“The First Time In History”: Gerhardt Claims McConnell Is The First Senate Leader To Coordinate With White House On An Impeachment Trial

University of North Carolina Law Prof. Michael Gerhardt made a remarkable claim this week when asked about stories that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, Ky.) was coordinating on the details of the Senate impeachment trial with the White House. Gerhardt claimed that such a thing has never happened in history. Despite my long association and friendship with Gerhardt, I must disagree with that remarkable suggestion.

Gerhardt and I testified at both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings. I have always valued his views and commentary.

In the Trump impeachment hearing, Gerhardt is probably best known for his sweeping declaration that “if what we are talking about is not impeachable, nothing is impeachable.” I will note that we were talking about a host of crimes from bribery to extortion to campaign finance violations to abuse of power. I testified that the legal definitions of the bribery, extortion, campaign finance and obstruction of justice (including Mueller-related claims) do not fit these facts and cannot be used as a basis for impeachment. The only two impeachable offenses that I saw as conceptually and constitutionally viable were abuse of power and obstruction of Congress but testified that the record would not currently support such claims. Ultimately, the Committee dropped all of those crimes and went with the two that I discussed. However, it has unwisely kept to its pledge to impeach by Christmas despite the obvious gaps and conflicts in the record.

Now to Gerhardt’s surprising claim. He was asked about reports on Thursday afternoon that Senate Majority Leader McConnell met at his office with White House counsel Pat Cipollone and others to talk about impeachment. McConnell acknowledged later that he was working on the details of the trial with the White House.

Gerhardt cried foul when asked by CNN’s Poppy Harlow “how normal or abnormal is it for the Senate Majority Leader to work in, what he said, was lockstep, essentially, with the White House on a senate trial. Is that normal?”

Gerhardt responded:

“It is extremely unusual. We don’t have a lot of experience with presidential impeachments, but this is the first time in history when the president was coordinating with a big bloc of people from his own party in the Senate. With Andrew Johnson, he wasn’t coordinating with anyone. No one liked Andrew Johnson. Bill Clinton was not coordinating with the Democrats. In fact, they kept a fair distance between themselves. Richard Nixon, his party was beginning to fragment at this point and, in fact, it was Barry Goldwater who said […] he’s not going to get through this without being convicted and removed. So, this is the first time we’ve seen this kind of coordination.”

With all due respect to my friend, that is wildly offbase from the history. First, in fairness to Gerhardt, little is really known of the backroom negotiations in the Johnson case. However, given the fact that he was widely despised even among his own party, it could well be true that he was not working closely with the Senate. However, the plain fact is that the Senate was overwhelmingly Republican and opposed to Johnson who was affiliated with the Democrats and later the National Union party. The very idea of the majority coordinating with Johnson on the trial would have been absurd given the open hatred for Johnson.

As for Nixon, both the House and the Senate were under the control of the Democrats, not the Republicans. Moreover, Goldwater was not the minority leader or minority whip. They were Hugh Scott and Robert Griffin, respectively. However, there was no trial being actively planned and Nixon resigned soon after the decision of the Supreme Court ordering him to release the key tapes.

As for Clinton, the Republicans controlled the Senate and the House. However, the notion that Harry Reid and Tom Daschle did not coordinate with the Clinton White House is . . . well . . . baffling. There were news reports of senators meeting with the White House on the details. Coordination between a president under impeachment and congressional leaders of his own party is not unprecedented. In the book “The Breach,” the author recounts close coordination between the Clinton staff and the Senate staff. Clinton also spoke directly with senators. Howard Kurtz for example reported on the views of a “Democratic senator who is consulting regularly with President Clinton” on the trial in his coverage for the Washington Post. On January 1, 1999, the Associated Press reports on the developments from meetings where “Senators and the White House are finalizing strategy for conducting President Clinton’s impeachment trial.” Some like Tom Daschle were actually uncomfortable with the degree of coordination and he resisted some of direct coordination but the White House was very clear about its demands. In one interview. Daschle agreed that “Clinton was leaning very heavily on [Sen. Ted] Kennedy, concerning a strategy: These are the 35 names, things he wanted, and a strategy he wanted to pursue. It’s my impression that he wasn’t consulting with the Democratic leader very much on these things.” While Daschle tried to maintain some distance, he admitted that he and Kennedy pursued the same approach on the details for the trial.

Since the opposing parties controlled the Senate in Clinton and Nixon, there would have been no shaping of the trial with the majority. However, it is very common for the party of an accused president to coordinate closely with the White House. That was done openly during Clinton and widely reported in the press as different options were raised with the White House by Democratic allies.

There is nothing unprecedented with conferring with the White House on the dimensions or demands of the trial. There should ideally be conferral with the House managers and party leaders are under a constitutional obligations to ensure a fair and legitimate process. However, conferral and coordination with inevitable and certainly not unprecedented.

233 thoughts on ““The First Time In History”: Gerhardt Claims McConnell Is The First Senate Leader To Coordinate With White House On An Impeachment Trial”

  1. America is in a condition of hysteria, incoherence, chaos, anarchy and rebellion.

    President Abraham Lincoln seized power, neutralized the legislative and judicial branches and ruled by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Union.”

    President Donald Trump must now seize power, neutralize the legislative and judicial branches and rule by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Republic.”

    1. Simpler solution. Use the Patriot Act provisions for Terrorism. Put in place then extended, broadened and refined by our opposing group in expectations of a win that never happened. But they left it in place.
      zens
      I recall watching TV at the time and our former President was crowing with delight at the passage of the final budget bill December of 2015. He did a fire side speech sort of redux and explained that ‘suspicion of’ had replaced ‘probable cause’ and not only acts of terrorism but supporting such acts – a new addition – plus broadened powers for DOHS had been in the same bill under some sleight of hand called reconciliation.

      I remember one other part which stated those so charged would have no civil rights and then looked for an exemption for citizens. Not to be found. Better yet the Congress had not exempted itself. Comes November 2015 and having forgotten those provisions they found themselves potentially in trouble.

      Not my problem. Except to stifle the chuckle.

      DOHS you may remember was the instrument Obama had stated he would like to enlarge to be larger than the US military and the inference was. Under his sole control. At the time our military was sending clear signals they opposed his very existence. So much for the requests from the DNC crowd in 2016 and later for martial law.

      What else happened. Ahhh the ability to make changes by executive order extended as you just witnessed a month or so ago to adding illicit drugs as weapons of mass destruction which meant use of or dealing with or in such were now ‘acts of terrorism.’ Just for starters.

