to be a session in which legal scholars were to provide a framework and historic context for impeachment – at least that is how the session was sold to we the people.

Instead, it was a political gangbang featuring three strident anti-Trump Democrats and one witness selected by the Republicans.  You had a biased chair in Jerry Nadler, a lopsided biased Democrat majority on the Judiciary panel and a three-to-one ratio of Never Trumpers against a single witness speaking in opposition to impeachment – at least at this time.

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

The panel included Professor Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School, Professor Michael Gerhardt of University of North Carolina and Professor Pamela Karlan of Sanford Law School – picked by the Democrats – and Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University – selected by the Republicans.

While both Gerhardt and Feldman were adversarial to Trump, it was Karlan that showed serious symptoms of Trump Derangement Syndrome.  Her opening statement was an emotional scolding screed.  She was the mean old schoolteacher that we all may have experienced in our younger days.  The only thing missing was that ruler with which to slap our palms.  But then again, Karlan had the most documented record of anti-Trump statements – and the earliest calls for impeachment.  She is a woman obsessed, if not possessed.

Karlan leans so far left that even President Obama balked at naming her to the Supreme Court – selecting Sonia Sotomayor as being more “moderate.” Ponder that for a moment.  Karlan has long argued for the powers of Congress uber alles.  She is not a fan of the constitutional balance of powers.  She demonstrated that sentiment in her testimony.  She saw no reason to look to the federal courts to resolve the “powers” dispute between Trump and Congress – the proper way to resolve such jurisdictional issues.

Upon the election of Trump, Karlan and a handful of like-minded colleagues issued a public letter to the President-elect, pre-emptively calling for action against Trump’s imagined constitutional transgressions.

“Although we sincerely hope that you will take your constitutional oath seriously, so far you have offered little indication that you will. We feel a responsibility to challenge you in the court of public opinion, and we hope that those directly aggrieved by your administration will challenge you in the courts of law.”

Karlan had no more basis to call for legal action against Trump prior to his inauguration than she does now.  It is her political obsession.

In December of 2016 – again prior to Trump’s inauguration – Karlan said:

“Nearly every president has probably done something that a court has later held unconstitutional or contrary to law.  But I can’t think of one who had such an across-the-board combination of ignorance, indifference, and defiance.”

Karlan is not only an extreme leftist, she is just plain mean.  That was seen when she embroiled Trump’s underage son in her anti-Trump screed.  In a departure from anything that had to do with the impeachment issues, Karlan warned Trump that he can name his son Barron, but he cannot make him one.  It was a cheap shot more worthy of ward-heeler than a so-called “scholar.”  It was so shamelessly obscene that it brought an unprecedented – and justified — rebuke from the First Lady.

Since her purpose was to only reiterate, repeat, restate and summarize all those Democrat talking points we have heard over and over, Karlan served no real purpose.  She witnessed nothing and assumed everything.

In her warning about foreign interference in our elections, Karlan argued that it diminishes the right of we the people to select our leaders.  She apparently missed the irony of supporting an impeachment process that does much more than “influence” our elections.  It overturns them.  If logic and common sense prevailed, we would not be subjected to this dubious impeachment gambit.

Of course, the left loved Karlan.  She was described as a “strong woman.”  I have admiringly dealt with a lot of strong women in my lifetime – and Karlan does not fit the description.  I never considered specious arguments delivered via angry rants a sign of strength.  Quite the opposite.

According to several polls, fervor for impeachment has waned a bit among the public even as Democrats pressed their case – echoed and amplified by an all too friendly news media.  If Karlan is the best they can do, it will continue to wane.

So, there ‘tis.

About Author

Larry Horist

Larry Horist

Larry Horist is a conservative activist with an extensive background in economics, public policy and politics. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman, as well as the White House. He has testified as an expert witness before legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress, and lectured at major colleges and universities. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He can be reached at lph@thomasandjoyce.com.

Related Articles


No Comments Yet!

There are no comments at the moment, do you want to add one?

Write a comment

Write a Comment

Special Offer

Latest Comments

Covid-19 is a very contagious virus. Its molecules spread via droplets and can last on...

Please keep an eye on Sweden, which has not effected close down procedures. Watch how...

I admire your outlook. I have pretty much the same. My dad is almost 90...

Take a Look!

Don’t Miss This!

12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt Displaying 12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt.