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:


  1. Kudos to the Professor for putting aside his dislike for Trump and tearing apart the impeachment crowd. His testimony yesterday was brutal.

      1. Shoot the messenger rather than deal with the facts seems to be your idea of debate. Weak allies do not make NATO strong but they can cause the United States to engage in war created by those weak allies while the United States foots the bill in lives and wealth.

        Time for you to deal with the facts instead of playing the part of a fool.

      1. Anonymous the Stupid read the article. That is something you seldom do. The rest of the Headline is “Adversity Has Made the Alliance Stronger”

        You are as stupid as your name suggests.

        “These worries are unwarranted: NATO at 70 is actually in remarkably good shape. Yes, European allies have been laggards on defense spending, and some members—Hungary, Poland, and Turkey in particular—have tarnished democratic credentials. But NATO has demonstrated an impressive….”

        1. “NATO Is Thriving in Spite of Trump”

          “…in Spite of Trump”

          What’s up with this “Anonymous the Stupid” sh*t? It doesn’t say anything good about this guy “Allan.”

          1. “…in Spite of Trump”

            Read the article dummy. Is NATO thriving because of France? No. Germany? No. Etc. NATO is thriving because of Trump. How was NATO doing before Trump? Not that great. Trump has reinvigorated NATO but fools that can only look at headlines and cannot read don’t know any better and demonstrate themselves to be dummies.

          1. Anonymous the Stupid, firstly I am calling you by a name you deserve. Secondly I have debated many without rancor even when they disagree with my views. You on the other hand have quoted articles you haven’t read making a fool of yourself, your have lied, you have been rude and most of all you have been outrageously Stupid. I am doing you a service in trying to make you look in a mirror so in the future you can rise in the ranks from Stupid to dumb.

  2. Schiff should be prosecuted. Since when did American citizens lose their rights? This is most definitely an abuse of power.


    Schiff’s Surveillance State

    The Democrat demands, and then discloses, the call logs of his opponents.

    The Editorial BoardDec. 4, 2019 7:34 pm ET

    Adam Schiff and Devin Nunes in Washington, D.C., Nov. 21. Photo: Alex Brandon/Associated Press
    The impeachment press is playing this as if the calls are a new part of the scandal, but the real outrage here is Mr. Schiff’s snooping on political opponents. The Democrat’s motive appears to be an attempt to portray Mr. Nunes, a presidential defender and Mr. Schiff’s leading antagonist in Congress, as part of a conspiracy to commit impeachable offenses.

    “It is, I think, deeply concerning, that at a time when the President of the United States was using the power of his office to dig up dirt on a political rival, that there may be evidence that there were members of Congress complicit in that activity,” Mr. Schiff told the press on Tuesday. Complicit in what? Doing his job of Congressional oversight? Talking to Mr. Trump’s lawyer to get a complete view of the Ukrainian tale? Apparently Mr. Schiff now wants to impeach Members of Congress too.

    This is unprecedented and looks like an abuse of government surveillance authority for partisan gain. Democrats were caught using the Steele dossier to coax the FBI into snooping on the 2016 Trump campaign. Now we have elected members of Congress using secret subpoenas to obtain, and then release to the public, the call records of political opponents.

    Our sources says Mr. Schiff issued a subpoena in September to AT&T, demanding call logs for five numbers—including Mr. Giuliani’s. Subsequent subpoenas to AT&T and Verizon demanded more details. Republicans were told of the subpoenas, yet under rules of committee secrecy couldn’t raise public objections.

    Readers may recall that only a few years ago Democrats were in high dudgeon over the executive branch’s collection of metadata against terrorists. They claimed the National Security Agency was “spying” on Americans, and in 2015 Congress barred NSA from collecting bulk domestic metadata. Federal investigators must offer legitimate reasons to obtain metadata from telecom companies, and they are subject to restrictions on divulging it.

    Yet here the companies appear to have handed over metadata based on little more than Mr. Schiff’s say-so—and in AT&T’s case in response to a request that was made before the House began a formal impeachment inquiry.

    AT&T released a statement Wednesday saying it is “required by law to provide information to government and law enforcement agencies.” But AT&T can question the validity of subpoenas in court—and had grounds to do so given the highly political nature of these requests. Then again, maybe it felt it had no choice. We’ll leave it to legal experts to decide whether a powerful Congressman’s demands of a highly regulated company are extortion.


