RUSH: I just learned something about Democrat “witness,” and I put that in quotes, Pam Karlan, Pamela Karlan. She is the Stanford law professor who’s been testifying about what a reprobate Donald Trump is. “He abused his power!” All of this rotgut, partisan hackery. Well, it turns out that this witness donated thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton and was on Hillary Clinton’s short list of Supreme Court nominees.
And then it all went up in smoke when Hillary couldn’t even run a campaign, couldn’t even draw flies to book signings or campaign stops, couldn’t even deign to go out into these states where some “deplorables” live. No wonder she’s unhinged. No wonder she’s ticked off. I wouldn’t be surprised if this woman wore one of those vagina hats in protest after Trump won. Remember that, when Trump announces a travel ban and so forth and all these vagina-hat women start showing up all over?
I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if she’s one of them. She donated thousands of dollars to Democrats, was on Hillary Clinton’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination. So is it any surprise that this babe has a vendetta? They all have a vendetta against Trump! But again, I’m telling you, Turley? Turley’s one voice, I think, was able to illustrate and put in context the lunacy of all of these so-called legal scholars.
RUSH: I got sound bites of all these people (sigh), and you really need to see them, too. The arrogance and the superiority these people have just drips off of them. I don’t know what it is. Is it arrogance? It’s also condescension. This babe, Karlan, pulled a Pencil Neck. She even made up a story about Trump denying the Louisiana governor disaster relief. Grab sound bite number eight.
Remember what this is. This is an impeachment hearing. Trump’s abused his power. No, Trump committed bribery! Oh, no! They dropped the bribery. There isn’t any bribery. That didn’t focus group well. So now he’s abused his power. The New York Times is coordinating: Trump has abused his power! It’s all these people are saying, and here’s Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan testifying as part of her opening remarks.
KARLAN: (shouting) Imagine living in a part of Louisiana or Texas that’s prone to devastating hurricanes and flooding. What would you think if you lived there and your governor asked for a meeting with the president to discuss getting disaster aid that Congress has provided for? What would you think if that president says, “I would like to do you… I would like you to do us a favor. I’ll meet with you and I’ll send disaster relief once you brand my opponent a criminal.” Wouldn’t you know in your gut that such a president had abused his office, that he betrayed the national interest?
RUSH: Stop the tape! It didn’t happen. That’s why I was so livid watching. This did not happen. She is building off the same technique that Adam Schiff used. Adam Schiff lied about the call between Trump and Zelensky while he was sitting in his committee chair. The actual chair. The committee was in session, and Adam Schiff said that the president told the president of Ukraine to “dig up — make up, if you have to — dirt on my opponent.
“He told him seven or eight times, ‘Make it up, dig it up, and don’t get back to me until you’ve found it. Now I’m gonna send my guy over there, Rudy. You’ll like him. Let him help you. But don’t get back to me ’til you’ve found and made up that dirt on my opponent.'” That’s what Schiff said, and it was a total lie, because Trump had released the transcript. Nothing even close to that happened — I mean, not even close. Schiff totally made it up.
And he was called out on it, and he then said, “Well, I was doing parody to try to make the point. I was trying to, you know, lighten the proceedings.” It wasn’t funny, and he got away with it for 30 minutes before a single Republican called him out on it. I’m blowing a gasket watching it on TV, and there’s not a single Republican who objected to it, and here comes this babe making up another story based on that lie. “Imagine you live in Louisiana and you need some hurricane relief, and the president says, ‘I’m not gonna send it to you until you dig up dirt.'”
None of this ever happened!
These are law professors. These are the most brilliant among us. These are the best and the brightest. These are people teaching students about the law. She’s an abject faker and liar, because she’s a partisan hack who has been poisoned with abject hatred. She’s a donor to the Democrats, a donor to Clinton, and she was on Hillary’s short list for a Supreme Court nomination if Hillary had won. So she’s understandably ticked off and hates Trump because he wouldn’t…
This is made up!
Trump never told the president of Ukraine to “make up dirt, dig up dirt, and don’t get back to me ’til you found any,” and he certainly never told the governor of Louisiana any such thing. This stuff needs be gaveled down and closed immediately. This is a… It goes beyond character assassination and lying. You want to talk about abuse of power? The Democrats are engaged in it in spades here. I mean, this is just beyond the pale — and to have this woman presented as an unassailable witness because she’s a scholar and she’s a law professor and she teaches at Stanford, and you can’t object!
