Jessica Tarlov’s op-ed criticizes Republicans for blindly supporting President Trump. That’s rich considering the fact that supporting the Pelosi-Nadler-Schiff trifecta is a profile in blind partisanship.

In her op-ed Ms. Tarlov writes “I can’t seem to stop paying attention and am oftentimes overwhelmed by the gravity of what we’re witnessing. Though it’s my job to pay attention, the dynamics of this story, from the president’s abuse of power, to the geopolitics, to the personal stories of those who have testified, would draw anyone in.”

First, what gravity is she talking about? The first impeachment hearing in Nadler’s Judiciary Committee featured 3 Democrat activists masquerading as law professors and a real law professor. The highlight of that hearing was Jonathan Turley admonishing the Democrats on the Committee for abusing their power:

First, during the Impeachment Committee hearings, aka the Schiff Show, Democrats called one hearsay testifier after another. Marie Yovanovitch, the Democrats’ third hearsay witness, was fired 3 months before the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call. What she added to the hearing is still a mystery. Lt. Col. Vindman listened to the call. After the call, he voiced some concern to his boss. His boss, in turn, dismissed his concern.

Legal experts are still waiting for the Democrats’ first fact witness. In fact, Democrats didn’t call a single fact witness during the Judiciary Committee’s hearings. Again, I ask “what gravity”? Is Ms. Tarlov insisting that Democrats impeach President Trump for doing more to help Ukraine militarily than President Obama did? President Trump sold Ukraine lethal defensive weapons in the form of Javelin anti-tank missiles. By comparison, President Obama shipped Ukraine blankets and meals-ready-to-eat, aka MREs.

Our reality TV president is now the subject of a reality TV impeachment filled with dramatic twists and turns – and the show isn’t over yet. The evidence in favor of impeachment seems overwhelming to me.

Ms. Tarlov, what evidence are you talking about? The only testimony from firsthand witnesses favors President Trump. Ambassador Sondland, who actually spoke with President Trump, said this on cross-examination:

Presumptions, Ms. Tarlov, aren’t evidence. This isn’t evidence, either:

For those of you who, like me, suffered multiple whiplash injuries in that exchange, here’s the transcript:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on Sept 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky.

That’s from Ambassador Sondland’s amended deposition. Why that’s considered a clarification is baffling. That isn’t clarification. That’s confusion. Either way, it isn’t evidence. It’s hearsay on steroids.

In my mind, it’s obvious that Trump threatened the president of Ukraine to demand a political favor and improperly held back $391 million in desperately needed military aid approved by Congress to help Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression. Trump eventually gave Ukraine the money – but only after a whistleblower exposed the president’s improper conduct.

What’s in Ms. Tarlov’s mind is difficult to determine. Freud might not be able to figure that out. Suppositions aren’t proof. Without emails or texts between the 2 principles, Ms. Tarlov’s statements are rubbish.

Without legitimate, verifiable proof, Democrats don’t have a case. That isn’t just an opinion. It’s Professor Turley’s expert opinion:

This is worth examining:

“But this is certainly the thinnest of the modern record. If you take a look at the size of the record of Clinton and Nixon, they were massive in comparison to this, which is almost wafer thin in comparison,” Turley said.

“There’s a difference between requesting investigations and a quid pro quo. You need to stick the landing on the quid pro quo. You need to get the evidence to support it. It might be out there, I don’t know. But it’s not in this record,” Turley said.

Suffice it to say that Ms. Tarlov’s op-ed didn’t stick the landing.

Leave a Reply