      Now not only DOHS but the military could be brought in to the picture.

      And nothing stands between those who jumped the gun big time in their expectations but …….. the good will of the US Citizens and their chosen leader.

      Them being in short form …. sociaists posing as citizens and in constant violation of their oath of office.

      Excuse me while I stifle the chuckle.

      It’s in honor a recipe served cold.

      1. is it true or ….. well…… just think back to .. was it Christmas Eve 2015 and the news that 87 Senators had voted YES on that final budget bill. Did you flip the channel or listen to Obama’s comments? Just saying…… it’s still a valid law. And our Vietnam Era hero Chicken Man has just roosted.

    2. The communists (i.e. liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats) have gone insane and it is long past time to “take the bull by the horns.” It’s long past time to repeal America back to the Constitution and Bill of Rights – a nation with borders, individuals who have been provided maximal freedom and a subservient government that exists only to facilitate that maximal freedom through the provision merely of security and infrastructure.

      Try actually reading the words of Article 1, Section 8. Congress has no power to tax for individual welfare and no power to regulate anything other than the “value of money” and “commerce with foreign nations, among the several states and with the Indian Tribes” for the sole purpose of precluding bias or favor by one over another.

      America can’t handle the truth.

      America is really free.

  2. Gerhardt is a partisan hack while Turley is open-minded. Gerhardt’s record speaks for itself. After growing up in Mobile, Alabama, he graduated from Yale and got his law degree from the University of Chicago then clerked in my native West Tennessee for Robert McRae, who was a staunch Democrat, then went to the Sixth Circuit where he clerked for Gilbert Merritt, another partisan Democrat. He was part of the Al Gore campaign for president before he went into private practice. His background shows his partisanship. He’s going to take whatever position he thinks will benefit the party. His mind is like a steel trap.

  3. At some point regarding the media, institutions etc., the prof is going to have to notice that his friends and colleagues have ceased being the level-headed people he once knew. I have just about had it with the twisting of fact and false narratives coming from virtually every quarter. At the least I do applaud Jon’s willingness to call them out when he does.

  4. Democrats seem to wildly vary at any given time of day as to whether they consider impeachment a criminal or political matter.

    Democrats who would server as future judges and juries of impeachment ran on impeaching Trump before the impeachment ever started. Many said they would impeach him the day after he was elected, and all during the next three years. A false allegation would be lodged, such as Trump being an anti-semite, they would declare their intent to impeach, it would be disproven, their base would dutifully forget about it and ignore they were wrong, and then they would excitedly move on to the next false allegation. Don’t worry, everyone. We don’t like the results of the election so we’ll just impeach him.

    If impeachment is a criminal trail, then why would jurors declare someone guilty before the case was even brought?

    Democrats who will vote on impeachment have behaved like prosecutors freed from any legal or ethical boundaries. They have grandstanded and made accusations during the process. Would jurors act like that?

    As it came out that Trump committed no crime, and that the original allegations of bribery or quid pro quo fell apart, Democrats assured us this was a political process, not a criminal one. It doesn’t require a crime, or even a serious offense, to trigger impeachment. The House, we are told, can impeach for whatever it wants to.

    So if it’s a political process, not a criminal one, and those who stand in judgement over Trump are free to declare him guilty before any evidence is presented, why is it breathtakingly corrupt for Mitch McConnell to coordinate defense efforts, and the trial, with the White House? It would be more accurate to say that Congress has behaved more like prosecutor and defense attorneys, without any restrictions one would find in a courtroom. In fact, it has apparently been just fine for Democrat Representatives to blatantly misrepresent the facts, and for Schiff to show blatant partisanship in blocking Republicans from asking questions.

    The answer: it’s not. It is another made up crime to claim that Mitch McConnell was corrupt or compromised for coordinating with the White House. This talking point has been parroted, without question, all over the mainstream news. I hear the same phrase on the three different channels that I checked. No one says, well, gee, if that’s not OK, why is it OK that those who stand in judgement have campaigned on finding him guilty before the case was ever brought?

    If Trump committed a high crime or misdemeanor, or any patently evil act, Congress would be united in impeaching him. It would be a bipartisan effort where everyone could feel confident they were carrying out justice.

    The fact that the only bipartisan aspect of this case is Democrats defecting to oppose impeachment indicates this is dirty, savage political warfare by a faction who refuses to accept the results of the 2016 election. They will use any means necessary, abuse their power and authority, to either oust their political opponent, continuing the “election” for 3 years, or they will cheat and weaken his chances because they don’t believe one of their socialist candidates can win.

    That is what all this is about. I believe Democrats are convinced there is a real risk they will lose in 2020. Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s health is failing. SCOTUS has begun to take on aspects of the legislative branch. Instead of an impartial bench merely applying the law as it is written, the personal politics of the judges has become critically significant. That is the fatal flaw. They want SCOTUS to rule from the bench. Instead of legislating the laws they want, they want a SCOTUS to do some of their work for them. Clarence Thomas is currently the longest sitting SC justice that I know of. With at least one, perhaps two, seats on the Court in play during the next 5 years, the end game is controlling the politics of the Supreme Court. As has been pointed out earlier, this might cast a cloud over Trump that would interfere with him appointing the next justice, should a seat come open during the next year. If they get a Democrat in, they will change the tenor of the Court.

    Democrats want to repeat the Supermajority of CA on the federal level. In CA, a Democrat supermajority means they don’t even have to negotiate with Republicans. The latter has no power and no say. All they can do is complain. Democrats push through whatever they want, to the ruination of our state. They want a Supermajority in the House, the Senate, SCOTUS, and a Democrat in the White House. Frankly, who’s in the WH is of secondary concern to the former positions.

    But the problem is that they have gone so far Left, that they risk losing again. They just saw the sweeping loss of far Leftism in UK. They must win by fair means or foul. So they began an impeachment doomed to fail. It was just another false allegation, the dozenth at that point, I think. They knew the transcript disproved the allegations, but they needed to drag this show out as long as possible. The media could be counted upon to withhold exonerating information from prospective voters. They conducted the impeachment to get dirt on their political opponent (ironically, what they accused Trump of doing.) Their goal is to either remove him from office, or, more likely, weaken his chances at reelection. This is abuse of power to cheat in the 2020 election. I don’t think they care that this is unethical. They have to win the right to pick those seats on the Supreme Court, or the long game is lost for at least a decade.

    In order for Democrats to reshape the country far Left, they must hold the majority on SCOTUS.

