Alan Morrison: Turley Is Right But Ultimately Wrong

I have the distinction of serving at George Washington Law School with many accomplished academics, including Professor Alan Morrison who is one of the most respected legal figures in the country with extensive litigation and public interest experience. Professor Morrison has written the column below where he disagrees with my ultimate position in the impeachment hearing and I am delighted to offer this opposing view as a guest columnist on our site.

Turley is Right But Ultimately Wrong

By Alan Morrison, Guest Columnist

I had made up my mind not to watch the four witnesses testifying on the standards for impeachment, nor read their written statements. I had too much else to do, and I had concluded, based on the public hearings, that Donald Trump would be (properly) impeached by the House.  

But then I started getting emails from friends and others who simply wanted to convey their unhappiness at someone at George Washington Law School that they were very unhappy with what my colleague Jonathan Turley was saying.  Except for one old friend, who is a Trump supporter, who praised Turley.  It looked like a case of where you stood on Turley was where you stood on Trump.  Then I decided I had to see for myself whether Jonathan was as far off base as many suggested, and so I downloaded all 53 single space pages of his testimony. I conclude that he was right about much, but ultimately missed the dilemma in which the House was placed by the refusal of the President to produce documents and witnesses that would complete the investigation, until all litigation avenues were exhausted.

Although it may be lost in Jonathan’s disagreements with the House leadership, he agrees with their conclusion that an impeachable offense need not be a crime and that using the threat to withhold appropriated funds for personal political gain is the kind of abuse of political power that, if proven, would be a proper basis for the House to impeach the President.  Part of the reason why so many viewers seemed upset was that he spent 18 pages on a tour of history that in the end did not seem to inform his conclusions as to these proceedings and then 23 pages showing why what the President did is almost certainly not a crime under the current understanding of what the federal criminal code forbids.  But his bigger problems are that (1) he failed to understand that the withholding of nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine, even for a limited time, was plainly forbidden by the non-criminal law known as the Impoundment Control Act (“ICA”), and (2) the President’s insistence on litigating over every possible witness and document, plus his claim that Democrats are trying to use the impeachment process as a means to undermine 2020 the election, have forced them to choose between completing their investigation before voting on impeachment or not voting at all until it is too late.

            Turley downplays the significance of Trump’s holding up the aid to Ukraine on the ground that he finally released it before the end of the fiscal year and so it didn’t really matter at all.  There are two major flaws with this argument.  First, all of the evidence to date indicates that the President had no intention of releasing the funds and would not have done so if the whistleblower’s complaint had not surfaced.  Of course, that may be a mistaken conclusion, but only the President and his closest advisers could refute that view – and they are not talking.

            The ICA is also very clear that even temporary withholdings of funds are limited to certain circumstances, none of which apply here. Moreover, the law requires the President to notify Congress immediately of all delays in expending appropriated funds and give the actual reasons for doing so.  I assume that the President was not aware of the ICA, but surely the officials at OMB who work with it all the time were, which raises the question of what happened when the ICA’s requirements were raised with the director of OMB and the President.  Once again, those who know won’t or can’t talk, which makes the inference that this silence was a deliberate decision not to tell Congress that Ukraine was not getting its money the most reasonable one.

            Second, Turley’s position is not that the Democrats should abandon impeachment, but that they should gather more evidence to support what they have found so far before voting.  At one point he suggests issuing more subpoenas, but even the most routine ones – such as for the notes of conversations taken by witnesses who have testified in public hearings – have been refused, as have the many subpoenas for individuals to testify at non-public depositions.  Trump and his lawyers have not said that they would disobey court orders, but they insist that every dispute be decided by the Supreme Court.  Because of the large number of these disputes (unlike Nixon for whom the only real battle was over his tapes), and because the issues are complex and will affect future Presidents, Congress, and the American people, these cases will take time to resolve.  Even if the Court were to devote its full attention to these fights over access to records and people- which would be impossible to do given its full docket of other significant cases – we would be lucky to get final decisions by late June, just weeks before the major party conventions and the start of the fall elections.

            It is not, as Turley implies, that the House argues that the President does not have a right to litigate his claims of immunity and executive privilege. Rather, the argument is that he cannot also claim that the House is not basing its conclusions on the witnesses who are closest to the President and the documents that will prove or disprove his defenses, while stonewalling the efforts of the House to do just that.  To be sure, as Turley points out, the House is moving rapidly, but that is not because it has denied the President the opportunity to make his case, but because it sensibly wants to conclude these proceedings well before the 2020 elections.  And unless the President revokes his non-cooperation order, the House, and probably the Senate, will have little choice but to proceed on the basis of what proof they can obtain under these circumstances.  Mr. President, the next move is yours.

Alan Morrison is the Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law at George Washington University. The views expressed in this column are his own and not those of the Res Ipsa blog.

198 thoughts on “Alan Morrison: Turley Is Right But Ultimately Wrong”

  1. ‘the House is moving rapidly, but that is not because it has denied the President the opportunity to make his case, but because it sensibly wants to conclude these proceedings well before the 2020 election’

    No, clearly the House seeks to deny President Trump due process of law.
    Lerner expresses more political bias than Schiff, Nadler, or Pelosi.

  2. When the trial gets to the Senate, Trump will be running against Mike Pence for President. The Republican Senators will be having to weigh these as their two choices going forward, and going into the 2020 election. The question of impeachment is more than a legal or political one — it’s also a review of competence and Presidential temperament after 3 years in Office. Trump is the proverbial “loose cannon”, intemperate and sloppy in his way of speaking, tribalistic in his perception of events, and susceptible to conspiratorial thinking. He has not managed teams well, judged by the high number of those fired or who quit in disgust. The WH Communications Team is a sad joke, now 100% reduced to tweets and impromptu ramblings while nearly drowned out by the Presidential helicopter. The nation is looking vulnerable on the world stage — will our adversaries take advantage of the impeachment drama? These are factors that could make Mike Pence rise as a Republican option to hold onto the Trump Agenda while placing it in more competent, steady hands.

