The GW Commencement Controversy: A Response To Rep. Susan Wild

This weekend, I was unable to attend our law school graduation after traveling to Utah to speak to the Federal Bar Association. I have only missed a couple of graduations in almost 30 years of teaching. I soon, however, received emails from students and colleagues that made me somewhat thankful that I was unable to attend.

This year’s commencement speaker was Rep. Susan Wild (D) who represents the 7th District in Pennsylvania and is a distinguished graduate of our law school. Wild chose the commencement address to launch into a personal attack that accused me of being an example of the use of law for “wrongful ends.” She falsely accused me of changing a critical legal point in my testimony in the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings on whether impeachable conduct must be indictable crimes. I felt that a response was warranted.

Rep. Wild surprised many in the political tenor of her remarks, despite her other positive and inspiring points. These commencements are celebrations for our community as a whole, including students and family members who hold opposing views. While a minority to be sure, George Washington does have Republican, libertarian, and conservative members as well as those who subscribe to pro-life positions. As someone who has spoken at such commencements, it is a time when most of us avoid political partisanship and focus on the accomplishments of the students and our shared values.

Rep. Wild had many of the traditional and inspiring elements of a commencement speech. However, she suddenly and surprisingly veered off with an attack on my character, academic integrity, and scholarship. She made no effort to reach out to me before the commencement and clearly made no effort to confirm the underlying allegation. Indeed, she had every reason to expect me to be there (as I often am) and to just sit silently as she attacked my character. If Rep. Wild believes that I have misused my academic position for “wrongful ends,” this was the wrongful means to raise such false allegations, particularly without a modicum of research.

Here is the passage:

“You must be wary of those seeking to use their influence and their expertise to wrongful ends. GW Law, for example, has a tenured professor who is without question well versed in constitutional law but has recently made a name for himself on cable news and social media by undermining his own past well documented scholarship. A law professor who at one time strenuously advocated that a president need not commit an indictable offense to be impeached and in just this past year argued the opposite for a president more to his liking. A president no less who instigated an insurrection and a bloody assault on our democratic process and the rule of law.”

While probably unsurprising for many in our age of rage, the use of a commencement to attack a faculty member was unprecedented at our graduation ceremonies. What was equally astonishing is that a member of Congress would use such an occasion to make a claim that is not only demonstrably untrue but easily confirmed as untrue.

I did indeed testify at both the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and the first impeachment of President Donald Trump. Remarkably, everything else that Rep Wild said in that statement was overtly false.

First, it is not true that my testimony was influenced by my preference of Trump over Clinton. To the contrary, in the Clinton hearing, I testified that I voted for Bill Clinton. In the Trump hearing, I testified that I voted against Donald Trump. None of that had bearing on my constitutional views, but the suggestion that I favored a president “more to [my] liking” is absurd. Indeed, in the Trump hearing, I criticized the call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and noted my disagreement with the positions of President Trump.

That brings us to the thrust of Rep. Wild’s accusation that I changed my position on whether impeachment articles must be based on indictable crimes.

I repeatedly stated in both the Clinton and Trump hearings the same position on indictable offenses. I expressly stated that impeachment articles do not have to be based on criminal or indictable acts. I have argued that past Congresses have often looked to the criminal code and cases as a measure of alleged impeachable offenses –  a practice that I support. However, I emphasized that indictable criminal acts are not required by the Constitution.

Since Rep. Wild focuses on how my Trump testimony changed on this issue, I will focus on the Trump hearing to keep this response reasonably short. I will note, however, that Bill Clinton was accused of a criminal act: perjury. Democrats agreed (as did a later federal judge) that Clinton knowingly committed perjury under oath, but Democratic witnesses like Professor Laurence Tribe insisted that impeachment was simply not that broad. I disagreed and still do.

In the Trump impeachment, I will note at the outset that not only did I repeat my position from the Clinton impeachment, but the House managers repeatedly relied on my position to support their articles of impeachment. Indeed, they cited that position in both impeachments, including featuring a statement in the second trial where I maintained that articles of impeachment do not require criminal or indictable acts.

In my written testimony, I repeatedly stated the exact opposite of what Rep. Wild claims. Here are a couple of examples:

“As I have stressed, it is possible to establish a case for impeachment based on a non-criminal allegation of abuse of power. However, although criminality is not required in such a case, clarity is necessary”

“As discussed below, the strongest claim is for a non-criminal abuse of power if a quid pro quo can be established on the record.”