    The most tragic aspect of all of this is that the Supreme Court has become politicized would be legislators. Personal politics should be immaterial on the Court. An individual could be a true blue Communist at heart, yet still be able to faithfully apply the law as it is written.

        1. PCS, I know you know.

          Was Professor Turley’s statement to the House Judiciary written by the Good Professor himself or was it done by his “department;” by committee? It is incomprehensible that one person could produce the volume of work that exists on this blog, in court and elsewhere.

          Not to mention that the volume of legal discourse is always interminable and exponentially more extensive than the law or constitutional article and section it relates to. Why is that? Necessity is the Mother of Invention. Professor Turley was bound to be brief in this very article above, so he summarized,* in two understandable sentences, that which required 53 pages in his submission on the subject to the House. As one example, it would seem appropriate to argue gun laws in a volume of words not to exceed that of the 2nd Amendment itself.

          2nd Amendment

          A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

          Argument: Yep, Americans may immutably possess any and all firearms they desire to be prepared to join the militia of their choice to secure a free nation.

          Next case!
          ________

          *Prof. Turley Summary

          “I testified that the legal definitions of the bribery, extortion, campaign finance and obstruction of justice (including Mueller-related claims) do not fit these facts and cannot be used as a basis for impeachment. The only two impeachable offenses that I saw as conceptually and constitutionally viable were abuse of power and obstruction of Congress but testified that the record would not currently support such claims.”
          _________________________________

          53 Pages –

          Written Statement

          Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law The George Washington University Law School

          “The Impeachment Inquiry Into President Donald J. Trump: The Constitutional Basis For Presidential Impeachment”

          1100 House Office Building United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary

          December 4, 2019

          1. George – did you read JT’s missive to the committee? Or listen to it? It contained footnotes that were important to the matter.

            To the best of my knowledge, JT writes his own material and always gives credit to others who write for the blog. He does not always spee;l check though. 🙂

                1. I have never seen a legal submission without typos. Glory to those firms that don’t. They must be very expensive, probably adding a surcharge for the correct “spelling” you refer to. Wait. Are you implying that you eschew spellcheck? I live on it.

                    1. Are you sure it isn’t the computer program doing the spell check? Does it help with grammer and all the other things it does? Do you see anything on the blog that tells you grammerly is active within the program?

                2. PCS, the professor must research theories, evidence and facts, propose arguments, reach conclusions and provide citations all alone; all through speech-to-text? Does speech-to-text do all that research including citations while the professor is dictating? Dang! Seems like the combined effort of multiple competent clerks/researchers.

                  1. George – JT might be assigned one or more research assts. However, I am not sure he could use them for his blog. That would be up to the university.

        2. APOLOGISTS ARE NEVER DEFENDING..

          THE ‘REAL DONALD TRUMP’

          When reading Professor Turley’s opinions, or the comments of Trump supporters, I never get a sense of the ‘real’ Donald Trump. Instead they’re always describing a theoretic president; an honorable businessman with a sense of national duty. He entered politics, not for opportunity, but because he cares about America.

          This theoretic Donald Trump is a mature family man deeply committed to Christian-Judeo principles. He cares about common folks less fortunate than himself. This theoretic president sincerely wants to root out arrogant bureaucrats. So that government can be run by sincere custodians of national interest.

          This theoretic president is so high-minded that one could scarcely recognize him from Donald Trump’s Twitter feed. That Donald Trump, the ‘Real Donald Trump’, never comes to life in arguments of defenders. One supposes that Donald Trump is like a rare specie whose colors defy the capabilities of conventional cameras.

          The arguments of defenders never capture that bully with a penchant for bashing women and teenage girls. We never hear that ‘honorable’ businessman made use of bankruptcy courts on his journey to becoming a reality TV star. One gets no sense that ‘that’ Donald Trump had been a decades-long playboy who actually fraternized with Hugh Hefner and Jeffrey Epstein.

          The ‘Real Donald Trump’ has appointed industry lobbyists to run our regulatory agencies ‘not’ for the interests of working Americans, consumers, the elderly or sick. No, the ‘Real Donald Trump’ is only concerned with the interests of Republican donors. Under ‘this’ Donald Trump, Billionaires were richly rewarded with a tax cut that could have funded Obamacare for years, or relieved the student debt crisis.

          The ‘Real Donald Trump’ is a sociopathic narcissist whose only concern is getting ever richer. A 73 year old man with yellow hair and orange make-up who would appear ‘eccentric’ on the Main Streets of normal America. This Donald Trump, the ‘Real Donald Trump’, is deeply concerned with the interests of Vladimir Putin. Yet anyone who points that out is labled a ‘communist’!

          1. Peter – to be President one of the requirements is that you are a sociopath. Name me one successful President who was not a sociopath.

            We all know who the “real” Donald Trump is, that is why we voted for him. He was the guy that was a street fighter and he was going to be our street fighter.

            1. Mr. Schulte,
              I made a comment about Phillip’s post that did not post, at least not yet.
              One point I made was that since Phillip apparently lives in West Hollywood, he might not be the best judge of what appears eccentric on the main streets of normal America.

              1. Anonymous – if it were 1950 I would say there was a normal America, today I am not there is. I am in a state that used to be Democratic, then went Republican, now may be in play in 2020.

              2. Darren Smith this post is threatening.

                I don’t live in West Hollywood. Never have. But half of Hollywood is close to West Hollywood. Real estate gets nicer with each mile west. Beverly Hills is the next stop ‘after’ West Hollywood. So bashing West Hollywood betrays an ignorance of L.A. property values.

                Anonymous is out of state and presuming to know ‘where’ I live. That’s a threat on public forums. For all I know Anonymous might show up at my door some day. That’s the threat implied!

                I’m supposed to worry that Anonymous has the money to make a creepy trip to Los Angles. Sick people travel to L.A. and freak-out when they get here. It’s a big concern to my guild.

                So Darren Smith this is a threat and I beseech you to act accordingly. One must note this post is several hours old.

                  1. Darren, you’re ‘not’ an impartial moderator and you have never been. It appears your only real function here is to make sure the conservative regulars dominate these threads. To that end you banned Diane and Anon for frivolous reasons. What’s more you banned them to deny any support to the very few remaining liberals.

                    1. Peter – when I started on here there were a lot more liberals than conservatives. I have never seen anyone banned for frivolous reasons, but rather for not following the civility rule. Many people who have been banned have returned.