    1. Excellent analysis about possibilities. I don’t think Trump grasps the full dynamics that will be in play, or if he does, he should be nervous.

      1. Another idiotic TDS victim who believed, “97% likelihood Hillary wins!”

        Keep dreaming. It’s all you got.

        Can’t wait for Don Jr.’s swearing in ceremony Jan. 2025.

    2. This is an interesting comment from Pbinca, thanks

      Mike Pence is a solid but he lacks the charisma that Trump has. Effective leadership is more than just pleasing the State Department bureaucracy, the war Dept bureaucracy, academics and news editors. It means serving the people and Trump has done it with flair and elan.

      Every Republican Senator will back Trump. Any who do not will face the pitchforks. This is not insult to Pence. Trump is the leader and any faltering in support from the Senators will be severely punished by the people.

      1. Lamar Alexander is 79 years old and retiring in a year. He doesn’t care about the pitchforks. The last office Mitt Romney held he vacated after one term. That he ran for Congress at all in 2018 is a puzzle. He doesn’t need the wretched job he has and one’s single best guess is he’s there to harass Trump for the fun of it. Lisa Murkowski is a grisly high school mean girl / careerist who will be 65 years old the next time she has to face voters and who has managed to eke out victories running as a write-in candidate. In re Rob Portman, it depends on what his country-club chums (and their wives) fancy.

  3. It was decent of Professor Turley to provide this rebuttal to his testimony. I wholeheartedly agree with it. Turley’s ‘walk through history’ was interesting but it failed to connect with the essence of Donald Trump.

  4. Another benefit of going straight to the Senate trial will be that the president will not be able to claim the rules of the Senate are not fair.

    Also, you will get immediate, non-appealable rulings on privilege From the chief justice and the Senate.

    All of that really can burn the Democrats, because the Republicans are in control of the Senate.

    But the issue that fascinates me the most is this. I don’t see how you have a trial without calling the principal witnesses to the withholding of aid such as Giuliani, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton and even Trump. (Putting aside witnesses on Biden and Crowdstrike.)

    How is that going to play out?

    1. That’s an excellent question and it will be interesting to see how it plays out. One can hope it gets out of hand and control by GOP leadership, though one also suspects some of them may be wishing it does. Absent fear, Trump is not their leader and he is undoubtedly resented.

      1. Really? Resented by who? What world are you all living in? You approve this circus that Dems originated out of hate and fear and you believe that POTUS is resented by Repubs and Americans? Wake up, please. You are insane.

        1. Inge, I thought I made clear that I was talking about GOP leadership in the Senate. If you want to know what they think of Trump, look to their comments in 2016 – especially Graham – and consider their reaction to their party being taken over by a reality tv star with no discernible principles, let alone republican ones, and no respect for Congress.

          1. bythelittleredbook:

            “If you want to know what they think of Trump, look to their comments in 2016.”
            ******************
            Good thought. I’m looking at Roosevelt’s comments about Japanese is 1934 right now. New information doesn’t change people, right?

            Caught the video yet where your star witness, Amb.Sondland, says ” I never said the President should be impeached,” and “I’ve said many times I’m only giving my presumptions” ?

            At least when you were Anon1, you were pithy every full moon or so.

            1. Well that’s 4 insults by the man too busy to do so, and still no alternative explanation which somehow exonerates Trump for the actions of his administration.

              I responded to your cute little video.

      2. Yeah, the thousands of people who stand outside the meeting halls because they can’t fit inside, they are there because they “resent” Trump, right?

        Terminal TDS.

  5. Professor Morrison predicates a crime on testimony he has not heard. The testimony of the witness from OMB was withheld and since it was taken in the SCIF has to be considered secret until release. According to reports, there was not real problem with withholding lethal aid (something Obama had never given them).

    Now, the Democrats did a huge document drop and it is possible that the OMB testimony is in that. Now, the Democrats are not even playing by the rules of the House. If they won’t play by their own rules why do you expect the President to play along? The train is barreling down the track, you don’t have to throw yourself in front of it.

    Chances are Trump will be impeached, votes will be lost by the Democrats because of it. Trump will not be convicted in the Senate. Chances are good Trump will be re-elected in 2020 and the House and Senate will be Republican.

    1. Great rebuttal by McCarthy. Thank you for posting the link.

      In impeachment, selective outrage is not a good look. I’m almost tempted to call it an abuse of power.

  6. This is just one of many thoughts I’ve had about the impeachment situation, but it’s one that I’ve not heard others express. And so I offer it: Is the Democrats’ claim that Trump wanted an investigation of Biden because he dislikes Biden? Or that Trump saw Biden as a political rival? Or that Trump suspected Biden of wrongdoing? All three are plausible. Are all three impeachable? Is any of the three provable? The one Dems seem to hit on most is “political rival”. But honestly, does anyone believe Trump feels politically threatened by Biden? Or ever did? To me it’s implausible on its face, that Trump would knowingly commit a crime in order to improve his chances against Biden. Biden?

    1. 1. Biden consistently beats Trump involving by around 10 points and is especially strong in rust belt and blue collar areas.

      2. Trump is very insecure, to the point of constantly lying to bolster himself (“greatest……..” – fill in the blank).

      3. His lack of a record of concern with corruption in any other countries – see Russia and Saudis Arabia makes it unlikely by itself that his motive was anything but self serving.

      1. 1. Biden consistently beats Trump involving by around 10 points and is especially strong in rust belt and blue collar areas.

        If you studiously avoid using a likely voter screen and aren’t perturbed about the problems with your sampling frame, aye. This hasn’t worked out well for them in the past, but what the hey.

        1. and yet Mayor Pete is from the heart of the Rust Belt. And, South Bend played a pivotal role in Barack Obama’s victory over Hillary in the 2006 primary. Remember?? The one in which thousands of fraudulent signatures were concocted by the local Democrat leadership, who ended up in jail over the voter fraud event.

          Recently, see link below, the local African American community leadership has been shifting its allegiance from Biden to Pete according to published reports of events.

