These tweets are actually from Wednesday, but we thought they were still relevant today, seeing as Rep. Jerry Nadler’s declaration of a “constitutional crisis” has spread to both the news media and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said Thursday morning that she agrees with Nadler that we’re in the midst of a constitutional crisis, but that President Trump is currently “almost self-impeaching,” so the problem might solve itself without her having to do anything.

Attorney Gabriel Malor would like everyone to calm down.

It is not a constitutional crisis for the executive branch and the legislative branch to exercise their powers in ways that disagree, and pundits should not be indulging Democrats in their chickenlittleism. https://t.co/xwSgV7Myq7 — Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) May 8, 2019

They’ll never take the advice, but we especially like the part about pundits not falling for the bait and blowing this clown show way out of proportion. Cover the news, please, not poor theater.

It's literally the government working as its intended. The exact opposite of a constitutional crisis. — Evan (@Evan_Sally) May 8, 2019

It looks more like a constitutional working to me. — Matt Graves (@graveytrain016) May 8, 2019

This constitutional crisis has confirmed just how much we need to abolish the executive and legislative branches. We need to abolish 2 of the 4 chambers of government. — Based Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (PARODY Account) (@fake_aoc) May 8, 2019

(Twitter ban in 3… 2…)

A crisis in media which parrots these pathetic talking points of @TheDemocrats. Actually this exactly why our founders created the constitution and branches to have this push and pull. Equal branches.

More @washingtonpost propaganda… https://t.co/Ziwk5xm0DJ — L Kaye (@Liberty4Life73) May 9, 2019

Every time the Democrats get frustrated and don't get what they want, even when they don't key government posts and have no mandate from the American people, they call it a Constitutional Crisis. It's not. It's them being told no. — KE Higgins (@higgins_ke) May 8, 2019

Malor, who calls them as he sees them, also thinks the Democrats are overplaying their hand here, badly.

Democrats are overplaying their hand here and likely prolonging any eventual litigation by not narrowing their demands. Under the FRCP, AG Barr is forbidden to disclose grand jury information. Dems should have, at the very least, excluded this from the April 18 subpoena. https://t.co/bUUwi2IH3j — Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) May 8, 2019

FRCP stands for Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in case you were wondering.

You will recall one of the categories of redactions from the Mueller report was for grand jury material. The other redactions were for classified information implicating sources and methods, ongoing law enforcement matters, and personal privacy. — Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) May 8, 2019

“As I discussed with Maddow tonight…”

His characterization of members of Congress and their staff as "federal law enforcement" or "national security officials" is absurd on its face. — Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) May 8, 2019

Thought so myself. Thanks for addressing it. — BurlyMcChesthair (@EauEmGee) May 8, 2019

I didn't realize they were seeking grand jury testimony. — YOUNG AND VIBRANT Moose and Squirrel (@LizbethSherburn) May 8, 2019

They have access to everything but the grand jury information. A copy of that is at the justice department but they won’t go over and read it. They probably haven’t even read the report that was given out to the general population. This is a big game of chicken. Who will fold 1st — William Jennings (@WilRJennings) May 8, 2019

The report was available for Nadler without all redactions, except for GJ, he didn’t look. It’s all smear theater ? — pony ?? (@P0NY) May 8, 2019

Of course they are…this stuff is all just political theater meant to play to their base — Bill Clay? ?? (@NotHansGruber) May 8, 2019

Theater has no rules. — Karl (@KarlGrafxguy) May 9, 2019

But then Barr wouldn't have objected and Nadler wouldn't get to hold him in contempt with this contrived clowshow. That's a feature, not a bug — Eric Hensley (@eghensley86) May 8, 2019

No, because their goal is to be turned down so that they can have a villain in Barr. They need something like this to keep the fantasy alive. — Michael Munson (@MDMunson) May 8, 2019

It’s almost like they are just playing for the cameras and don’t really care about the truth — Ian (@Ianfindmybrew) May 8, 2019

The Left don't want a short litigation. They wanna prolong this until the election. There is no result that will help them, but using a scattershot mud-slinging tactic until a smear sticks has worked for them with the MSM giving the play-by-play and color commentary — dankbubba (@dank1j) May 8, 2019

They just want to drag it out through the election. — #FreeAppFlyer (@Flahutin) May 8, 2019

A logical assumption is that the real goal is to delay. Very Democrat of them. — ❎Some Hayseed❎ (@Yabbut) May 9, 2019

They want to prolong it. That's the point. — Bot37 (@GrahamJ40873898) May 8, 2019

Can they really hold Barr in contempt for NOT breaking the law? Something is so wrong. — Anmarie (@_Anmarie_) May 8, 2019

Finding someone in contempt for NOT breaking a law you want them to break is so 2019. — Lord Bob XIII (@LloydGraham7) May 8, 2019

And once again, here’s a classic Nadler tweet from 2012:

And here are two bonus takes from Brit Hume and Jim Geraghty:

This “constitutional crisis” is barely a constitutional skirmish, a dispute over a tiny slice of a report nearly 100 per cent available and which those calling for contempt have not even read. https://t.co/f2qURgu0AE — Brit Hume (@brithume) May 9, 2019

I mean, I figured a "CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS“ would be a bit more… dramatic? pic.twitter.com/fFy2OP3WpD — Jim Geraghty (@jimgeraghty) May 9, 2019

Related: