To begin at the beginning, my alter ego and braino super pal Judah M. Friedman and I are riding around glorious Los Angeles in the rain. In our woolly Jewish heads, we’re trying to digest some things. Two heads are sometimes better than one, and this just might be such a time.

The MSM keeps answering GOP criticism of the Nadler Committee hearings by saying, “They’re just investigative hearings. They’re just elected representatives seeking the truth and whether or not that truth contains an impeachable offense. It’s an election year and legitimate candidates are running for high office. Why shouldn’t Mr. Nadler and his goons go on the attack, especially if it helps a distinguished POTUS candidate like the estimable Joe Biden?”

Well, here from our highly partisan but still secretly independent brains come a few thoughts about why it’s not so darned right.

For one thing, is Joe Biden really a legitimate candidate? I mean, we mean, he’s obviously a nice guy. He’s from one of my favorite states, Delaware. But there’s some wiring missing. He nibbles on his wife’s finger while waiting to speak. He confuses New Hampshire and Vermont relative to where he’s speaking in the next few minutes. He had a hard time knowing what to say, for example telling a lengthy anecdote about how, where he lived as a youth and when he lived there, young boys and girls would swim up to his lifeguard tower and rub themselves against his legs and stroke his leg hair.

I cannot imagine if Mr. Trump recalled such incidents about his youth, how long it would take the MeToo-ers to go after him with a pitchfork and a vat of boiling tar. But when a Democrat “progressive” (or whatever he is) goes into such stories, it’s all “boys will be boys” and “give the guy a break.”

So what’s wrong with that? The better question is, according to my colleague, Judah, “What’s not wrong with that?” Why isn’t he being investigated and tormented the way Judge Kavanaugh was?

Politics works in mysterious ways.

Or take the hearings today, Wednesday, December 4, 2019. The witnesses were four major hitter legal scholars from top-drawer law schools. But even though Nancy Pelosi had promised that the hearings would be nonpartisan, three of the four witnesses were and are Democrats. The fourth was supposedly independent but said he had voted Democrat for president since he was a lad. (He was, by the way, a fine witness. Name is Turley.) The other three were eating up Trump’s escargots for lunch and dinner. When Professor Turley made the absolutely unexceptionable point that Mr. Nadler was rushing things, he was blasted to atoms by the MSM. So much for thoughtful scholarship.

What’s right with this portrait of the legal system and the courts? Not a thing. It’s all a partisan witch hunt, and we’ve seen way too many of those since November 2016.

We’ll be keeping track, and we’ll get back to you with more of these relics of New England in another era.