    Mr. Schiff’s metadata disclosures hardly bear on his impeachment case. Mr. Giuliani had broadcast to the world that he wanted Ukraine to investigate Hunter and Joe Biden, but he is also Mr. Trump’s personal attorney. Does Mr. Schiff have a legal opinion saying he could ignore attorney-client privilege? Mr. Schiff published a select log of Mr. Giuliani’s calls, but he presumably has a record of everyone Mr. Giuliani spoke to for months. Imagine the political outrage if Republicans had snooped on Bill Clinton’s attorneys.

    Mr. Schiff’s accusations against Mr. Nunes are even more suspect. The Democrat doesn’t know the content of Mr. Nunes’s conversations, and the Republican says he believes his spring talks with Mr. Giuliani related to the Mueller report. Mr. Nunes can speak to whomever he likes, and Mr. Schiff has no authority to investigate fellow Members. Since Mr. Schiff is going to release the call logs of Republicans, can we see the logs of his calls with the impeachment press—and, by the way, with any whistleblowers?

    The press corps might also notice that Mr. Schiff’s targets include one of their own—Mr. Solomon, who was until recently a columnist at The Hill and whose reporting called attention to Ukraine’s involvement in the 2016 election. How is Mr. Solomon’s reporting trail relevant to impeachment? The media usually condemn government officials who use surveillance to track and intimidate the media, but here they are cheering Mr. Schiff on.

    Mr. Schiff’s extraordinary and secret plunge into metadata, followed by its gratuitous public disclosure, is one more example of the partisan score-settling that motivates this impeachment exercise. In the cause of impeaching Donald Trump, anything goes.

    Opinion: House Republicans Refute Schiff’s Impeachment Report
    0:00 / 1:31

    Opinion: House Republicans Refute Schiff’s Impeachment Report
    On Dec. 3, 2019, Rep. Adam Schiff released the House Intelligence Committee report detailing allegations against President Trump and his involvement with Ukraine. House Republicans disputed the report, calling into question the assertions and processes involved. Image: Michael Brochstein/ZUMA Wire

              1. Anonymous – don’t forget that 538 was the one that thought that Hillary had over a 90% chance of winning on election day.

    1. William Barr of the U.S.D.O.J. is the man in power that should be “impeached” disbarred or jailed, after witnessing why he moved into the top placement of law enforcement in this country. The media industry has been playing us for fools with the full assistance of many members of both parties. Many of them are “Harvard” Constitutional Scholars of Law.

