Here — at The Hill — is Turley's reflection on his sojourn before the House Judiciary Committee. It's almost entirely a self-defense, because he's being attacked for contradicting things he said in testimony when Obama was President and when Bill Clinton was President:
Despite 52 pages of my detailed testimony, more than twice the length of all the other witnesses combined, on the cases and history of impeachment, [Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank] described it as being “primarily emotional and political.” Milbank claimed that I contradicted my testimony in a 2013 hearing when I presented “exactly the opposite case against President Obama” by saying “it would be ‘very dangerous’ to the balance of powers not to hold Obama accountable for assuming powers ‘very similar’ to the ‘right of the king’ to essentially stand above the law.”There should have been a witness who did take the position that the President can only be impeached for criminal acts. Turley took a middle position, and perhaps he demonstrates the dangers of moderation. He's drawing distinctions that his antagonists can fail or decline to see.
But I was not speaking of an impeachment then. It was a discussion of the separation of powers and the need for Congress to fight against unilateral executive actions, the very issue that Democrats raise against Trump. I did not call for Obama to be impeached....
In my testimony Wednesday, I stated repeatedly [as I stated in my testimony during the Clinton impeachment] that a president can be impeached for noncriminal acts.... My objection is not that you cannot impeach Trump for abuse of power but that this record is comparably thin compared to past impeachments.... ... Democrats have argued that they do not actually have to prove the elements of crimes.... In the Clinton impeachment, the crime was clearly established and widely recognized.... [W]e are lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger....
I see there's a column at The Nation titled "The Republicans’ Star Impeachment Scholar Is a Shameless Hack/Jonathan Turley’s testimony was so inconsistent, it contradicted his own previous statements on impeachment." Elie Mystal writes:
Jonathan Turley is punking us. The only dangerous lowering of standards we saw at the hearing was the smuggling of Jonathan Turley onto a panel of experts, the rest of whom were able to testify with academic integrity....I agree that the respect for law professors is a dangerous mistake, but I would not limit that to "right-wing" law professors. However conservative Turley might actually be, I wouldn't call him "right-wing." I wouldn't call the other 3 professors "left-wing," but they were liberals, and they were doing law professor things that Mystal, I presume, would rail against if he didn't like where they were going. As for real left-wing law professors, I remember them well. Back in the 1980s. They attacked liberals. It was called Critical Legal Studies, but that self-destructed a long time ago.
There is simply no professional or societal downside for people like Turley in making these bad, intellectually dishonest arguments. Turley himself was a random environmental law wonk before he made himself famous during the Clinton impeachment years. He made the media rounds then, calling himself a “Democrat” who was willing to speak truth to power about the “serious” nature of Clinton’s misbehavior....
The wheel never comes back around on these people. Alan Dershowitz might get the stink-eye on Marthas Vineyard, but he’s still a media fixture available to spout whatever pro-monarchy theory of government best serves President Trump....
These legal elites are ensconced in tenure and available for comment. They don’t wear MAGA hats or share white supremacist memes on Twitter. They understand that the appearance of “objective analysis” is the key to smuggling in all of their Republican talking points under the guise of balance.... Don’t be lulled into thinking these right-wing water carriers are reasonable simply because they sound reasonable while grifting....
Posts
95 comments:
The fascist left is now threatening him. Don't step off the reservation, they will attack you.
Anger is defensive. Disgust is the proper reaction.
Disgustibus non est disputandum.
Perhaps there’s some room for agreement between left and right that it was all a shit show we could have done without...
It's possible that they're not all that dumb and it's just a role forced on whoever wants to go public today, an assumption about audience demographics.
Nobody says anything vile these days. It's missed. Blame #metoo.
Some days the audience responds to charges of inconsistency, and other days it doesn't. One hardly knows what to charge people with.
Pelosi went with the six flags decor, positive proof that flags have nothing to do with patriotism. Surely she offended Nike at least.
There is simply no professional or societal downside for people like Turley
A call for shunning?
Godel showed that mathematics is either inconsistent or incomplete. This depressed a lot of people but nobody got angry.
Mathematical certainty is not a psychological state.
I guess Turley hit a nerve. Or several.
No, the other 3 professors are left-wing, they are simply not liberals.
They were doing law professor things that Mystal, I presume, would rail against if he didn't like where they were going.
I'm sure you’re familiar with the work of Elie Mystal. Your generosity in considering that he might be writing in good faith makes me want to suggest a bullshit civility tag to go along with your civility bullshit tag.
