>>7939812 (pb)

Dersh

Watched it last last night. My only concern was his repeated disclaimer that his conclusion that both Articles of Impeachment are unconstitutional is contrary to the findings of the majority of other recent legal analyses. This gave the MSM talking heads and pundits way too much to latch onto in criticizing Dersh's presentation.

Rather than simply implying that he might be considered rogue on the issues, I would have rather had him call out, e.g., Lawrence Tribe's work and specifically detail the flaws in his legal reasoning. This is what allowed that legal lightweight nitwit Elizabeth Warren, who knows no shame, to ridiculously tweet out that Dersh's "characterization of the law was unsupported". As if she had the faintest clue.

Dersh was far too deferential to the other paid Dim hacks. He should have called them each out by name and ripped them all a new azzhole citing chapter and verse where he knew they were being disingenuous. He argued as if he was appearing before the SC and not the U.S. Senate and the entire World. Too much Ivory Tower and Dersh wanting to appear 'independent'. This is a War and he should have gone for their throats.