TURLEY TESTIFIES AT TRUMP IMPEACHMENT HEARING

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:

716 thoughts on “TURLEY TESTIFIES AT TRUMP IMPEACHMENT HEARING”

  1. As a graduate of GWU (BBA, ’72) I am proud of you, you were reasonable, rational, and will be proven right.

  2. Great job with this testimony. Easiest 52 pages of legal argument I’ve read. Great job live. Thanks for talking some sense into people and I think you know, you might have reached some people who were running with the herd on this.

    I doubt that the Democrats will take the time to do a proper impeachment, but if they do it will certainly because of you.

  3. They’re impeaching Trump for obstructing their efforts to frame him.
    What do you think of the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” as meaning crimes and misdemeanors committed by high officials.

  4. Dear Prof. Turley,

    I agree with your evaluation of the impeachment record to date. It is deficient to convict. I would say the primary deficiency is the absence of testimony and documents from the principal actors, e.g., Trump, Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo, Giuliani.

    However I don’t agree that we should remedy this deficiency with more proceedings in the House. The House record sets out a ”compelling case” (your words) establishing what appears to have happened, according to the agents (diplomats) of the principals (executive branch officials), whose evidence we still need. I would call that ”probable cause” to indict or impeach, if not convict.

    To convict, we definitely need the evidence of the principals, But that should happen in the Senate trial. Trump refuses to participate in the House proceedings anyway, so why not just kick it over to the Senate where he Trump has a majority that sets rules he must concede are fair. Also, you get an instant ruling on privilege objections from the Chief Justice and the Senate. It obviates the need for lengthy judicial proceedings, which is what would happen if you remained in the House.

    And as for your objection that kicking it over to the Senate somehow normalizes shoddy Impeachment proceedings in the House. You seem to be normalizing or minimizing the alleged abuse of trust here. I think the allegations are extraordinary and will not set a precedent that leaves other presidents vulnerable to shoddy impeachments. I am quite comfortable with any president in the future being impeached on the facts presented here.

    1. I am quite comfortable with any president in the future being impeached on the facts presented here.

      Mr. Leon,
      Please identify the facts that make you so comfortable to impeach any president on.

      1. In a prior Turley post, he wrote:

        “The Democrats presented compelling evidence that virtually everyone came to believe that there was quid pro quo demand coming from the President. From the first day of this scandal, I stated that such an abuse of power could be impeachable. However, the House must call key material witnesses like Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton rather than stick with an arbitrary December deadline for a vote.”

        So Turley is saying, as I understand it, that the House record establishes that the relevant foreign service officers and national security officials understood that Trump was conditioning an oval office meeting and $390 in military aid (quid pro quo) on Zelensky announcing investigations into Biden and Crowdstrike.

        Turley is also saying that the record is incomplete to convict (or aquit) without the testimony of the Principals (such as Giuliani, Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, etc.).

        My position is to forego further proceedings in the House (which Trump says is not legitimate anyway) and send the record over to the Senate for trial and let them call the Principals. The House record establishes a compelling case for hearing from the Principals. That’s for sure.

        1. the House record establishes that the relevant foreign service officers and national security officials understood…

          Understood is not a fact. Understood is a perception, it’s implicit not explicit. What has been established as fact is that President Trump was explicit in telling his subordinates he didn’t want anything, no QPQ. Additional facts prove what was explicitly stated was in fact what Zelensky received. No announcement, military aid and his meeting(s).

          My position is to forego further proceedings in the House and send the record over to the Senate for trial and let them call the Principals.

          You remind me of the judges response when Vinny (My Cousin Vinny) was asked how his clients plead. Should we revamp the whole impeachment process because the Democrats find themselves in the unique position of wanting to impeach the President in an election year? So why? The record is incomplete without the testimony from the principals, right? Punting their responsibility over to the Senate without having completed their investigation would be grounds for outright dismissal. The House needs to appeal to the judiciary to see if they will get the subpoenaed testimony. Does that take time? Yup. If they truly have a case, they won’t have to be concerned with the next election. Right?

            1. I believe there was no basis to begin the impeachment inquiry. But now that the House has committed themselves to this effort, they should follow the investigative process all the way through SCOTUS if necessary. If they have fact-based evidence of impeachable offenses, then they should draft articles of impeachment and vote. If SCOTUS determines those subpoenaed shall not be compelled to testify before the House, then they have to work with the fact-based evidence they have available to determine to impeach or not.

            2. Joseph, ask yourself what we know that isn’t based on hearsay or policy which is in the realm of the Presidency.

              You will find Ambassador Sondland saying no quid pro quo, transcripts of communications that are perfectly legal and Zalensky stating that no threats occurred.

              The rest involves hearsay and policy differences.

            3. Joseph, I should have added what Karen posted. This makes it clear that there is no fact and the case for impeachment has no basis.

              1. Come on Allan, his question isn’t regarding facts. There are no facts warranting this impeachment inquiry. He obviously has no interest in that debate. His question is rooted in a desire to expedite the process because the president isn’t bending over for their subpoenas. What is your answer to that question? Is the president acting within his Article II authority to not provide those subpoenaed principals?

                1. Olly, The President has a good legal argument for not “bending over for their subpoenas”. There is a legitimate dispute between the executive branch and the legislative branch. That means it goes to the courts. Even professor Turley I think agrees with that viewpoint even though as a Madisonian he believes, I think, in the greater power of Congress.

                  We can’t pick and choose like some seem to be doing. We either believe in the system of checks and balances or we don’t.

                    1. Let’s cut through this.

                      Whether you are right about the facts, or I am right about the facts, the House is going to pass Articles of Impeachment, and there is going to be a trial in the Senate.

                      Whether you are right about the proper legal procedure, or I am right about the proper legal procedure, the House is going to pass Articles of Impeachment, and there is going to be a trial in the Senate.

                      One thing is certain, when the House sends the case over to the Senate, it loses its ability to control its own destiny as to calling the Principals. The House Managers can try to call the Principals at trial, but if the Republican Senate won’t let them, then that’s it. That’s a constitutional check and balance.

                      But I don’t think the Senate has the guts to do that. The American people want to hear from the Principals – Trump, Giuliani, Bolton, Pompeo – and see their documents. I bet the American people also want to see the Republicans evidence on the Bidens and Crowdstrike. Let’s see it all.