  3. This Post analysis is spot on.

    No wonder Jonathan Turley’s dog is mad
    The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday entered into democracy’s most sacred ritual, that solemn moment when the people’s representatives assemble to hear testimony about Jonathan Turley’s dog.
    For reasons not entirely clear, Republicans decided that Turley, the television pundit and George Washington University law professor, would be the best person in the land to make the legal case against impeachment. But at Wednesday’s kick-off hearing, in which three legal scholars argued that President Trump’s actions met the constitutional definition of high crimes and misdemeanors, Turley countered with a case less constitutional than canine.
    “I get it: You are mad,” he testified. “The president is mad. My Democratic friends are mad. My Republican friends are mad. My wife is mad. My kids are mad. Even my dog seems mad — and Luna is a goldendoodle and they don’t get mad. So we’re all mad.”
    Damn right we are! But nowhere in the Constitution does it state that a president shall not be impeached if people — or their dogs — are mad.
    Turley’s reasons for opposing impeachment were primarily emotional and political: The process needs more “saturation” and “maturation.” He pointed out that Democrats are prevailing in court rulings and advised them to slow down. “You’re going to leave half the country behind,” he said.
    That’s a reasonable argument — but not a constitutional one.
    It reveals much about the strength of the Republicans’ case that they chose Turley to defend them. As he noted, he didn’t vote for Trump. He testified that Trump’s call “was anything but perfect” and his targeting of the Bidens “highly inappropriate.” He acknowledged that the quid pro quo, “if proven, can be an impeachable offense.” Quoting from “A Man For All Seasons,” he spoke of the need to “give the devil the benefit of the law.”
    Do Republicans realize who the devil is in Turley’s scenario?
    The opening impeachment hearing was at times high-minded — Louis XIV, Charles II, the Treaty of Dover and Viscount Mordaunt all got mentions — but was unlikely to change minds or even to attract much interest. It served, rather, to present the legal and constitutional underpinnings for what will follow.
    “President Trump’s conduct,” said Harvard’s Noah Feldman, “clearly constitutes an impeachable high crimes and misdemeanor.”
    “If what we’re talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable,” added the University of North Carolina’s Michael Gerhardt.
    “If we are to keep faith with the Constitution,” Stanford’s Pamela Karlan contributed, “President Trump must be held to account.”
    Republicans interrupted the chorus of condemnation with a series of complaints (Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia protested the temperature in the room, the comfort of the seats and the “cute little stickers for our staff”) and procedural delays:
    “I reserve the right to object.”
    “Parliamentary inquiry.”
    “Parliamentary inquiry.”
    “I have a motion under Clause 2, Rule 11.”
    “Recorded vote.”
    “Parliamentary inquiry.”
    “Privileged motion.”
    “Motion to postpone to a date certain.”
    “Recorded vote.”
    “Move to subpoena.”
    “Recorded vote.”
    And they went to the their lone witness, Turley, again and again. He did not disappoint. He said the Democrats had a “wafer thin” case record and the “shortest proceedings” and were treating impeachment like “impulse-buy Nike sneakers.” He alleged that Democrats hadn’t proven bribery, extortion, obstruction or abuse of power. Momentarily forgetting about Luna, he claimed, “I don’t have a dog in this fight.”
    But Turley’s position was curiously at odds with his previous defenses of congressional power.
    “President Trump will not be our last president,” he argued, saying impeachment would create “a dangerous precedent.”
    Funny. He made almost exactly the opposite case against President Barack Obama in a 2013 hearing. “This will not be our last president,” he argued then, saying it would be “very dangerous” to the balance of powers not to hold Obama accountable for assuming powers “very similar” to the “the right of the king to essentially stand above the law.”
    Now we have a president soliciting campaign help from a foreign country while withholding military aid, then ignoring duly issued subpoenas — and Turley says Congress would be the entity committing an “abuse of power” if it holds Trump to account. Trump shared that quote on Twitter.
    Back in 1998, arguing for President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, Turley said there was “no objective basis” to claim that the Framers intended a “restrictive definition of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ ” Now Turley argues that the Framers intended a restrictive definition, applying “bribery” only to “money” transactions.
    Back in 1998, Turley argued that “impeachment performs the very constitutional function that is sought in a censure.” Now, he instructs lawmakers that “you can’t impeach a president like this.”
    No doubt Turley, a clever lawyer, can rationalize the inconsistencies. But his position came across as more provocation than principle.
    No wonder Luna the goldendoodle is so mad.
    Dana Milbank is an op-ed columnist. He sketches the foolish, the fallacious and the felonious in politics.
    Democracy Dies in Darkness
    © 1996-2019 The Washington Post

    1. RCL,
      There was considerably more to Jonathan Turley’s testimony than the humerous reference to his dog’s anger.
      Whoever wrote this for the WaPo seemed to be fixated primarily upon that very brief comment Turley made at the onset of his testimony. It’s odd that a major part of this writer’s “analysis” is stuck on that one comment, and as such, there’s no reason to take the writer seriously or give the author any credit for professionalism.
      But thanks for posting that amateurish editorial written by a humorless hack.

    2. RCL:

      “This Post analysis is spot on.”
      I guess this flippant drivel will do when you can’t think for yourself or can’t muster counter-arguments..

      1. I hear that:

        mespo727272 says: December 5, 2019 at 8:56 AM
        In what must be depressing news bordering on suicidal for the Dims, more people searched for “Peloton” (the luxury fitness cycle) than “impeachment.” Happy spinning, my Dim brothers and sisters.

    3. How convenient to quote Turley out of context, again. Getting the whole story out of WaPo is impossible. They’ve been doing it for years–deceiving, that is. Nice try. The Leftist Media is the reason Trump is our President. People at long last see right through their carefully constructed bull.

      Keep it up, Leftists! Trump relies on you to stimulate his base and others tired of biased reporting/commenting.

  4. If Biden wins the election he will send Hunter over to Ukraine and demand s prosecution of Trump for interfering in the 2024 election.

    1. Sleepy Joe Biden has another problem

      2020 presidential candidate, Mike Bloomberg. When Joe Biden gets hit over the head with $54 Billion Dollars….It’s going to hurt

  5. Adam Schiff & Jerry Nadler wants to question a 13 year old boy under oath who goes by the name of Barron Trump. Why? Because Prof. Pamela Karlan fingered the teenager.

    Pamela Karlan describes herself as an example of a “snarky, bisexual, Jewish woman”. Her partner is writer Viola Canales.

    Guess who the butch is?