          I would also observe the event described was disrupted by BLM. BLM again proves itself to be an obnoxious outfit of rioters and hecklers who do nothing to advance the interests of any community except their clandestine donor-ship. Which is mostly George Soros, or so I have heard.

          https://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/show-of-support-for-pete-buttigieg-from-african-americans-but/article_76ff62e5-5d37-593c-ba20-9fe54d101391.html

          Correct me if I am wrong but does the fellow from BLM distrupting this event, wearing a BLM t shirt, appear to be a white man? Isnt that odd! Ironic I guess.

          Finally I would observe that the Trump rally held in South Bend a few years ago was the largest crowd for a political event ever in city history, or so i’ve heard. I suspect support for Trump in the Rust belt enclaves like NW indiana is high as ever, as employment in steel mills is booming. Certainly when steel tariffs were enacted, steel workers were very supportive, see the link

          https://www.npr.org/2018/06/10/618648606/a-steelworkers-union-on-trumps-tariffs

      2. Nov. 1, 2016: newsbreak: 97% likelihood Hillary wins! That really felt good back then, didn’t it?

        Yeah, those rust belt voters, they are real keen on jack booted heavily armed Federal thugs breaking their doors down to “repurchase” their weapons, right? They are really into tax payer funded abortions up to and beyond the baby’s birth, right? They just loved how life turned out under Obama, and want some more of that.

        I’m really glad TDS victims get to wrap themselves in their little security blankets dreaming as if there’s not gonna be the actual yard fight called a Presidential campaign with actual debates, etc. Obama knows something you don’t (no endorsement): Biden’s a loser.

        Trump owns the TV screen, and if you think that doesn’t matter, again, enjoy your dreams.

        You completely ignore that even die-hard Trump haters openly mock Biden for his losing record and occasional total lack of brain function. Biden’s god forsaken teeth alone are enough for him to lose. How many starving people could he have fed for his chompers budget?

    2. *********************************************
      Qi Metrics Media Research says:
      December 12, 2019 at 9:46 AM

      This is just one of many thoughts I’ve had about the impeachment situation, but it’s one that I’ve not heard others express. And so I offer it: Is the Democrats’ claim that Trump wanted an investigation of Biden because he dislikes Biden? Or that Trump saw Biden as a political rival? Or that Trump suspected Biden of wrongdoing? All three are plausible. Are all three impeachable? Is any of the three provable? The one Dems seem to hit on most is “political rival”. But honestly, does anyone believe Trump feels politically threatened by Biden? Or ever did? To me it’s implausible on its face, that Trump would knowingly commit a crime in order to improve his chances against Biden. Biden?
      *********************************************
      A possible scenario:

      1. He heard Biden brag about getting the PG in Ukraine fired.
      2 Then he heard something like this from the Ukraine News Agency.
      QUOTE
      According to Viktor Shokin, he had a plan to investigate the activities of Hunter Biden, including interrogations and other procedures for all members of the board of the Burisma Group. Moreover, Shokin repeatedly appealed to the head of NABU Sytnik as part of the criminal proceedings against the company, but constantly received formal replies.

      Shokin’s activity caused Joe Biden’s undisguised irritation. His fifth visit to Kyiv on December 7–8, 2015 was dedicated to resolving the issue of the resignation of Shokin due to the Zlochevsky case. The subject of pressure was $1 billion of loan guarantees that the United States was to provide to Ukraine.

      Biden himself admitted the fact of pressure in his speech at the United States Council on Foreign Relations in January 2018, calling Shokin “the son of a bitch who should have been fired”.

      The chronology of events also attests to the linking of the Zlochevsky case to credit guarantees by the United States. Judge for yourself.

      In December 2015, Biden visited Kyiv. On February 19, 2016 the President of Ukraine asks the parliament to agree to dismiss Shokin. On March 29, the parliament agrees and on April 3, the President of Ukraine signed a decree dismissing Shokin.

      On June 3, the U.S. and Ukrainian governments signed a $1 billion loan guarantee agreement.
      3. The video and script from the US Council on Foreign Relations meeting is available on line. He says he did it and laughs.

      UNQUOTE

      I think this is enough to warrant an investigation.
      Shokin was replaced and the new PG closed all his cases his first day in office.

      You can find some interesting reading here

      https://en.interfax.com.ua/

  7. In a vacuum, Morrison would have a point, but life doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If the Democrats hadn’t spent the last three years bouncing from removal theory to removal theory like a coke-addled squirrel fresh off a ten hour ride in a paint shaker, then Trump’s stonewalling might be problematic. But in reality, the Democrats have been trying to remove Donald Trump as president since before he was even sworn in, and every time one of their theories were introduced, we were supposed to treat it with all the grave seriousness it deserved;

    Abolish the electoral college! Empower faithless electors! Invoke the emoluments clause! Russian collusion! Invoke the 25th amendment! Obstruction of Justice! #metoo! Campaign finance violations! There’s something in his taxes! Trump is disloyal, or a traitor! And now; withholding aid!

    This list probably isn’t even exhaustive! And so…. What? The president, when faced with people who want to overturn a legitimate election by any means necessary, is supposed to empower the party who has constantly ree’d wolf for the last three years? No, I don’t buy it. I don’t think the Democrats care. Trump might even have been acting inappropriately here, *this* might actually be the theory that gets some amount of traction, but I’ll believe that the Democrats are deeply concerned with the constitutional issues in play here when my shit turns purple and smells of rainbow sherbet.

    In the meantime; The house will convict, the Senate won’t, and we’ll see you all in 2020!