                      By the way, White House counsel today sent a letter to the House telling them to just send the case over to the Senate, so it can get the trial over with. So we agree about that.

                    2. So getting back to your original point:

                      I think the allegations are extraordinary and will not set a precedent that leaves other presidents vulnerable to shoddy impeachments. I am quite comfortable with any president in the future being impeached on the facts presented here.

                      Of course the allegations were crafted to be extraordinary. After all, the allegations leading to the Mueller investigation were also extraordinary and did not stand up to scrutiny. The precedent that is being set is for any majority in the House to begin an impeachment inquiry on a contrived allegation, vote to impeach without supporting factual evidence and kick it over to the Senate for them to do the work the House wouldn’t or couldn’t do. There is nothing to prevent the House from doing this over and over as an act to obstruct the President in the performance of his duties. It’s a shame you’re quite comfortable with this House abuse of power.

                    3. For some reason I couldn’t reply to your last post.

                      In response to my posting, “I am quite comfortable with any president in the future being impeached on the facts presented here.”

                      You posted, “Of course the allegations were crafted to be extraordinary. After all, the allegations leading to the Mueller investigation were also extraordinary and did not stand up to scrutiny. The precedent that is being set is for any majority in the House to begin an impeachment inquiry on a contrived allegation, vote to impeach without supporting factual evidence and kick it over to the Senate for them to do the work the House wouldn’t or couldn’t do. There is nothing to prevent the House from doing this over and over as an act to obstruct the President in the performance of his duties. It’s a shame you’re quite comfortable with this House abuse of power.”

                      So let me see if I understand your argument. Are you saying that the Ukraine allegations are untrue, just like the Russian allegations were untrue; both were “hoaxes” made up by the House in a blatant abuse of power?

                    4. Mr. Leon,
                      That’s a perfect example of how people derive an implied understanding without any factual evidence. I stand by my explicit comment.

        2. “My position is to forego further proceedings in the House (which Trump says is not legitimate anyway) and send the record over to the Senate for trial and let them call the Principals. The House record establishes a compelling case for hearing from the Principals. That’s for sure.”

          Joseph, my belief is there was no justification for impeachment hearings on multiple grounds but let’s do it your way. Are you ready for the following people to be called before the Senate? Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama along with all the paperwork and anyone that had to do with China and Ukraine? After that we can start calling in all sorts of persons from the intelligence community.

          1. “Are you ready for the following people to be called before the Senate? Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama along with all the paperwork and anyone that had to do with China and Ukraine? After that we can start calling in all sorts of persons from the intelligence community.”

            I’m ready for Trump to present any evidence he wants relevant to the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory and the Bidens in Ukraine, because those are the investigations on which he conditioned the QPQ, so it’s fair to let that in.

            Let’s do this. : )

            1. Joseph, The House Democrats can do a lot of things whether or not those things are destructive to the nation. This impeachment is destructive.

              We cannot injudiciously call the President and expect him to give up executive priviledge for if we did so it would end the Presidency as we know it and our checks and balances would fall apart. The same goes for certain other persons whose testimony I believe has to be limited. Additionally the President deserves the civil liberties of all citizens whether he be a Trump or an Obama.

              It is my sincere belief that in this case the Democrats are playing politics. I felt similarly with the Republicans when they impeached Clinton, however, Clinton did commit a crime though I questioned whether the crime was of the nature that should lead to impeachment.

              It is clear from day one that the Democrats were trying to overturn an election from the start and this is more of the same. Take note early on when Trump used his powers to pass an executive order legally restraining immigration from certain countries he was stopped by what I believe were biased lower court judges. Trump did not proceed even though the judicial process took a long time and in his Presidential opinion endangered the American people. As expected the higher court ruled in his favor. He did not act like other Presidents have disregarding the judiciary ( the third part of our checks and balances), he waited, perhaps intemperately, but he waited. His intemperency and twits did not get in the way of the law. He followed it quite differently than other Presidents.

              In summary, I believe this President to be the most transparent in my lifetime and despite some of his intemperence a President that has followed the letter of the law equal to any other and probably exceeding most.

              1. Hi Alan, we’re going backwards here. You and I disagree about the record in good faith. I see a plot to extract a QPQ executed by the President’s agents and contrary to US national security strategy. You think Trump has maintained enough plausible deniability to escape a trial in the Senate. I disagree. The House disagrees. We’re not going to resolve our difference, except by trial with all the evidence.

                Claims of privilege can be asserted and upheld. We can evaluate evidence from the Principals. We can evaluate Trump’s evidence about the Bidens and Crowdstrike. It will be a trial procedure developed by the President’s allies in the Senate. Everything will be fair. The American people will decide.

                1. ” I see a plot to extract a QPQ executed by the President’s agents and contrary to US national security strategy. “

                  Joseph, lets look at the situation using the appropriate terms. You presume something but presumptions are not evidence. I presume Obama did many quid pro quo’s and have on tape the open mike statement of his that is a request for a quid quo pro. I have multiple presumptions of a quid pro quo from Biden and I have one quid pro quo that is on tape.

                  I am anxious to hear your evidence that can be used in court. To be honest I don’t believe you have any but we do have evidence that can be used in court that Trump did NOT commit a quid pro quo. [I must say that all negotiations are quid pro quo’s but Obama’s and Biden’s quid pro quo’s on tape were for personal benefit]

                  You talk about plausible deniability but there is no plausible deniability for Obama or Biden. In Trump’s case there is direct evidence that this is nonsense and what he was doing was trying to protect the tax payers dollars.

                  Everything may very well go to the Senate and that complies with the law, but it doesn’t comply with good governance. What the Democrats have done non-stop over the past 3 plus years has been an abuse to the American public including those that fail to recognize such abuse.

        3. Joseph Leon:
          “In a prior Turley post, he wrote:
          The Democrats presented compelling evidence that virtually everyone came to believe that there was quid pro quo demand coming from the President. From the first day of this scandal, I stated that such an abuse of power could be impeachable. However, the House must call key material witnesses like Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton rather than stick with an arbitrary December deadline for a vote.”
          ****************
          You know, I read that sentence when it was published and I heard that little logic buzzer in my head start blaring “Ad populum!” “Ad populum!” It’s hard to believe that an academic and rational person would make such a logically fallacious case absent some prejudice against the object of the charge. “Virtually everyone”’s coming to believe isn’t evidence. It’s not even probable cause which requires articulable facts derived from personal observation. Virtually everyone believed George Zimmerman was guilty of murder; virtually everyone believed there were wmds in Iraq; virtually everyone believed the Astros would clobber the Nets. You need facts to get a warrant. You need facts to get a conviction. What you’ve got here is the rumblings of an antagonistic mob. The whole system of American justice is an effort to avoid that kind of decision-making. Turley knows that, but sometimes your emotions get in the way of your reasoning. He rectified that in the House testimony where he described the “evidence” as a paucity. That’s to his enduring credit.

