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. A well reasoned rebuttal of Turley, who is viewing this case from the defense perspective in a criminal case. which this is not. Turley’s argument that Ukraine ultimately got aid anyway, ergo no harm no foul, is ludicrous and undermines his credibility.

  2. It is refreshing to see different viewpoints expressed in a sincere, rational manner.

    The current trend is fear or avoidance of listening to the other side’s point of view, or their supporting evidence. That is not critical reasoning, but political warfare. It’s about which side benefits your political cause, not about which side is right.

    I am glad that Jonathan Turley included his colleague’s dissent and presented another point of view, and I’m doubly glad that Professor Morrison did so in a rational manner.

    We need more discussion on our differences and less fighting.

  3. “William Barr Has Suddenly Become Chatty—and He’s Provided Quite an Information Dump”

    Sharyl Attkisson

    In each of two video appearances, on NBC News and at Wall Street Journal’s “CEO Council,” Attorney General William Barr provided the same basic information and views about the U.S. intelligence community’s actions against the Trump campaign in 2016 and 2017. A criminal investigation is underway and being led by U.S. Attorney John Durham.

    Barr was motivated to make the public statements, he said, by the misreporting and confusion surrounding Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report issued on Dec. 9. It found serious government surveillance abuses but no evidence of political bias on the part of the offending FBI officials and agents.

    Below are 24 points Barr felt the need to make after the release of the Horowitz report. (All of the information is attributed to Barr.)

    1. Don’t expect Durham’s findings to be announced before late spring or summer 2020.

    2. The FBI did spy on the Trump campaign. That’s what electronic surveillance is.

    3. Regarding the FBI’s actions in surveilling Trump campaign associates, it was a “travesty” and there were “many abuses.”

    4. From “day one,” the FBI investigation generated exculpatory information (tending to point to the targets’ innocence) and nothing that corroborated Russia collusion.

    5. It’s a “big deal” to use U.S. law enforcement and intelligence resources to investigate the opposing political party, and I cannot think of another recent instance in which this happened.

    6. Evidence to start the FBI’s investigation into Trump associates was “flimsy” from the start and based on the idea that Trump aide George Papadopoulos expressed he may have had pre-knowledge of a Democrat National Committee computer hack. However, it was actually just an offhand barroom comment by a young campaign aide described merely as a “suggestion of a suggestion, a vague allusion” to the fact that the Russians may have something they can dump. But by that time, May 2016, there was already rampant speculation online and in political circles that the Russians had hacked Hillary Clinton’s emails in 2014 and that they might surface. So the idea that Papadopoulos’s comment showed pre-knowledge of the Democratic National Committee hack and dump “is a big stretch.”

    7. It was “wrong” for the FBI to presume the Trump campaign was part of a plot. They should have gone to the campaign and discussed their suspicions.

    8. The normal thing to do would be to tell the campaign that there could be attempted foreign interference. There is no legitimate explanation as to why the FBI didn’t do this. The FBI’s explanation for this was that they only do “defensive briefings” if they’re certain there’s no chance they’re tipping someone off. But this simply isn’t true, isn’t plausible, and doesn’t hold water because our intelligence officials and President Barack Obama repeatedly contacted the Russians, the guilty party, to tell them to “cut it out.”

    9. If the purpose were to protect the election, you would have given the Trump campaign a defensive briefing. You could have disrupted any foreign activity in time to protect the U.S. election.

    10. As to the FBI’s motive, “that’s why we have Durham.” I’m not saying the motivations were improper, but it’s premature to say they weren’t.

    11. The inspector general operates differently as an internal watchdog. Horowitz’s approach is to say that if people involved give reasonable explanations for what appears to be wrongdoing, and if he can’t find documentary or testimonial evidence to the contrary, he accepts it.

    12. Contrary to much reporting, Horowitz didn’t rule out improper motive; he didn’t find documentary or testimonial evidence of improper motive. Those are two different things.

    13. Instead of talking to the Trump campaign, the FBI secretly “wired up” sources and had them talk to four people affiliated with the Trump campaign, in August, September, and October 2016.

    14. All of the information from this surveillance came back exculpatory regarding any supposed relationship to Russia and specific facts. But the FBI didn’t inform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court, which approved wiretaps against former Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page four times.

    15. At one point early on, the FBI didn’t have enough probable cause for a wiretap warrant, so it took the “Steele dossier” information against Trump, “which they’d done nothing to verify,” and used that to get the wiretaps.

    16. The wiretaps allowed the FBI to go back and capture Page’s communications, emails, and other material from weeks, months, and even years ago.

    17. Should the four FBI applications to wiretap Trump campaign aide Carter Page have ever been made, considering there were 17 critical omissions or errors by the FBI making it appear they had better evidence than they had? This is the meat of the issue, and “if you spend time to look at what happened, you’d be appalled.”

    18. The FBI withheld from the court all of the exculpatory information and the lack of reliability of the main FBI source, Christopher Steele, who was being paid by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign to find evidence connecting Trump to Russia.

    19. The major takeaway is that after the election in January, the FBI finally talked to one of Steele’s important sources to try to verify some of the “dossier” information and sourcing, as they’re required to do. This Steele source told the FBI he didn’t know what Steele was talking about in the dossier, and that he’d told Steele that the information he’d provided was “supposition” and “theory.” At that point, “it was clear the dossier was a sham.” Yet the FBI didn’t tell the court, and continued to get wiretaps based on the dossier.

