After suffering through hours of some of the most partisan testimony from obviously-biased Democrat witnesses on Wednesday, we finally got some real pushback from Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL). I was waiting all day for SOMEONE to bring up the three witnesses’ political biases, and Gaetz really got the job done. Here is what he said, including some back-and-forth with each of the witnesses:
Gaetz: Well, the American people also elected Donald Trump to be president of the United States in the 2016 election, and there’s one party that can’t seem to get over it. Now we understand the fact that in 2018, you took the House of Representatives, and we haven’t spent our time during your tenure in power trying to remove the speaker of the House. Trying to delegitimize your ability to govern. Frankly, we’d love to govern with you. We’d love to pass USMCA. We’d like to put out a helping hand to our seniors and lower prescription drug prices. It’s the will of the people that you ignore when you continue down this terrible road of impeachment. Professor Gerhardt, you gave money to Barack Obama, right? [Gerhardt: my family did, yes.] Four times?
Gerhardt: it sounds about right, yes.
Gaetz: Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request relating to Mr. Feldman’s wiretap tweets saying “Mr. Trump’s wiretap tweets raise risk of impeachable….
Nadler (interrupting): The gentleman will suspend.
Gaetz: My time…
Nadler: Have we seen that material?
Gaetz: We can provide it to you.
Nadler: then we can consider the, uh, unanimous consent later after you (mumbles)… The gentleman may continue.
Gaetz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Feldman wrote articles entitled, “Trump’s Wiretap Tweets Raise Risk of Impeachment.” He then wrote, “Mar a Lago Ad Belongs in Impeachment File,” and then Mr. Flanagan (opinion) wrote that, “A Harvard Law Professor Thinks that Trump Could be Impeached over Fake News Accusations.” My question, Professor Feldman, is since you seem to believe that the basis for impeachment is even broader than the basis that my Democrat colleagues have laid forward, do you believe you’re outside of the political mainstream on the question of impeachment?
[Me: Here, Gaetz begins to expose the outrageous political biases of the three witnesses. As you can see, Feldman was advocating impeachment for trivial matters. The notion that he is somehow an objective legal scholar providing unbiased testimony is patently absurd.]
Feldman: I believe that impeachment is warranted whenever the President abuses his power for personal benefit or to corrupt the democratic process.
[Me: Here, Feldman conveys the Democrat Party line, i.e., that the President’s actions were for his “personal benefit” when the reality is quite different as the phone call transcripts convey. The discussion was about matters that were not personal at all.]
Gaetz: Did you write an article, “It’s Hard to Take Impeachment Seriously Now”?
Feldman: Yes, I did write that article back in May of 2019.
Gaetz: Did you write in that article, “Since the 2018 election, House Democrats have made it painfully clear that discussing impeachment is primarily or even exclusively a tool to weaken President Trump’s chances in 2020. Did you write those words?
Feldman: Until this call on July 25th, I was an impeachment skeptic. I changed my mind, sir, and for good reason.
[Me: Yeah, you changed your mind when you were approached to testify before this committee and wanted your 15 minutes of fame. You’ve been in favor of impeaching POTUS since he was inaugurated.]
Gaetz: Thanks, I appreciate your testimony. Professor Karlan, you gave a thousand bucks to Elizabeth Warren, right?
Karlan: I believe so.
Gaetz: You gave twelve hundred bucks to Barack Obama?
Karlan: I have no reason to question that.
Gaetz: You gave two thousand bucks to Hillary Clinton?
Karlan: That’s correct.
Gaetz: Why so much more for Hillary than the other two (smiling)?
[Me: Love the sense of humor while exposing her as a Democrat donor, showing the world what her political biases really are.]
Karlan: Because I’ve been giving a lot of money to charity recently because of all the poor people in the United States.
[Me: Yeah, right. If you believe that line, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Her body language gave her lie away.]
Gaetz: Well, those aren’t the only folks you’ve been giving to. Have you ever been on a podcast called “Versus Trump”?
Karlan: I think I was on a live panel that the people who ran the podcast called it “Versus Trump.”
Gaetz: Do you remember saying the following. “Liberals tend to cluster more. Conservatives – especially very conservative people – tend to spread out more, perhaps because they don’t even want to be around themselves.” Did you say that?
Karlan: Yes, I did.
Gaetz: Do you understand how that reflects contempt on people who are conservative?
Karlan: No, what I was talking about there was the natural tendency – if you put the quote in context – the natural tendency of a compactness requirement to favor a party whose voters are more spread out. And I do not have contempt for conservatives….
[Me: LMAO! Are you kidding me? Anyone watching her emotional invective throughout the day wouldn’t be fooled by that weak attempt to claim that she’s not biased against conservatives! The woman worked in the Obama DoJ, for heaven’s sake, which is at the center of the political corruption that we are still uncovering.]
Gaetz (interrupting and not letting her filibuster): I have to say when you talk about how liberals want to be around each other and cluster, and conservatives don’t want to be around each other and want to spread out, it makes people …. you may not see this from, like, the ivory towers of your law school, but it makes actual people in this country [Karlan tries to interrupt] … You don’t get to interrupt me on this time. Now let me also suggest that when you invoke the President’s son’s name here, when you try to make a little joke out of referencing Barron Trump, that does not lend credibility to your argument. It makes you look mean. It makes you look like you’re attacking someone’s family – the minor child of the President of the United States. 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. And let the record reflect, no personal knowledge of a single fact, and you know what? That continues on the tradition that we saw out of Adam Schiff, where Ambassador Taylor could not identify an impeachable offense, Mr. Kent never met with the President, Fiona Hill never heard the President reference anything regarding military aid, Mr. Hale was unaware of any nefarious activity with aid, Colonel Vindman even rejected the Democrat talking point that bribery was invoked here, Ambassador Volker denied there was a quid pro quo, and Mr. Morrison said there was nothing wrong on the call. The only direct evidence came from Gordon Sondland, who spoke to the President of the United States, and the President said, “I want nothing. No quid pro quo.” And you know what? If wiretapping a political opponent is an impeachable offense, I look forward to reading the Inspector General’s report because maybe it’s a different president we should be impeaching.
Now THAT was the best five minutes in the Wednesday hearing! Particularly that last bit where he called her out on her gratuitous remark about Barron Trump. She destroyed her own credibility with that comment. Like most rabid liberals – likely including her circle of friends and colleagues – she just couldn’t help insulting the President and his supporters.
We need more of that, folks. The Democrats’ impeachment farce needs to be thoroughly exposed as the corrupt and partisan process that it is. Their rush to impeachment tells us all we need to know. Pay close attention!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member