          1. These witnesses are not random observers believing something. In particular, Sondland was not just some random person “believing” the President was demanding a QPQ. He was the President’s agent, and he actively demanded a QPC on the President’s behalf, because that’s what he believed the President wanted based on the totality of the President’s conduct, not just one self-serving statement by the President after it was becoming clear he was caught.

            The relevent concept is not ad populum; it’s plausible deniability. Plausible deniability is the ability of people (typically senior officials in a formal or informal chain of command) to deny knowledge of or responsibility for any damnable actions committed by others in an organizational hierarchy because of a lack of evidence that can confirm their participation.

            I think Trump’s denials of QPQ, are not plausible. But we need the testimony of the Principals, and their evidence to make that final judgment.

            1. Joseph::

              POTUS told Sondland directly he wanted “no quid pro quo.” Sondland was the ambassador and a principal. His swami routine is irrelevant. We have a transcript with no quid prep quo. That’s the best evidence from the very principals, both of whom still deny any quid pro quo. Your sophistry is apparent. Your bias, likewise.

              Oh, and to help that mush bowl, you call a hews, the ad populum fallacy was JT’s statement cited in the comment not any “concept” involving the merits of the charges against POTUS.. Try keeping up.

        1. “Please identify the facts that make you so comfortable to impeach any president on.”

          – Olly
          _____

          Wait. Is that a dangling preposition?

    2. I was quite surprised by your suggestion that congress needed to seek out the courts decision on whether or not people should respond to congressional subpoenas as that necessary seems to suggest that congress is not a coequal branch of our government. How do you justify that stance?

      1. I agree with you. People have to respond to subpoenas. I’m just talking about the enforcement mechanism when the White House is objecting to compliance.

        The House has to rely on the federal courts to enforce its subpoenas. A federal court has to overule the White House’s objection to appearance. Then the Court of Appeals has to affirm. Then the Supreme Court has to accept or reject a petition for reveiw. That takes a lot of time.

        In contrast, the Constitution sets out the procedure for governing a trial in the Senate. Senate Impeachment Rule 15 provides:

        All “motions, objections, requests, or applications whether relating to Senate procedures or relating immediately to the trial (including questions with respect to admission of evidence or other questions arising during the trial)” made by either party must be addressed to the chief justice alone. The subpoenas issued by both parties must employ the uncompromising language specified by Rule 25: “You and each of you are hereby commanded to appear before the Senate of the United States…. Fail not.”

        I’m saying that’s a better procedure for getting this thing wrapped up quickly and perhaps even convicting Trump in the balance. Call the principals as witnesses. Let the chips fall where they may.

      2. Jules:
        “I was quite surprised by your suggestion that congress needed to seek out the courts decision on whether or not people should respond to congressional subpoenas as that necessary seems to suggest that congress is not a coequal branch of our government. How do you justify that stance?”
        ****************
        Another keen misunderstanding of basic civics, the word “coequal” and what a Turley testified about. To keep it simple, Jules, the courts are the referee in disputes between the two other branches. What you advocate is Congress as lord and master over the other two. Exactly the opposite of “coequal.”

  5. Thank you for being a voice of reason and sanity in an insane asylum of lunatics that have skipped their meds and slipped from their straight-jackets.

    1. Boom!

      “I can’t emphasize this enough, and I will say it just one more time,”

      “If you impeach a President, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power, it is your abuse of power. You are doing precisely what you are criticizing the President for doing.”

      J Turley

  6. Look who went full blown nutz on a reporter for asking Her Worthiness Madame Botox a question?

    Shoot the b!tch already

    https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1202625182822744064

    Steve Guest

    @SteveGuest
    Follow Follow @SteveGuest

    Nancy Pelosi is UNHINGED this morning.

    Don’t hold your breath though that there will be multiple columns defending the reporter who asked her if she hates @realDonaldTrump.

    In response to the question, Pelosi threatened the reporter: “Don’t mess with me.”

  7. You can’t attack the facts so it’s the same ole song and dance. Nothing to see here, let’s move on, OK so we will, facts will be proven, not that it matters to Trump supporters because they live in their own reality apart from the rest of the nation and world. So we move on, so by the standards set by Trump, the next or any future President can ignore law, oath of office, or anything else they feel they don’t want to do and make their own standards and rules that only apply to them and them only. Right?

    1. He was engaged as an expert witness to comment on questions of law. He’s not a coroner, a forensic examiner, a police officer, or an earwitness, so he’s not going to testify to facts. This isn’t that difficult.

    2. Fishwings:

      You said, “facts will be proven, not that it matters to Trump supporters because they live in their own reality apart from the rest of the nation and world.”

      Don’t you think those facts should have been proven before they voted for impeachment? So you admit that it has not been proven?

      As for “Trump supporters” if that’s a blanket statement that includes anyone who ever says that Trump did something good…if there was evidence that Trump committed a high crime and misdemeanor, this would not be a divisive issue. For example, if Trump assassinated Trudeau via drone strike for laughing at his expense, this would not be a partisan issue.

      This is divided along party lines because there is no evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor. No. Evidence. Democrats have openly said they would impeach him the day after he got elected. Just like Joe Biden, they bragged about their abuse of power on camera.

      They are allowed to do so by willfully blind people like yourself.

  8. You said Trump was a “Duly elected” President. That is demonstrably false – we now know that Russia heavily interfered in our electoral process. His now-jailed campaign manager, Paul Manafort gave a Russian contact their proprietary campaign polling which was given to the GRU who used that info to target his Must Win Midwest states with anti-Hillary messaging – and he “won” (wink, wink) by 80,000 Midwest votes. That is called CHEATING. (No surprise there as Trump had been sued 3000x for cheating people – many small contractors went under because he either refused to pay and forced them to sue, or offered 50% of their bill – all AFTER work was done, natch.) IMAGINE if Obama had asked Russia for help with Romney? He’d have been impeached immediately. Your defenses yesterday made no sense – just more shucking and jiving to defend this lawless president. Worst in my lifetime.

