Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on precedent created by the Democrats against their own case for a full trial in the Senate.
Here is the column:
When William Shakespeare wrote that “all the world is a stage” and “one man in his time plays many parts,” he could have probably had in mind Senator Charles Schumer. In 1999, the Democrat from New York famously opposed witnesses in the trial of President Clinton as nothing more than “political theater.” Now Schumer has declared that witnesses and a full trial are essential for President Trump, and that a trial without witnesses would be deemed the “most unfair impeachment trial in modern history.”
That does not include the Clinton case where Schumer sought to proceed to a summary vote without a trial. As the Senate now gears up for the third presidential impeachment in history, the fight has begun over the rules and scope of a trial. The Framers were silent on the expected procedures and evidence for a trial, beyond the requirement of a two-thirds vote to convict a president. The only direct precedent on these issues is derived from two very different trials, those of President Johnson and Clinton.
By sending a thin record to the Senate, the House could not have made things easier for Trump. Since the House did not take time to subpoena critical witnesses, such as former national security adviser John Bolton, or to compel testimony of other witnesses, the Senate could simply declare that it will try the case on the record supplied by the House, a record that Democrats insist is already conclusive and overwhelming. Moreover, in reviewing the past trials of Johnson and Clinton, Democrats may have to struggle with precedents of their own making. Indeed, Republicans could argue that a trial without witnesses is impeachment in Democratic style.
THE BYRD MOTION
The first question for the trial could be whether there should even be a trial held at all. In early England, the House of Lords often refused to hold trials on impeachments, which often were raw political exercises. In the Clinton trial, Democrats moved to dismiss both impeachment articles as meritless. The motion by Senator Robert Byrd failed on a largely party line vote with Democrats, including Senator Joe Biden, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Schumer, opposing having any impeachment trial at all.
Ironically, the obstruction of Congress article in the Trump impeachment would make a stronger case for such a threshold dismissal. The House adopted a brief investigation in order to impeach by Christmas. Trump has challenged the demands from Congress for testimony and documents in court. President Nixon and Clinton both took such appeals to the Supreme Court then lost. I disagree with the White House assertions of immunity and privilege. However, Democrats have taken the position that it can set an artificially short period of investigation and impeach a president who goes to court instead of simply yielding to the demands from Congress.
This would allow lawmakers to effectively manufacture the grounds for impeachment by setting abbreviated investigations then impeaching when presidents turn to the courts. In this case, the House burned more than three months without issuing subpoenas to key witnesses. It even pulled a subpoena for an impeachment witness rather than have the court rule on its merits. Meanwhile, other courts have ruled on these matters, such as the court order for former White House counsel Don McGahn to appear. An appellate court ruling could be expedited on that and other cases but not by Christmas. Worse yet, the Supreme Court has agreed to review decisions ordering Trump to turn over tax and financial records.
The greatest departure from tradition in the Clinton trial was the barring of live testimony and most witnesses in presenting evidence. The Johnson trial followed the tradition with 25 prosecution and 16 defense witnesses. In the Clinton trial, Democrats opposed having witnesses in the Senate trial. That was a surprise since the issue of witnesses came up during the House proceedings where I testified as a constitutional expert. While I favored calling witnesses in the House investigation, I noted that the Framers did not specify when, if ever, witnesses would be heard. But a Senate trial was viewed historically as an obvious forum for witnesses.
Two things prompted the House to not call many witnesses. First, the Clinton impeachment was the culmination of a long investigation by two independent counsels and a evidentiary record delivered by two vans to the House Judiciary Committee. With dozens of sources and statements, the House did not see the necessity of recalling all the same witnesses. Second, Democrats had accepted that Clinton committed felony perjury about an affair with a White House intern. They simply insisted that you could not impeach a president for that crime if the issue was personal.