The whole thing makes me wonder whether, if by some heinous act, or miracle, everyone within a 20 mile radius of the United States Capitol were to simply vanish, the rest of the country would not be greatly better off. I suppose this is why our sworn enemies never attack Washington, D.C.
Elie Mystal called someone else a hack? That's hilarious. He never passed the bar, right?
Part of being a (competent) lawyer is the ability to pursue competing or inconsistent theories and arguments, often concurrently, pleading in the alternative as it were. And someone like Turley who's been around awhile and written and spoken a lot, I'm sure there is plenty of material to parse and pick out "inconsistent" positions. Which of course as a lawyer he is adept at explaining why it's not inconsistent, distinguishing as it were.
I don't think the legal profession, and I'm including the teaching of the law in that, will benefit at all from the glare of this particular spotlight. It's just going to reinforce the general public's view of the profession, what do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean, etc.
Two lawyers can thrive in a town that can't support one.
So true, rh.
Mystal seems to be arguing that anybody not pushing the partisan Democrat line should be deplatformed. Kind of like The Intercept has sort of pushed Glenn Greenwald out for not hewing the political line of the moment required of the Democrats to gain more power.
"The Nation" seems to be returning to its communist roots.
That hearing and its optics were so bad that Nancy chose to bypass the next session.
Nadler is a fool. His two hearings were comedies.
It’s all about delegitimizing and even prosecuting any possible defense of Trump.
"Two lawyers can thrive in a town that can't support one.
12/6/19, 6:30 AM"
And for this we offer thanks and praise to the Almighty.
"Blogger rhhardin said...
Some days the audience responds to charges of inconsistency, and other days it doesn't. One hardly knows what to charge people with.”
That was a good one.
No, the other 3 professors are left-wing, they are simply not liberals.
Apparently those 3 law professors can't be left-wing because some other law professors were a lot more left-wing back in the 80s.
"Elie Mystal called someone else a hack? That's hilarious. He never passed the bar, right?"
I don't know, but he is not tenured, and it must be very annoying to be writing about law and seeing these other people who are, it seems, only doing what you do, but they have this lifetime protection financially while they do it.
I looked it up: By his own assertion, Elie Mystal did not fail the bar exam.
"Apparently those 3 law professors can't be left-wing because some other law professors were a lot more left-wing back in the 80s."
The real lefties who deserved the name, were energized AGAINST liberal law professors and judges. Conservatives were so far out of the picture, they weren't even around to be in the intra-law-school struggles.
Birches said...
Elie Mystal called someone else a hack? That's hilarious. He never passed the bar, right?
And he openly defends defaulting on his student loans. And yet he regularly gets published in prominent outlets because he can be relied on to attack the right kind of people without the slightest hint of shame for his own behavior.
Turley was over the target and the flak coming is furious. Bombs away! Now climb for altitude.
Ann Althouse said...
I looked it up: By his own assertion, Elie Mystal did not fail the bar exam.
I seem to recall from his Above the Law days that he did fail. I’m certainly not going to take his word for it on twitter (while it’s possible he didn’t fail, he never passed).
"...intra-law-school struggles"
Lefties and liberals? Which definition of liberal might that be? The one that doesn't exist anymore?
Turley and Mystal, the hack is in the eye of the beholder.
He passed the bar per Ms. Althouse's post, I remember seeing his name on the passed list on the website. He never got admitted to the bar due to C&F issues, not sure if that had anything to do with bankruptcy or his defaulting on student loans. He was at Debevoise for some time before they canned him due to not being admitted. He's the reason David Lat stopped allowing comments on the blog...too many people kept railing on his columns.
Elie Mystal didn't fail the bar exam, he just failed to achieve a passing score.
The 3 Trump hating nut jobs on the panel were simply that. Leftwing? I'd say yes.
Liberal?
No.
"High" crimes and misdemeanors is a reference to moral failures that cannot be tolerated in the nation's chief magistrate. They may, or may not, involve any "crime" defined by the criminal law.
But a "high" crime must consist of something specific and understandable to the citizens as being an offense quite out of the ordinary for the Chief Executive.
Here, it is very difficult to understand what the "high crime" is supposed to be.
Anyway, it ain't "bribery."
There are no "liberals" as such.
Maybe they were already obsolete or fictional even decades ago.
You have a coalesced tribal confederation of persons with shared culture and values.
It has nothing much, anymore, if ever, to do with ideas, it is all about identity.
They profess certain ideas (that have mutated of course) as a marker of identity.