    1. “Forget about the Presidency for a moment, Trump’s behavior would get him fired from Applebee’s”….Andy Borowitz.

      1. The mundane behavior of any person in a professional-managerial job might get them fired at Applebee’s. Trump isn’t working at Applebee’s and neither are Andy Borowitz or Noah Feldman.

    2. You said Trump was a “Duly elected” President. That is demonstrably false – we now know that Russia heavily interfered in our electoral process.

      Yeah, Concord Management’s 100,000 worth of Facebook ads were fantastic.

      Paul Manafort gave a Russian contact their proprietary campaign polling which was given to the

      It was a Ukrainian contact and it was material any agency which could hire a competent pollster could procure for itself. Manafort worked for Trump for about five months, and wasn’t on staff for the fall campaign.

      Tell your handlers at Correct-the-Record to send you better talking points.

      1. Russian interference has nothing to do with Trump not being duly elected! The fact that we don’t have enough electors to meet the requirements of Article 2 Section 1, the fact that they are selected by the parties and candidates themselves not by a process specified by each State’s Legislature, and the fact that the electors don’t vote, they are told how to vote in direct violation of Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th Amendment.

        That alone is more than enough to characterize our Election processes as invalid and illegitimate!

        1. He worked for Trump because he had an excellent working knowledge of the delegate process and was emplaced to stop Republican rivals from pulling stunts at the convention to thwart Donald Trump. He actually joined the team as “campaign convention Manager.” He succeeded in his role.

  9. I listened to your testimony yesterday, as well as the three other panelists, and your arguments with respect to the speed of the process were feeble at best, and all of the arguments of what constituted an impeachable offense lacked the basic understanding of our Government, how it’s assembled, and the roles and responsibilities of of those appointed to serve in our Government.

    The ideas that we have 3 coequal branches of government, separation of powers, the reliance on the Courts to facilitate all interactions between the Executive and Legislative, the rule of law, obstruction of justice, obstruction of Congress, due process, impeachment as a wholly political process, and what constitutes duly electing the President and how impeachment will undo that process, leaves me perplexed. The taking excerpts out of context from the Federalist Papers to support your arguments is tantamount to malpractice. On the whole the proceeding was a total waste of time and served no useful purpose.

    The first thing we must recognize is that the impeachment and removal process is a legal proceeding without any of the requirements associated with a legal proceeding in the justice system, the States as the Union have absolutely no obligation to allow the accused access to evidence or witnesses, no obligation of due process, no presumption of innocence until proven guilty, no access to rebut or mitigate the accusations or evidence which supports those allegations, in short the accused has absolutely no rights what so ever, not even to mount a defense, those rights will be extended to the accused after they are removed and placed in the custody of the criminal justice system to face criminal prosecution and criminal charges.

    Impeachment and removal is entirely a human resource action assessing the suitability for continuing to retain the accused’s services, so it more or less reflects job performance, and in the case of the President those judging his job performance and suitability to continue his term of service is totally up to the Union of the States as they are assembled in the Senate with Equal Suffrage to reach a Majority Consensus on that question.

    This defines impeachment as whether or not the President, or any Government Official, properly observes their role and responsibilities as the States and the Union’s Representative implementing their Laws and Policies as they intend, and promoting their image and interest when engaging in foreign affairs and interactions. If you are honest, this is explicitly detailed in Article 2 of the Constitution where all Presidential Powers are contingent on decisions made by Congress, a power and authority vested in Congress alone by Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution.

    Everything we need to know about the purpose of impeachment is elucidated by Hamilton in his conclusion of the Executive Department in the last paragraph of Federalist #77;

    “We have now completed a survey of the structure and powers of the executive department, which, I have endeavored to show, combines, as far as republican principles will admit, all the requisites to energy. The remaining inquiry is: Does it also combine the requisites to safety, in a republican sense, a due dependence on the people, a due responsibility? The answer to this question has been anticipated in the investigation of its other characteristics, and is satisfactorily deducible from these circumstances; from the election of the President once in four years by persons immediately chosen by the people for that purpose; and from his being at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office, incapacity to serve in any other, and to forfeiture of life and estate by subsequent prosecution in the common course of law. But these precautions, great as they are, are not the only ones which the plan of the convention has provided in favor of the public security. In the only instances in which the abuse of the executive authority was materially to be feared, the Chief Magistrate of the United States would, by that plan, be subjected to the control of a branch of the legislative body. What more could be desired by an enlightened and reasonable people?

    Publius.”

    When you review other excerpts from the federalist papers it is explained that impeachment is the rein by which the Union controls the Executive, and when necessary removes those who are defiant and insubordinate to the Power and Authority of the Union to make all decisions on all matters of the Union of the States, their Confederacy.

    This makes impeachment and removal a very expeditious process, requiring no evidence, no witnesses, no investigation, no delay, and just like any other firing, no opportunity for the accused to defend against their removal.

    If you are honest, again, when reviewing Federalist #65, also by Hamilton, his total argument was a justification for selecting the Senate as the court of impeachment, his conclusion based upon his arguments was that the House and the Supreme Court were unacceptable due to their susceptibility to partisanship and conflicts of interest which by design the Senate was free of and could act as the unbiased adjudicator, with cooler heads, which could properly review the actions to impeach of the passionate and determine if the actions of the accused merits their removal.

    In the case of Trump, which includes every person in his administration, their actions have been defiant and insubordinate to the Authority of the States as they are assembled in Congress as the Union to make All decisions for our Country, and their immediate removal for the good of the Country is warranted, along with all the Senators and Representatives who, based upon their partisan conflicts of interest, have debilitated the basic function of our government as a decision making institution for the Confederacy of the States, the Union, the Union which makes our Country the United States of America.

    1. We can handle the trolls, the insults, the threats and the copy-paste from the various discredited media sites

      You however would send any normal person, any speeding car, a fighter jet flying at Mach 2, into the side of a mountain.
      A colleague saw me reading your post and went screaming down the hallway

      Federalist Paper, 85:
      ” I dread the more the consequences of new attempts, because I know that powerful individuals, in this and in other States, are enemies to a general national government in every possible shape.”