    1. First I would like to thank Dr Turley for allowing me to join the blog. I am just an old country boy who was self educated. The USAF provided me some formal training in electronics. No lawyer here but I would like to ask a couple of questions. First a cut and paste from a document referenced in the article:

      “Deferrals The ICA defines a “deferral” as withholding,delaying, or –through other Executive action or inaction –effectively precluding funding from being obligated or spent. The ICA prescribes three narrow circumstances in which the President may propose to defer funding for a program: (1) providing for contingencies; (2) achieving budgetary savings made possible through improved operational efficiency; and (3) as specifically provided by law.
      As discussed below, we conclude that the ICA does not permit the withholding of funds through their date of expiration. The statutory text and legislative history of the ICA, Supreme Court case law, and the overarching constitutional framework of the legislative and executive powers provide no basis to interpret the ICA as a mechanism by which the President may unilaterally abridge the enacted period of availability of a fixed-period appropriation. The Constitution vests in Congress the power of the purse, and Congress did not cede this important power through the ICA. Instead, the terms of the ICA are strictly limited. The ICA permits only the temporary withholding of budget authority and provides that unless Congress rescinds the amounts at issue, they must be made available for obligation.
      Under limited circumstances, the ICA allows the President to withhold amounts from obligation for up to 45 calendar days of continuous congressional session. See ICA, § 1012(b); 2 U.S.C. § 683(b). At issue here is whether the Act allows such a withholding of a fixed-period appropriation scheduled to expire within the prescribed 45-day period to continue through the date on which the funds would expire.”

      Deferral preventing deliver of said fund, not a temporary freeze. So unless the funds were being denied no letter to congress required. (Is this correct?)

      Here is a cut and paste from the actual law.

      “(a) Transmittal of special message Whenever the President determines that all or part of any budget authority will not be required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which it is provided or that such budget authority should be rescinded for fiscal policy or other reasons (including the termination of authorized projects or activities for which budget authority has been provided), or whenever all or part of budget authority provided for only one fiscal year is to be reserved from obligation for such fiscal year, the President shall transmit to both Houses of Congress a special message specifying—”

      Again not a temporary withholding but a denial. (is this correct?)

      The law was written in response to Nixon’s wanting to withhold fund from programs he did not like. The first link states a 45 day freeze is acceptable. At the end of the freeze the funds will be released unless congress acts to prevent it. Why this allowance?

      Suppose congress allocates funds to a small country in South America. Funds are available. A coup and change of government. The new dictator is waiting the funds. Here is the fly in the ointment. The president can freeze the funds for 45 days. If congress fails to act and cancel the funds he is obligated to release them at the end of the 45 days. The 45 day hold being the fail safe. (Is this correct?)

      Not a lawyer here but as I read it the funds must be precluded from delivery to violate the ICA. Holding the funds is not a crime.

    2. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/tv-star-417-anti-trump-interviews-by-adam-schiff-50-hours-total
      *************************************************
      Excellent post, Humble Talent. I’ll just add that
      IMO, Adam Schiff is not the best one to be promoting the impeachment drive. He is the poster child for exactly what you mention.
      ( In fairness to Schiff, the article says he started the anti-Trump TV barrage three days after Trump’s inauguration, not before he was sworn in🤓).

    3. “…like a coke-addled squirrel fresh off a ten hour ride in a paint shaker, then Trump’s stonewalling might be problematic…”

      Please post more often!

  8. Morrison‘s remarks have some credibility, provided you were willing to take his comments entirely outside of the context of other events, such as the fact that the Democrats wanted to impeach Trump from the very beginning, three years ago. Also, if this is as important as we are being told, then the right of President Trump to take every single issue to the Supreme Court should be observed and honored. How else are Americans to know that this entire procedure has been properly dealt with? Because, the way the process is going now, Americans can clearly see that this impeachment is not a legitimate process.

  9. Professor Morrison states the reason this is being rushed is a political reason – because they ( Democrat’s) want to complete this well before the presidential election. They should want the best evidence to proceed if their desire is to succeed – yes this takes time.

  10. “but ultimately missed the dilemma in which the House was placed by the refusal of the President to produce documents and witnesses that would complete the investigation, until all litigation avenues were exhausted.”

    Professor Morrison that statement gives me pause to think. “Complete the investigation?” What does that mean in the context of what the Democrats have been doing since the President won the Republican nomination? The investigation started on day one and many illegal or inappropriate activities occurred starting with the FBI investigation. OK, the FBI took a look but then lied to the FISA court and lied about individuals working for the President even changing documents that made private individuals look guilty when they weren’t. Democrats called for impeachment, a coup and resistance. Let us not forget Russia, the Steele Dossier, the emolument clause of the Constitution, Ukraine and so many other accusations (for impeachment) that occurred one after the other just to ***”complete the investigation”. I thought the Mueller report investigated by those looking to defeat Trump and some calling themselves the resistance would end the investigation and permit the country to heal. No way. …And you think it is the President’s fault that the investigation wasn’t completed?

  11. Morrison’s recitation of the facts and his conclusions are impeccable. I would like to see Prof Turley respond to him.

    1. Of course the arguments of one TDS victim (the professor) are “impeccable” to fellow terminal TDS victims like you, suckers who believed the lie of 97% likelihood Hillary wins. Why don’t you personally take a stab at the many powerful arguments already posted in these replies?

      As I posted earlier, TDS victims ignore that they lost the argument to the most important demographic, so-called “independents,” among whom support for impeachment declined from over 50% to 1/3rd (since public hearings). By the end of the Senate trial it’s gonna fall below 15% among this critical demographic. TDS victims totally ignore that Rome burns (actual real problems in this country) while little Ciceros like you play your TDS violin.

      NPR is wholly owned and operated by die hard terminal TDS victims of the worst kind, academics who own and operate US universities (most NPR stations operate in conjunction with universities).

      Yesterday NPR’s “1A” show played audio phone messages from listeners sharing their views on impeachment. Every message I heard was rabidly anti-impeachment, including from self-proclaimed D’s. Really. You have to let that sink in.

      I can only conclude that even NPR sends a message across Peelosi’s bow that she is on a mission doomed to sink Dems in 2020 and hopefully beyond.

  12. We should all applaud JT’s magnanimous act in posting this view dissenting from his own, and especially one providing much needed correction to his pattern of myopia regarding Trump”s actions (see QPQ, repeated lies, and precedent shattering behavior requiring novel responses from others tasked with upholding our laws and government).

    1. Let me go on a limb and guess you’re an Obama supporter. Without judicial charges, Obama incinerated with a drone strike 16 year old American Muslim citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki, about 2 weeks after doing the same to Anwar’s citizen father by the same name, also sans judicial charge. Unfortunately for the two Anwars, Obama added their names to Obama’s secret kill list.