Just like you couldn’t object to Lieutenant Colonel Vindman — O say can you see. “You better be very careful around Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, and you better be very careful around Karlan because she’s a woman and you can’t criticize a woman.” This is just outrageous. “Imagine if…” She’s trying to make an analogy. Later, one of these other lawyers, this guy Gerhardt from North Carolina, says, “You know, my analogies aren’t nearly as good as Professor Karlan’s, but let me try.
“Let’s say that you’re robbing a bank and as you’re leaving with the money. You know you’re gonna get caught so you drop the money on the floor. Did you rob the bank or not, even though you don’t leave with the money?” I said, “W-w-what bank did Trump rob?” No, folks. I tell you, a bunch of people were sending me notes this morning watching this thing, telling me they had to turn it off ’cause they couldn’t deal with the hate. The hate they were watching made ’em uncomfortable.
RUSH: This Jersey City, New Jersey. This Michael. Hello and welcome to the program.
CALLER: Thank you. Thank you. Listen, here’s my question. Why are the Democrats having this hearing with four academics who have no direct knowledge whatsoever about what’s going on? I don’t understand.
RUSH: I’ll tell you why, it’s a great question, I’ll tell you exactly why they’re doing it. ‘Cause none of the other witnesses were compelling and influencing anybody, and they didn’t have any personal contact with Trump, either. They had all these ambassadors and all these Foreign Service civil servants, and every one of them had secondhand knowledge, and they were boring stiffs. And the audience ratings plummeted every day they were on. So it was a bomb.
So the Round Mound of the Gavel decides we need something compelling and we need something official, and he realizes there’s not a single Democrat that can offer any credibility. So they have to go out there and grab who they think are credible and unassailable. And who are they? Scholars, lawyers, professors. And these professors have been acting as fact witnesses.
This is a comment I made at the beginning of the program, and it’s another thing that ticks me off. These people are acting like they were on the phone call, they heard Trump make the phone call, and it was outrageous what happened. They’re all acting like they’re the whistleblower, in essence.
None of them met Trump. None of them know Trump. None of them heard the phone call. The transcript of the phone call is out. The babe is making up stories, but the reason they’re doing this is because they think — oh, another thing. They have shifted away from bribery because that bombed out on ’em like Wile E. Coyote. So now they’ve shifted to abuse of power.
So these constitutional experts are there to explain the stupid idiots that are the American people why what Trump did is so bad and why Trump needs to be kicked out of office. It is pure liberal hackery on display here. I’m so ticked off I can’t tell you.
RUSH: I want to read to you about this Pamela Karlan. The more that we learn about her, one of the so-called witnesses today… I want to read to you here from National Review back in 2013, October 10th. From the article: “Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan is a favorite candidate of the Left for a Supreme Court seat, in large part because (as this 2009 New York Times article put it) the Left ‘hungers for a full-throated, unapologetic liberal torchbearer.'”
By the way, she “puts herself in a category of ‘[s]narky, bisexual Jewish women.'”
That’s how she describes herself: “Snarky, bisexual Jewish women.”
The article goes on to say that she is a supporter of partial-birth abortion. What’s strange about that? She’s a commie babe, for all intents and purposes. But here she is as a scholarly, objective constitutional lawyer witness to abuses of power of Donald Trump. Remember, this woman thought she was destined for the Supreme Court after Hillary Clinton would win the presidency, something to which she donated thousands and thousands of dollars.
RUSH: Bevin in Richmond Virginia. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks so much for taking my question.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: You kind of already were getting to it, but I’ve been wondering all day, first of all, why the expert lawyers who have been lecturing — I’m not gonna use the word “testifying” but lecturing — to us are allowed to be called “witnesses.” That is my first question because my concern is, they’re not witnesses, and they’re not testifying. But by calling them witnesses, it gives them a heightened sense — to the public, a heightened sense — of authority.
RUSH: And credibility. Bingo. You’re exactly right.
CALLER: Yeah. What I was listening to, the bit I listened to, is such a mind game. These lawyers basically… I thought, you know, “They’re lawyers. You’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.”