    20. Further, the FBI falsely told the court that Steele’s source had been proven reliable and truthful. In fact, what the source had told the truth about was that “the dossier was garbage.” It’s hard to look at this “and not think it was gross abuse.”

    21. Were the four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act judges who approved the four wiretaps against Trump associate Carter Page badly misled by the FBI? Yes.

    22. Are people going to be held accountable, including at the very top of our intelligence agencies and FBI? Well, they’re all gone.

    23. The whole Russia collusion hype was a “bogus narrative hyped by an irresponsible press” that proved entirely false in the end.

    Are former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI official Andy McCabe and others implicated in the Durham investigation? I think there was a failure of leadership in that group. Quoting the inspector general, the explanations he received “were not satisfactory. You can draw your own conclusions.”

    24. Why haven’t we already thrown people in prison? “These things take time.” The government has to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt before we indict; it’s a substantial hurdle. Nobody is going to be indicted and go to jail unless that standard is met.

    In his interviews this week, Barr provided a treasure trove of information about what stands to be one of the most important investigations into our U.S. intelligence community of our time. His signposts indicate that we can expect a shakeup of a system that may have been broken for decades.

    1. “His signposts indicate that we can expect a shakeup of a system that may have been broken for decades.”

      this probably explains why the Dems are pushing impeaching before Christmas: to deflect the fall out from the nuclear bomb Barr is going to drop on the Leftist rats hiding that have tried to destabilize our nation


  4. It is noteworthy, that the two charges the House Judiciary committee voted on today are exactly what the Democrats have been doing since this President was elected.

  5. To this, the central charge in the articles of impeachment, Rep. Jim Jordan and others presented four specific facts. First, both Trump and Zelensky say there was no pressure applied. Second, the transcript does not indicate Trump making any demands or setting any conditions. Third, Ukraine was not aware that the aid was delayed. And fourth, aid flowed without any announcement of investigations. Taken together, these four defenses have more than enough weight to crush the Democrats’ case, but lets look at them one by one.

    1. Olly

      1 zelensky has a loaded gun to his head – Russians – and will say or do anything to not tick off the US, his main benefactor. That’s why the WH visit and aid were and are so critical to him.
      2. The transcript is not the only event in the extortion attempt. There Castillo up visits and calls from Trump’s “associates”
      3. Ukraine was aware it was withheld. Jordan needs to update his routine4 4. Aid flowed after the scheme became public and the WH began covering it’s ass. “No QPQ! No QPQ!”

        1. Yup. The Democrats started the US Civil War in the 1800s and hated the US President then, and now they are doing it all over again

          1. The CSA constitutionally seceded and that was the legal conclusion of the matter. “Crazy Abe” Lincoln was elected with 38.9% of the vote, a la Hitler, then seized power, winning reelection in 1864 through the application of brute military force. “Crazy Abe” Lincoln started the “Reign of Terror,” the Civil War and “…destroyed ourselves from within.” “Crazy Abe” invaded a sovereign foreign nation with military forces by refusing to withdraw said military forces, and proceeded to force war on the North and the South entertaining no opposition. “Crazy Abe” forced his psychosis and will on America nullifying the Constitution as an egregious act of treason agaisnt the American thesis, the American Constitution and the American nation. “Crazy Abe” was not above the law or the Constitution. “Crazy Abe” should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law with the death penalty imposed for gross and egregious acts of treachery against and destruction of fundamental law. To be sure, slavery would have ultimately been resolved through the use of political and economic tools such as advocacy, boycotts and divestiture and, most certainly, the CSA would have rejoined the USA after settlement of the issue.

        2. “If all earthly power were given me,” said Abraham Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” After acknowledging that this plan’s “sudden execution is impossible,” he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this,” he said, “and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”

          Abraham Lincoln was a brilliant man with the “vision thing.”

        3. Oh wow, so crazy. Florida….why am I not surprised. This was my childhood, seeing this on the daily, never involved, of course. I kept my head down in school, at the Magnet School.

      1. “1 zelensky has a loaded gun to his head”

        Anon, Zelelnsky doesn’t have a loaded gun to his head. He doesn’t have to take American aid. No country has to take American aid and it is totally proper for the United States to garner some type of benefit from the aid. That is why we don’t offer aid to Cuba. However, if Cuba did certain things we wanted I am sure that we would offer them some aid. To you that would be criminal if done by Trump but laudable if done by a Democrat. You continuously fail the test of putting the shoe on the other foot. That makes your comments worthless.

        1. Assuming arguendo that your contention that it’s proper for the United States to “garner some type of benefit from the aid” is correct, your day glo bozo never sought any benefit from the United States. You see, the day glo bozo is not yet an Emperor, hence ‘L’etat c’est moi’ has no relevance to our republican form of government. Thus, seeking to benefit himself in an upcoming election in no way, shape or form can be construed as seeking a benefit for the United States. But of course, you and your ilk already know that; and these ridiculous poses otherwise merely show that such a crime is A-okay in your book as long as it’s committed by your guy.

          this is to “ya, he’s likely a traitor, but at least he’s white” allan/ allen

          1. Marky Mark Mark – arguendo the President of the United States speaks for us in foreign policy, much like a king. However. when even a hack lawyer, such as yourself, cannot read the transcript in context, where the President uses the words “us” and “we” and “country” I fear for the legal system in our country.

            1. “when even a hack lawyer, such as yourself, cannot read the transcript in context…”

              Paul, lots of people go to law school and then call themselves lawyers. Did Mark M. go to law school? Who knows. He may have but so what? He may never have been able to pass the bar or maybe he goes into the bar a bit too frequently. We can never know on this type of list but we do know that from his writings he sounds kind of dumb.