                    2. Phillip:

                      You posted that you lived in Hollywood under the name Peter Hill. You admitted that you changed your avatar in a post in which you blamed others for your continually posting under different avatars.

                      You did not give out a specific address. Someone commented that since you live in Hollywood, you may “not be the best judge of what appears eccentric.”

                      That was in no way a threatening statement. You are misrepresenting it as such. He is merely commenting that Hollywood is weird. What someone from Hollywood would find normal would appear eccentric to many other parts of America.

                      That is simple benign observation. You know Holllywood’s nickname is Hollyweird. I’ve been there many times. You are also aware that this eccentricity is deliberately cultivated as an attraction. You can parse the nuances of WeHo, SoHo or NoHo, but people are entitled to their opinion that what passes for normal in Hollywood would stand out in many other places.

                      A threat against someone’s life or safety is very serious. It is wrong for you to make a false allegation of a threat against you. It’s like stolen valor of a victim, and it weaponizes threat reporting.

                      That was poor judgement. I hope very much that you stop insisting on this false allegation. It is an insult to people who really have been threatened in their lifetimes. I have. I am very lucky that I survived. Do not diminish what targets of valid death threats or violence go through.

                      In the meantime, I do agree with you that it is best to withhold your exact location. There are dangerous people in the world, and the internet is their playground. Coincidentally, this is also one of the reasons why I believe home defense is just being responsible.

                    3. Phillip:

                      Your logic is flawed.

                      You demanded that Darren ban someone because they said that since you live in Hollywood, you might not be the best judge of eccentricity. You said this was a threat. Of course, that’s ridiculous. Questioning your judgement is not a death threat. I’m questioning it right now.

                      On the other hand, you object to Anon being banned, who actually did threaten someone.

                      The very few cases where people were banned followed multiple warnings. They refused to stop breaking the rule. Therefore, they lost their privileges. Most simply take on a new avatar, and slowly but surely, resume their bad behavior.

                      You know that voicing Liberal, Progressive, or extreme Left views will not get you banned. Otherwise, you’d have been banned and there would be no argument with anyone on this blog. You know ad hominem won’t get you banned. You engage in it all the time. You know insulting religion won’t get you banned. You engage in it all the time. You know making comments about the priest pedophile scandals won’t get you banned.

                      At some point, there must be a part of you that understands why these people were banned. You have to know it’s not for their differing political opinion, because you feeling voice your own.

                    4. In case it makes you feel any better, I get constant flak from people I know out of state because I live in deep blue CA. They make comments about how down the toilet my state has gone.

                      What can I say? It’s true.

                    5. Phillip Skene :

                      “Darren, you’re ‘not’ an impartial moderator and you have never been. It appears your only real function here is to make sure the conservative regulars dominate these threads. To that end you banned Diane and Anon for frivolous reasons. What’s more you banned them to deny any support to the very few remaining liberals.”
                      *************
                      Oh, my unread little friend. You know reading is preferable to spouting nonsense. Here’s an excerpt from this site’s Civility Rule (which is posted for all the world to see) explaining who can and who cannot ban. Here’s a preview, Darren can’t ban commenters:

                      “If the conduct continues, I will consider banning the person responsible. However, such transgressions should be raised with me by email and not used as an excuse to trash talk or retaliate. I am the only one who can ban someone from the blog and I go to great lengths not to do it or engage in acts that might be viewed as censorship.”

                      ~Jonathan Turley

                1. “Phillip Skeene”,
                  From past comments made by a “Peter Hill” and his mention of where he lived, he voluntarily made comments that he lived in ( or at least near) West Hollywood.
                  We have since seen about 4 people posting whose style is virtually identical to that of “Peter Hill”. Not only that, but “Peter Hill” disappeared at the same time that that these other people with identical styles—–ike “PH”, “John Burgoyne”, “Phillip Skeene”, etc. —— started to post comments here.
                  Now on the off-chance that “Phillip Skeene” and “Peter Hill” are not one in the same, how is referring to the location that Peter Hill volunteered a threat to “Phillip Skeene”?
                  And since they are almost certainly one in the same, how is Peter Hill threatened when I mention the area WHERE HE HAS ALREADY SAID HE RESIDES!?!
                  When we get that resolved, I would like to see if “John Burgoyne” and the others feel threatened as well. I would hate to see this MPD exacerbated by extreme paranoia.
                  Anyway, Iive in a state some distance from West Hollywood/ Hollywood and I no longer travel to foreign countries, including California. So, to put all of the MPD personalities involved at ease, you have not been threatened. And I would not travel to California for any reason, let alone to act on a non- existent threat.

                  1. PS. John Burgoyne and Phillip Skeene are both in England, and have been there for over two centuries.
                    ( I hope that mentioning where they are is not misinterpreted as a threat).

                  2. Anonymous, I have no idea what your mental state might be. Many commenters on this are obviously unbalanced. And nothing you have written indicates any stability.

                    1. Phillip/ Peter/John Burgoyne et Al,
                      People can read what is written and judge for themselves if one of you is unstable, or all of you are.

            2. Name me one successful President who was not a sociopath.

              Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan.

              Franklin Roosevelt had many personal flaws. He was devious, sexually transgressive, and a failure at imparting to his children the principles and skills necessary to stay out of the divorce courts. ‘Sociopath’ seems rather de trop as a descriptor.

                1. Robert Bork was quite cautious in making the argument that Bill Clinton qualified as a sociopath, and we should be suitably cautious using such a term. I’m not sure I’d use the term for any occupant of the office apart from Clinton, Johnson, and Kennedy. (Obama strikes me as shallow and spiteful, not sociopathic; Woodrow Wilson had at least a half-dozen unpleasant features, but he was 1,000 miles away from sociopathic).

                  1. DSS – this definition is from Healthline

                    A sociopath is a term used to describe someone who has antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). People with ASPD can’t understand others’ feelings. They’ll often break rules or make impulsive decisions without feeling guilty for the harm they cause.

                    People with ASPD may also use “mind games” to control friends, family members, co-workers, and even strangers. They may also be perceived as charismatic or charming.

              1. DSS – Eisenhower had an affair with his female driver while he was in Europe and was told by Gen. Marshall to drop her or he would not get his next star. There is a book I recommend, Eisenhower’s Generals, which shows the number of sociopaths we had leading armies during WWII.

                I don’t think you can prove that Coolidge, T. Roosevelt, Truman or Reagan were not sociopaths.

                1. DSS – Eisenhower had an affair with his female driver while he was in Europe and was told by Gen. Marshall to drop her or he would not get his next star.

