Boomerang has to say his piece about the judicial kangaroo heist.
Well, Boomerang had finally settled down from his agitation over the Kangaroo Court held earlier in the House Intelligence Committee and as we shifted our focus for Christmas, along came Congressman and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler and his gang of "I never saw anything good about the President" committee members with more of the same. Boomerang has some chores to do before Christmas and now he's back on his rant, driving everyone crazy with another charade. You will remember that Nadler, who lacks the common sense to not eat during an interview, was recorded during that sickening experience with sounds that, in the words of what my dear departed Aunt Alma, a straight shooting Outer Banker might say, "it was enough to puke a buzzard."
Chairman Nadler and his biased committee majority lived up to their low expectations by calling four supposed "legal experts" to testify, all four being professors of law at prestigious universities. Sadly, only one of the four presented logic and legal expertise befitting of a person who believed in government of laws not men. The other two were clearly hand-picked for their well known bias and Boomerang fidgeted as he might if he was getting ready to box. He's a smart kangaroo, very conservative in approach, and he can pick a pig in a poke almost immediately.
Of the four, Professor Pamela Kaplan of Stanford University, spouted liberal dogma and opinion, nothing based on on fact or legal reality, and embarrassed herself by inserting young Barron Trump, son of the President, drawing the ire of the First Lady herself and poor reception by those she perhaps thought would be impressed. Next was Professor Noah Feldman, Harvard professor, generating the same opinion-based comments without factual basis as well as University of North Carolina Professor Michael Gerhardt, still more of the same. Opinion was used with no facts, all three had a track record of solid support for Democratic candidates and issues and, frankly, put the audience which had watched the previous Intelligence Committee opinion-driven testimony to sleep. But it didn't put Boomerang to sleep as he was pacing the floor and I was afraid he was going to start boxing with some of the fixtures in the house, perhaps even the walls or, heaven forbid, my face.
The only witness who was logical and based his commentary on law and fact was Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, also a liberal but a liberal in the tradition of a Professor Dershowitz or even Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Professor Turley stated that he didn't vote for Trump, but he did see the actions being considered as being completely out of line and inappropriate, eliciting a positive grunt out of Boomerang who listened closely. While I may not agree with Turley on many things, I find him respectable and reputable and he always uses the law and reason in reaching the point he wants to make. I can agree to disagree with him, but he always presents himself professionally and is worthy of being listened to.
A couple of other points should be brought out. Professor Kaplan, under what I might call forced reflection, apologized for the Barron Trump comment. The Democratic lawyer asking questions, Norm Eisen, has been tied to George Soros in establishing think tanks contrary to traditional American political values. And when all three were asked if any of them could cite one fact that was offered as evidence in the earlier intelligence hearings, the crickets could be hear chirping.
In reality, the real problem that the Left has with Trump is that he is doing exactly what he said he would do during his campaign. That is anathema to the Left for it dramatically and adversely impacts their One World Order goals. But none of that is impeachable, and they know it and don't care. What they also don't realize is that after these two sets of biased and stage managed hearings, the Presidents poll numbers are going up not down, with the most recent Rasmussen Poll giving him a fifty-two percent support rating.
So, now we are about to turn to another chapter as the saga goes on. And for now, Boomerang and I will turn back to Christmas and the more joyous things it represents. Okay, Boomerang, it's time for you to go and check on that Christmas tree and see if things are as they should be. Relax, big guy and have a Merry Christmas.
Chairman Nadler and his biased committee majority lived up to their low expectations by calling four supposed "legal experts" to testify, all four being professors of law at prestigious universities. Sadly, only one of the four presented logic and legal expertise befitting of a person who believed in government of laws not men. The other two were clearly hand-picked for their well known bias and Boomerang fidgeted as he might if he was getting ready to box. He's a smart kangaroo, very conservative in approach, and he can pick a pig in a poke almost immediately.
Of the four, Professor Pamela Kaplan of Stanford University, spouted liberal dogma and opinion, nothing based on on fact or legal reality, and embarrassed herself by inserting young Barron Trump, son of the President, drawing the ire of the First Lady herself and poor reception by those she perhaps thought would be impressed. Next was Professor Noah Feldman, Harvard professor, generating the same opinion-based comments without factual basis as well as University of North Carolina Professor Michael Gerhardt, still more of the same. Opinion was used with no facts, all three had a track record of solid support for Democratic candidates and issues and, frankly, put the audience which had watched the previous Intelligence Committee opinion-driven testimony to sleep. But it didn't put Boomerang to sleep as he was pacing the floor and I was afraid he was going to start boxing with some of the fixtures in the house, perhaps even the walls or, heaven forbid, my face.
The only witness who was logical and based his commentary on law and fact was Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, also a liberal but a liberal in the tradition of a Professor Dershowitz or even Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Professor Turley stated that he didn't vote for Trump, but he did see the actions being considered as being completely out of line and inappropriate, eliciting a positive grunt out of Boomerang who listened closely. While I may not agree with Turley on many things, I find him respectable and reputable and he always uses the law and reason in reaching the point he wants to make. I can agree to disagree with him, but he always presents himself professionally and is worthy of being listened to.
A couple of other points should be brought out. Professor Kaplan, under what I might call forced reflection, apologized for the Barron Trump comment. The Democratic lawyer asking questions, Norm Eisen, has been tied to George Soros in establishing think tanks contrary to traditional American political values. And when all three were asked if any of them could cite one fact that was offered as evidence in the earlier intelligence hearings, the crickets could be hear chirping.
In reality, the real problem that the Left has with Trump is that he is doing exactly what he said he would do during his campaign. That is anathema to the Left for it dramatically and adversely impacts their One World Order goals. But none of that is impeachable, and they know it and don't care. What they also don't realize is that after these two sets of biased and stage managed hearings, the Presidents poll numbers are going up not down, with the most recent Rasmussen Poll giving him a fifty-two percent support rating.
So, now we are about to turn to another chapter as the saga goes on. And for now, Boomerang and I will turn back to Christmas and the more joyous things it represents. Okay, Boomerang, it's time for you to go and check on that Christmas tree and see if things are as they should be. Relax, big guy and have a Merry Christmas.
Looking sharp, Boomerang. Who's the little guy with you?
RSS Feed