              1. Allan – supposedly Marky Mark Mark defends potential federal felons. Considering what he says on here and how he cut-and-pastes, I have always feared for his clients.

                1. Paul, I understand what you say but I have heard low level low paid secretaries answer the same “defends potential federal felons” and sometimes some go to law school and never even pass the bar. They can work for other lawyers or do certain legal work but they are not what we would consider lawyers. I think one can even get a law degree through correspondence courses.

                  Whatever Mark M is he hasn’t demonstrated any great intellect except in the use of the word processor to create his snary responses that never say much of anything. For all we know he lives in his mother’s basement and I think that puts a kind light on his character.

                  1. Allan – if we take Marky Mark Mark at his word, he is an attorney who is assigned overflow defense work by the federal courts. He also does bankruptcy.

                    The was a theory for a long time that he was a file clerk in a law office. However, on at least two occasions he has written on topics with great clarity and passion. It is sad that person does not join the blog and I have told Marky Mark Mark this to no avail.

                    1. Paul, but we can’t take Mark X 3 at his word. Look at how he lies in order to promote the sick thoughts produced by his mind. I must have missed those postings that had clarity and passion, but do you know who really wrote them? He did start to use appropriate argument one time with me but when his argument fell apart he disappeared back into his hole.

                      You are kind, however, trying to think the best of him.

                    2. Anonymous – if Trump becomes an Emperor, I guess he could make Barron a baron. 😉

          2. “this is to “ya, he’s likely a traitor, but at least he’s white” allan/ allen”

            Mark M. you sound like one of those racists we hear from so frequently. Always degernerating the conversation and bringing race into the discussion. Go play with your toy lynch set and lynch the Constitution. Get it out of your system.

            The President has Presidential powers which made what he did in Ukraine part of his duties. What Biden did was not based on Presidential powers and based on your theories Biden could have been impeached.

  6. Can we please, please get more GW Law professors on this site? I am not on here as much these days, busy and all, but I do…

    I like the back and forth of the profs. I think I found another profs blog, but they’re not naming themselves, ya know, “anonymous” lol. Never admit it, any way, moving on.

    This is good. Disagreement without a throwdown showdown on tweetiebirds, TM.

    No ‘Anger Birds’ in da house, the white house, that is.

    1. you need to pay a subscribers fee so click on the link at the bottom which says “losers pay here” and you’ll be good to go. Sorry, Ukraine currency is not negotiable but replacing the Russian Uranium Hillary stole belonging to America might do the trick


      1. 😂😆😂 so creative, this is just….too much…you’ll get monroe-d for that one.

  7. I’ll start out by saying that I’m not a lawyer. But, as a layman, I’m kind of befuddled over the notion that apparently, the right to assert Executive Privilege and to have that question adjudicated by the courts if and only if it fits into the House’s schedule or timeline ?

    Next, on the issue of withheld funds. If I remember correctly, every single fact witness who claimed that the aid was tied to some announcement or investigation also admitted that they had ZERO first hand knowledge on the subject. Then there’s Sondland who testified that there definitely was a “quid pro quo”, but under cross, admitted that the only time he heard directly about it, he was told by Trump that there was no quid pro quo. That he (Sondland), assumed it.

    Everyone who actually had direct knowledge of the call, the visit and meetings with the Ukrainians said that there was no quid pro quo.

    So, it appears to me that what the argument above is left with is that Trump:

    “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”

    Would anyone seriously try to argue that violating the “non criminal law” known as the ICA is an impeachable offense in and of itself ? That is your “high crime or misdemeanor” ?

  8. Morrison failed to list another reason for impeaching Trump. For every instance Trump has, might and will veto a bill passed by the US Congress, he is “obstructing” Congress. It is plausible that Pelosi will add this gem at some point, but don’t call her a hater because she’s Katholic!

    Now for some authentic Catholic scholastic thinking. Let the demons howl


    In the political sphere, it must be noted that truthfulness in the relations between those governing and those governed, openness in public administration, impartiality in the service of the body politic, respect for the rights of political adversaries, safeguarding the rights of the accused against summary trials and convictions, the just and honest use of public funds, the rejection of equivocal or illicit means in order to gain, preserve or increase power at any cost — all these are principles which are primarily rooted in, and in fact derive their singular urgency from, the transcendent value of the person and the objective moral demands of the functioning of States.

    When these principles are not observed, the very basis of political coexistence is weakened and the life of society itself is gradually jeopardized, threatened and doomed to decay (cf. Ps 14:3-4; Rev 18:2-3, 9-24). Today, when many countries have seen the fall of ideologies which bound politics to a totalitarian conception of the world — Marxism being the foremost of these — there is no less grave a danger that the fundamental rights of the human person will be denied and that the religious yearnings which arise in the heart of every human being will be absorbed once again into politics.

    This is the risk of an alliance between democracy and ethical relativism, which would remove any sure moral reference point from political and social life, and on a deeper level make the acknowledgement of truth impossible. Indeed, “if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism”

    Thus, in every sphere of personal, family, social and political life, morality — founded upon truth and open in truth to authentic freedom — renders a primordial, indispensable and immensely valuable service not only for the individual person and his growth in the good, but also for society and its genuine development.


  9. Prof. Morrison is right but ultimately wrong.

    Pretty much legally resolved by this is that house CAN impeach over horsehoes.
    The fundimental quesiton is when it SHOULD impeach.