      – Hamilton

      NB: watch him go ape

      😉

  10. Mr. Turley: It is beyond my comprehension that you do not recognize President Trump’s actions, in toto, as amounting to a proper and constitutional basis for impeachment. As a fellow alumnus of the University of Chicago, I recognize that you possess the requisite intelligence to see what is clearly in front of you. As a fellow attorney, I believe that you have a grasp on constitutional law. As a fellow citizen, however, I am stunned by your inability or unwillingness to recognize the plain truth–President Trump has engaged in egregious misconduct and abuse of power and is the epitome of the type of person our Founding Fathers feared might one day rise to that office. Shame on you for failing to recognize the plain truth.

    1. anybody that writes” PHD JD” is obviously not a practicing lawyer. because practicing lawyers dont put “JD” after our names. it’s ridiculous and indicates that you want fawning attention. PHD indicates you crave it even more. pathetic! as a fellow citizen i say you academics are full of garbage and turley is the rare bird who isnt.

        1. God bless you too. Now go back and reread why “maladministration” is not actually the standard for impeachment, once you’re over being stunned.

          As for the Founding fathers, they were stern men, risk takers, politicians and successful revolutionaries, who would have laughed at the trifles the Democrat leadership is whining about. Your PHD is evidently not in history sir.

          What is most unspoken here are matters of style. Style is what makes your kind dislike Trump. He is a crass to fancy talkers like you. A boor. Etc. Too headstrong. Offends your facile tastes. Come out with plain talk and say what you really think because that doubletalk up there is not it. “Shame on you” like a fussbudget schoolmarm. Puke!

          1. Your powers of insight and reasoning are truly remarkable. Thank you for sharing, Mr. Kurtz.

        2. That power belongs not to you, and given you stealing are someone’s identity to lie on their behalf, a forensic psychologist no less, you will be burning in Hell a very long time

          YHWH

            1. It is known as the Tetragrammaton. For Jews the letters YHWH are consonants and hence not the name of God thus licit

              For Catholics we throw in the vowels and say, “Yo God, wassup!”

              It is Advent Mark. Visit your parish this Sunday with an open heart.
              You can do it cupcake

              1. estovir;

                I’m there. Twice a year without fail. Then some vestmented padre makes some stupid statement about climate change or loving your enemies and I slip out to reality unburdened by centuries of sophistry.

                  1. Mr Kurtz – Pelosi purports to be Catholic but has been denied Communion in SF. I think Joe Biden may have been, too.

                    1. when i was in a state of grave sin and I showed up, which was most usually the case, you can just fold your arms across your chest and walk on up and get a blessing instead of a wafer. she should try that. but no, see, they’re too proud for that.

                      i havent showed up in a while and apparently they don’t miss me but i keep on getting solicitations for money. lol. its ok, they have Pelosi and Biden, they don’t need me.

                1. Then some vestmented padre makes some stupid statement about climate change or loving your enemies and I slip out to reality unburdened by centuries of sophistry.

                  I hear ya bruh

                  The Mass is divided into two parts: Liturgy of the Word & Liturgy of the Eucharist.
                  We pray the Lectionary before Mass at home Sunday, then read the sermon as posted by our favorite Jesuit Fr Michael Simone SJ who writes piercing reflections. I have posted them in the past. When our priest delivers a dull sermon, I approach him after Mass, give him our thanks and mention one or two salient points usually from Patristics. Would you believe he listens? Yup. He recently told me that he doesn’t know any layman in our parish who is familiar with Early Church Fathers, and in time he has come to see me as an ally.

                  When the sermons stink, there is the 2nd part of the Mass. Since you are Catholic you know that the Eucharist is pivotal

                  Focusing on God’s graces are key. Being open to them is a requisite

                  for example:

                  We have a dear friend at church who is dying from Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. It is a cruel death. Our friend has reached out to us in his/her final weeks and as witnesses accompanying them, it has grown us tremendously. Our friend never complains, smiles alot, her/his marriage to their spouse is as strong as can be, and they teach us so much of what it means to have a loving, godly marriage. It has all really stunned us frankly.

                  My point: this friend is through church and their presence, to us, is God gracing us. We are visiting them after Mass this Sunday and I believe she/he is ready to turn off the respiratory devices. Again, their example is an incredible grace to us and we cherish this moment as witnesses. The spouse has recently been going to Sunday Mass alone and again, their strength, humility, Faith speak to us in ways no sermon can come close.

                  The sermons at most churches can be tough, so choose to feed the priest. Youre an intelligent man, Mark, and priests need friends too. They and physicians are the loneliest, most ignored professions in our country. Everyone sees a priest or a physician because they are hurting and need something, usually healing. None of these people ever ask how the priest or physician is. Be that friend for your priest. He might even start quoting you down the road

                  1. Estovir:

                    “They and physicians are the loneliest, most ignored professions in our country. Everyone sees a priest or a physician because they are hurting and need something, usually healing. None of these people ever ask how the priest or physician is. Be that friend for your priest. He might even start quoting you down the road.”
                    ***********
                    You know, that’s a good thought that never occurred to me. I’d add judges to that list because they can’t even go to lunch with their friends lest they be seen as compromising their position. I do notice in my limited interactions with the priest, he does seem interested in my sparse attendance though Suzanne never misses a Sunday. Maybe we’ll invite him to dinner.

                  2. I don’t know about priests but I think a lot of patients are concerned about their physicians and how they feel. Of course that depends a lot on the personality of the physician. Why do you think physicians are lonely? I think that is untrue.

    2. Joey C:
      “As a fellow citizen, however, I am stunned by your inability or unwillingness to recognize the plain truth–President Trump has engaged in egregious misconduct and abuse of power and is the epitome of the type of person our Founding Fathers feared might one day rise to that office. Shame on you for failing to recognize the plain truth.”
      *********************
      Purple prose aside, you’d think a alumnus of the University of Chicago would recognize a bandwagon/ad populum fallacy when they write it, which, of course causes me to question if you really are a UC grad, a lawyer, a holder of a PhD or even an adult.

    3. Joe, with all your credentials I would think that you would have seen that Turley did not draw any conclusions as to what type of person Trump is. He dealt with the legal basis for such accusations. Maybe you believe in hearsay evidence but I don’t think you would like to be accused and convicted based on hearsay evidence.

      The one person that didn’t provide hearsay evidence said there was no quid pro quo.