Bucking the tribal consensus is not a matter of arguing ideas, but of betraying the tribe.
Turley is so green, maybe.
Liberalism is divergent. Progressivism is monotonic. Conservativism is moderating. Principles matter.
alanc709, he passed the NY bar, I don't know why he wasn't admitted. It is possible he failed the MPRE, but I can't imagine him not passing it after multiple tries. We do know he was never admitted in NY, and I assume anywhere else. He's got quite a history, and a family history. But he did play football in high school in Long Island (another abovethelaw post where people made fun of his dough-y football body) and is a double Harvard grad so I guess he has that going for him@
@Buwaya - I agree with you, and have observed to "liberal" friends in recent years that their notion of what the Democrats stand for is far from what they formerly considered "liberal". My uncle, a classic 1960s liberal, still worries about the influence of the religious right, as if Ralph Reed himself is Chairman of the RNC.
Liberals = left wing. There is no such thing as the liberals that existed 50 years ago.
THEOLDMAN
Let's all agree on this:
The bar exam failed Elie.
"My uncle, a classic 1960s liberal, still worries about the influence of the religious right, as if Ralph Reed himself is Chairman of the RNC."
I had someone try this on me the other day. I laughed in his face. Then I asked if he were a born-again Christian. He said no, and then I said, well then what do you know about it?
Another chapter in our (un)civil war. My money's on those with 200 million guns and 2 billion rounds of ammo, versus those that don't know what bathroom to use and are searching for safe spaces (physically and intellectually).
Terms like left, right, center, liberal, conservative, etc don't seem to fit anymore.
Many liberals seem to have reversed their long espoused values 180 degrees without even noticing. I don't call them liberals anymore, I call them Progressives. They often call themselves that now too.
Progressive-ism brought about so many evils a hundred years ago that Progressives stopped using the term until abut the time Obama came along. Now they use it again. For example Hillary called herself a proud, old school Progressive.
Progressive-ism hasn't really changed much. It's still about top down central planning and social status enshrined in the law. It's still obsessed with race and utterly intolerant any dissent.
What an awful existence, paying for Harvard Law and then not being able to pay off those loans because you weren't admitted. He might as well as failed the exam.
From the linked article on Critical Legal Studies:
"...critical legal studies is a political location for a group of people on the Left who share the project of supporting and extending the domain of the Left in the legal academy. On this view the project of critical legal studies does not have any essential intellectual component, which is why I cannot readily identify a great deal that is common in the intellectual production going under the heading of critical legal studies. There should be nothing surprising about this conclusion,of course, in light of the proposition common to most cls authors that law is politics. For, if law is politics, presumably one might also believe that legal-intellectual positions are politics too."
What you have are tribes, with identities, as usual, determined principally by a feeling of belonging. Ideas, beliefs, religion-substitutes, are markers of belonging to this group, a signal to oneself as well as to others in the group.
Technology has made location less relevant re a feeling of belonging, as well as homogenizing culture and reducing its complexity. Whats left are sets of rather crude markers, unexamined and unquestionable dogmas of the moment.
The use of ideas as markers makes it impossible to argue ideas. One has a hard time being dispassionate about ones self-definition and tribal membership. And moreso as culture has devolved through homogenization, paving over complex terrain. You can get into the subtle and complex with someone securely in an ethnic space, because he is what he is without question, but not with someone who will risk being ejected as an apostate, and who has no idea about whats under his feet.
This works similarly on all sides. It takes some distance to see it this way.
At some point, everyone gets educated on the derangement of the left.
I doubt the other three law professors truly consider Turley a friend. They may say it, but I suspect to them, anyone providing a defense of any sort to Trump, is lower than whale crap.
Roger,
In that case, CLS has not self-destructed, but rather has annihilated everything else and taken over completely, to the degree that it cannot be distinguished separately. How can one have a faction if everyone is in the same faction?
Birches he was at Debevoise for at least a year....they paid $165,000 base his year so he had a salary to service the loans. He's a double Harvard grad, and I'll give him credit for this he admitted back in the abovethelaw days that he wouldn't have been admitted to either if he wasn't Black. I guess I get why he's a liberal, and again there's some financial issues with him and his father. He did pass the bar so he isn't completely stupid, but he isn't smart. I didn't do much with Debevoise back in the day and all of my contacts didn't know him.
Without evidence, he claims to have not failed. “Did you pass your examinations? No, but I was first among those who failed.” From the Niagara Falls sketch.