      Beyond that Obama also personally insured that dozens if not hundreds of felonious Americans including Dick The War Monger Cheney got clean away with felony torture and murder, which for persons who live in denial like you may not know is an international war crime.

      Further, Obama and then AG Holder personally allowed Jamie Dimon to perform a bloodless coup of the DOJ to insure Dimon and his ilk avoided prison for personally causing the 2008 depression.

      Obama swore public oath to uphold and enforce the law.

      How “impeachable” were the above actions vs. whatever you accuse Trump of doing?

  13. Morrison’s conclusions are based on faith. He is like a baptist. So are most Dems. They believe in their party to their last dying day and think that Saint Peter is leading the way. Faith is all BS and so is the tone. Morrison needs a shrink to give him a bone.

  14. Thank you for posting an alternative view. He is wrong and you are right. Your colleague suffers from TDS as surely as the dims do.

  15. If you are bent you are bent, you are bent all the way.
    From your first Alan Schiff to your last dying day.
    The Dems are done now…
    They have no last chance….
    They can dance to the BS and stand on their stance.

    The people are coming …
    They are going to vote…
    The voters will end the Democrats last dying dumb hopes.

    You’re a Jet , you’re a Jet…
    You’re a Jet all the way…
    From your first minor crime to your last dying day.
    Get off the podium and go back to the ditch.
    Your name is a dumb one and it is Adam Schiff!

  16. The only ‘dilemma’ the committee faced was one as spurious as the proceedings. This man is a fraud.

    1. Agreed. To the best of our knowledge there was no quid pro quo, this missive appears to be based on personal supposition which renders this entire piece moot. Academic, my eye, TDS is real, folks. What I appreciated about Prof Turley’s testimony was that his personal feelings about Trump were irrelevant.

  17. Professor Morrison’s conclusions are based on supposition about Trump’s intent. Do we now remove presidents based on supposition or actual facts?

    1. The facts are that the WH put a hold on military aid to the Ukraine, the president personally asked Zelensky to investigate his most popular and likely political opponent, and then his various diplomats worked with the Ukrainians to force that behavior. When this became public the effort ceased, the funds were released, and the president began spouting “no QPQ!”

      Do you have a believable explanation for these facts which do not include impeachable behavior by the president?

      1. Read the transcript.

        Also take note of the law where the President is obligigated to look for corrumption where foreign aid is concerned.

        1. Make your argument regarding the transcript.

          Asking for a public announcement of an investigation of an opponent who is no longer even involved in the country in question is not an action aimed at corruption, but political advantage.

          You get that without further elaboration, right?

          1. bythebook – the Dems want ten yearss of Trump’s taxes. He wasn’t a candidate, was he? Now, Hunter Biden was working on the board of Burisma which was cleared by Joe Biden. Burisma seems to have been behind attacking candidate Trump. If I were Trump, I would want investigated.

            1. Paul C Schulte says:
              bythebook – the Dems want ten yearss of Trump’s taxes. He wasn’t a candidate, was he? Now, Hunter Biden was working on the board of Burisma which was cleared by Joe Biden. Burisma seems to have been behind attacking candidate Trump. If I were Trump, I would want investigated.

              Hunter was not the only one getting paid. I hear Kerry’s son was on the board too.
              You know he said, she said, they said?
              Click the link to see who else was on the take.

              https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/617943.html

              Consider the source. The MP Ukraine is presenting the evidence.

              1. G – I have heard, although I have no proof of it, that Hunter Biden never attended a board meeting in Ukraine. He did do some lobbying in Washington. That is the story as I heard it.

                1. The problem with misinformation is they flood the media with he said, she said, post said, times said………………………..
                  Oh and the one that makes me want to scream “the debunked theory”. You know who debunked it? Fact check gets a thumbs down also. Hear say is crazy. As I heard it he has a lobbying job in Washington. Anyway that’s a side line distraction at the moment. Today’s headlines should be about this:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgKGjoIkaXU&feature=emb_logo

                  They would read “Ukraine PG says US Ambassador lied under oath!”.
                  Check it out.

          2. The blatant unadulterated hypocrisy of Progressives knows no bounds: Anyone who commits any felony and/or corrupt act, all you have to do is run for POTUS and then all your many felonies and/or multiple millions of dollars of corrupt acts are forgiven automatically. Walah! Puf! Gone!

            Let this sink in readers: this pathetic TDS victim above says any corrupt act Biden and his coke addled lying son did 8 years ago is none of voters business because it was 8 years ago.

            Pray tell dear progressive, what is the statue of limitation that bars voters from such knowledge Re. Biden, who demands to be POTUS? And from where do you find this statue of limitations?

            How far does the apple fall from the Joe Biden tree? Hunter impregnated a woman a few years ago. Said woman requested Hunter pay up for his sex act, and accept his legal and financial responsibility, to which Hunter replied EPH YOU YOU LYING WHORE!

            Too bad no pathetic Prog told the brain dead Bidens about this new thing called DNA tests!!!

            FF 2 weeks ago when a court confirmed the obvious, Hunter guilty as charged.

            When a reporter asked Joe about his new grand dad status, and about Hunter’s denial, Joe made it clear if he had the legal power to do so he would have killed that reporter dead on the spot. And that was in front a cameras and live mics.

            Imagine how evil is Joe behind closed doors.

            1. Of course nothing I posted suggested anything about statutes of limitations for the Biden’s or anyone else. The obvious point was that any real concern truMp might have had about UkrainiAn corruption as it regarded our sending them aid would not be about someone who’s activities involving that country ceased at least 3 years ago, but who also happened to be the person most likely to defeat him the 2020 election. One may only guess that the subtly of this point makes it invisible to the princess..If however truMp possessor some secret information indicating recent activity and scams – fly by night residential repaying rip offs with gypsies? – then the correct procedure would be to alert Zelensky and offer FBI help, all secret of course to maintain surprise.