THE DASCHLE MOTION
The Democrats outmaneuvered the Republicans and got an agreement not only to limit the witnesses to three but to bar public review of their depositions. They succeeded in barring any public testimony on the floor. After the depositions were finally completed, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle moved to bar those depositions from being played on the floor and move forward to closing arguments. All Democrats except Senator Russ Feingold had once again voted to skip ahead to closing arguments.
Some precedent is a bit more recent. Representative Adam Schiff and the other House impeachment managers are expected to demand fair play and equal treatment in the presentation of witnesses and evidence, the very due process denied in the House investigation. Democratic leaders repeatedly denied witnesses and minority hearing days for Republicans. They allowed only one witness who was not on staff for the entire House Judiciary Committee proceedings, and I was that witness in the hearing.
As a general rule, I am inclined to oppose the threshold dismissals and to favor witnesses in Senate trials. But the House has now undermined those principles by advancing a dubious obstruction article and an incomplete record. Schumer has expressed shock at the very notion of a Senate trial without testimony, asking why Republicans are “so afraid of witnesses” and portraying a trial without witnesses as a mockery. A full trial, however, will require Republicans not only to ignore the precedent set by Schumer and other Democrats in the Clinton case but also the incomplete record.
In the Trump case, the House has rejected calls to take a little more time to secure additional testimony or court orders against the administration. Even during the final impeachment vote, House Democrats referred to still developing facts involving the conduct of associates of Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani in Ukraine. If House Democrats had simply taken more time, they could have locked such testimony and evidence into the record and not have to rely on Senate Republicans to complete their case for them.
After rejecting basic rights to Republicans during the House Judiciary Committee and House Intelligence Committee hearings, Democrats are now demanding the witness and adversarial rights that they denied the minority. They hope that Senate Republicans will resist the temptation to offer a trial that is as cursory and as contrived as the House investigation.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a witness expert in the House Judiciary Committee hearing during the impeachment inquiry of President Trump.
No witnesses in the Senate. Time for the Democrats to eat their own dog food.
I’m suspecting that Mitch McConnell will be as bipartisan as Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and Schumer.
I hope you’re right.
Maybe Mitch McConnell will hold senate impeachment proceedings after the November elections.
(music to tune of My Boomerang Won’t Come Back)
MY: Democrats won’t come back!
My Democrats won’t come back.
The’re the biggest disgrace to the American base..
My Democrats won’t come back.
I can…ride a kangaroo.
Eat slime too!
Etc
Turley has jumped the shark with his alternative definitions and his intensively muddying interference with facts or truth about the house case. Sure, he has to save his own butt from the embarrassment he, and he alone caused with his own twisted logic about impeachment. Turley has joined the league of the Federalist Society and must now believe that the Unitary Executive and the Imperial Presidency of this President, and only this President is and shall be above all law. His delegitimizing the house case to save what’s left of his self-esteem is sad, just sad. Of course from Turley’s point of view, why not keep fooling the suckers, after all, they are trump supporters.
Turley seems to have had too much Christmas punch, but so, I fear, do you.
Democrats are liars, hypocrites, and smear mongers. For 3 years this has been on full view. They have no respect from American jurisprudence and have an irrational hatred of Pres. Trump and conservative Americans. This ompeachment exercise is just an example of their lies and the support they get from the parrots in the Press. How sad that so many AMericans can be duped by the Dems’ uncivil and vile behavior. Let’s stop trying to intellectually understand the Anti-intellectual Democrats – they only rely on emotion to determine their next step as the ultimate in political actors.
TURLEY LACKS FOCUS TODAY
It seems like the Professor has strung together multiple ‘What Abouts’ today. But none of these What Abouts are explained to any extent. Which is odd since Turley is presumably a professional at explaining points of law. Instead he appears to be playing an elaborate shell game where the reader is overwhelmed by minutia. It’s almost like Turley has assumed the role of partisan commenter on his own blog.
Which is odd since Turley is presumably a professional at explaining points of law.
Shill,
People with a functioning left-half of their brain would question their own paradigms rather than the perceived oddity of the professional’s explanation.
