With the second set of impeachment hearings starting Wednesday, things are looking worse and worse and more ridiculous on the part of the Democrats.
To maintain the secrecy in the manner of Adam Schiff, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler waited until late Monday to release his list of witnesses for the coming hearings which begin on Wednesday. When he did, however, the response was deafening.
The witnesses include three chosen by the committee’s Democrats, and one chosen by the committee’s Republicans.
The Democrats’ witnesses include Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman, Stanford Law School professor Pamela Karlan, and University of North Carolina Law School professor Michael Gerhardt. The sole Republican witness is George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley, a liberal who nonetheless has become a frequent critic of Democrats’ approach to the Constitution in recent years.
Last month, Turley said that Democrats were “proceeding on the narrowest basis for impeachment in the history of this country.”
Feldman is respected for the nuances of his constitutional insights, and worked on the drafting of a new Iraqi constitution in the wake of the toppling of Saddam Hussain a decade-and-a-half ago. Yet he was taken in by the “Russia collusion” conspiracy theory, claiming in September 2017 that “more and more evidence of collusion between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia has come to light.” (None was eventually found.)
It truly seemed like everyone had a bias against President Trump with the exception of Jonathan Turley.
It's quite clear that the Democratic witnesses were chosen to help buffer the "case" for Nadler Schiff, as they were asked to explain why the impeachment process has been constitutional and necessary. The three witnesses proved to be nothing but your typical Democrat suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Furthermore, these selections embolden the Republican stance that the process itself has been entirely flawed from the start because, if it weren’t, these constitutional scholars would be completely unnecessary.