      1. LIAR and coward, are you related to tRump or just a rethuglican?
        No just an unlicensed fool. And I love a good primal scream. Or wail of pain. Either or both. LOL

        Fool. Then ’tis like the breath of an unfeed lawyer- you gave me
        nothing for’t. Can you make no use of nothing, nuncle?

        Lear. Why, no, boy. Nothing can be made out of nothing.

        Fool. [to Kent] Prithee tell him, so much the rent of his land
        comes to. He will not believe a fool.

        Lear. A bitter fool!

        Fool. Dost thou know the difference, my boy, between a bitter
        fool and a sweet fool?

        Lear. No, lad; teach me.

        Fool. That lord that counsell’d thee
        To give away thy land,
        Come place him here by me-
        Do thou for him stand.
        The sweet and bitter fool
        Will presently appear;
        The one in motley here,
        The other found out there.

        Lear. Dost thou call me fool, boy?

        Fool. All thy other titles thou hast given away; that thou wast
        born with.

      2. Tony – what part is the lie? It was clear that Karlan has TDS, you could see the venom dripping from her mouth both in her statement about Barron and her non-apology apology.

    1. This is what Democrats offer: hatred, insults, death threats, and mocking children under the guise of Stanford Law Faculty nobility titles

      Democrats are done but we thank you for removing doubts from those former DNC supporters like me

    2. Luwana take that back? Or you gonna stick with your default response to JT testimony that did not suit your pre-conceived notions? The mob wanted all witnesses to be ivory tower rubber stampers and can’t handle one speaking independent of the mob group think. Lefties know that JT outshined the other three and now mob wants to attack JT. The three dem witnesses not only helped hasten the collapse of the scam impeachment hearings, but also helped expose to American people the krap excuses for professors that have infiltrated our universities.

    3. If you were speaking of Prof Turley then you’re wrong.

      He gave this new Commie Dem party/Nadler/Schiff way more courtesy & legal room for their uncivil & illegal behaviour then should have been given.

      But I understand I think, he was likely attempting to get the Trump haters to come to the senses.

    4. Turley did a great job of interpreting the law despite his dislike of Trump.

      Objectivity is not your strong suit.

  6. How did u flip your morals 180 degrees? 20 years ago u argued that impeachment would influence future presidents. Then today u argue ? Trump gets pass? Not quite sure why. But his craziness will destroy future presidents authority as as a sane person with backlog of USA
    Is clearly bat shot crazy. Why are u supporting his dementia and thinks he is is emperor?

  7. Jon, you did a really great job of pointing out why the current circus is just that. Unfortunately, Democrats already have their minds made up. They’re going through with the impeachment. Why? So they can have sound bites to use in the election. They know that Donald Trump is likely to win against any of their candidates but they’re hoping they can defeat him by stating that he was impeached (just like Bill Clinton, who actually committed a crime.) The other three “experts” are partisans who were only there to rubber-stamp the proceedings. Democrats will impeach him and it’ll die in the Senate. The only hope is that there are enough Democrats with an actual conscience in the House to vote against impeachment. I seriously doubt there are. This is the problem with political parties. They don’t give a hoot about anything but political power. The only thing that will save this country would be to abolish all political parties. Otherwise, this country isn’t long for this world.

    1. Semcgowan, Pelosi and other Democratic House leaders are probably going to go through with impeachment to mollify the ‘Impeachment Hawk” wing of their party.
      They are too far invested in this to do otherwise. So barring any earthshaking new development, they’ll figure out some Articles of Impeachment and the Senate will call BS on them.
      I don’t see any political mileage of this for the Democrats, but I think the calculation on the part of the Democratic Party leadership is that failure to placate their “Impeach the Mother F*****” wing of their party will be in open revolt if they back out now.

  8. “Turley is on my list of contributors to the idiocy of pugger reasoning.”

    — From an obscure blog. “Pugger” is an intentionally insulting abbreviation for Republicants, I mean Republicans.

  9. About 13:08 in the video: Pamela Karlan tone deaf failed apology.

    Lou Dobbs: She’s educated, but no one said she wasn’t ignorant. 🙂


    Mr. Turley incorrectly played down the gravity of the allegations against Mr. Trump and the strength of the existing record. The public already knows that, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky sought military aid and a White House meeting, Mr. Trump asked for “a favor”: investigations based on false premises that would have helped Mr. Trump politically. Only after Mr. Zelensky assured Mr. Trump that investigations would proceed did Mr. Trump indicate a White House meeting would be possible. All of this is in black and white in the rough transcript of a July 25 call the White House released. Then there is the recent testimony of Trump administration officials indicating that Mr. Trump held up military aid, not just a White House meeting, to press for his desired investigations.