CALLER: And they immediately just —
CALLER: — come right out and say, “Trump did it!”
RUSH: No. They’re lawyers. “We take the case only if we think we can get you a judgment that we’re gonna take 70% of.”
CALLER: Well, I just don’t understand why those lawyers can sit there and definitively say Trump has done something illegal when it hasn’t been proven yet.
RUSH: Well, how can the press say it?
CALLER: Well, the press is the press. But, I mean, you’re a lawyer. You’re —
RUSH: No, no. The press isn’t the press. These are all left-wing hacks now, Bevin.
RUSH: That is the answer to your question. They are not appearing as lawyers today. That’s the disguise. That’s the camouflage. That’s how they’re obfuscating. That’s how they’re hiding. These are the epitome of uber, angry, hate-filled, left-wing hacks, angry that Trump won the election. They are part of the effort to get him thrown out of office, to reverse the results. They’re showing up as lawyers and witnesses, because this is how the Democrats think they can be unsalable, how they can be not criticized, how they can be not not believed. They are supposedly experts you cannot disbelieve.
CALLER: Yeah. I’m wondering, though, too, why is there no accountability? Because if they’re going to accuse the president of the United States of committing a crime definitively before he’s been proven to, why is there no accountability for that?
RUSH: Well, because — interesting question. Congress has its own set of rules of conduct and behavior and law, in a sense. Like, you might say, well, how come the Republicans don’t get their own witnesses, how come they don’t get Trump’s lawyers and so forth.
RUSH: The House can make the rules and they can deny the minority anything they want to deny them. Elections have consequences. And Democrats can run this House of Representatives however they want to.
RUSH: See, the remedy, the accountability in this case is at the ballot box.
RUSH: No, no. That’s not just a cliche.
CALLER: No, I agree.
RUSH: That’s the accountability. They’re not accountable in a court of law here. There’s no way you can go in and say that Nadler has committed a crime by virtue of the way he conducted hearings. You can’t accuse him. You can’t accuse these witnesses of committing crimes by testifying to things they haven’t seen. They’re being called witnesses, but their expert opinion is what is being sought.
CALLER: Yeah. Well, besides praying fervently that God would bring justice in this situation, I’ve also kind of been praying, like you said, that the American people, Democrat or Republican, would wake up and see through this mind game and be offended that they’re trying to take us for fools.
RUSH: Well, I can identify with that. To be honest with you, I’ve had that same hope my whole life —
CALLER: Yeah. Thank you for –
RUSH: — that some force, that some power, that something would happen that would cause the American people to see this for what it is.
RUSH: But you can’t wait for that to happen. You have to try to help it along, which is why I am behind the Golden EIB Microphone. I know the polls where the press, the media’s got the lowest approval ratings, respect that it’s had in a long, long time. But there’s something about if people see the words written on a page, piece of paper, newspaper, even on a Web page, it’s true. “I read it.” Some people, “I saw it on TV. It’s gotta be true. I saw it.” And depending on who said it on TV, it’s true.
The two most powerful institutions in the creation of public opinion are education, education system, and the media. And it’s a constant, constant battle. And through my life I have been both pleasantly surprised that more people than I ever dreamed saw things the way I did, and I’ve also been dumbfounded that people didn’t. So you just never know.
You have to realize most Americans are not watching this, Bevin, even if these things get boffo ratings. The highest ratings these things got during Schiff’s committee I think was 13 million, and that was spread out over, what, four networks, maybe five. That’s nothing in comparison to the numbers of people that vote. And then the numbers got smaller every day there were hearings.
Now, the Democrats know that. They were terribly let down. They were thinking Watergate hearings with 50 million people watching. So that’s what they’re still trying to create here. It’s another reason why they got these people. They think these people are gonna be automatically more credible and more powerful and more compelling than a bunch of dryball civil servants were.
But they still don’t have a fact witness who can testify to any allegation they’ve made. And that, at the end of the day, is all anybody really needs to know. They’re making all these accusations, and they don’t have one witness who saw it happen, who heard it happen, who knows that it happened. Even their whistleblower was a fake, secondhand, and was blown to smithereens when the transcript of the call was revealed.
That’s what’s so mind-bogglingly frustrating to me about this. There hasn’t been any evidence for any allegation they have made in three years plus.