                  1. Even if that were true, it wouldn’t make him a sociopath. Where did you get that idea?

                  2. She wasn’t his ‘driver’, she was his secretary. Her claims were related in a book she completed before her death. BTW, their ‘affair’ in her telling didn’t have a sexual dimension.

                  3. It’s never been established securely that there was an affair.

                  4. John Eisenhower said explicitly and publicly that the family didn’t take her account seriously.

                    1. Mr. Schulte,
                      This is in reply to your comment about the number of liberals who were ( are) on this blog.
                      I remembered that about 10 days ago, there were a lot of “new” faces appearing in the thread ( under the””Turley testifies”) column.
                      I just went back and counted those new names that were critical of Turley’s testimony and or Trump.
                      Often those went together. I found another sock puppet to add to the Phillip/ Skene/ Peter Burgoyne etc. collection ( a “J. Acland”, I believe), so I didn’t count that one as a “new” commentator.
                      I also eliminated a couple of other newbies that looked like sock puppets.
                      There were over 20 names of people posting anti-Turley anti- Trump material.
                      Net of the sock puppet and likely sock puppets.
                      It’s very usual to see 20+ new names pop up in one thread.
                      Now assuming that these 20+ people were distinct individuals and not sock puppets, there were over 20 new allies of Phillip/ Peter etc.
                      But just about every one of popped up for that one thread, never to be heard from again.
                      That factor stood out, and the recent whining about the blog being unfair to liberals, liberals, being outnumbered and so on motivated me to go back and tally the number of “one day wonders”.
                      I came to some conclusions about what this indicates, but I need to leave now.

                2. I don’t think you can prove that Coolidge, T. Roosevelt, Truman or Reagan were not sociopaths.

                  Yes you can. It’s a psychiatric term of art with a distinct meaning. None of these people had the signatures.

          2. What a bunch of BS from our friend Peter Shill whose only interest is spewing out garbage while avoiding debate and disappearing into anonymity. Almost every significant thing Peter has said on this blog has been proven wrong. I wonder if he finally learned the Steele Dossier was made up.

      1. You want someone to prove her bias opinion as wrong. Ok. My opinion its wrong because its merely her typical Assembly of Right bias attack on Democrats that provide no factual evidence nor is substantiated with provable proof, just a hit job that should not fool anyone.

        All Democrats I know consider Impeachment to be Congress bringing formal charges. At any given time Republicans vary whether they consider it political or Criminal as well so what was her point? To attack Democrats.

        Which Democrats would served as future Judges and juries of impeachment ran on impeaching Trump before it ever started? She provides no examples. She says many would impeach him on day one after he was elected. She provides no exampkes out of these many, not one. Who launched this false allegation he was an ant-Semitic? and who proved it was falsed? He was sued for being racist towards blacks in NY State when he would not rent apartments to them claiming they had been rented which was false. It seems that racist allegation proved to be true. She claims Dems say he is guily before the trial while Republicsns claim he is not guilty before the trial or even before the impeachment so where is the big difference. Isn’t she just giving us a display of her bias hatred on Democrats, well yes of course she is.

        Her complaints about Democratic behaviour. Hello none about Republican behavior. Antics and tactics. Complaining about this or that. Then Dems say Ok and then they conplain about something else. Trump puts on this show for weeks that he can’t defend himself so he is invited to so, bluff called, and what does he do, he punts.

        With different witnesses out came different and new testimony with new evidence. Its only natural that the allegations would change accordingly according to the reflecting evidence, There is nothing there that is surprising. Nothing ever fell apart and again she is just spouting Right silly talking points that are meritless.

        And now she wants to Justify Mitch McConnell asking Trump’s lawyers how they want the trial to be conducted. That’s just wonderful. Her thinnly excuse laughable as it is, that since she feels Dems have said he is guilty before the trial or before they voted for impeachment that it makes it fine for the accused to run his own trial. Got ya

        Nice twist that the Dems, excuse me the socialist Dems as she put it want to weaken his chances to get re-elected. How about we just went through a previous election where our elections were interferred with on behalf of helping Trump to win and the other opponent to lose, Trump has solicited another foreign country to assist him to win against his opponent and the Democrats want to put an end to that so we can try to have fair elections and elect a a real duly elected President by thd people for the people.

        Her claim of the left being foul is really ridiculas because in reality we are dealing with a Republican President being caught at trying to rigged the election because he is afraid of losing. He is no angel. This is someone who Scammed hundreds if not thousands from a Fraudulent University. Someone who stole Charity monies while claiming to be worth 10 billion and using those funds on his election campaign instead. These are not innocent mistakes. They are wilful intent and is currently being sued in another illegal scheme where there are many victims. Its goes to his Character.

        In the end I answered your request to prove her wrong. In my opinion there was Nothing there.

        1. “At any given time Republicans vary whether they consider it political or Criminal as well so what was her point? To attack Democrats.”

          Actually, no. My point was the flaw in the reasoning of Democrat politicians, and the media, in attacking Mitch McConnell for coordinating the impeachment with the White House.

          They claim that it’s like a jury coordinating with the defense, but, as I pointed out, if that analogy holds true, then their jury declared the defendant guilty before he was ever accused of a crime.

          Stop misrepresenting the Mueller report. None of what you said was true.

          Why would I complain about Republican behavior in relation to a Democrat abuse of power or their trend in harassing conservatives? Republicans have nothing to do with the constant false allegations Democrats have levied against Donald Trump. If there is a problem with the Republicans in Congress, it is on unrelated issues, such as their total failure to repeal Obamacare when they were voted in to do just that. They have also been ineffective at counter measures against Democrat propaganda against them. However, this blog post, and my comment, was specifically on the impeachment, as well as the extremist turn that Democrats have taken. If you read the blog, you will note the trend in articles discussing Democrats harassing conservatives across the country.

          Democrats campaigned on impeaching Donald Trump. If you read many of their platforms, their purpose was to impeach him to throw him out of office. This isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s public record.

          Democrat Presidential candidates have come out as socialists completely, such as Bernie Sanders, or they have incorporated socialist politics into their platforms. Pretending otherwise is just silly.

          Making up even more false allegations does not prove anyone wrong. It is however, timely, as this exemplifies the problem with the Democrat Party. You are clearly not a moderate.

          The problem with the Democrat Party is that it has abandoned reason, and turned to hatred. They keep calling Republicans terrible names that are not true. Natacha/Anonymous/Sam and the various sock puppets are good examples of this trend. If you disagree with a Leftist policy, you are labeled some slur. The false logic of ad hominem is used when one cannot debate the facts.