    Three prominent law professors testified Wednesday that conditioning official acts, in this case a White House meeting and, very likely, the release of military aid, on the receipt of something of value, in this case flimsy investigations the president wanted, is an example of the sort of bribery the Constitution specifies as grounds for impeaching the president. Mr. Turley’s protests that such behavior might not meet the technical definition of criminal bribery missed the point: Even if Mr. Turley were right, the House is prosecuting the president under a constitutional standard, not a federal statute.

    Yet this damning tale still lacks the accounts of several critical witnesses. Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney could demystify why Mr. Trump halted the military aid. Former national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo could describe what they heard from the president. The problem is that Mr. Trump’s lawless embargo of the House’s impeachment proceedings has prevented these key witnesses from testifying and the courts might take time before deciding on the House’s appeals.

    We do not blame the Democrats for feeling frustrated. And they may rightly think they already have all the evidence they need. But if they could strengthen the case, they should do so. Because the stakes are so high, extra time may be justified if it results in testimony from administration witnesses. This also might convince more Americans that the impeachment process has been conducted thoroughly.

    Edited from: “Johnathan Turley Is Half Right”

    This evening’s Washington Post

    1. https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/interview/618506.html

      Read the article. Ukraine gave the US Embassy and FBI evidence of unlawful acts.
      The US vice president had the Ukraine equivalent to AG fired and the cases dropped.
      Big surprise the FBI and Embassy staff are the witnesses against the president when he wants to reopen the cases.

      The source linked to is a Ukrainian member of parliament not the Post.

      High crimes and treason perhaps?

      Not by the present administration.

      The president is the highest law enforcement officer in the nation.
      It would be a crime for him not to investigate criminal acts.
      At least that’s what this old country boy thinks.

      Thank you Mr Turley for your service today.

      Oh they keep saying “the debunked story”. It was not debunked simply put on hold.

      1. Yeah, he has to say: “Please bribe me by investigating the Bidens. I will only release the aid money once I have received the bribe”. Only then can be impeached!! /s

        1. I read the transcript. It is a conversational phrase. There was no indication anything was withheld in regards to ‘the favor’. Nothing was withheld in any case.

          1. And if that one sentence was the entire case, it wouldn’t be sufficient. But it isn’t the whole case. The sentence is actually part of a clearly-established months-long effort to arm-twist the Ukrainians into announcing an investigation into Biden. Witness after witness has confirmed this. The transcript is interesting because it shows Trump being explicit and direct about it. But it’s not even close to the whole case.

            1. The sentence is actually part of a clearly-established months-long effort to arm-twist the Ukrainians into announcing an investigation into Biden.

              Which the Ukrainian President knew nothing about, somehow. Again, tell your controller to give you better talking points.

          2. The ‘phrase’ is also but a small part of the overall case. And in the context of the whole case, it’s damning.

            I get that you don’t like that.

          3. I guess you missed the part where the president sent his personal attorney to crawl around Ukraine in the specific attempt to dig up dirt on Biden, something Guilliani keeps admitting to. The transcript is just the beginning, yet is also enough evidence of a quid pro quo on it’s own. That word “though” clearly connects the two objects, the aid and the investigation. Yet, given the subjectivity of interpretation, that’s whats opened the rest of the investigation, which has only brought forth more incriminating evidence.

            How could you possibly say nothing was “withheld in regards to the favor?” Every fact witness in the proceedings have said exactly that. Mulvaney got up in front of the press and admitted precisely that, and said “get over it.”

            And, to prove that you don’t believe your own nonsense, you offer a third made up argument, that “nothing was withheld in any case.” which is demonstrably false.

            So which is it prairie rose? “Nothing was withheld” (yes, obviously it was, no one disputes thats but you), “nothing was withheld in regards to the favor” (Mick Mulvaney directly contradicted that himself) or “It is a conversational phrase” (and entirely subjective reading of the transcript, that guess what, the majority of the country disagrees with.)

      2. PR,
        The actual quote is: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.

        Us, not me. Regardless, you are correct that there is no evidence of a QPQ, abuse of power, bribery or anything else. The problem is the Democrats have allowed their party to be dragged away from the 1st world western justice system tradition of requiring facts and evidence for prosecution. We are now in 3rd world territory where emotions, feelings and imaginations are deemed sufficient to undo a 1st world elected president.