              1. At the time Burisma, an almost totally corrupt industry, hired Hunter, Hunter was slithering through homeless encampments buying crack cocaine from crack seller A. The first time Hunter met crack seller A, A put a gun to Hunter’s head because A did not know Hunter. Hunter also crashed a Hertz rental car around this time while Hunter was drug addled. When Hertz appeared with a new car for Hunter, they found Hunter’s crack pipe and a bag of white powder, which required police on scene and our public knowledge of this incident.

                THE above Hunter Biden, who could not find his arse with both hands, Burisma hired and paid $86k per month, about 100 thousand times the salary of the average Ukrainian.

                And bythebook replies: “Nothing here for US voters to see, impeach Trump and elect Joe!!”

                We can only presume, if bythebook was POTUS, his entire family and friends would all be hired working for felons with book’s abundant blessing.

          3. Burisma was being investigated and before a lot of things happened the British didn’t want to deal with Burisma’s corruption. Joe Biden’s answer to that is to accept being a pointman in the Ukraine and letting his son travel with him and suddenly become a board member of Burisma.

            Fire the prosecutor that is looking into Burisma or so says Biden on tape. That similar things happened in China also doesn’t seem accidental. His fellow investor Heinz’s son (John Kerry) bowed out of this one.

            You can think what you want but the President of the United States has an obligation backed by law that he prevent such things from happening.

      2. *****
        The facts are that the WH put a hold on military aid to the Ukraine, the president personally asked Zelensky to investigate his most popular and likely political opponent, and then his various diplomats worked with the Ukrainians to force that behavior. When this became public the effort ceased, the funds were released, and the president began spouting “no QPQ!”

        Do you have a believable explanation for these facts which do not include impeachable behavior by the president?
        *****

        Would a Ukrainian request for aid in investigating corruption be accepted by you? This link leads to the Ukrainian new agency.

        https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-conference/625831.html

        He did not ask to ” investigate his most popular and likely political opponent”. He ask to investigate corruption in Ukraine. Ukraine Parliament is asking for our help in the investigation.

        116HR3047 ih The bill providing the funds in question has a report requirement. It requires a written report of all funds sent Ukraine from 2014 to date. How would you Account for all funds delivered from 2014 forward without Ukrainian assistance? The report must be filed in 180 days.

        116Hr3047 ih is only 6 pages you should read it.

        1. G, the president did not ask zelensky about corruption, he asked about investigating the Biden’s.

          Of course we would have a record of funds sent the Ukraine without their help, and of course a ukrainiAn requestor help with corruption should be honestly considered. In fact we were providing that aid when the government changed in 2015, including FBI advisors. One of those agents is now a GOP congressman from Pennsylvania who has confirmed that the prosecutor Biden got fired was corrupt and doing nothing about Butisma or anything else.

          1. the president did not ask zelensky about corruption, he asked about investigating the Biden’s.

            LOL! That’s precious. If only we had a transcript of the call, then we could determine the depth of your intellectual incompetence. Hmm, here is a portion of the call where President Trump is talking about corru…Oh wait, he didn’t actually use the word corruption, so he must have been asking how many push ups Biden can do.

            The other thing, There’s a lot of. talk about Biden’s son,. that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you ·can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.

          2. The President wanted corrumption to end in Ukraine. That is a logical and proper request (including following a specific law geared towards funding corruption) when we are providing Ukraine with things the American taxpayer is paying for. He stated that many people wanted to know about Biden’s son since there was a lot of talk about corruption and Burisma was a corrupt enterprise. The rest is a matter of fact on the record. Biden bragged that he had the prosecuter fired. If Biden’s son wasn’t involved in corruption (even though he flew on the plane with the VP) then a release of information would make Hunter look good and Joe Biden look better.

            If one wants a smoking gun it is right there in Joe Biden’s video.

            1. As noted above, a sitting GOP congressman was an FBI advisor to the Ukrainian government on corruption confirms that the prosecutor Biden got fired was corrupt and not investigating Burisma or anything. These facts were also confirmed by Amb Volker, George Kent, and Fiona Hill under oath.

              More importantly, if Trump cared about corruption in the Ukraine, and there is no evidence he does, he would not be asking about someone who hasn’t been there in years or asking for public announcements.

              This is not difficult.

              1. So far all of those you mention have dealt in presumptions which makes you presumptuous as to the facts.

                Trump has most definitely cared where American dollars went and a lot of the deep state hoping to get part of that money hate him for saving the taxpayer money. He has already stated he was unhappy with how American money flowed so his actions in Ukraine were consistent.

                Lets have the direct quotes rather than you spewing names. We know that you have been here before under different names and when you lose credibility you change your name as you have done once again.

          3. “bythebook says:
            G, the president did not ask zelensky about corruption, he asked about investigating the Biden’s.”

            Biden had the PG forced to resign and then bragged about it. This is corruption which needs investigating.

            “Of course we would have a record of funds sent the Ukraine without their help, and of course a ukrainiAn requestor help with corruption should be honestly considered”

            Yes we have records showing the funds sent. What happened when they were delivered is the question.

            “One of those agents is now a GOP congressman from Pennsylvania who has confirmed that the prosecutor Biden got fired was corrupt and doing nothing about Butisma or anything else.”

            This is interesting: Who debunked the theory? Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin would disagree. He had several cases open. When he was forced to resign.

            ******
            21-11-2019 Ukrainian news release:
            Riaboshapka argued that there is no “Burisma case”, but there are 13 criminal cases in which the country’s former Ecology Minister and Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky is implicated and some of which mention Burisma.

            Zlochevsky was ecology minister in the government led by then-Prime Minister Mykola Azarov in the period between July 2010 and April 2012. He left Ukraine in late 2014. In early 2015 it transpired that the Prosecutor General’s Office had put him on the wanted persons list on suspicion of illegal enrichment.

            Comment:This would be Shokin.

            The Prosecutor General’s Office has investigated several criminal proceedings implicating Zlochevsky and sent one of the cases to NABU in 2015-2016.

            Comment: This would be Shokin.

            In January 2017, Burisma said all procedural and judicial actions against its CEO Zlochevsky and the operational companies included in Burisma Group had been closed in Ukraine.