      If you can lay out the legal evidence against Trump regarding the present baseless charges do so along with the proof that is necessary in a court of law. If you can’t you might want to appologize to Turley for your hasty and inappropriate remarks.

  11. I was very disappointed that Pamela Karlan referred to thirteen year old Barron Trump in her testimony as someone President Trump wished he could make a real baron.

    Leave children out of this political warfare.

    1. You weren’t disappointed because you weren’t expecting anything of her. You might have been irritated. She’s comes off as a habitually annoying human being making a lame joke. I bet Barron thinks she’s a loser.

  12. I for one CELEBRATE that you have a CONSCIENCE… Too many have misplaced their morals… Thank you… Nicely done yesterday..

  13. Jonathan: I watched most of your testimony at yesterday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing. Now you know how General Custer must have felt at the Battle of the Big Horn. Despite being outnumbered and outgunned you gave it the old college try. When finally called by the Republican minority as there sole witness you argued that the case for impeaching Trump based on bribery and obstruction was weak because the record is “woefully inadequate”. You argued that other key witnesses like John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, etc. should also subpoenaed to testify and if they continue to resist let the courts decide. Of course, that’s what Republicans want. They want to stall and slow walk the process through the courts until the election next year in hopes the public will lose interest. Personally, I think there is sufficient evidence in the record to establish that Trump abused his office by trying to extort the Ukrainian president to dig up dirt on the Bidens to use in his bid for reelection next year and then obstructed a Congressional investigation by refusing to turn over requested documents, refused to allow administration officials to testify and then threatened witnesses who did testify. While the testimony of John Bolton, et. al., might be helpful it is not essential. And, of course, the House Judiciary Committee is entitled to take adverse inferences from Trump’s refusal to cooperate in the impeachment inquiry. Despite your best efforts the House is on a fast track toward impeachment. But don’t be disheartened. You got to once again burnish your credentials as an “expert” on Constitutional law before a national TV audience and, no doubt, will be called to testify by the Senate Republican majority to argue against convicting Donald J. Trump. So it’s a “two-fer”. What’s not to like about your future prospects on the TV circuit!

    1. Dennis

      we are shopping for a new internet provider at the office that hides our location and IP address. Which one are you and your coworkers using to post your comments on JT’s blog these past 24 hours?

  14. France’s President Emmanuel Macron was laughing with Justin “blackface” Trudeau two days ago at the expense of NATO’s largest financial supporter, President Donald Trump

    this is how the people of France show their support for Macron

    LMAO

    Way to go, mon ami!

    Cue Nancy Pelosi to save his derrier

    France Paralyzed By Largest General Strike In Decades
    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/france-paralyzed-largest-general-strike-decades

    1. yeah he’s some leader. can’t satisfy his people so he’s mocking trump. go back and get some “jilets jaunes”

  15. You not only disgraced yourself, but you disgraced GWU. They should have some standard of knowledge from their professors, you showed yesterday you don’t even believe in the rule of law, much less understand anything about it.

    1. Turley was the only witness standing up for the rule of law. He was the only witness who said that we should definitely use our current definition of bribery. All the other witnesses wanted the committee to make up their own definition.

    2. If you disagree with Professor Turley’s testimony, then make your case.

      Instead, you spewed hatred. What is wrong with you? Make your argument or else you are just throwing manure because you have none.

    3. 1111, What the professor showed was that unlike the other 3 he could act like a law professor and distance himself from his own personal bias.

  16. Professor, I was a student of yours at GW Law School from 1992-95. Your testimony yesterday was a head-scratcher. You argue that this impeachment is moving too fast on too little evidence, yet completely ignore the fact that Dems have TRIED to get more evidence, and have been completely stonewalled. Seriously? You also harp on the volume of evidence being less that the Nixon & Clinton impeachments. Isn’t the quality of the evidence – which is clear as day here – more important than sheer volume? Have to admit I laughed out loud when, after your arguments for a delay yesterday, Trump came out and asked for the process to move faster.

    I presume you testified yesterday because you can’t resist a TV camera. Please, for the sake of all your students past and present, resist that urge in the future.

    1. Sigh

      David Brock, you need to send better trolls our way.
      These latest trolls you and Soros have sent wouldn’t frighten a poodle

      1. Jet, ‘who’ are ‘you’??? We’ve never seen your name before. Where do you you get off complaining about ‘Brock trolls’?

        1. Simon

          we are shopping for a new internet provider at the office that hides our location and IP address. Which one are you and your coworkers using to post your comments on JT’s blog these past 24 hours?

          1. Etu Brute: We know who ‘you’ are; a very sick Trumper. A total nerd who thinks he’s terribly, terribly witty.

    2. How have Dems been stonewalled? Impeachment proceedings are the domain of the Judiciary Committee. Unlike the House Intel Committee, the Judiciary Committee can issue enforceable subpoenas for impeachment purposes.

      Ask yourself why Schiff or Nadler didn’t go to the courts to compel witnesses to testify?

      So… Dems actually HAVE NOT TRIED to get more evidence. SIMPLE FACT.

      These proceedings are a sham, all designed to limit the fact-finding.

    3. he totally explained that. they’re rushing it through and dont want to let the POTUS try his claims of executive privilege in courts. ignoring article III which could play a legit role mediating between article i and ii branches.

      you guys dont listen

    4. He didn’t ignore it.

      Every President in history has used the courts. For some reason, if President Trump does so, it’s not due process, but obstruction.

      Of course President Trump wants to wrap this up. There is no case, only heresy and speculation. (https://youtu.be/J3pxtj9P3T4) Would you not advise your clients in their best interest? What do you expect him to do, cooperate in a coup?

      This, from a law student? Very concerning.

    5. JManning:

      “Isn’t the quality of the evidence – which is clear as day here – more important than sheer volume? Have to admit I laughed out loud when, after your arguments for a delay yesterday, Trump came out and asked for the process to move faster.”
      *****************

      “Quality of evidence … clear as day.” Hearsay, innuendo, presumptions from hearsay and testimony not from personal knowledge. Did you even take evidence? If so, get your tuition money back.

  17. At this morning’s presser, Pelosi looked like she got no sleep last night/hungover from midnight cocktails. Looked like dead woman walking, all layered up with make-up to trick us into believing she is still alive. Party is over for that broad, and she knows it. She lost control of party due to recent insurgence by extreme leftists and old guard knuckleheads like Nadler and Shiff.

