Pamela Karlan decided to use Barron Trump as a prop during today’s impeachment hearing. Melania Trump was having none of it and blasted her on Twitter.

As Amanda noted this morning, we are going down a very long rabbit hole with this impeachment process. A rabbit hole populated with knaves, fools, and incredibly biased experts in Constitutional law. With the exception of Jonathan Turley. His opening statement took the entire process to the woodshed.

You know what? He’s right. Just because you are mad that the wrong person, in your estimation, is sitting in the White House, is no reason to bring about impeachment. Just because you are mad that people are being required to do their jobs, is no reason to decide that impeachment is warranted.

Just because you are mad is no reason to smirk about crossing the street so you could avoid walking in front of a Trump hotel. Yes, Pamela admitted to that during a panel discussion not long ago. Isn’t she just a peach?

The thing is, has ANYTHING Trump done rise to the level of impeachment as our Founders defined it?

“Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution defines the jurisdiction of impeachable offenses as being “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” In using the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the Constitution’s Framers employed a well-known phrase with a rich history in the English common law tradition.

In The Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton helpfully defines “high crimes and misdemeanors” as being “those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” By contrast, the men at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 expressly considered the much lower impeachment threshold of mere “maladministration” before deciding against it. Put another way, the Framers specifically deliberated the possibility of constitutionally permitting impeachment for something as trivial as a mere policy disagreement or partisan squabble before rejecting that possibility outright.”

Take a look at what the Democrats have been yammering about regarding impeachment. Does any of it fit the above description?

Evidently Pamela Karlan doesn’t care about what our Founders intended. After whining about reading the transcripts all weekend and having to make do with a store bought turkey, OH THE HORROR, she decided to personally go after Trump and use his son Barron as an example.

Democrat "witness" Pamela Karlan is completely UNHINGED.

She is now attacking @realDonaldTrump's 13 year old son Barron Trump in an attempt to smear President Trump.#StopTheMadness #JerryRigged pic.twitter.com/4aktNR2Tps

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) December 4, 2019

People actually applauded her for saying that! First of all, what an idiotic example to use. Secondly, to sit back and smirk at her cleverness… she planned this and was thrilled that she had the opportunity to use her practiced lines.

Needless to say, quite a number of folks weren’t amused.

Is Professor Karlan serving as a witness in a Congressional impeachment hearing or auditioning to be a writer for Samantha Bee?

And invoking the Presidents 13 year old son is a terrible look for an already terrible hearing. pic.twitter.com/Avuf5uDAJk

— Retired Orrin G. Hatch (@RetiredOrrin) December 4, 2019

One who REALLY wasn’t amused was Barron’s mother, Melania Trump.

A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it.

— Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) December 4, 2019

Indeed, Pamela was angry for much of the day. Her bias against the Trump family was visible and she was proud of it.

I’m seeing quite a number of folks invoke the ‘Republicans did it to Chelsea and the Obama girls!’ But when asked for examples, none seem to show up. Gee, I wonder why? And don’t give me the ‘but Trump was mean to Greta!’ crap. Greta has made herself a public figure, Barron has not.

I applaud Melania Trump for going after Pamela Karlan like the Mama Bear she is. Her son is a minor child and in NO WAY should Pamela nor anyone else have considered using him as a prop during this impeachment circus!

But that’s how unhinged and uncivil the Democrats have become.

Fire words from Professor Pamela S. Karlan.

"While the president can name his son Barron (Trump), he can't make him a Barron (a rank of nobility or title of honour in England, often hereditary)."

Wow.

— Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) December 4, 2019

Well, there were folks in today’s impeachment hearing who were either monitoring Twitter or were alerted to Melania’s smackdown. Pamela suddenly apologized … sort of.

“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’s done that’s wrong, but I do regret having said that.”

In other words, I’m only really sorry if Trump would apologize for whatever. Yeah, she wasn’t sorry and is likely pissed that she had to issue any kind of apology.

Dragging a minor child into this impeachment farce just because you don’t like your actual target is wrong. Pamela knew that, but did it anyway.

Melania Trump was absolutely correct to blast Pamela for what she did. Pamela needs a refresher course on manners and civility.

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

Feature Photo Credit: White House Flickr, cropped and modified