Wikipedia on impeachments of judges. The acquittal of Samuel Chase by the Senate in 1805, after impeachment by the House, seems to have established the precedent that actual evidence of criminality is necessary for impeachment. This is supported (apparently) by Rehnquist's book, Grand Inquests. It would indeed have been good to have a law prof or someone similar make this argument to the Schiff gang. There is only one President: will the House apply a lower standard of wrong-doing for this individual that what would be necessary to impeach a judge, when there are hundreds of federal judges? It's essential for the President to keep his lips pursed, his ass cheeks tightly clenched, never a word spoken out of season?
Elie Mystal is a hack, so he thinks he knows a fellow hack when he sees one.
To Elie, anyone that defends any Republican is not worthy of acceptance by the general public, should be shamed and shunned, should be de-platformed.
Now, I think Elie is a hack, a partisan hack, generally a bad writer, and someone who really does not have much to contribute to the political discussion. But unlike Elie and his ilk, I do not think he should be shunned, do not think he should be de-platformed, and do not think his writing should be banned. I welcome his contributions, as poor as they may be.
I wonder if Elie and his ilk can see the difference.
Ultimately, it comes down to what I always think about these things: most people on the right simply want to be left alone; most people on the left want to control everyone else.
So fuck off, Elie.
You can argue for a moderate take on a particular issue, but a series of moderate takes, that is a series of proposed outcomes balancing legitimate concerns, can be attacked as unprincipled. Of course it is! One cannot state the principle that determines the balance; it is an attitude, caution in Turley's case. Moderation can only be defended in the abstract and in the instance. In the aggregate it is unprincipled. It is what we call civilization.
There is no such thing as the liberals that existed 50 years ago.
They're now called libertarians.
"Donald Trump was elected to break the elite. Of course they want to impeach him."
headline that speaks to the heart of it.
I wouldn't call the other 3 professors "left-wing," but they were liberals
For years, the right has been ignoring the distinctions in opinion on the left. The left did the same to the right, though maybe not to the same extent. But today those distinctions on the left have become blurrier. Remember Karlan's rant against: "The rich, pampered, prodigal, sanctimonious, incurious, white, straight sons of the powerful"? That ain't exactly something Arthur Schlesinger would be caught saying. And Feldman? His bending over backwards to say nice things about Sharia law in his other work may not be old school leftism, but it does mark a departure from what was once mainstream American liberalism.
You might want to get together with Damon Linker, who argues that there are no more moderates in the Democrat race. There are people who support a left cultural agenda and a left economic agenda on one side and people who support a left cultural agenda and don't support a left economic agenda on the other. I'm not sure that's right either, but what's "mainstream" in academia nowadays isn't what "mainstream" American liberalism was or is. It's rage against the patriarchy or the Man or Old White Guys. Arthur Schlesinger was the patriarchy, the Man, and the Old White Guys. The line between acceptable liberalism and fringe leftism isn't as clear as it once was, not only in the universities but also among elected Democrats, at least where race and gender come into play. Maybe we need to work out new terms and labels that aren't corrupted by older connotations.
But, Althouse;
At least give credit to The Nation for criticizing Turley based on his own past inconsistent statements on the subject at hand. The day of the lawprofs' testimony, your commenters were filling the pages of your comment pages with complaints about Pamela Karlan being a lesbian, along with the false claim that she once failed the California Bar Exam.
(I know how that goes, in fact. Many of your commenters have falsely accused me of having failed, or not taken, a bar exam.)
the House apply a lower standard of wrong-doing for this individual that what would be necessary to impeach a judge, when there are hundreds of federal judges?
We could find out if the GOP Senate fails. The next target of the left would be Kavanaugh.
'Milbank claimed that I contradicted my testimony in a 2013 hearing when I presented “exactly the opposite case against President Obama” by saying “it would be ‘very dangerous’ to the balance of powers not to hold Obama accountable for assuming powers ‘very similar’ to the ‘right of the king’ to essentially stand above the law.”'
Jaw-droppingly stupid criticism by Milbank. I know I and others have been banging on at length about it, but the idiotic question-begging and all-around woolly-mindedness that saturates seemingly everything written or spoken about this impeachment farce by its proponents is a wonder to behold. Isn't anybody taught the rudiments of thinking clearly and logically any more?
“Another chapter in our (un)civil war. My money's on those with 200 million guns and 2 billion rounds of ammo, versus those that don't know what bathroom to use and are searching for safe spaces (physically and intellectually).”