    That question is not answered by law professors. It will be answered by voters in 2020.
    We do not know exactly how that will be answered – but we have lots of clues.

    From the start of this to the present – Trump and republican prospects for 2020 have improved, rather than declined.

    That suggests voters are not that happy with this.
    Further most analysis suggests that Democrats are heavily in the tank for impeachment and republicans heavily opposed.

    As a rule when we are so bitterly divided about anything – what we should do – is the least intrusive thing possible. In fact that is what we should do even when we are not divided absent near super majority support.

    Regardless independent support for impeachment has tanked.

    I am very libertarian – I strongly favor a weak exectuive, and this will certainly result in a weak executive. Unfortunately it will result in a dramatically stronger house. And that is a bad thing, not a good one. There are powers that congress has delegated to the executive it should take back. This is not a case of that.

    Further the consequences of this are predictable.

    Both parties have threatened the other for decades. But democrats have generally acted first.

    We have almost no meaningful fillibuster left. Democrats changed the rules – but republicans benefited so far. It is trivial for either party to stack the judiciary – Democrats changed the rules, but republicans benefited. Hearings in the house have been politically disruptive gamesmanship for decades. But there were fundimental differences between the 2019 house and prior houses. The democratic majority became fed up with playing by the rules and defacto changed the rules. That was within their power – but it stinks to high heaven and the people have smelled it. Legitimacy is not automatic. It is confered on political actors by following the rules, by due process, The formal rules have legitimacy because of two things – we beleive in them and they work. Failure to follow those rules undermines those who do so.

  10. Wow Professor. I’m certainly glad trials are not decided on presumptions (like yours).

  11. Finally, a voice of reason. Turley has been far too kind in overlooking the obvious, and clearly, at least to me, is a Trump supporter if not whole-heartedly, at least significantly. He has hidden any wrong-doing in his columns by covering them with what he considers exculpatory evidence of wrongdoing unworthy of mention, to say nothing of impeachment. He has the national stage; I don’t, so it’s nice to see this column which I believe to be reasonable and an intelligent slant on this complex subject. Nicely done, sir.

  12. Professor Morrison,

    This public forum afforded you an opportunity to demonstrate your objectivity not your liberal bias, subjectivity and sophistry. There is but one rational conclusion to be drawn. The democrat “impeachment” clown show is hysterical, incoherent, chaotic, anarchical and rebellious. It is vacuous and unhinged, presenting the symptoms of Trump Derangement Syndrom (TDS).

    Oh, look! Your comrades, deriving from their self-destructive delusions of grandeur, just e-mailed you their monu-“mental” accomplishment:




    December 25, 2019


    Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following article of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
    Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.


    Donald John Trump willfully and deliberately won the election of 2016 for President of the United States.

    Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

    Speaker of the United States House of Representatives,

    Nancy Pelosi



      1. George – Turley did fall into that ravine and have to be coptered out that one time. I would count that against him. And then we could always ask his wife. 😉

        1. Oh, yeah! It’s all coming back to me now; something about too few canteens and a “Life-flight” wasn’t it?

          I stand corrected.

  13. “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…”

    That word if is such a big word and means so much except for the fact that I don’t think anyone has been certified as a mind reader, not even Trump’s closest advisors or even his wife. When an attorney says evidence indicates…, I would expect proof and there is none. Without proof one is left with presumption and presumption is not good enough to make the case Professor Morrison seems to be trying to make.

  14. Did you thank JT for providing one of the few places in the media one can make such as statement? And while we welcome ‘personal opinion’ it is a you mentioned still personal opinion. Doesn’t hold water with the opinion of the majority that elected President Trump with specific and stated goals.

  15. It is highly problematic to accuse someone of “stonewalling”, whatever that means, by taking matters to court. As the President has taken matters to court and has given every indication he will abide by court decisions, then the House should wait for court matters to be ruled on and proceed from there.

    Morrison seems aghast that an impeachment vote would have to wait until next summer or shortly before the election if the rule of law is observed and the President is allowed to argue a point in court before the House can adequately deliberate on impeachment matters.

    That’s too bad Morrison. You can’t use that as reason to hold votes without proper hearings. Well I can you can. You just did.

    As for the act of taking matters to court, you complain that Trump is taking too many issues to court for routine things, and then state the issues are complex and will affect future Presidents, Congress, and the American people.” Well which is it?

    1. “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.” Nice move. You just got yourself excused from any and every future jury service, by forgetting “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Inferences don’t fly when it’s this important.

  16. “…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”),..”

    Really, any average high school student could blow up the above, pathetic argument: I demand our dear Trump hating “professor” quote the exact text in the law specifying the exact seconds, hours, days, weeks months any POTUS has to release the funds in question. Barring such text and clear mathematical language, the phrase “even for a limited time” is a bald faced lie to support the professor’s desire to undue the 2016 election and remove a candidate from the 2020 election.

    Democraps like the guest poster clearly stated, even prior to the 2016 election, that if Trump won they’d “just remove (impeach) him.”

  17. I enjoyed the guest column by Professor Morrison. I respectfully disagree., The President has every right to refuse to cooperate and push the matter into Article III courts. Congress is indeed rushing to the impeachment nd this is a clear abusive exercise of their powers.

    We simply disagree and it will sort itself out according to politics. And Professor Morrison is correct that Trump supporters are steadfast and will remain so. Indeed this exercise has strengthened us in number and energy and resolve.

