This morning I will be testifying at the House Judiciary Committee in the opening hearing into the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump. My testimony is available below.
It has been roughly 20 years since I testified at the same hearing in the impeachment of President William J. Clinton and roughly 10 years since I was lead counsel at the last Senate impeachment trial (with my co-lead counsel Daniel Schwartz).
The hearing will be held at 10:00 am in 1100 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515. It is open to the public.
I have the pleasure of appearing with three esteemed academics:
Noah Feldman, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law and Director, Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law at Harvard Law School
Pamela S. Karlan, Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School
Michael Gerhardt, Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence at The University of North Carolina School of Law
Here is my testimony:
PROFESSOR TURLEY — IMPRESSIVE TOUR DE FORCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW!
SO PROUD TO BE A SMALL HUMBLE PART OF HIS PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS!
HAIL TURLEY!
thanks to the professor and Darren and all the fellow commentators of all stripes. keep it up!
Nice use of ALL CAPS and lower case, along with poor grammar, to make your point.
im just showing my emphatic approval of the fine constitutional lesson that prof turley has given us.
you ever been here before john or are you a messenger boy?
i have nearly 1000 posts here the past year and I never seen your name
even though the other three people didn’t agree with him.
another noob speaks
see how it works guys? let’s turn this out from this little blog into the bigger venues for a look at what’s happening.
the Left understands “information warfare” — and so they they send out their minions to defame and insult experts who may support a Republican position, and they attempt to intimate commentators with snarky blurbs
this does not work one on one; but the overwhelming effect of a thousand such minions spewing venom can indeed poison public opinion. see the avalanche of insults against Turley on Twitter now. wow!
this is why they tried to hard to lock down the internet against “hate” and now Google, Apple, Twitter, etc are banning conservative accounts that don’t even come close
it is high time to treat major ISPs and portals claiming section 230 immunity as utilities who ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BAN VOICES THEY DONT LIKE
OR ELSE THEY SACRIFICE THEIR SEC 230 IMMUNITY
“i have nearly 1000 posts here the past year and I never seen your name”
big whoop
i’ve seen anonymous a lot.
why not pick a nom de plume? cant be bothered? or you already had a few and burned them?
He was paid for his testimony
lawyers usually are. but do you have proof? not that it would matter, I just wonder how many of the various things new people are showing up here saying about turley today have a factual basis
not like you guys need a factual basis, we can see from the articles you dont
Lawyers are not so good in research, you can see it as a case study and qualitative research: we call several sources as a form of triangulation, and looking at patterns (so what is meant by different persons not known by others might form a pattern) this is evidence and proof in research, all over the world it is done at the same way, however juridical scientists do not work like this, they are arguing to find the ‘truth’ it is based on classic judgment and very outdated. the house of R do not work in that way and found different sources, telling the same thing (triangulation) patterns and so on, it is very hard proof and enough evidence. but a professor who do not know this, and did not even read the report can only make general statements, and it has little value. he also reasoned different in the process concerning the impeachment of other democratic president, quite the opposite of what he is telling now. I suggest a bit of prejudice in his comments,
You had no issue with Clinton’s impeachment. That alone says it all.
Funny how you defended Clinton’s impeachment without question but are splitting hairs over the techicality of impeaching Trump.
Your lecturing tone is an insult to your fellow law academics, and the active criminal now residing in the White House.
If Trump gets away with this, what will he do next? You are a hypocrite and you twisting of words is doing a dis-service to all.
Your abuse of your position is repulsive. You are obnoxious and smug!
Mr Tripp you insults of professor reveal that you either did not understand his comments, or you did not hear them. Maybe you can review them again when the replay becomes available
I heard him state that there was no crime. Are you telling me I heard something else?
Insults? Give me a break. We’ve been insulted every day for three years now. Every day we wake up to more outrageous behavior by a man who is a fraud. Guess that’s OK in your book.
yes i believe you misunderstood what you heard. give it a study and let us know once the reply or text becomes available. now your tone is strident and angry.
I say, a man is not a fraud. a man is the leader.
john me john, in singing the hymn of praise to DJT our POTUS
HAIL TO THE CHIEF
You have every right to worship as you wish, this is America after all.
Fraud? Defend your position, please…
Hornest here.
Hornest nest
Hornet
Sober up, then type.
Good job. Thank you.
How much is trump paying you?
L Daily – if Turley is paid, it will be by the Minority of the committee, not Trump. Did you ever take a Civics class?
Ann Althouse has offered a review of the proceedings. She was pretty aghast at the performance of the other three faculty.
TIA:
“She was pretty aghast at the performance of the other three faculty.”
************************
They had the look of the three witches in Macbeth without the looks, wit and charm.
Some wisdom from JT:
“We are living in the very period described by Alexander Hamilton, a period of agitated passions. I get it. You’re mad. The president’s mad. My Republican friends are mad. My Democratic friends are mad. My wife is mad. My kids are mad. Even my dog seems mad. And Luna’s a golden doodle, and they don’t get mad.
So we’re all mad. Where has that taken us? Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad? Will it only invite an invitation for the madness to follow every future administration?
That is why this is wrong. It’s not wrong because President Trump is right. His call is anything but perfect. It’s not wrong because the House has no legitimate reason to investigate the Ukrainian controversy. It’s not wrong because we’re in an election year. There is no good time for an impeachment.