            Comment: This would be after Biden intervened.

            Media reported on February 1, 2018 that Zlochevsky had returned to Ukraine. On January 23, 2019 the Prosecutor General’s Office summoned him for questioning as part of ongoing investigations and court proceedings.

            Riaboshapka said in October this year that the Prosecutor General’s Office is reviewing some 15 cases related to Burisma, including a case which mentions Hunter Biden, who once held a seat on the Ukrainian company’s board of directors.
            ******
            Ukraine says there is no “Burisma case”. Shokin wanted to subpoena the Burisma board. Biden being on the board was what caused his dismissal.

            In 2017 the US Ambassador gave Shokin’s replacement an untouchable list. Zlochevsky was on the list therefore Burisma was off limits.

            Back to your original statement:
            G, the president did not ask zelensky about corruption, he asked about investigating the Biden’s.”

            The Ambassador didn’t say Burisma she said Zlochevsky. Basically one in the same.

            Interfering with Ukraine prosecution is a corrupt act. I guess he could have said ” I hear Biden stopped a prosecution. This would be a corrupt act. Would you look into it?”.

            OR

            The other thing, There’s a lot of. talk about Biden’s son,. that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you ·can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.

            Is there a lot of difference?

            For what it’s worth the Burisma press release announcing Biden joining the board say he is also on the board of a New York firm that handles money?????

            https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/john-solomon-memos-reveal-burisma-holdings-pressed-obama-state-department-to-help-end-corruption-investigation-involving-hunter-biden/

      3. the president personally asked Zelensky to investigate his most popular and likely political opponent

        That is a perception that is not in evidence. In evidence is actual Ukrainian corruption and the Biden QPQ. The fact is, had Biden not entered the race, the President still had a legitimate article II duty to encourage the Ukrainian President to weed out corruption if we were to continue to provide them aid.

        1. Asking a foreign leader for a public announcement of an investigation of a political opponent who is no longer involved in his country in any manner is obviously not motivated by actual concern with corruption. You get that, right?

          If truMp was really concerned with ukrainiAn corruption – he’s not – he would ask that leader to allow our FBI to work with his counterparts to help, nd maybe specifically target a known suspect, but except as a general statement, that would remain secret.

          1. Asking a foreign leader for a public announcement of an investigation of a political opponent…

            Biden’s also male, elderly, white, Delelawarian, Catholic, husband, parent and grandparent. Given those are also characteristics describing Biden that Trump never mentioned to Zelensky, along with never mentioning him as a political opponent, why aren’t you calling for him to be impeached for racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-catholic, etc? Because inferring abuse of power without evidence still doesn’t rise anywhere close to an impeachable offense.

              1. It’s not that difficult. The allegation is he abused his power by asking Zelensky to investigate his political rival to personally benefit him in the 2020 election.

                There is no evidence that he asked him for that purpose. The Democrats has proven time and again that whatever they feel is equivalent to facts and evidence. So to my point; there is as much evidence to prove this allegation as there is about every other allegation made of this president. So despite facts and evidence proving what Democrats feel is without merit, the House Judiciary has approved two articles of impeachment be brought before the full House. One is for abuse of power that never happened, and the other of obstruction of Congresses abuse of power.

                1. Olly, requiring a public announcement of an investigation is evidence of Trump’s purpose. How else would you explain that?

                  1. Anon says: How else would you explain that?

                    This is what Democrats and the Left represent: you’re either on their side or they kill you

                    —-

                    “A 14-year-old Florida boy was allegedly pummeled by several students on a school bus for wearing a Trump 2020 hat to school, disturbing video shows.

                    The boy’s mother on Thursday released a 21-second video of the Nov. 21 attack in Hamilton County, where two girls and three boys are seen relentlessly punching him as other students look on and scream in the background.

                    The boy, identified as Tyler, was assaulted for previously wearing to school a Trump 2020 hat that he bought “with his own money” at a flea market several weeks earlier, his mother said.

                    “He was proud to wear it,” she tweeted. “He wore it to school, but due to immediate bullying he put it away & didn’t wear it to school again, sadly the damage was already done & was now a target.”

                    The teen was then “steadily” bullied on the bus, getting “tripped” and verbally abused before the situation culminated in the beatdown that required a trip to the hospital, his mother claimed.

                    “The nurse noted there are bruises on his arm that were older along with his new injuries,” the boy’s mother tweeted last month. “He didn’t tell us about the bullying, but they took it to a new level yesterday and we are just now learning what he was going through.”

                    Attorney Foye Walker, who is representing the boy, said the attack occurred on a Hamilton County school bus and remains under investigation.

                    “Tyler wore a Trump hat to school two weeks prior to the beating,” Walker wrote The Post in an email. “It started and/or increased a series of bullying that culminated in his assault and batter … His beating appears to be the result of his support for President Trump.”

                    The attack over Tyler’s political beliefs is simply “not acceptable,” Walker said.

                    The teen’s mother, meanwhile, said his attackers “tried to beat his head soft” and insisted the incident was racially motivated.

                    “Plain and simple this was a hate crime and attempted murder according to the state of Florida since it was over three kids that jumped him and these kids are older and larger,” she tweeted after the attack. “Thankfully my son got into the fetal position and held his hands over his head — he’s got defensive wounds.”

                    — AP

                  2. How else would you explain that?

                    If you have to ask, then you’re proving my point.

                    There is evidence to prove he wanted Zelensky to do the honorable thing and publicly announce his commitment to weed out corruption. This was a major factor towards him being elected. It is also a major concern when it comes to the U.S. providing any foreign assistance. President Trump has been very clear, he doesn’t favor our taxpayer funds being wasted on foreign countries and especially at a time when our NATO allies, who have more national security concerns in the region than us, are not paying their share.

                    This is Trump’s foreign policy and it’s his prerogative how he communicates that with foreign leaders. Diplomacy is about leverage. The President has a duty as well to ensure our national interests are put first.