Saw an estimate yesterday that it was more likely high 400s, closing in on 500 million guns in private hands, and roughly half of long guns sold the last couple years were MSRs (modern sporting rifles - such as AR-15s). Maybe just the circles that I run in, but 200 million seems extremely low.
Still, I agree with your basic point. I would also point out that they are also likely to be able to control food and energy for the rest of the country.
Mystal could and should say the same thing about Jeffrey Toobin. He seemed like he was somebody one could trust when it was all about OJ Simpson. Punditry has corrupted Toobin. He's become more of an ideologue, a reliable bulldog for his network's party line. I don't think you can really say that about Turley, who may have shown more independence.
In a world that's become more liquid and flowing, talk about hacks and hackery becomes a joke. You could say that David Broder was a hack - whether he was or not - because it seemed like he'd been around, in the papers and on television, forever. But in a world where talking heads are popping up like dandelions all the time, every "expert" picked up by the media has some has actual or potential hackery inside. If you are a regular writer for some ideological publication or website, or maybe even a regular commenter, the germ of hackery is already within you.
"Two lawyers can thrive in a town that can't support one."
I'm reminded of an old cartoon. Two characters greet each other on the street:
1. Welcome to town! What do you do for a living?
2. I'm a criminal attorney.
1. We already have more attorneys than criminals.
2. (pulls gun) In that case, stick 'em up!
The other side is murkier. Conservatism is notoriously difficult to define. There is no actual conservative ideology. Nor has there ever been a set of ideas that were reliable markers.
This is one reason why Russell Kirk is invaluable. He tried to define an ideology for American conservatism. It didn't work of course, but his struggle is instructive.
These days there may be something like an ideology coming to pass, but I think its more that there is a tribal identity coalescing, as a reaction to the powerful other tribe, and this is looking for markers.
Rick to Marcus: "There is no such thing as the liberals that existed 50 years ago."
They're now called libertarians.
The liberals of 50 years ago weren't libertarians, by any traditional definition. They were busily expanding the welfare and regulatory state, and laying down the foundations for the coercive republic of virtue that we all know and love today.
One man's Jesus Christ is another man's Beelzebub. Yawn
Re: Althouse
I don't know, but he is not tenured, and it must be very annoying to be writing about law and seeing these other people who are, it seems, only doing what you do, but they have this lifetime protection financially while they do it.
Does he write about "law," though? I think of him as a legal industry gossip columnist who occasionally mentions legal issues in passing, not as someone writing substantively about the law, or practicing as a lawyer.
Balfegor Elie isn't a law professor, or a lawyer for that matter. He did graduate from HLS and passed the bar but was never admitted. He's never taught a class, let alone tenured.
He did work at Debevoise but he lies on twitter that he left, he was fired for never being admitted to the bar. I don't know why....there were apparent C&F issues with him. David Lat gave him a job at abovethelaw.com where he was routinely ridiculed, for being stupid (fair), and his weight (unfair). He was ridiculed to the point Lat had to stop comments. He seems to have made a good life for himself being a grifter.
I'll make another comment - Elie Mystal is 3 years younger than me but looks 20 years older. I know that on Lat's blog Mystal said he struggled with alcoholism and other dependencies, but my goodness, he looks like he's 60.
Mr. Beat Up Your Grandma for Thanksgiving is a perfect example of today's liberalism.
The liberals of 50 years ago weren't libertarians, by any traditional definition. They were busily expanding the welfare and regulatory state, and laying down the foundations for the coercive republic of virtue that we all know and love today.
I'm reading Amity Schlaes' new book, "Great Society." She has a description of the early days with Moynihan and the beginning of the welfare state. It really got started with Walter Reuther and the UAW. The SDS began at a meeting sponsored at a UAW retreat center.
Isn't anybody taught the rudiments of thinking clearly and logically any more?
Angle, considering how our young are currently being 'educated', it's only going to get worse. It's all about emotion and social justice now. Logic has no place, as it only spoils the narrative.
I’ve read Turley’s blog for years. He’s a fine legal mind.
Oddly, I’ve never found him particularly conservative. I agree with Althouse more frequently than with Turley.
Turley’s always been more negative toward Trump than Althouse, for reasons I have never understood or agreed with.
So, that’s my take.
Turley 6, Idiotic leftwing Mob 1.
Turley's one of the few remaining honorable liberals. He's also one the few remaining intelligent law professors, who actually care about the Constitution and the EQUAL APPLICATION of the law (which, includes our fine Hostess).
John Borell said...I do not think he should be shunned, do not think he should be de-platformed, and do not think his writing should be banned.