    1. Pamela, you cant draw attention away from your grotesque comments about a child. This was beyond acceptable but in keeping with leftists advocating ending the life of babies and decapitating adults like Kathy Grifter

      Too late. Your actions are captured on recordings which are already costing Democrats support from Americans

      👏🏽

      Pamela Karlan Condemned Over ‘Shameful’ Barron Trump Comment

      https://www.mediaite.com/politics/conservatives-shocked-by-pamela-karlans-shameful-barron-trump-joke-i-thought-kids-were-off-limits/

      1. Not sure you actually watched the hearing. Karlan’s comments were not a “grotesque” attack on a child. She may have been trying to be too “cute” with her analogy, but her point was absolutely valid: As much as he seems to think he is, Trump is no monarch. Please stop twisting this to justify your standing up for this corrupt man.

        1. JM12 – I would call Karlan’s attack venomous against Trump with Barron as collateral damage. However, she thought that “clever” sentence out. I was underwhelmed by her supposed apology about the venous attack in which she continued the attack on Trump. She has a severe case of TDS.

          1. Venomous attack..?? Get serious, Paul. You’re embracing that culture of victimhood so common with Trumpers. Karlan hit a dissident note, but that’s about all it was.

            1. Youre that peter guy people keep commenting that you change names weekly because youre a pedophile so no wonder you think attacking children is honkey dorey since you wish to screw them

              cowards are like that: hit and run comments, use fake names and screw little boys

              1. Anonymous, we know who ‘you’ are. Your mental health is very fragile. A really sick guy who mysteriously has carte blanche to write homophobic garbage all over these threads.

                What’s more this ‘freedom’ you have casts deep suspicion on Professor Turley who testified just yesterday that he didn’t vote for Trump.

              2. Anonymous – I have seen no evidence that the poster named “Peter” is a pedophile. The original Peter is gay. If I recall correctly, he has mentioned that he posts under different names, without explaining why. That does not automatically make him a pedophile. Unless there was some comment somewhere that I missed, it is my understanding that questioning his propensities is only based upon the over representation of gay men among pedophiles and hebephiles, their involvement in the Church scandals, as well as the preponderance of unsafe sex in the community.

                That of course does not mean that all gay men are attracted to pubescent teenagers or children, depending on the chronophilia. Men in general are more likely to commit sexual assault than women, but that does not tar all men, either.

                Personally, I wish that people would use a single avatar and stick with it. That makes it easier to carry on a conversation with the same person. Even if it’s not the person’s real name, it helps differentiate who you’re talking to. So I wish Peter would just pick a name. I also wish that people could argue policy. I’ve been guilty, myself, of getting sucked into arguments going nowhere.

                1. Karen, this ‘is’ the original Peter. And I am ‘not’ and never was ‘gay’. Nor have I ever, ever advocated gay life styles on this forum. I never addressed gay marriage or TG’s.

                  That ‘gay’ smear came from Absurd and Estovir. And they keep repeating it simply for the purpose of making it stick. The fact that you pick up and repeat the slander shows how it works.

                  This is all typical of Republicans going back to the 1950’s. Republicans are known for mean, gutter politics. Nothing is too low! I’m just shocked that the moderator here seems to openly encourage it. It makes a mockery of Turley’s claim that he’s a political ‘independent’.

                  My names keeps changing because certain people want me off this blog for good. I never willingly chose to change names.

            2. Simon Fraser – I used to teach Interpersonal Communications and Public Speaking. I watched her body language as she made her statement and that is why I used the word “venomous.” She was like a rattlesnake striking a prey.

        2. Karlan’s nonsensical jab was a form of bullying. Her snide effort to be “cute” – as you put it, was actually a public denigration a child. We now see the internet lampooning the child. Harm has been done.

          1. i thought it was funny once that the SPLC was running an anti-bullying program in schools.

            I thought, well, takes one to know one!

            That was back before the august ‘founder” Morris Dees was fired for harassing SPLC’s own workers, women and people of color, reportedly.

            I notice various other people who were his favored staff there have “quit” also recently ie fired too

            https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center

        3. i tell you what. these 3 professors hate trump obviously, but something more important: they hate US.

          they hate the people they imagined like trump: meat eating, “cis gendered,” hetero, old white guys born in the USA

          well Trump brings good for all Americans and we welcome support from all kinds.
          And a lot more people than that voted for trump,

          But we old white guys understand, yes, they hate us the most
          one day coming soon reciprocity will be established, I’m sure

          “The Beginnings” by Rudyard Kipling, 1917:

          It was not part of their blood,
          It came to them very late,
          With long arrears to make good,
          When the Saxon began to hate.

          They were not easily moved,
          They were icy — willing to wait.
          Till every count should be proved,
          Ere the Saxon began to hate.

          Their voices were even and low.
          Their eyes were level and straight.
          There was neither sign nor show.
          When the Saxon began to hate.

          It was not preached to the crowd.
          It was not taught by the state.
          No man spoke it aloud.
          When the Saxon began to hate.

          It was not suddently bred.
          It will not swiftly abate.
          Through the chilled years ahead,
          When Time shall count from the date.
          That the Saxon began to hate.

              1. Mr K,

                Infowars store:

                Year end sale on nice gravity feed water filters.

                So now you could also use the X2 or X3 survival shield Iodine.

                It’s the good halogen that’ll help boast your IQ & also helps remove the harmful halogens such as chlorine & the toxic waste product Sodium Fluoride which no one needs. ( IE: Calcium Fluoride/ a small amount needed)

          1. Maybe read Lord of the Flies, The Emperor’s New Clothes, or perhaps watch Twilight Zone’s The Monsters are Due on Maple Street. Long before he won the election I was warning my pro-Trump friends that the had no respect for the constitution. From the moment he entered the White House he has pretty much spat upon the dignity of the office. From lying about sending an “armada” to the North Korea, to inviting Russians into the Oval Office AND divulging Isreali classified intel to trying to kidnapping children and not only lying about hush payments to hide past liasons but the fact that he was guilty of them in the first place. This is just a sampling of the number of disgraceful behavior by the “leader of the free world.” I can’t see why any proud American would support this vile excuse for a president.