  18. I don’t agree with the assertion by anyone, professor or not, that an “impeachable offense,” need not be a crime. Firstly, if you read the language in the Constitution, is says that impeachment must be based upon “treason, bribery, and OTHER HIGH CRIMES and MISDEMEANERS.” Thus, each and everything the Constitution requires for impeachment, relates to CRIMES.

    Todays impeachment after not finding any “crimes,” is now based upon “obstruction of Congress,” and on “abuse of office.”

    As an attorney, I would argue that both of these so called “impeachable offenses,” are too vague and indefinite to be unconsitutional on their face.

    The framers, by their language, tried to make sure that Congress could not impeach without Criminal behavior by the President. While we can all agree or disagree about the presidential actions and remarks, it is obvious that it was never intended that an impeachment would be brought because of disagreements with politics or policies. As to obstruction of Congress, I think we can all agree that Congress and the executive branch are “equal but separate” branches of government. Neither branch has full control over the other. In this case, it appears that Congress feels that it is a superior branch of government than the executive branch, and that the executive branch cannot proclaim its independence by claiming executive privilege. This belief flies in the face of over 200 years of precedence. Whenever the executive branch has claimed privilege, the dispute between the two branches was brought to the third branch of government, the judicial branch to decide on the merits.

    However, in its rush to impeach, for obvious political gain, the house has decided to forego the precedence of going to the courts, and instead to use the executive privilege argument as just another “impeachable offense.”

    Whether one likes or dislikes President Trump, the Constitution, the laws, and legal precedence should not be ignore for political expediency.

    1. Gerald Korman:

      “As an attorney, I would argue that both of these so called “impeachable offenses,” are too vague and indefinite to be unconsitutional on their face.”
      Now that’s a winning legal position. Thanks, Gerald.

    2. There is nothing vague or indefinite about using federal funds and other powers of the presidency to force a foreign power to involve themselves in our elections.Since there is compelling evidence that this occurred, and no credible alternative explanation for that evidence, impeachment is the proper response.

      Since Congress has a constitutional right and obligation to impeach, a blanket denial of that right with refusal to cooperate is further impeachable behavior.

      I’m not an attorney, but this is easy and nowhere does the constitutionbd require a law degree to serve in congress.

      1. booker:

        “There is nothing vague or indefinite about using federal funds and other powers of the presidency to force a foreign power to involve themselves in our elections.Since there is compelling evidence that this occurred, and no credible alternative explanation for that evidence, impeachment is the proper response.”

        The point went about six miles over your head. And wishing your case just won’t make it so. Big Lie was exposed eons ago. No matter. You’re better at footings.

      2. OK, I’ll play Trump hater: quote the meaning of “force” and then follow that with the clearest, hardest evidence consistent with the chosen definition.

        TDS sufferers like yourself happily and pathetically ignore that Trump is going to rip this entire case to shreds once he is on an even playing field.

        This outcome of this case is clear except to TDS victims like yourself. You already lost the case with independents: the ratio of independent support for impeachment reached about 50% or a little over 50% pre-public hearings, and now hovers @ low-mid 30s.

        Impeachment is not on the top ten list of American priorities. They are concerned with stuff that bores TDS victims like you: suicide rates soaring, drug addiction killing so many whites that their longevity has declined for the last 3 years, etc.

        1. Typically Mespo adds nothing to the discussion while wasting his time with insults and the princess follows that form as well, though among 4 paragraphs did manage one legitimate question.

          Force in this case was withholding recognition through a WH meeting and military aid to a country and it’s leader in a precarious and dependent position. This effort resulted in the leader scheduling the extorted public announcement ,only to be cancelled when the scheme was made public.

          1. Bookish:
            Just more fantasy. Like your older lie that Sondland knew from personal knowledge there was a quid pro quo. Goebbles had nothing on you.

      3. and yet so many of the morons in congress have law degrees it almost makes you wonder if they’re worth anything now…let’s see how far your “compelling evidence” gets.

  19. 𝐀 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞 (𝐂) 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟. 𝐀𝐥 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐧’𝐬 𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐲:

    Assertion: ” 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.”

    𝘾 >> 𝙎𝙪𝙧𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙚 𝙗𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙣 𝙡𝙖𝙘𝙠 𝙤𝙛 𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚. 𝙀𝙭𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙗𝙚𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙚𝙙 𝙗𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙖𝙘𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙋𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙐𝙠𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙙 𝙣𝙤 𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙖 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙨 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙝𝙚𝙡𝙙. 𝙔𝙤𝙪 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙤 𝙣𝙚𝙚𝙙 𝙖 𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙢 𝙗𝙚𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙘𝙧𝙞𝙢𝙚 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙚𝙭𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣. 𝙏𝙝𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙠𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙤𝙣𝙚’𝙨 𝙙𝙤𝙜 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙮 𝙞𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨𝙣’𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙖 𝙙𝙤𝙜 𝙤𝙧 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙙𝙤𝙣’𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩. 𝙁𝙤𝙧 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙏𝙪𝙧𝙡𝙚𝙮 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙜, 𝙮𝙤𝙪’𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠 𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙙 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣 𝙖 𝙜𝙪𝙚𝙨𝙨.

    Assertion: “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. … 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.”

    𝘾 >> 𝘼𝙝 𝙨𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙞𝙩: 𝙧𝙪𝙨𝙝 𝙩𝙤 𝙟𝙪𝙙𝙜𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙖𝙙𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙙𝙡𝙮 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙠𝙚𝙮 𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 (𝙨𝙚𝙚 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙫𝙚) 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙢𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙗𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘿𝙞𝙢𝙨 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙬𝙞𝙨𝙚. 𝙉𝙤 𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙞𝙩’𝙨 𝙖 𝙝𝙖𝙡𝙛-𝙗𝙖𝙠𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙖 𝙤𝙧 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙧𝙞𝙥 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙮 𝙖𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩. 𝙍𝙪𝙨𝙝 𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙡𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙤 𝙖 𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙘𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙢𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙨𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝘿𝙞𝙢 𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙨𝙩.

    𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐬>> 𝐈 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐚 𝐥𝐚𝐰 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐫, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐈 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈’𝐦 𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐚 𝐟𝐢𝐟𝐭𝐡 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐤𝐞 𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐢𝐧’𝐭.

    1. You keep saying the Ukrainians didn’t know about the hold but there are E-mails from them asking about the hold as soon as July 25th, the day of the call. How could they be asking about something they didn’t know about?

      1. E-mails are now important to a left wing Hillary supporter? Seriously?

        who knew!

        Next you’ll be saying Obama should have been impeached for abuse of power, obstructing Congress, perjury and directing DOJ and his butt boy, Eric WTF his name Holdem’ High, to spy on a political candidate to influence the presidential election

        but wait, it’s not like the AG sat on an airplane tarmac with the spouse of a federal official who destroyed evidence/email and hence obstructed justice

        seriously, dude, seek psychiatric treatment from your brainwashing….a mind is a terrible thing to waste, remember?

          1. He’s got your number and you are lying, and these are documented above!

            Then again you’re part fo the vast Left Wing Conspiracy so take that Hillary


      2. Enigma:
        They didn’t know the reason numbnuts. You gotta know you’re being extorted to actually have extortion.Turns out the reason was an OMB hold not Trump.

        1. There’s the slippery slope, first they didn’t know, then they did know but didn’t know the reason. Now after several witnesses testified the hold was at the order of the President, you ignore that. The hoops you have to go through to lie for your fearless leader (and I use fearless sarcastically).

          1. Your going to lose this one just like the Mueller report. It’s Einsteins’s definition all over again.

          2. A slippery slope is something more ambiguous.

            In real hearings witnesses who do not have first hand knowledge do not testify – because the other names for hearsay are rumours and gossip.

            Regardless, if this is a “slippery slope” as you say – what distinguished VP Biden’s overt threat to completely withhold the money from this magical no one really knows that money is being witheld or why impeachable offense of yours ?

            Hillay planted the Hunter Biden Burisma story in the NYT in mid 2015 to discourage Biden from entering the race.

            Biden got rid of Shokin as a means of neutralizing Hillaries threat – i.e. He overtly threatened to without $1B – that is 3 times the aide Trump delayed, if Shokin was not fired ? Clearly providing him a political benefit and potentially using Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 election.

            This “offense” you are trying to create suffers from innumerable problems.
            Presidents have witheld aide for political benefits all the time.

            Trump is currently threatening Tarrifs on China, to get China to do something – that might benefit the country – libertarians such as myself will tell you it will harm rather than help, but certainly will politically benefit him.
            Why isn’t that impeachable ?

            Obama started a war in Libya and one in Syria without authorization – that seems much more impeachable than this.

            Our founders gave control of the purse to congress, but they gave near total control of foreign policy to the president.
            They did not resolve the conflict – because in 1787 there was none – Our founders intended foreign aide to be unconstitutional.

            1. Trump is not being impeached over foreign policy, unless foreign policy is blackmailing other world leaders using federal funds and the power of the office to get them involved in our elections. Where did you learn that John.

              By the way, how about a link on the Hillary plot. It seems she must have Totten the EU and the IMF in on her scheme as they supported Biden’s efforts to help the Ukraine oust corruption.

          3. There’s the slippery slope, first they didn’t know, then they did know but didn’t know the reason. Now after several witnesses testified the hold was at the order of the President, you ignore that. The hoops you have to go through to lie for your fearless leader (and I use fearless sarcastically).

            What failed you is they lied! They were sworn in and lied to congress. When the dust settles some will be in jail.

            1. That’s the best you have? They lied? You’re a disappointment to all the people here who have gone to great lengths to create well reasoned excuses for their support of the President. They take the facts and try to discredit them, they don’t simply say everybody lied under penalty of perjury. That would be Fox News. Thank you for the entertainment but really, do better.

              1. OK, The PG was fired at Biden’s demand. He held $1 billion dollars back until it was done. The new PG was told to drop the cases by our Ambassador. The Ambassador gave the PG an untouchable list. The Ukraine president that fire the PG was replaced by Zelensky. Biden was bragging about getting the PG fired which would constitute meddling in Ukraine affairs. President Trump heard Biden and is concerned that it could have happened.

                Support the president because he is trying to do his job. Nothing that was said in the circus resembled wrong doing on his part. Some of the witnesses will be defendants next go around. Ukrainian tried to send documents to our FBI and the embassy workers intercepted them. Our ambassador demanded the cases dropped and made up an untouchable list. Crimes have been committed but not by the president.

                Now. Where are the E-mails you referred to?

                    1. If you’re at all aware of the facts (which I highly doubt). You know where the e-mails are which have been testified to under oath. Who won’t release them, and why. You’re asking the wrong person for the e-mails. Ask Trump why he’s withholding them? Until you’re better informed, I suggest leaving the discussion to those able to at least articulate their own thoughts.

      3. You are correct that Republicans have picked the wrong line of defense.

        Horrowitz has just predictably given the Republicans a gift – BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW.

        The standard to open an investigation is reasonable suspicion.
        The standard to ASK to open an investigation is …. NOTHING.