                    The Bidens don’t get a pass simply because Joe is a candidate for president. It is a legitimate question as to what involvement, if any, the Bidens had with respect to ongoing corruption within Ukraine. Cries that this has been investigated and debunked ring hollow. If that were true, the evidence would have been presented. On the contrary, nothing would boost his candidacy more than a full investigation proving he did nothing wrong.

                    Ultimately, the aid was provided. Case closed.

                    1. Olly, you previously said there was no evidence that Trump sought personal benefit from his “request” of Zelensky, so now we are making progress since you have been forced to acknowledge it, even though you are believing an excuse his mother would choke on. Hopefully this and other evidence of his behavior will receive a full hearing in the Senate so the American people can decide. You agree?

                    2. you previously said there was no evidence that Trump sought personal benefit from his “request” of Zelensky, so now we are making progress since you have been forced to acknowledge it,

                      Once again you’re imagination is proving you to be a liar. I have acknowledge nothing you assert about a personal benefit and you cannot provide ANY evidence to prove your statement to be anything other than a lie.

                      I’d say try again, but your record on this blog has demonstrated nothing but failures. So don’t bother.

                    3. Anon says Olly, you previously said there was no evidence

                      This is what Democrats and the Left represent.
                      They abuse, bully, inflict harm and mame little children. This is what we can expect from those who push a culture of death

                      —-

                      “Young boy brutally beaten on school bus over his support for President Trump”

                      A Florida schoolboy seen being violently assaulted in a viral video was allegedly targeted for voicing his support for President Donald Trump and for wearing a “Make American Great Again” hat.

                      A video released on Thursday, Dec. 12, showed a 14-year-old white child being hit repeatedly by a mob of black youths on his ride home from school on a school bus in Hamilton County.

                      The victim named only as Tyler was hospitalized due to his injuries from the brutal attack.

                      “I am sitting in the hospital with my 14 year old kid because he was just jumped by 8 black kids on the school bus, I guess that’s what happens when a kid wears a #Trump hat to school,” the boy’s mother wrote Nov. 21 on Twitter, the day the attack occurred. She added, “earlier in the day they poured milk all over his head.”

                      I am sitting in the hospital with my 14 year old kid because he was just jumped by 8 black kids on the school bus, I guess that’s what happens when a kid wears a #Trump hat to school. And who’s the violent ones again? Earlier today they poured milk all over his head. pic.twitter.com/fS3BfBJnOa

                      His mother said he had been relentlessly bullied after wearing Trump hat to school previously.

                      “He was proud to wear [his Trump hat]. He wore it to school, but due to immediate bullying he put it away & didn’t wear it to school again, sadly the damage was already done & [he] was now a target,” she said.

                      “From that point on he was steadily getting messed with. He was getting hit, tripped, & verbally abused on the bus, but it all came to a head yesterday on his bus ride home,” she continued.

                      The children involved have been suspended from school, The Daily Mail reported.

                  3. “Olly, requiring a public announcement of an investigation is evidence of Trump’s purpose. How else would you explain that?”

                    Anon, in your mind. You can only see things that can lead to criticism of Trump. You are blind to everything else that demonstrates positive intentions and you fail to see the good Trump has done. Your decision regarding any Trump action is made before the action is even conceived. That is why your arguments fail so badly

          2. Again, and for the umpteenth time, the Progressive view of criminality and/or corruption by Progressive politicians:

            “After a few years time, any GOP politician who helps to inform voters about past Progressive felonies and/or corruption is guilty of an imaginary crime, even when said GOP member is sworn to uphold the law and expose crimes voters would otherwise like to know about.”

            Signed, Progressive TDS victims.

            1. The standard mantra for investigating crimes and corruption has always been to follow the money. From what we’ve seen from the Democrats over the last 3 years, they will actually tell anyone paying attention that they have committed crimes and are corrupt. All that is necessary is to reverse engineer their allegations of crimes and corruption committed by others. They’re like an idiotic arsonist that leaks a trail of fuel back to their place of cover.

          3. *****
            Asking a foreign leader for a public announcement of an investigation of a political opponent who is no longer involved in his country in any manner is obviously not motivated by actual concern with corruption. You get that, right?
            *****
            It was a private phone call. He ask for an investigation in private. It was never meant to be public. You get that, right?

            *****
            If truMp was really concerned with ukrainiAn corruption – he’s not – he would ask that leader to allow our FBI to work with his counterparts to help, nd maybe specifically target a known suspect, but except as a general statement, that would remain secret.
            *****

            The previous attempt to deliver documents to our FBI by way of the Embassy was the trigger that sent Biden in to stop the investigation. Trump didn’t want our Embassy or the FBI involved because he didn’t know who could be trusted. Again the phone call was private and not to be published. You get that , right?

            Again he did not ask for an investigation of an opponent. He DID ask for an investigation into where $7.4 billion went.

            The VP had the evil corrupt PG fired and saved the day. NO! NO! NO!

            The former PG who is presented as the most corrupt man in Ukraine is not living in luxury, just surviving day to day. If he was the worst in Ukraine there would be none in Ukraine who are corrupt. His BIG mistake was giving the papers to our Embassy to deliver to the FBI so who needs investigating?

            Think about it.

            https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-conference/625831.html

            1. G, Zelensky was asked to make a public announcement about investigating the Biden’s. How do you not know this?

              Your article is about a KGB trained pro-Russian parliament member who has been meeting with Gulianiand who’s story is at odds with every reputable and knowledgeable observer of the Ukraine over the last several years. That includes a now sitting GOP congressman and several GOP witnesses under oath during the reCent hearings.

          4. bythebook says:
            December 12, 2019 at 12:47 PM

            Asking a foreign leader for a public announcement of an investigation of a political opponent who is no longer involved in his country in any manner is obviously not motivated by actual concern with corruption. You get that, right?

            What makes you think he is no longer involved?

            You have heard of lobbying, right?

            $900,000 for lobbying is involvement, right?

            https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-conference/617936.html

  18. Again assumptions and innuendos as do what the President was thinking are being made. Us ordinary folks don’t buy that, no matter what level of education you think you have that makes your opinion more valid than ours.

Leave a Reply