Olly, by now one gets the unshakable impression that you are the nerdiest of nerds. A dull, pedestrian-like figure who thinks his only joke is blow-away material.
The reason your impressions are unshakable Shill is because you lack the ability to process their meaning.
Phillip,
Maybe you should supply Olly and others with less “blow-away material”, if that’s a concern for you.
When you keep leaving yourself wide- open to get “blown away”, some will oblige you.
Not me, of course.🤭 But others might.
🙂
Maybe you should ease up, Olly. You might not have Phillip Peter Acland Burgoyne to kick around anymore.
https://youtu.be/ya1GWB2AMnY
Maybe this link will work.
https://youtu.be/ya1GWB2AMnY
One more try for a link that might open.
Whenever Peter posts on here he is performing Effy from Dreamgirls
Had Shill been aboard one of my ships, I wouldn’t have considered sending him on a working party to chip paint…he’d eat them. He and his ilk have declared war on this country and have earned every bit of negative attention they get.
“He and his ilk have declared war on this country…”
Count to ten, OLLY.
No one has “declared war on this country.”
What things would need to be happening for you to be convinced enemies of our country are currently at war with us?
Just as an FYI….seriously..
… get “blown away”, some will oblige you.
Which STDs Can Be Passed On from Oral Sex?
Chlamydia
Gonorrhea
Syphilis
Herpes
https://www.cdc.gov/std/healthcomm/stdfact-stdriskandoralsex.htm
As we now have the third impeachment of a president, it’s worthwhile to review the history of the two previous presidential impeachments.
There seems to be a knee-jerk reaction from one particular person ( or five, counting the MPD additions) to cry “What Aboutism” if he (they) have some disagreement with the content of a column or of the comments.
“False Equivalency! False Equivalency!” seems to be another stock claim in lieu of an actual rebuttal to the content of columns or comments.
Finally, I can understand why Professor Turley views this as “his own blog”, since he does write the columns.
And there’s ample opportunity and leeway in the comment sections for one (or “five- in one”) to respond to the columns and to other comments.
“Democrats may have to struggle with precedents of their own making.”
Democrats never live according to the things they’ve said. To quote Clinton – “It’s not what you say, it’s what you say when.” For Democrats it’s all about the moment, not the past.
those who misunderestimate the people’s intelligence will pay the ultimate price, at the end of the day.
those who misunderestimate the people’s intelligence will pay the ultimate price.
Jonathan Turley, I find this inconsistent.
What this is inconsistent?
I would expect the Senate to vote 100-0 to dismiss the obstruction of Congress charge. The HOUSE is NOT Congress and the Senate is not subservient to the House and the Senate does not allow the House to speak for it.
Because of that I would expect ALL senators to vote to protect their turf.
Because of that I would expect ALL senators to vote to protect their turf.
Oh, they’ll vote to protect their turf alright; but not on constitutional principles like encroachment by the House. That ship sailed when congressional Democrats gave a standing ovation to Obama when he told them they were irrelevant. This will be pure party politics played out like the Kavanaugh confirmation.
You must keep a list by your side, here is a whataboutism that will fit. Who cares if it is true, I have got to defend the indefensible because what about….. Sad to be you.
Tired of talking about the impeachment yet? I’m more interested in what everyone got for Christmas. It’s more edifying. Mine goes bang!
I got an early Christmas present in August, a grandson named Dominick. Did you get socks, mespo?
What a great gift that is. Congratulations Nick.
nick – congrats!!! did the grandson come with a bow?
Congrats to you and Nick II!
Thanks Olly, Paul and mespo. My son Carlos was adopted from Colombia. His bride is German and Norwegian, a common combo in Wisconsin. So…Dominick Spinelli does not have a drop of Italian blood in him. I love America!
Immigrants made this country, immigrants are the hope and future of this country
Felicidades
Estovir – illegal aliens are a major problem, especially in the border states.