“While all three acts in the impeachment standard refer to criminal acts in modern parlance, it is clear that “high crimes and misdemeanors” can encompass non-criminal conduct. It is also true that Congress has always looked to the criminal code in the fashioning of articles of impeachment.”

I repeatedly made the same point in my oral testimony. For example:

“There’s a reason why every past impeachment has established crimes, and it’s obvious. It’s not that you can’t impeach on a noncrime, you can. In fact, noncrimes have been part of past impeachments, it’s just that they have never gone up alone or primarily as the basis for impeachment. That’s the problem here. If you prove a quid pro quo, you might have an impeachable offense. But to go up only on a noncriminal case would be the first time in history. So why is that the case?”

While emphasizing that past Congresses have relied on the criminal codes and cases as an objective measure of impeachment allegations, I repeatedly and unambiguously maintained that impeachment articles could be based on non-criminal claims.

I disagreed with my fellow witnesses in opposing the proposed articles of impeachments on bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations or obstruction of justice. I argued that these alleged impeachable acts were at odds with controlling definitions of those crimes and that Congress has historically looked to the criminal code and cases for guidance on such allegations.

The committee ultimately rejected articles based on those theories and adopted the only two articles that I noted could be legitimately advanced: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Chairman Jerrold Nadler even ended the hearing by quoting my position on abuse of power. The House managers also relied on my view that such a non-criminal article of impeachment was permissible under the Constitution.

Nevertheless, I opposed impeachment on this record as incomplete and insufficient for submission to the Senate. I argued for the House to wait and complete the record to support such claims. Ironically, this is the very issue with which I had a long disagreement (here and here and here and here) with Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz and my opposing position was featured by the House managers in the second impeachment.

Over the decades, my views on constitutional interpretation have changed with a greater emphasis on textual authority. I am not alone in such natural evolution of views, even on impeachment. However, my views on impeachment have not changed significantly with the exception of retroactive trials. That was not an issue in the Clinton impeachment or prior presidential impeachments before Trump’s second impeachment.

It is, of course, ironic that Rep. Wild would instruct our graduating class on being righteous lawyers by making a demonstrably false allegation against one of their professors. Her attack on use of the law for “wrongful ends” is clearly based on her disagreement with my views. However, rather than simply disagree with those views in a respectful and factual way, she made false public allegations against my character and academic integrity.

I hope that Rep. Wild will now have the integrity to make an equally public apology for her false statements.

Here is the commencement address. The key passage is found around 1:05: https://law.commencement.gwu.edu/

163 thoughts on “The GW Commencement Controversy: A Response To Rep. Susan Wild”

  1. Instead of destroying bridges to halt a Russia advance, why not just bomb the Russian forces at their source? That way, the bridges do not need to be rebuilt. Ukrainians should be trained on how to fly B-52s, which could have fighter escorts.

    ***

    Isolationists: their anti-war rhetoric is, ironically, prolonging the war. Wars persist and grow when warmongers such as Putin are not dealt with decisively from the start. Going to war to stop a war that has already been started by someone else is not the same context as starting a war. This should matter. To be taken seriously, one must know how not to take things out of context. Tucker Carlson does not know how not to take things out of context. Taking things out of context is a fallacy of logic. People who commit fallacies of logic are not rational people. People who commit fallacies of logic at the pleasure of their audience are rabble-rousing demagogues. This is pretty much how witch hunters operate. This is how Frankenstein-hunting villagers with torches and pitchforks operate. The fans of Tucker Carlson are simple-minded fools who cannot think critically.

    1. If you want a war, convince Congress to declare war you pathetic war monger. Did Smedley Butler, then the all time most decorated US Marine lie when he declared that, “War is a racket,” and “All wars are banker’s wars?” (Needless to say he repented of the five wars and “military conflicts” in which he fought valiantly.)

      You must be so happy to see a former Raytheon CEO/now the “Defense Dept.” Chief (formerly and more accurately War Dept.) sending billions of dollars to his prior company.

      If war is so great why can its death promoters and blood-letters like you not take the stage and convince the populace of the wars great benefits and declare war against nuclear armed Russia. If you want to fight for “democracy” how do you justify the US being bedmates with the Al Saud Krime Syndikat who beheads more citizens than does Isis?

      Did Obama and the current CIA Chief lie when they stated their current position which is that Ukraine means nothing to US security and that Russia would fight to the death a NATO-aligned Ukraine?

      Do you really love the Nazi-lead Azov Battalion having access to US-made weapons? Is anyone tracking what happens to US weaopnns once they entier Ukraine?

