Earlier today Democrats gave a televised lesson in what appeal to authority looks like: Leftie law professors reacting to thirdhand information passed through Democrats’ biased perspective relating to Ukraine. Then this happened:

Instead of impressing us with intellectual prowess, this law professor behaved no better than the common Twitter troll. I disagree with the characterization that it was an “attack” (I also hate that descriptor as a substitute for “disagreed with”) but she did mock the kid’s name, no matter how you spin it. It was a clearly contrived line that fell flat and later she offered what seemed like a conditional apology:

Yeah, that’s not how apologies work. Furthermore it’s irrelevant what the father does, the son doesn’t pay the penalty for the father’s sins, real or imagined (I had this discussion from the Biblical perspective earlier, also). Disliking the father isn’t a pass to go after the son. I loathe when any politicians’ minor children (who aren’t 50 years-old, thus not children, and don’t use their father’s influence to win a seat on the board of an energy company when they’ve no energy experience). I disliked it with the Obama girls and while Chelsea Clinton and I are around the same age, I remember cringing when I heard her name brought up negatively in adult conversations during my youth. It’s unnecessary and the last refuge of those who have no other argument — or who are simply poor at making them.

Some in media and others disagreed:

Just keep the minor kids off limits, OK? As a rule of thumb, I even apply this to politicians’ adult kids, too, unless they campaign with/for the politician, work for the administration, or, like Hunter Biden, create concerns regarding ethics by seeming to benefit inappropriately by the politician’s elected influence.