One of the “witnesses” brought forward by House Democrats descended into a bizarre rant about how President Trump ruined her Thanksgiving holiday.
Stanford law professor and lawyer Pamela Karlan testified Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee that she was so distracted poring over other “witness” transcripts during her Thanksgiving holiday that she was forced to order a pre-cooked turkey in the mail.
“I spent all of Thanksgiving vacation sitting there reading these transcripts,” Karlan said. “I didn’t – I ate, like, a turkey that came to us in the mail that was already cooked because I was spending my time doing this.”
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
17 comments:
"Unhinged" huh?
Know what story I don't see here? That the consensus of the experts in their field on Constitutional law and impeachment is that Trump guilty of abuse of power, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. Not only did they say this is the consensus they described it in terms of the law and how the framers of the Constitution specified these things.
This house of cards is gonna fall, and all the distraction and distortion in the world can't change that.
Ignore the distractions and distortions. Focus on the facts.
Karlan doesn't even have an active status as a lawyer or judge, they are just anti Trump puppets.
She struck me as being a total fruitcake!
12:37, that's how she struck most of us, total bs fruitcake.
This impeachment will totally destroy whats left of the democrat party and we will all be better for it! TRUMP 2020 AND 2024 ( SINCE THE LIBERAL IDIOTS WASTED TOO MUCH OF HIS TIME)
Turkey in the mail? I call bull$hit
Oh boo good “professor “. You are a radical leftist. Do you even partake of Thanksgiving or some off beat goofy alternative? Disgrace to legal professions.
Karlan and her female partner had to share a breast.
Why does she have to read other peoples statements? Is she afraid she might accidently tell the truth?
12:34 Ahh I see you fell for the anti Trump puppet show. How come when Rep Gaetz asked them if they had any proof of abuse of power they sat there like crickets? Don’t get distracted by all the fluff and chatter😉
Wow, she can afford a Thanksgiving dinner delivered to her home? Be thankful for that. If you have high paying job, expect to have to high level responsibility. Plenty of hard working American have to work on the holidays. Quit your ****.
You can't convict someone without evidence. Feelings, presumption, hate and opinions don't count.
When did and how long did the mail take to get that turkey there?
@ December 5, 2019 at 5:49 PM
Ahh... you fell victim to his dishonest slight of hand. The question he asked was not about the facts, or their thoughts on the facts, he asked:
"So let's see if we can get into the facts. To all of the witnesses. If you have personal knowledge of a single material fact in the Schiff report, please raise your hand."
The question was if they had personal knowledge of the facts, which was loaded, and the representative knew it. None of these experts in their field, Constitutional law and impeachment and the history thereof, would have had personal knowledge. They are presenting their opinion on the facts given by those testimonies of the people THAT HAD personal knowledge of the material facts.
Notice, that none of those opposed to this actually address any of the facts? Everything they do is about something completely different? The strategy is to muddy, confuse, and distort.
Don't be distracted, don't let the distortions confuse. This house of cards is gonna fall.
Look, I voted for Trump. In the light of all the evidence gathered, if the House did not go through with this they would not be doing the job they were elected to do... there IS a STRONG argument to be made that Trump is guilty of what he is being accused of... do they have enough to make it happen? Of that I am unsure... but to pretend that there isn't evidence, and that this is purely political posturing is to willfully, and partisanly, ignore the evidence.
7:33 Sonderland testified Trump said he wanted nothing from the Ukraine. No quid pro que. He just wanted Zelinsky to do the right thing.
You only voted for Trump because you could not stomach Hillary
This impeachment circus is just that. A circus. Another attempt from the left to try and change the outcome of the 2016 election. Nothing more. Bipartisan at its finest. Those smoke and mirrors your talking about are coming from the left. You are just too blind to see.
And the fact that you don’t see a problem with Biden and his son and Burmisa tells me all I need to know. You got caught up in all that smoke son.
@ December 7, 2019 at 7:46 AM
What makes you think I don't have a have problems with the Bidens and Burisma? What made you think that, where in my post did I say that... and how could you POSSIBLY conclude that "tells me all I need to know"?
Seems like somebody has been drinking too much of the far right news entertainment media kool-aid.
Go back and re-read what I posted and point out where I mentioned anything about the Bidens. Go ahead... I'll wait. I wonder if you have the courage and fortitude to admit you were wrong.
Trump didn't need to hold up desperately needed funds to see if Zelinsky was going to do the right thing. It would be one thing if there was a history of Trump being engaged in corruption fighting... but all Trump has a history of is caring about Trump... which is why it is so glaringly obvious that these favors he wanted were not for America's benefit... but for his.
Now, as I stated before... I don't know, and it's probably doubtful, that there is enough hard evidence to convict Trump on this, but he really looks guilty. How do you think it would have played out? Trump just holds up the money and never acknowledges it in hopes that Zelinsky plays his game? What if Zelinsky didn't..... Trump never releases the money?... and he only released the funds after he knew he was caught.
Come on. None of us were born yesterday.
They ALL should be investigated and sent to jail if guilty . But first you have to allow witnesses to testify
Post a Comment