As you know, Wednesday’s meeting of the House Judiciary Committee was a marathon of law professors giving their views on impeachment. As Twitchy reported, Harvard’s Noah Feldman has a history of tweets calling the president’s actions — even a tweetstorm — impeachable, reaching all the way back to just two months after President Trump’s inauguration. And Stanford’s Pamela Karlan joked about how she had to cross the street rather than walk past the Trump hotel.

Ben Shapiro sums it up nicely:

The whole circus was clearly partisan, which bothered Harvard Law School’s Alan Dershowitz, who has been live-tweeting the hearing and fact-checking some of his fellow law professors. This thread’s a little long, but it’s worth the read:

Maybe the Democrats can’t ram this through as quickly as they’d hoped.

Democrats can’t even nail down just what high crime President Trump supposedly committed. Bribery? Extortion? Obstruction of justice? Quid pro quo?

Checks and balances — they’re there for a reason.

He’s exactly right, except for calling them “witnesses” — like many who testified before the House Intelligence Committee, none of them witnessed anything. But yes, all we’ve seen today is lecturing from their preexisting partisan standpoints.

As the Democratic candidates for president have clearly demonstrated, there’s a lot of the Constitution they’d like to tear up, all because Hillary Clinton lost and AR-15s are scary-looking.

More on that in another post.