          When they raise their children to believe that Trump is evil, and to beat up anyone wearing a MAGA hat, you get this:

          https://youtu.be/srWS4oXKk7Y

          Why don’t you have a problem with the Democrat Party today? All the false allegations, harassment of conservatives, bigotry, elitism, the racism of identity politics, the gender bias against men, the anti-woman trend of allowing men to compete in women’s sports and go into their showers and battered women’s shelters, the rising antisemitism of the BDS movement, the racist taunts they throw against black conservatives, the misogyny they throw against conservative women, their constant attempts to weaken the Constitution going after the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Freedom of Religion, and the Electoral College, the riots, the threats against invited conservative speakers at campuses across America… The official Democrat position on women is that a man can get access to all their private spaces, their sports, and for all intents and purposes be a woman if he decides at any given moment that he is one. Changing his mind back and forth does not detract from this. When women, lesbian or straight, complain that there is more to being a woman than a man just declaring he is one, they are attacked. This means that traditional feminists have gotten mowed over by the Democrat Party. They believe a man literally can oscillate between being a woman or a man as many times as he wishes throughout the day. That’s the special and unique and beautiful aspect of womanhood to the DNC. When you get to that level of lunacy, the party is just completely lost.

          I mean, the list goes on and on. It’s really getting ugly. For a long while now, the Democrat platform has involved pitting one group against another – minorities against white men, poor against “the 1%” which, by the way, was the same language used by the Nazis against the Jews, anticapitalism, women against men, transgender people against lesbians, atheist against Christians, Leftist against conservative blacks, Leftists against conservative women…They are constantly dividing the country and preaching one group to hate another.

          None of this is the behavior of a moderate from any party. Yet, it seems, moderates have lost total control over the DNC.

          Of Course I vehemently oppose the direction the Democrat Party has taken. Why don’t more people? If there was a mass defection, the party would not act like this anymore. As long as this behavior is rewarded with votes, there will be more of it.

          There are terrible people in the world who can belong to any party. However, what I’ve listed above is the trend for the DNC, not the Republican Party. Intuitively, Democrats know this. They are not afraid to invite Liberal speakers to their campuses, or to wear political clothing, because they can rest assured that Republicans don’t act like Democrats do.

          You do not libel garbage when you say it stinks. This is total garbage, and the Democrat Party needs to clean it up. As long as the Democrats keep levying false allegations against Trump, and keep up this impeachment coup attempt in total opposition to the evidence, and keep harassing conservatives across the country, then I will continue to call them out.

          This is shameful behavior. I’m center right, but I’ve occasionally voted for Democrat propositions before. The party has chased me away as if it were on fire. Which, metaphorically, it is.

        2. Sam/Natacha:

          Who tried to rig the 2016 election?

          This has already been proven.

          Hillary Clinton paid a disgraced Steele for a dossier full of false allegations provided by Russian operatives. According to the Horowitz report, MI6 warned the FBI that Steele has a history of bad judgement and political motives. Steele tried to release this right before the election. The Horowitz Report also confirmed that this fake opposition research, paid for by the Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton, was indeed the foundational basis for the FISA warrant. Previously, it had been determined that there was insufficient cause. In order to use the fake dossier, agents lied about its origin, that MI6 warned them about Steele’s poor judgement, the fact that the sub source said it was all bar talk never to be considered fact or taken seriously, that one of the allegations came from a comment in a blog post, or that Carter Page was working for the CIA.

          If you care about facts and justice, then the Democrats tried to rig the 2016 election with the help of the Russians.

          The Mueller Report confirmed that the Trump administration did not collude with Russia. That’s why the media isn’t talking about Trump being a Russian asset so much anymore.

          Here was CNN months ago begrudgingly admitting Trump did not collude with Russia, although they tried to spin it as bad for him as possible. A simple, we’re sorry we got this so wrong would have sufficed.

          We already know that Russia produced social media memes that were supportive of Bernie, Stein, and Trump. It also helped Hillary Clinton with the fake dossier. Sometimes they released dueling memes and campaigns, where some would help and some would hurt candidates. This would ensure that there would be a cloud over whoever won the Presidency, thus weakening the great country of America.

          This worked splendidly for them. People like you have accused Trump of working with the Russians for years, even long after the Mueller Report debunked this.

          Russia released social media propaganda that was supportive of Bernie Sanders. Was Bernie Sanders colluding with the Russians? Was it Bernie’s fault that the Russians did this? Nope. Same applies to Trump. And Stein. However, Hillary Clinton was culpable because she bought a fake salacious dossier and tried to release it as a last minute October Surprise, a play the Clintons are infamous for. This was how Bill won in the past. Release false information when it’s too late for the victim to disprove, and cheat to win.

          https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/24/politics/mueller-report-release/index.html

          “Special counsel Robert Mueller did not find Donald Trump’s campaign or associates conspired with Russia, Attorney General William Barr said Sunday…

          Barr wrote that no one associated with the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government, “despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.
          Mueller defined coordination as an “agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.””

          Natacha, your party has moved on. Russian collusions was ages ago in the all the false allegations.

          Here’s another juicy bit. George Nader helped set up that infamous meeting with Trump, Jr. He had donated millions to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, while reporting to “a middle eastern government”. He’s also been charged with child porn and child trafficking. He said it was “over for the Arabs” if Candidate 2 won, believed to be Trump.

          https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/russia-probe-witness-charged-funneling-millions-hillary-clinton-s-2016-n1096221

          “A businessman who helped broker a meeting between an ally of President Donald Trump and an official of the Russian government has been indicted for allegedly funneling millions in illegal campaign contributions to support Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

          George Nader, who was charged in another case earlier this year with child trafficking and transporting child pornography, was one of seven people named in an indictment unsealed in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday night involving the campaign payments.

          Nader, 60, is charged with funneling money to Ahmad “Andy” Khawaja, 48, of Los Angeles in order to circumvent federal election laws that restrict the amount of donations from a specific individual and where that money is actually coming from, prosecutors say.

          George NaderGeorge NaderC-SPAN / AP file
          The indictment alleges that Nader was reporting to a middle eastern government throughout the period.

          From “March 2016 through January 2017, Khawaja conspired with Nader to conceal the source of more than $3.5 million in campaign contributions, directed to political committees associated with a candidate for President of the United States in the 2016 election,” the Department of Justice said in a press release.

