By Missy Crane | January 29, 2020

It’s probably not a good idea to try and “takedown” the country’s leading Constitutional law expert.

Chances are it’s not going to end well for you…and if you’re someone like Elizabeth Warren, I can guarantee that it won’t end well for you — and it didn’t.

Trust me, Liz hasn’t been this mortified since she took that disastrous DNA test.

It started off when Warren tweeted out that she was “lost” listening to Prof. D’s (amazing) speech before the Senate.

RELATED: VIDEO: Father Who Paid For Daughter’s College Roasts Elizabeth Warren

Warren told The Hill that “His characterization of the law simply is unsupported. He is a criminal law professor who stood in the well of the Senate and talked about how law never inquires into intent and that we should not be using the president’s intent as part of understanding impeachment.”

“Criminal law is all about intent. Mens rea is the heart of criminal law. That’s the very basis of it. So it makes his whole presentation just nonsensical. I truly could not follow it,” Warren, a former Harvard Law School professor, continued.

It’s ironic because Prof. D’s speech is being hailed literally “brilliant” by all of his (serious) peers.

I know this is over an hour-long but I highly suggest you watch it if you haven’t already. It’s so worth it.

But back to the Warren/Dershowitz feud…

So, Prof D responded to Warren’s claims that his speech was “nonsensical” and she couldn’t follow along.

And he didn’t hold back. Trust me when I say, this was like the DNA test, where Warren was probably thinking “Man, I shouldn’t have done that!”

“Warren doesn’t understand the law. My former colleague, Senator Warren, claims she could not follow my carefully laid out presentation that everybody else seemed to understand. This says more about Warren than it does about me. ”

Warren doesn’t understand the law.
My former colleague, Senator Warren, claims she could not follow my carefully laid out presentation that everybody else seemed to understand. This says more about Warren than it does about me. (1 of 2)

— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 28, 2020

“She also willfully mischaracterized what I said, claiming that I spoke about “intent.” I challenge her to find that word anywhere in my presentation. I talked about the difficulty of discerning mixed motives. (2 of 3)”

She also willfully mischaracterized what I said, claiming that I spoke about “intent.” I challenge her to find that word anywhere in my presentation. I talked about the difficulty of discerning mixed motives. (2 of 3

— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 28, 2020

“(3 OF 3) If Warren knew anything about criminal law she would understand the distinction between motives – which are not elements of crime—and intent, which is. It’s the responsibility of presidential candidates to have a better understanding of the law.”

(3 OF 3)
If Warren knew anything about criminal law she would understand the distinction between motives – which are not elements of crime—and intent, which is. It’s the responsibility of presidential candidates to have a better understanding of the law.

— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 28, 2020

Ouch. Liz did not comment back – and I can’t say that I blame her. I’m sure she doesn’t want to look any more foolish.

After all, her poll numbers are tanking, and she’s chained to the Senate, unable to leave and campaign for the upcoming Iowa Caucus thanks to Nancy Pelosi’s impeachment sham.

Things are not going so well for Warren right now, which is great news for the rest of the country!

 

This piece originally appeared on WayneDupree.com and is used by permission.

Read more at WayneDupree.com:
Report: This Family Lost Three People in Today’s Helicopter Crash
Well, Well, Well…Before The Wedding, Meghan Markle Turned Down Generous Offer From Queen
In His Darkest Moments, Devout Catholic Christian Kobe Bryant Turned to God

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Steve Gruber.