One constitutional expert brought in Wednesday to bolster Democrats’ case for impeaching President Trump took a pot shot at his 13-year-old son, while another repeatedly stressed the “manufactured” and “flawed” effort offers “no credible evidence” of a crime.

“Democrat ‘witness’ Pamela Karlan is completely UNHINGED,” Steve Guest posted with a video to Twitter. “She is now attacking @realDonaldTrump’s 13 year old son Barron Trump in an attempt to smear the president.”

The attached CNN clip featured Karlan, a Stanford Law School professor, taking aim at the youngster.

The Constitution “does not give him the power to do anything he wants,” Karlan said, “and I’ll just give you one example that shows you the difference between him and a king, which is: the Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility.

“So while the president can name is son Barron, he cannot make him a baron,” she said to laughter from the chamber.

Karlan was among four constitutional lawyers summoned by Democrats to the House Judiciary Committee to testify about the impeachment effort, and she didn’t disappoint.

She told lawmakers Trump “must be held accountable” for allegedly violating his oath of office.

“Based on the evidentiary record before you, what has happened in the case before you is something that I do not think we have ever seen before: a president who has doubled down on violating his oath to faithfully execute the laws and to protect and defend the Constitution,” she said, according to CNN. “If we are to keep faith with our Constitution and our Republic, President Trump must be held to account.”

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Jonathan Turley, a renowned constitutional expert, offered a much different take.

“The statement has been made, not by these witnesses but by Chairman Schiff and others, that this is a clear case of bribery. It’s not,” he said. “And Chairman Schiff said that it might not fit today’s definition of bribery, but it would fit the definition back in the 18th century. Putting aside Mr. Schiff’s turn toward originalism, I think it might come as a relief to his supporters and him that his career will be a short one.

“There is not an originalist future in that argument,” he said. “The bribery theory being put forward is as flawed in the 18th century as it is in this century.”

“I’ve gone through all of the crimes mentioned, and they do not meet any reasonable interpretation of those crimes,” he said later, “and I’m relying on the expressed statements of the federal courts. …

“I think all of those decisions stand mightily in the way of these theories, and if you can’t make out those crimes, then don’t call it that crime,” Turley said.

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Turley also insisted that the nation’s founding fathers, particularly George Washington, would be ashamed of Democrats’ impeachment circus.

“I do find it rather surprising that you’d have George Washington in this jury pool. I would strike him for cause, George Washington was the first guy to raise extreme executive privilege claims. He had a rather robust view of what a president could say,” Turley said.

“If you were going to make a case to George Washington that you were going to impeach over a conversation he had with another head of state … I would expect his powdered hear would catch on fire.”