        4. JM12 – just to make this perfectly clear, you do NOT bring children into political warfare. The name “Barron Trump” should not have left her lips in this context. It focused the mob’s eyes on a 13 year old, and started yet another false accusation that Trump wants to make him an actual baron.

          Leave. Kids. Out. Of. It.

          1. Quit clutching your pearls. It wasn’t an insult nor an attack on Barron Trump, it was word play. And, all too predictably, trump supports rush to play the victim. A particularly cruel irony given his policy of caging children of asylum seekers. No one buys your fake outrage.

              1. But there was literally nothing about the child, other than his name, that was invoked. Word play that simply opened Karlan up to ridiculous attacks. It’s truly ludicrous that it got this much attention.

                1. I don’t think Karlan would have been ridiculed for using Barron’s name had her testimony not been so ridiculous and biased.

                    1. jules120:

                      “The only ridiculous testimony was Mr. Turley’s.”
                      ****************
                      Here’s betting you neither read nor heard Professor’s Turley’s testimony.

                    2. That is your opinion Jules, but your opinion seems to be contrary to basic principles of law. It is true that the Democrats placed three so-called experts up to speak and spin but some of them were trapped by their prior statements and lies.

                      You say “historically based” which could be true based on the writer of history but the testimony of the three was not completely legally based.

                2. jules120:

                  How’s about I bring your kid into a heated discussion and hold him up as some sort of punching bag? You’ve got no boundaries if you believe making fun of a kid to advance your argument works.

                  1. I think, as another poster said, she was making a play on his name. There was nothing at all about who he is as a person or what he looks like. It was a remark which I’m sure she thought was clever but which was not the time or place for that. I saw a lot of passion overall in her remarks because as a student of history, I’m sure she is furious to see what is happening to our constitution and to see this person, who has no respect for laws or the constitution, stomp all over our country while the GOP shields and defends him.

                    As an aside, I grew up being called Oero based on my maiden name. I honestly just thought it was stupid. However, when the high school boys started calling me Toucan because of my nose, that was an entirely different story.

                  2. Also, you mentioned earlier in the thread that you thought I neither read nor heard his testimony, but I watched it live. I’m not a legal scholar, I have my degree in math, so I can’t claim any kind of professional expertise, but he came out of the gates suggesting that the democrats are making a power play by rushing the process and that they should have waited for the courts to make a ruling on their subpoenas, and that they didn’t have enough information from key people, he seemed to gloss over the fact that the WH has refused to comply with the committees requests for materials or witnesses. Why are the democrats at fault here? Why isn’t he pointing to the executive branch and declaring an abuse of power or obstruction of congress? We all heard Sondland say over and over again that the State Department wouldn’t give him his notes or emails for reference. Does that seem legit?

                    I saw footage of him in another impeachment hearing for Judge Porteous, who was impeached and removed from the bench, and Turley’s defense was that Porteous was a “mooch”…and yet he was found guilty of accepting cash from attorneys and bail bondsmen as well as lying in bankruptcy papers. Does that sound like someone who respects the constitution or does that sound like a creative attorney grasping at straws?

                3. jules120 – Karlan is a woman who has admitted crossing the street so she didn’t have to walk in front of Trump Tower. Her non-apology apology told us all we wanted to know about her. She had rehearsed that line and she loved spitting it out and then sitting back in finality.

                  1. Is there no possibility in your world view that someone could have an intense dislike of someone and still be able to have an unbiased opinion based on historical facts and case law? Have we really reached the point in our country that you’re either Red or Blue and everyone is biased? If that’s the case, can we also say “all GOP reps are so in love with Trump that they would not label any wrong doing as such?” You can’t have it both ways and say “those people hate Trump so much that they’re out to trap him” and not see the other side of that same coin. I personally believe there are a lot of civil servants and politicians who can separate their feelings for a person from what is fair and just.

                    1. jules120 – Tim Pool does not like Trump, will never vote for Trump, however he does think the Progressive Left, which would include the three professors for the Democrats, are off the rails. I don’t always agree with him, but I think he is fair and honest in how he comes to his judgment.

                      I would like to think that civil servants were neutral, but they are not. Just ask Lisa Page and her lover (or ex-lover). Judicial Watch is getting more of their text messages daily. Almost all of the civil servants who testified were upset that Trump was upsetting “their” apple cart. The problem is: it is Trump’s apple cart. I voted for Trump to upset that apple cart and he did. Those civil servants have to realize that the ball belongs to the President, not them.

                      And this whole thing about Trump upsetting National Security by withholding funds for the Javelin missiles for 54 days is hogwash. Barack Obama held up money for Javelin Missiles for 8 years.

                    2. ” Is there no possibility in your world view that someone can have an intense diike of someone and still be able to have an unbiased opinion based on historic facts and case law?”.
                      Jules120, anything is possible. In the case of at least two of the law processors who testified this week —- Feldman and Kaplan— there is a long-term history of calling Trump’s presidency “illegitimate” and/ or calling for his impeachment.
                      These opinions about Trump preceded this week’s testimony and the Ukraine issue by YEARS.
                      So how “unbiased” are they going to appear on this “new” issue, as if they only “objectively” and “recently” 🙄😏come to the conclusion🤔 that Trump has committed an impeachable offense?
                      ( The quotation marks and the Emojis are mine).
                      Let’s take the flip side of of the coin. Is it possible that a lawyer who has expressed extremely strong support for Trump will give an unbiased opinion?
                      Or even the appearance that they are unbiased?
                      Let’s say that someone like Andrew McCarthy is appointed as a Special Counsel to investigate all elements of the entire Ukraine issue.
                      ( I don’t think his biases are as strong as, say, a self-described “snarky, Butch” law professor, but I’ll use him as an example).
                      On the other side of your coin, do you think he’d be viewed as “unbiased” in your world or in the world of the never- Trumpers?
                      Because if the argument is that even those with a long term history of antipathy forward Trump, you can get an unbiased opinion, then………..
                      let’s give that same benefit of the doubt to someone with a history of support and favorable opinion of Trump.

      2. Good catch, Betty.

        Kathy Griffin should have been our first clue that the Left will sacrifice any and all Americans for their dangerous ideologies. If “gymnasium showers” like Auschwitz existed in America, they would have sent us long ago

        1. Ah, yes, because it was “the Left” standing with their tiki torches, shouting “Jews will nor replace us” at Charolettsville. Yep.

Leave a Reply