        I do not think you are close to substantiating a claim that Trump blackmailed the Ukraine. but even if you did – you would have NOTHING.

        So long as reasonable suspicion exists all the rest is irrelevant.

        Jefferson demanded and got an investigation and Trial of Aaron Burr for Treason – Burr was aquited.

        That is the closest parallel.

        The very law providing Aide to Ukraine has as proviso’s Ukrainian efforts to combat corruption. So Trump asked Ukraine what he was required by the Law that Adam Schiff voted for.

        No, No, No, we did not really mean it about reigning in corruption in Ukriane is a really lousy impeachment argument.

        Further we have seen what happens when there are investigations.

        The cockroaches get caught in the light.

        Horrowitz gave us our first clue regarding the Clinton investigation.

        We can disagree over whether Hillary should have been fitted for an orange jumpsuit. We can not disagree that the investigation was crap.

        This from the cream of purportedly the best law enforcement agency in the world.
        This was not some bumpkins in the boonies in Lousianna – they would have done better. This was purportedly the best of the best. and they messed up all over.

        Ukraine is starting to look good compared to the FBI.

        Then we got the Nunes report which Horrowitz just confirmed did not go quite far enough, and the Schiff report – which hororwitz confirmed was a pile of Schiff.

        Then Mueller – who tried really really really really hard. Who blackmailed and tortured everyone, to pry out false confessions and jailed people for refusing to lie for him, and still 500 pages of sorry folks nothing there – though I really wish there was, and give me another $35m and maybe I can pull a rabit out of the hat.

        Now Horrowitz,

        The REALLY REALLY REALLY low standard needed to start an investigation was met – that is your good news – EXCEPT that completely undercuts impeachment.

        The rest is relentlessly damning.

        Can you say “witch hunt”.
        Horrowitz documents that before Mueller was appointed – crossfire huricane had over shot its justification.

        See that low standard to investigate – it is NOT a one time thing.
        You must maintain that threshold, and by early 2017 that threshold was no longer met.

        Rosensteins appointment of Mueller was unjustified. Rosenstein either knew or should have known.

        Within weeks – or at most months of opening the Mueller investigation, Mueller should have known the same thing and shut it down.

        From the day the investigation opened it has been ALL downhill.

        We can debate the exact moment the investigation lost even the low standard necescary. But it was long before Mueller closed shop.

        And yet – without sufficient basis the investigation continued for over 3 years.
        And found nothing – except that the allegations that started it were a fraud.

        So yeah – many of us want an investigation of Ukraine – lets see how many more cockroaches are caught in the light.

        And if it requires threatening Ukraine to move that forward – presidents do that all the time. It is called diplomacy.

        Foreign policy is completely threats and enticements. There is no world policmen.

        Trump is threatening the crap out of China right now, and if he gets what he wants that will be a big political win.

        The standard for bad conduct is not and never was – your intentions.
        The act itself is either good or bad, independent of your motives.

        1. John, There is no evidence that Trump cared about corruption in the Ukraine and plenty of evidence he cared about damaging public announcements made about his biggest political rival. That should be clear to any half way intelligent adult who knows the evidence.

          1. Bookworm:
            “There is no evidence that Trump cared about corruption in the Ukraine ….”
            More lies. Sondland himself testified he was told by Trump that all he wanted was for Zelensky to “do the right thing” about corruption in Ukraine.

            You think with all your practice you’d be a better liar.

            1. WaPo Nov 27:

              The way witnesses describe a call between the two men in early September is not as favorable for Trump as Sondland’s version of a Sept. 9 call with the president. According to their testimony, Trump said he was not seeking a “quid pro quo,” but he also relayed a specific demand to the ambassador: that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky personally and publicly announce the investigations Trump was seeking.

              The witnesses were GOP conservative Morrison and Amb Taylor, work-related the call to.

              In either case, that supposed quote was dished out after the scheme became public knowledge.

              1. Admittedly a splendiferous liar….for quoting the raggiest rag of them wall….honesty dies in darkness when Wah Putz prints anything

              2. bythebook,
                Amb. Taylor was not present during Sondland’s phone conversation with Trump.
                I’m not sure about Morrison.

                1. BtBook, It was George Kent who testified Trump wanted a public announcement from the Ukraine that Biden/ Burisma we’re being I invited; me was not present during that call either.
                  That leaves the question of what the two who say they overheard the call actually testified to with respect to the call’s content.
                  Holmes was them, and I don’t think he said anything about Trump insisting that Ukrai e announce the investigation.
                  And since Kent was not present, if in he fact he heard that, he did not overhear it on that Sondland call.

                2. That is correct Anonymous.In their testimony under oath, Morrison described what Sondland told him right after the phone call and he then repeated it in real time to Taylor, who corroborated that accounting.

                  1. I don’t see how Taylor could corroborate it if he didn’t hear it.
                    As I remember, Morrison was liste ing in ( with Vindman and others)the July 25th transcripted call with Trump and Zelensky, not the Trump and Sondland call.
                    And I don’t remember Morrison ever testifying about the demand for a public announcement from Ukraine.

                    1. Taylor corroborated what Morrison relayed to him.

                      Taylor and Morrison are honorable witnesses under oath who confirmed each other’s accounting. Morrison is a conservative protege of Bolton and both are veterans.

                      Both Sondland and Trump have something to lose in the controversy and the latter is a compulsive liar who regularly lies to benefit himself.

                      You decide who to believe.

                    2. Hearsay and hearsay removed several times is hearsay, not proof of anything. That you do not understand this basic principle means you do not understand the law and therefore your opinion is worthless.