Maybe not technically shunned and de-platformed, but there are a lot of really talented writers in the world who can't get decent writing gigs so it's a bit galling that someone like him gets regularly published. It's like they're trying to dumb us down.
Remember: they’re the smart ones.
"I agree that the respect for law professors is a dangerous mistake."
It is a mistake that I have never been tempted to make.
Law school is endless blather from folks who are very good at spotting verbal and intellectual patterns. There have been some great law profs, but the greatest ones are like Socrates: they make the worse appear to be the better side. It's a skill alright. But it leads to that damn awful sherry on Friday afternoons, not a hemlock cocktail with your friends.
Elie Mystal has a rap sheet of publications trailing behind him, like a roll of toilet paper stuck to his shoe after an unfortunate trip to the loo.
I can't take him seriously.
The liberals of 50 years ago weren't libertarians, by any traditional definition. They were busily expanding the welfare and regulatory state, and laying down the foundations for the coercive republic of virtue that we all know and love today.
I think the progressive / liberal distinction is appropriate here.
Liberals wanted to liberate an egalitarian society for all. Progressives just want to progress, so they kept turning that wheel right past liberty and equality and back to a new oppressive society.
mystal was a Obama justice department intern in the civil rights division, doesn't that make you feel warm and cozy,
Turley has not been paying attention.
A law degree these days simply gives you access to the executive washroom where the hand towels are cloth, not paper. My money is on those high school/tech school grads who know how to read a blueprint and construct/wire-up a Transmission substation.
He needs to speak to Dershowitz.
Bay Area Guy: "Turley 6, Idiotic leftwing Mob 1."
Correction: Turley 6, Idiotic leftwing Mob/LLR-lefty Fake Cons 0.
Elie Mystal was never in the Obama administration, the dude graduated from HLS in '03, got fired from Debovoise because he was never admitted to the bar (he's lied about this repeatedly, he didn't "walk away" from the law, he never had a career). He's been part of Lat's failed website since the mid '00's but not even the Obama administration wanted him.
The firearms figure I saw just the other day was 400 million. It was an estimate of the firearms manufacturing trade group. They also mentioned 18 million ARs in circulation.
I wonder if they are just counting "black rifles." This figure would miss things like M-14s or Ruger mini-14s. My Ruger is in a M-1 carbine form factor but is chambered for standard 5.56. I wouldn't call it a modern AR.
"and perhaps he demonstrates the dangers of moderation."
No. Turley just demonstrates the pointlessness of so-called moderation.
As the reaction to his testimony shows, Progs won't give you any credence. If you are not with them, they will try to destroy you. Which also means that affecting moderation in response to immoderately destructive at some point becomes unreasonable. Of course, this applies to Althouse-style "moderates" as well. I wish it weren't so, and as a conservative I would like to have the moderates join us on the merits of our position. But in these times, there are only two sides. Moderates will have to choose: do you give in to the progs, or not? Turley did not; therefore, he is on our side by default.
Althouse is still waiting to "see what happens." She might yet give in to the progs, cuz abortion and "chaos," or whatever she comes up with next. But even she is realizing, I think, that neutrality in time of war favors one side.
"time of war"
it's all in your head little man
I love what Ace had to say about these political professors who damaged the Democrats case beyond repair.
"Wednesday's "expert testimony" from some law profs in front of the House Judiciary Committee can be summed up like this:
Prof. Noah Feldman: "Orange man bad!"
Prof. Michael Gerhardt: "Orange man bad!"
Prof. Pamela Karlan: "Orange man bad! And my womb is barren. As in Barron Trump. Ha ha. Get it? But serious you guys, orange man bad!"
Prof. Jonathan Turley: "Orange man bad, maybe, but not impeachable."
Prof. Pamela Karlan: "I would like to say 'orange man bad' again."
I had never heard of Elie Mystal, so I went to Wikipedia.
He does not have his own page. Who the hell doesn't have a page on Wikipedia these days?
PS. Before I clicked "post" I worried that maybe Althouse doesn't have a page and would huffily come back at me with "I don't, so that means nothing!"
Whew....she does.
Milo,
Your math is hilarious; it implies you think gun owners have an average of only 10 rounds of ammunition per firearm owned!
My only difficulty here is figuring out how many orders of magnitude you are off.
It speaks volumes about Mystal, none of it good, that he thinks a person who crosses the street to avoid walking next to a Trump property has any integrity at all, academic or otherwise.
Post a Comment