          “Khawaja and Nader allegedly made these contributions in an effort to gain influence with high-level political figures, including the candidate.”

          The indictment doesn’t name the specific campaign but includes text messages from Nader to an official from the foreign country saying, “Had a terrific meeting with my Big Sister H. You will be most delighted.” In addition, the timing of the events and fundraisers matches Clinton campaign events.

          The indictment refers to a Candidate 2 and the text messages make it clear that candidate is Trump. Khawaja allegedly texted Nader on WhatsApp saying, “That’s why we need birthday gift, If [Candidate 2] gets elected its over for the Arabs,” the indictment says.

          The indictment says that Khawaja’s company donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee and attended the inaugural with Nader.”

    1. All except the last line. a True RED Communist would say and doi exactly as the party’s dictate demands though it was written first by their second spin off the National Socialists. Anything said or done to advance the part is the Truth.’

      Note: Not truth as defined by moral ethicall decent people but the truth as they are ordered to lock step repeat it.

      Therefore the evaluation of Gerhardt rings true and note the always present escape hatch is in the last four words.

  5. Lying is the new normal thanks to Democrats and their cult believers.

    They killed religion to put themselves as our new high priests.

    1. “Religion is the opiate of the masses.”

      – Karl Marx
      _________

      Communism is the “dictatorship of the proletariat” which you may know as teacher strikes – the tip-of-the-spear of public worker/public official/dependent dominion – and central planing, control of the means of production (i.e. regulation), redistribution of wealth and social engineering.
      _______________

      “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”

      – Karl Marx
      _________

      Communists force compulsory charity which is voluntary industry conducted in the free markets of the private sector in America under the Constitution. Of course, every endeavor, including every breath, is compulsory under communism including, but not limited to, affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

  6. I am not a lawyer. But doesn’t the fact that the SCOTUS agreed to hear the administration’s challenge to the Congressional demands let the air out of the second article of impeachment?

    1. I am not a lawyer but don’t the facts that the People hold dominion through Congress and that the judicial branch has no enumerated power to legislate or modify legislation mean that the SCOTUS is constrained to merely assure that actions comport with statutes and fundamental law; that the SCOTUS is compelled “…to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void?”

      The People, Congress and the legislative branch have the power and are not equal but superior to the two other branches, which is confirmed by the fact that only the legislative branch has the power to eliminate or impeach “…all civil officers of the United States.”

      There is no limitation or restriction on the power of Congress to impeach with specificity, per Article 2, Section 4, which allows impeachment for unqualified “…other…” crimes and misdemeanors of high office.

      You and all Americans can read the English language and need no interpreter or interpretation of the clear wording. The sole function of any and all courts is merely to assure that actions comport with statutes and fundamental law, not to compose or legislate.

      Impeachment IS what the House VOTES is impeachment per the clear language in the Constitution which lends itself to no “interpretation.”

      The enterprise of the SCOTUS could not be more elementary and effortless.
      _________________________________________________

      “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

      – Alexander Hamilton
      _________________

      Article 2, Section 4

      The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

  7. This is despicable what congress has done to President Trump and makes most people realize that to many have been in there position for to long. Thus causing corruption from Pelosi to Ocasio and we see nothing being done for the illegal practices the both are guilty of. Always look to the ones who point their finger their usually guilty of the accusation.

  8. The ruling class gang members, like Gerhardt, always think they are riding a show pony when they make such false pronouncements to the “little people.” In realty, they ride the back of a great leviathan whose bridle is loose and whose disposition is patient but fierce when that patience ends. They are Ahab to the Great White Whale and their fate is sealed when they puncture the great mammalian one time too many!

  9. “Gerhardt and I testified at both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings. I have always valued his views and commentary.

    In the Trump impeachment hearing, Gerhardt is probably best known for his sweeping declaration that “if what we are talking about is not impeachable, nothing is impeachable.”
    *******************
    The ruling class will never get it, will they? That’s why time and again throughout history they end up without the need for hats:

    1. Mespo, maybe he just misspoke. Perhaps he meant to say “If what we’re talking about is impeachable, everything is impeachable”.

    2. “Welcome(?), Big Brother. People of fear must be satisfied.”

      – RE
      ____

      Yep. Sounds like Karl to me.

      I’d rather be free to “pursue happiness.”

  10. Professor Turley is a gentleman, who says he respects Professor Gerhardt’s opinions, but humbly disagrees with his conclusions. I am one who feels differently. Professor turley is a gentleman who seems to have a disposition, that allows him to ignore his biases against Trump, which he has freely admitted, and still using his knowledge of the Constitution wherever it leads him. On the other hand, I have no respect for someone like Professor Gerhardt, who is plainly biased against President Trump, and allows his bias to lead him to biased conclusions and statements.
    I would have had much more respect for a biased Professor, like Gerhardt, if he had declined his invitation to be a witness at an impeachment hearing, and showing his bias in the process. That would have been the proper behavior for someone who claims to be a scholar on the Constitution. Professor Gerhardt was asked to speak on a subject that is so important and has such lasting effects on our country, that his biased narratives at the hearing, should shame and embarrass him and others in the legal world and in the world of higher education.

  11. 1st time in history that an intelligence chairman, Adam Schiff went from Wash DC to NYC, to appear on CBS Late Show with comedian Stephen Colbert….And joke about the impeachment hearings.

          1. I guess Bill you don’t know what the word comedian means and you don’t know where the presumed comedy came from in your video. You find Fox News a hoot but you can’t seem to say which news show is lying and then prove your case. You are a zero.

          2. bill Mcwilliams:
            “I agree that Trump is a comedian and FOX is a hoot.”
            *****************
            Either entity could buy, sell and flush you with hardly stutter step. That you envy such accomplishment as theirs makes you the incredible shrinking man.
            Like that Praetorian Guard general said in “Gladiator,” “People should know when they’re conquered.” (3:55)

    1. Democrats must suffer whiplash from the double standard.

      Mitch McConnell is coordinating with the White House! It’s like a jury member coordinating with the defense!

      Adam Schiff proclaiming Trump is guilty all throughout the impeachment, before evidence is either heard, and then going on talk shows, is pefectly OK. Schiff is not a jury member. This is not a criminal process but a political one.

      Democrats are so dutiful, swallowing what they are fed. Making no effort to research or understand the other side. Critics must be evil. Moderates are too cowed to speak up for fear they’ll be treated like conservatives.

      1. Karen –

        Have you imbibed too many liberal libations of a 90 proof Holidays tonic? Republicans starts with an R, not a D.