        What JT did yesterday was to expose in striking detail which political party is honoring their constitutional oath of office. Sitting to his right were three lawfare experts. The greatest tell of just how weak their constitutional opinions were, especially in comparison to JT, was their demeanor. JT knew he was on constitutionally solid ground and was very calm. The other 3 were emotional and trying to appeal to the party (and their base) of feelings.

        Great work yesterday Professor Jonathan Turley!

          1. JT’s citation of Sir Thomas More was perfect. I recall when Mespo cited that on this blog some time ago and it’s precisely where we are with the Democrat party today. They often express their despair that President Trump is destroying America. If that were the case, you’d expect the candidates running against him to lay out the facts for the voters and let them decide. Of course they can’t; Trump has left them no room to campaign on issues that have traditionally been of concern to voters. No, what the Democrats are actually in despair about is Trump is destroying their hold on power. JT called them on it yesterday and that was a beautiful thing to watch.

        1. There’s plenty of evidence of it Olly. The facts are largely not in dispute. The problem is that it’s hard to definitively prove intent. The central question is was Trump asking for an announcement of investigations into Burisma and Crowdstrike because he thought they were in the national interest and wanted to see Ukraine take steps to fight corruption….or was he asking because they would look bad for Biden and the DNC?

          We know that what he did was not in fact in our best interest regardless of his intent, and all of his actions point to corrupt intent. But Republicans would like to set the bar for Impeachment at having the president on tape saying, “You need to announce these investigations for me so I can win reelection, and I’m not releasing the aid or giving you an official visit unless you announce the investigations,” or something to that effect. Which is obviously unreasonable. Meanwhile none of them even seem to agree that there should be an investigation, which is obviously not acting in good faith, since the charges are very serious and credible.

          You want me to believe it’s just a coincidence the only 2 investigations ever mentioned happen to benefit him personally? Or that the aid just happened to get released right after the White House found out about the whistleblower complaint? And why were they so keen on making the announcements public and even writing the specific language, when publicly announcing investigations before they start is generally bad practice? And why did Giuliani and Sondland need to be involved in this while the people who had been working with Ukraine and were experts in that region got cut out of the process? There are just too many things that smell like BS here, and that don’t add up for the explanation to be innocent.

          1. Frank Lee,

            You might not have been aware but there is a filter on this website that screens for certain words. I made a minor edit to the offending word in the last sentence of your comment so that it would post (since you spent some time writing the comment I elected to make the edit on your behalf). If you avoid this word in its true form, the filter will leave it alone.

          2. There’s plenty of evidence of it Olly. The facts are largely not in dispute. The problem is that it’s hard to definitively prove intent.

            If by it, you’re referring to facts that President Trump is destroying America, then no, there is no undisputed evidence. If by it, you’re referring to facts involving the alleged QPQ with Ukraine, then there are facts that are not in dispute. Those facts however, do not support articles of impeachment. What is in dispute is at the heart of the Democrats efforts to impeach President Trump…intent.

            Let’s revisit alleged violations of the law and intent by looking at the Clinton email controversy. In that case, the facts and evidence clearly proved the law was violated. But the FBI took the extraordinary step of not referring that violation for prosecution because they could not prove intent.

            In President Trump’s case, there are no facts or evidence proving any law was violated. But Democrats and their supporters want to prosecute (impeach) on what they perceive as an impeachable intent. They infer intent. They assume intent. They feel intent. They know intent. They want intent. What they don’t have is proof of intent. If they had it, we wouldn’t have a wholly partisan effort to impeach. We wouldn’t have had the Schiff parody and we wouldn’t have had a parade of non-fact witnesses testifying what they feel, assume, presume the President did wrong.

            And why did Giuliani and Sondland need to be involved in this while the people who had been working with Ukraine and were experts in that region got cut out of the process? There are just too many things that smell like BS here, and that don’t add up for the explanation to be innocent.

            I’m confident the answers to your questions will be forthcoming once the IG, Durham reports drop and Barr does his job.

          3. “We know that what he did was not in fact in our best interest regardless of his intent, and all of his actions point to corrupt intent. ”

            Frank Lee, that is a presumption. I don’t think many people would like us to give taxpayer’s money to a corrupt government that doesn’t spend the money on what it is intended for. I hope all our presidents tell other nations that when we give money we expect something in return. If not we are fools.

            If you can prove your case in a legal fashion, let’s hear.

        2. Thank you, Olly. My memory failed for the exact quote. I should have looked it up to make sure it was exact, as I usually do. Serves me right. 🙂 Good post, by the way.

Leave a Reply