Pamela Karlan, one of the constitutional scholars who testified during yesterday’s edition of the “impeachment inquiry” farce, may be a renowned legal mind.
But her obviously-rehearsed insult line about President Trump, with its gratuitous reference to Trump’s 13 year old son, Barron, was stupid. And mean-spirited. And disgusting because, while it did not personally insult Barron Trump it singled him out for ridicule.
While giving her opinion on President Trump’s use of his powers under Article 2 of The Constitution, Karlan said this:
“Contrary to what President Trump has said, Article 2 does not give him the power to do anything he wants. The Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility, so while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron.”
Pamela Karlan may be a legal whiz. But a comment like that displays an astounding lack of both common sense and logic. What did she think the reaction would be to drawing a 13 year old child into her sarcastic, snarky diatribe? Did she think everyone would find it funny? Entertaining? Did she think people would be talking about what a clever wordsmith she was?
Not surprisingly, this was taken badly, very badly, on both sides of the aisle – enough so that it was communicated to Karlan while she still was in the hearing, causing her to put out an “apology” of sorts.
My experience is that, when people who make the kind of comment Pamela Karlan did are forced into a state of contrition, they have a tendency to make things even worse. And, in this regard, Karlan didn’t disappoint.
Here is her “apology”:
“I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president’s son. It was wrong of me to do that. I wish the president would apologize, obviously, for the things that he has done that’s wrong but I do regret having said that.”
There you go. An “apology” in the form of another attack on Trump.
Would you accept this as being sincere? I assume the answer is no. As it should be.
All Karlan did was prove – again, as she had been proving throughout her testimony – that she was not there just for her scholarly credentials, she was there as a partisan political hack, to attack the President.
For that, we didn’t need a constitutional scholar. Jerrold Nadler, career partisan hack that he is, or most of his Democrat cohorts on the committee, could have done that at least as well, probably a lot better. And most of them did.