        Happy Christmas, and I hope you will feel better soon.

        1. Bill – thank you for providing the 1,467th example of the Left going ad hominem because they cannot answer the facts. Scroll through and look for it. It’s very consistent. There is no cogent argument made against the facts. It’s basically insults.

          In the rain forest, howler monkeys sometimes become outraged when primatologists (or anyone else), studies them. They feel threatened by the steady gaze of the scientist, observing their interactions. The howls are absolutely unbelievable. Then they start pooping into their own hands, and throwing it at you, jumping up and down on branches all the while.

          This is what I picture in my mind, scrolling down the blog, witnesses all the poop throwing by people who cannot seem to cobble together a cogent argument. I would listen to a reasonable position. But when all I observe is insults, I relegate the perpetrators to furious, nonverbal howler monkeys, straining to excrete some insult smelly enough to make the offending observers go away.

        1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-nine citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after fifty-four weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – would you like to point out exactly in the Constitution where impeachment is a political process?

        2. David – then the media who stole each other’s Cliff Notes are all wrong. Mitch McConnell coordinating with the White House is nothing like a juror coordinating with the defense.

          1. The Senate can do whatever for the conviction trial. The Constitution only specifies implicitly that such a trial will be held upon impeachment by the House of Representatives and expicitly that the Chief Justice shall preside.

  12. The partisan Democrats on our Facebook feed call you a ‘hack’. Guess what? Liberals project. All the time and about everything. I’m sure there’s one somewhere who merits being taken seriously on some subject. When I locate him, I’ll let you know.

  13. What we are seeing is rage and blind hate taking presidence over reasoned intellect. While some on the left stricken with TDS are idiots (see Maxine Waters) from who we expect unserious verbal diarrhea others who can usually walk and chew gum at the same time have been transformed into Chris Matthews with something sinister crawling up their leg.

  14. Adam itShay Schiff has stunk up the House and his stink is going to the Senate on Monday. Hold your nose and pass the ammunition.

  15. Mister McConnell I hereby move to dismiss the charge of impeachment for reason that the indictments sent over by the House do not meet any criteria for grounds for impeachment and must be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action for removal from office.
    Seocond.
    All in favor say Eye!

    The Eyes have it. The charges are dismissed.
    Now on to Christmas vacation.

    1. Wish I had said that. Oh I did. And none of the pundits have had the stones to answer the one important question. How is the prosecution going to get around those pesky six little words found only in a Presidential level oath of office when they themselves could not defend themselves against such a charge as violation of oath of office?

      ‘to the best of my ability.’

      Case closed. RBG can now rest in peace.

  16. As civil libertarians have warned, it appears that the “tail is now wagging the dog”. It appears that now some agencies – possibly the FBI – are now subverting online First Amendment activity (speech, association, petition clauses) by using the Russia ruse – which they swore an oath of office not to do. if you want to silence political speech by citizens, just fabricate a Russia link. The citizen can’t defend themselves and their is no risk to the bureaucrats (aka: Cointelpro style tactics). The government-watchdogs don’t seem to mind (IG’s, GAO, judges, etc.). There was a similar warning, by civil libertarians, pertaining to Facebook/social media posts, that this Russia thing would simply act as a subversion tool to bypass the First and Fourth Amendments. Bottom line; we apparently need a new watchdog mechanism so executive branch agencies won’t exploit national tragedies to subvert their own oath of office loyalty pledge.

  17. Some in the Senate want a very short trial, the President has been calling for scalps. The Senate has to deal with the WH on how many scalps he wants.

  18. There is a distinct difference between “conferring” and “colluding.” Given the historic statements by Moscow Mitch, Turley’s conclusions indicate he missed the point, again, in his stolid determination to defend Trump. The apologists have become beyond boring.

    1. ok – so what are your definitions of ‘confer’ and ‘collude’? FWIW – I think Professor Turley is on the mark, while Professor Gerhardt is either mistaken or something else.

      1. Madison and Chuck A.,
        Gehrhart actually said ” coordinating “. I guess we can sidetrack into a discussion about “conferring/ colluding”, but Gehrhart’s questionable claim is that even ” coordinating” is unprecedented.

    2. “There is a distinct difference between “conferring” and “colluding.””

      Aspinwall, can you prove to us there was collusion? By the way collusion is generally done in secret. How do you know about what happened between Mitch McConnell and Trump?

      1. Just for fun, we can go to both Gehrhart’s statement and to this column to
        count how many times the word ” coordinating” or “coordinate” ( or various forms of the same word) appear.
        Then look for the words “conferring” or “colluding”; I don’t think those words appear until Chuck A. brought them up.

        1. Yes, The word “collusion” was appropriately not used by Gehrhart but I quoted what Aspinwall said not what Gehrhart said. Gehrhart used the word coordinating because in context the meaning is very vague so that some can stretch it to collusion as Aspinwall did. It’s a smart way for a lawyer to confuse the issue and spin rather than provide truth. Coordinating with the President could be as simple as informing the President what time the Senate hearings will start.

    3. Sure is. Collusion is not a crime and thus means even less than conferring meaning asking for opinions or advice. or points of view. The boring part started with There is a distinct difference.

        1. The only bipartisan part of this process is the defection of Democrats, joining Republicans against impeachment.

          The math shows no Republicans in favor of impeachment. Bipartisan opposition to impeachment.

          The question is if the media keeps carrying water for the Democrats, prospective voters may not comprehend that this is an albatross around the necks of the Democrats in the House, as well as any in the Senate who vote for this years’ long Reign of Terror against the lawfully elected President. Except that Trump refuses to be cowed.

          His pugnacious temperament at times puts me off. However, I cannot imagine a polite, smooth, establishment Republican having the constitution or spine to fight the constant, never ending false allegations and coup attempts for 3 years going. You can’t keep taking the high road when assassins constantly swing a Claymore at you or poison your wine. They are out to win by fair means or foul.

          This will convince Republican voters that they need a brawler for 2020, as well. This isn’t going to stop. Democrats will not accept a Republican in the White House. They already have a list of imaginary crimes and allegations, only waiting to fill in the blanks for whichever Republican runs for the next hundred years.

          1. “His pugnacious temperament at times puts me off.”

            That type of complaint doesn’t involve policy but does lead to a very transparent president. Compare that trait to the lies and deceit Of Adam Schiff and the crazy Democrats that make statements making Trump appear as soft as a teddy bear.

Leave a Reply