Open your heart and your home to them. Its not like you will notice them since you’ll be on your wifi all day and night in your mancave, and they will be working the jobs no American wants. Plus they cook wonderful food and can teach you how to swallow a guzano during Tequila parties. Whats not to like?
Americans have more wealth and more resources than most inhabitants on the Earth. They can share and spread the love, be less gluttonous and slothful
Speaking of spreading, a bigger problem is the growing trends in obesity in our country due to acedia and gluttony, according to your favorite scientific metric, the BMI scale
Thus immigrants are the answer to America’s health problems.
You’ll thank them later
😀
Half of America will be obese within 10 years,
RESULTS
The findings from our approach suggest with high predictive accuracy that by 2030 nearly 1 in 2 adults will have obesity (48.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 47.7 to 50.1), and the prevalence will be higher than 50% in 29 states and not below 35% in any state. Nearly 1 in 4 adults is projected to have severe obesity by 2030 (24.2%; 95% CI, 22.9 to 25.5), and the prevalence will be higher than 25% in 25 states. We predict that, nationally, severe obesity is likely to become the most common BMI category among women (27.6%; 95% CI, 26.1 to 29.2), non-Hispanic black adults (31.7%; 95% CI, 29.9 to 33.4), and low-income adults (31.7%; 95% CI, 30.2 to 33.2).
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1909301
Estovir – I taught illegals and the children of illegals all my teaching career. I know exactly what they are capable of. Do you know how many of them are members of gangs? Do you know have many women they rape? Or abuse? I had 5 students killed in drive-bys and 4 were convicted of participating in drive-bys. One arrested for a direct one on one murder. I had girls as young as 14 pregnant with their second baby with no husband.
Most of my illegals were illiterate in two languages, Spanish and English. My job was to teach them enough to pass a high stakes test and get into college. I also had illegals who were very bright and hard working and did pass the test and did get into college. It was about 50/50. If the gangs go them before I did, I never got them in college.
What a terrible welcome to America to have the sculteacher be your educator. Do the world a favor and stay in your basement.
Tony – I am giving you real life anecdotal material from inside the classroom of the illegal aliens. BTW, I gave them a hell of an education.
nick – there are a lot of Italians who are actually Germans brought in to protect the northern border. You know all them there blonde Italians in northern Italy?
🙂 That’s awesome! I’m Scotch/Irish-Swede and my wife is German-Canadian. We adopted our son who is Native American-Mexican. All proud to be an American!
mespo – I got electronics and gift cards.
Tired of ….impeachment?
No kidding. No one we know cares. Plus the News Media is fairing as poorly. Over it.
I got everything I wanted for Christmas: love, family, peace of mind and great health. Now if I could only resolve my feet that keep moving to Gloria Estefan’s Oye! song
😎
When you present a case that can be thrown out on at least two arguments and those who filed the charged themselves charged for the cost and for filing false charges the answer is simple. I saw it as the title of a book on Kindle. How to kill a democracy.
One they are not democrats and very far from being democratic.
Two the charges can be thrown out as having no substance on their own.
Three the charges can be easily defeated by bringing in the Presidential oath of office and the six word phrase “to the best of my ability.”
Given the economics. the move out of and away from the constant wars that characterize the far left since 1909 and their inability to show any connection with a Constitutionally required set of requirements and overt violations such as falsely seating those who did not qualify in all of the four requirementsk the left willl be lucky if SCOTUS doesn’t ban them outright.
The Democrats are counting on the well-known characteristic of Republicans of having far better character and integrity than themselves. Hopefully, the Republicans will have finally learned not to let themselves be played in this manner.
Clinton committed a Crime.
President Trump is Crime free.
There is no precedent here for a Trial.
George McGovern and Nat Hentoff are dead. Alan Dershowitz is past 80.The Democratic Party is now a collecting pool of all the a**holes in America. They have no principles, just improvisations which constitute specious excuses for them getting what they want.
Fairness? How can the Democrats call for fairness?
How can the Democrats call for fairness?
Out of the other side of their face.