                      Even what was actually said interpreted in the worst light is not a cause of impeachment. Trump acted within his power and though some might be offended that is too bad for as the executive he makes policy with foreign governments.

                    3. Anon says: You decide who to believe.

                      Sweetheart the copy/paste sources you use don’t approximate anything resembling truth, hence your posts on here are merely to get attention. Dialogue is the further thing from your mind

                      now go stalk minority women in Alachua County to meet your quota for abortions . Lies are what you do best, with due deference to your many Democrat lying political leaders


                  2. There was an old game of telephone that used to be played. Person one would say something to person 2 and down the line until the last person repeated what he heard. That seldom matched what the first person said. That is one reason for the hearsay rule. Add bias confirmation and such statements are worthless in court.

                    1. #1. I doubt that Morrison told Taylor that someone else told him ( Morrison) what Truml said on that call.
                      I saw his testimony and Taylor’s, and reviewed it, and there’s nothing a out that in the testimony of either.
                      One general comment; it’s difficult enough going other the large cast of characters involved this, even if a truthful, accurate account is given regarding the actual testimony.
                      When some repeatedly screws up the testimony about who said “they were present when”, or the one present then “told him and then he told me, having a halfway reasonable exchange becomes even more
                      But if distorting testimony and facts works for you,” bythe book”, have at it.

                    2. When someone like “By the Book” repeatedly distorts testimony and basic facts, it’s fairly easy to decide who to believe.

          2. Not only is that wrong – but it is also again irrelevant.

            It is wrong because EVERYTHING in the list of things Trump wanted investigated was corruption involving Ukraine and americans.

            And Trump OBVIOUSLY care very very deeply about it – if he did not, we would not be talking about impeachment.

            Go back and read the transcript of the call. The Biden’s were one of a long list of suspicious things Trump wanted investigated.

            What you are actually trying to say is that Trump did not care about corruption EXCEPT that of democrats, or EXCEPT that which was harmful to him.

            That is ARGUABLY True – but irrelevant.

            There is no requirement that when you go after corruption your political enemies are exempt.

            But the real issue – is once again – you are engaged in mind reading.

            My guess and your guess as to Trump’s intentions – as well as the guesses of lots of deep state witnesses – because that is ALL that was testified to – either speculation or hearsay.

            The only testimony of Trump expressing his intentions is unequivocal.

            I wan’t Zelensky to do what he promised his voters.
            There is no linkage, no quid pro quo.

            Though as I said before – a QPQ is irrelevant. In fact most criminal law is irrelevant. There is almost no law government the conduct of states and their leaders with respect to other states and their leaders.

            The entirety of foreign policy is threats and inducements. There are is no global government, no global police. Very little in the way of international law. Governments bribe and extort each other all the time.

            The relationships of nations is a functioning example of anarcho-capitalism.
            One that has existed for 1000’s of years.

            1. I’m sorry John, but there is something wrong with your faculties if you can’t tell the difference between self serving extortion and true concern about corruption. Even if one granted against all the evidence that Trump actually did care about corruption, how does a public announcement about 3 year old events further that goal. It doesn’t. It does further trumps re-election.

              I think you need a road map. You’re lost.

              1. how many babies did you decapitate today in the name of choice? Cmon, you can whisper it in my ear, I wont tell anyone

                1. What an insightful reply! Professor Turley, please upvote this ingenious master of discourse.

              2. Meaning no disrespect sir but you need the road map. Try real hard to wrap you mind around this simple fact. The new President ran on anti corruption – law and order (carried 73% of the votes). His predecessor was the guy who fired the PG for opening a case against Zlochevsky who happened to own Burisma. The PG subpoena the board. Biden happened to be on the board. Then dad came to the rescue. The concern is where $20 billion went. Knowing who took it might help with recovering it. Some of the so called witnesses are part of the problem. Put simply they lie to turn eyes in another direction. It is a sad day for the US when so many can come to the rescue of the guilty.

                Whittaker Chambers Vs Alger Hiss all over again. Sadly then as not sides were taken and little could change a mind. After the Iron Curtain fell the KGB records bore out the facts as presented by Mr Chambers yet some still call him liar.

    2. The President tampering with elections by calling for investigations into his political opponents is a crisis.

      If his crusade into Ukraine investigations was truly about corruption, why did he stop when it was made public?

      Shouldn’t we still be pursuing corruption in the Ukraine? Isn’t that the right thing to do in Trump’s book?

      Or, letting the aid go and letting up on Zelensky is an admission of guilt.

      1. John:

        Are you saying that running for President should protect you from a criminal investigation? Was that true for candidate Trump?

        No one has answered my question: Why shouldn’t allegations of criminal misconduct against Joe Biden be investigated?

        1. Karen S says:
          December 13, 2019 at 1:13 PM


          Are you saying that running for President should protect you from a criminal investigation? Was that true for candidate Trump?

          No one has answered my question: Why shouldn’t allegations of criminal misconduct against Joe Biden be investigated?

          The investigation has been under way. The documents are gathered and when released it will not be pretty. The star witness in the circus will be the defendant in the next phase. The PG who was forced to resign will speak. His replacement will also tell how he was told to close the cases and given an untouchable list by none other than …………

          I’ve said to much in open forum. sorry. The haste back then was damage control. So it is today. If they don’t get these investigation shut down there will be H… to pay.

    3. Good thing you are not too full of yourself else you would be suffering from toxic shock. All that bile and BS is bound to back up on you even with your daily spillage here.

Comments are closed.