No — it’s wrong because this is not how you impeach an American president.”
It looks like some sorosphere outfit told their third string trolls to dump garbage in the comment boxes here. Never seen these names before.
They’re spamming like mad idiots.
“They’re spamming like mad idiots.”
No need to use the word “like”. They are mad idiots.
10 minute break…..Dems are steering clear of JT
Jerry,
10 minute break….
Rep Nadler is so big he has his pants almost covering his nipples, how in the hell does he take a pee let alone take a crap & wipe his butt?
What, does have like a Nascar type pit crew to help? lol;)
This looks like a movie. Looks staged and Scripted. They even seem to follow along with the question from the Script in front of them turning pages with the questions as they are asked. I’m talking about the Pro Democrats.
I Don’t trust these College Professors , because of the state that our Collages are in. The professors and the Children are out of line. They do not know what they say. They do not know what they do.
Incorrectly capitalized don’t, incorrect space before the comma, and misspelling of “Collages.” All within the first sentence! Bravo, mate.
Education is just for the elitists, doncha know?
I did not know there was an opening for Grammar Scold on this board. I would have applied, had I known.
Thank you for daring to be honest. They had no right to break into your comment simply because they did not like what you were saying.
JT has been digging himself in a hole enabling Trump, today he used a bigger shovel.
Why are you so angry?
“There is much that is worthy of investigation in the Ukraine scandal, and it is true that impeachment doesn’t require a crime.” Good for you, admitting that.
Where you embarrass yourself & offend democracy AND JUSTICE fans such as myself, is when you oppose interpreting bribery to include any action viewed as offering public acts for some personal or political purposes.
Your interpretation is so far from the truth of this matter, its pitiful. You really showed your true colors today in your appearance before the House Judiciary in the matter of the Trump Impeachment, you feel he hasn’t committed impeachable offenses BUT you believed Clinton needed to be impeached for having an affair? Yes, your judgment is twisted and pathetic, at best. At worst, you are giving this criminal a pass when he holds appropriated funds approved by congress in order to obtain evidence on a political rival from a foreign government. That, Mr Turley, IS an impeachable offense as it is holding “funds” for personal gain. The worst of this is, by not impeaching, you would be giving your permission for this criminal to continue his abuse of power and cheat (once again) his way into the office of the president. When will it end, how can you look into the mirror and see a patriot, when you are just one more Republican that drank the cool-aide that Trump keeps handing out. It is time for justice to be impartial and for truth (in short order these days) to be reintroduced to our country.
Why are you so angry?
She is not angry, she recognizes the truth. Why are you deceitful?
You need to be careful where you get the truth from and verify it.
Well said…. Thank you for your comments
I wonder reading his text if he read the impeachment report, full of evidence even the withdrawal of funds for Ukraine maybe this scholar skipped because he had no time to read the impeachment report to write his own testimony. seems to be a busy professor but indeed i agree this Trump is mad, and even more, other scholars mad a good profile of this potus
Nice plagiarism.
No, Linda; your vision and hearing are very selective. Bill Clinton was not impeached for having an affair, but for lying to Congress (and the American people) about it under oath. And that does not depend on what the definition of “is” is.
Linda Moze said, “At worst, you are giving this criminal a pass when he holds appropriated funds approved by congress in order to obtain evidence on a political rival from a foreign government.”
No; actually, in mirror-image to the charge you make, there is reasonable suspicion that the Obama administration may have used U.S. tax dollars in an attempt to obtain political dirt on Trump, in an effort to influence the 2016 Presidential election with the help of the notoriously corrupt Ukraine. There is also reasonable suspicion That the U.S. Vice President at the time, who is also a current Democrat Presidential candidate, may have used the power of his office to obtain a well-paid position on the Board of a Ukrainian utility company for his son; a position that may have been little more than a lucrative job title involving little to no actual work, especially in light of the fact that the younger Biden had no real qualifications or experience for the position to which he was hired.
But, there has been testimony by more than one witness for the Democrat prosecution that no proof of quid pro quo is evident Between Trump and the Ukraine. Trump was simply doing his job in ASKING the Ukrainian President to do HIS job and to fulfill his responsibilities by investigating possible corruption within his own country, possibly initiated by a high-ranking U.S. official.
Or do you maintain that Americans have the right and the need to know about any possible crimes that may have been committed by the current President, but no such right or need when it comes to high-ranking members of a former and very recent administration?
When it comes to the Biden-Ukraine situation, that position reminds me very much of Ms. Clinton’s weaseling-out attitude concerning the inquiry into the Benghazi attacks that killed several Americans, which might not have happened if the Marines had not been ordered by her State Department to stand down: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
So easy to be a Dem / “progressive” these days. All you need to believe is “orange man bad”.
:
1.6% per annum not good enough.
Mr. Turley: Thank you for the balance and honesty in your testimony today!
There is a excessive amount of madness and hysteria in politics. There are also an excessive amount of lying fools who simply don’t want to seek and represent the truth and that is creating the madness. It just never seems to heal.
Peace to you and God Bless.
How rich of you to talk about people who haven’t been called to testify when many have been called and have been told by trump that they can’t. Maybe start from there and demand that they be called.