And there in a nutshell is the fatal flaw in the D’s game – obvious unfairness.
Americans are fundamentally fair and they don’t like kangaroo courts.
All witness who have relevant testimony should be heard and all those subpoenaed should comply. It’s time to stop pretending obstruction is ok!
There he goes again “Justice” Holmes preaching what he believes to be the “truths of justice”, when we didn’t hear a peep from him about Dem’s obstructing the accused Republicans from presenting their witnesses and their testimonies. It’s Boxing Day sir, time to wrap-up your biasses and return them from wherever you found them.
Nice try, Jon, but it won’t wash. Clinton’s transgressions didn’t involve national security, and was purely motivated by politics. So what if Clinton was engaged in sexcapades with an intern and lied about it? Well, Lindsey Graham was a master pearl-clutcher at the time, decrying lying as disqualifying to serve as POTUS. Then came Trump, a master practitioner in the arts of mendacity, arrogance and narcissism. Trying to equate the two situations is totally disingenuous: Clinton’s impeachment should have been summarily dismissed because his conduct was really a matter between him and his wife. Not so with Trump. We still haven’t seen the actual transcript of the call–just the memo. Who knows what else he’s done.
Trump “won the victory” with the active assistance of Russian hackers who worked with his campaign to target certain districts for a social media attack on Hillary Clinton. He has consistently tried to pay back Russia ever since, by trying to get it back into the G-7, by siding with Putin and against American Intelligence at Helsinki, trying to pin Russia’s election interference on Ukraine, refusing to stand with England against Russia when it tried to murder Russian dissidents who had escaped to England on British soil, and helping Russia get away with invading Ukrainian territory by withholding military aid for political reasons. These are the sorts of things that the framers had in mind for impeachment–not lying about oral sex in a hallway in the White House.
Clinton didn’t procure the absence of all witnesses and documents like Trump has–Jon likes to call his obstruction of justice “challenging subpoenas”, but this is soft-pedaling a clear obstruction of justice. According to Jon, the record is “thin”–well who is to blame for this? Jon tries to blame Democrats for not going to court to compel Trump to produce each and every witness and document Trump refuses to provide, without any legal basis whatsoever. How many years would it take, and would Trump comply even after being ordered to do so by the SCOTUS? Trump has said he may not leave the WH whenever and however his term ends. It’s not clear that he was kidding. WHERE IS THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REFUSE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS TO A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION? Cite the authority for us, Jon, if you can. As you well know, there can be an item-by-item assertion of privilege, but that’s not what we have here–we have an all-out refusal to cooperate. Where in U.S. law does it say that Congress must resort to Courts and exhaust all avenues of appeal before impeaching a recalcitrant POTUS? WHERE IS THE LEGAL AUTHORITY? Cite it or stop defending Trump for his obstruction of justice and blaming Democrats for not exhausting all appeals.
LOL! You said obstruction of justice. Lady Justice says: Ignore the scales and you’ll get the sword.
Who knows what else he’s done.
🙂 He became the 45th President of the United States of America.
You’re welcome!
There is talk that the Democratic leadership in the House may add another Article of Impeachment.
This Third Article, “Who knows what else he’s done”, might be tacked on to the other 2 Articles to strengthen their case in the Senate trial.
Well that makes perfect sense. All their shenanigans make sense from the perspective that if they believe he’s an illegitimate president, then he deserves an illegitimate impeachment.
Recycling lies from one thread to the next isn’t going to persuade anyone.
How about using BIG LETTERS, Absurd x XV? Might that persuade some??
JT: “After rejecting basic rights to Republicans during the House Judiciary Committee and House Intelligence Committee hearings, Democrats are now demanding the witness and adversarial rights that they denied the minority.”
Dismiss the charges. Its time to stop pretending that this ramrod persecution is ok!
However, Obstruction is perfectly fine for Democrat Presidents like Obama who allowed Holder to get away with running guns to Mexican Cartels…interesting.