      Do you trust brain-dead Biden to make such decisions?

      How has the US war in Ukraine benefitted any American except for those in the MIC and to help hide Biden’s abject failures at home?

  2. From Wikipedia, Cook has her district, PA-7, rated R+2. It also says that according to FiveThirtyEight’s analysis, she had voted with Biden 100% of the time through March, 2022. She’s an automaton.

    Hopefully, the expected Red Wave materializes and she gets her just rewards.

  3. It’s irrational to be anti-war for the sake of being anti-war, even when war is the right option. Sometimes it is. Would you still want to be subjects of the British crown? You would be, if it weren’t for war. Would you want to be speaking German or Japanese? You would be, if it weren’t for war. The rational thing to do is to nip it in the bud before the flame becomes a conflagration. People like Tucker Carlson and Rand Paul are not as smart or intelligent or rational as some might think that they are. I await the obligatory predicatable debunked counter “arguments”..

    1. LOL. You can await for whatever you like, but unless it is a stroke, a bounced check, or a draft notification, I doubt you’ll be changing your mind anytime soon.

  4. Professor Turley you know you will never receive an apology or a correction from the likes of Ms. Wild. Jacobins like her our our to destroy institutions, conduct character assassination, and are generally devoid of humanity. They care about nothing other than power and will continue there uncivil ways until stopped by an opposing force. She is clearly a nasty piece of work and could care less about the truth or your well being

  5. “Wild chose the commencement address to launch into a personal attack that accused me of being an example of the use of law for ‘wrongful ends.’”

    Leaving aside the particulars of her argument, there is an important issue here of decorum.

    The *purpose* of a commencement speech is to celebrate the graduates — to tout their achievements, those who supported them, and to offer wisdom about how to navigate the future. It is not the proper forum to score political points or to skewer an adversary — especially not one who is a distinguished professor at the university hosting your speech.

    Whatever happened to the concept of appropriate/inappropriate behavior?

    1. Sam asks:

      “Whatever happened to the concept of appropriate/inappropriate behavior?”

      Trumpism.

  6. CLINTON, TRUMP, WILD

    WALSH’S 2nd LAW of POLITICS: No decent person ever seeks or accepts political power.

  7. You stated the obvious about the integrity of the speaker when you wrote Rep. Susan Wild (D). The D says it all. Truth and objectivity are not character traits that person of that particular party in Congress hold near and dear.

    1. Pretty sure it’s the “Rep.” part of the name that is the indicator of integrity and adherence to truth, the (D) is redundant in this case.

  8. I’m not sure why you, Mr. Turley, should be surprised at being smeared, libeled, slandered, all but cancelled by a member (Leftist Creature) of the Establishment (Swamp) with exquisite Progressive (Communists) credentials.

    It’s time, it’s past time really, for all traditional and sane Democrats, those who believe in the free market, the bill of rights, the mottos live and let live, don’t tread on me, make love, not war, freedom is never free – you get the drift, to stand up against the extremists in your party and say enough already. Do not vote for the Democrat this year, no matter how much you think she/he relates to you – they don’t relate to you, because they hate you!

    Republicans are not burdened by any serious challengers from the right. It’s the Democrats who are fielding dangerous militants and anarchists who instigate violence at pro-Trump rallies, and other Republican themed events.

    Can’t you hear them say “How dare you meander from the prescribed narrative you lowly scribe! You forget your place, Turley. If they hate Turley, Dershowitz they certainly hate the rest of Ultra-Mega MAGA deplorables.

  9. It’s so refreshing to see actual facts and reasonable arguments to fight the disinformation spewed by this congressperson, further proof we don’t need a government “disinformation” office.

  10. Turley, I think, referenced the wrong time stamp where Wild comments on his scholarship:

    https://youtu.be/kBjoxnW-HEE

    On this link, it begins at 1 hr and 5 minutes. I disagree with her accusation that Turley’s Impeachment stances were inconsistent. I agree they are consistent. Apart from his cheap shots at Turley, Joe Patrice does make a good point when he quotes Turley:

    “Nevertheless, I opposed impeachment on this record as incomplete and insufficient for submission to the Senate.”

    And Patrice replies:

    “Note that he wasn’t saying “I thought the House would lose on this record,” he was saying “the House shouldn’t be allowed to bring the case on this ‘insufficient’ record.” That’s a critical distinction. One might say the Senate trial is the place for hashing this out.”

    That’s true. The Senate tries the case and if there was more evidence needed, then the Senate could have and should have gotten it.

    It’s a cop-out to refer to Turley in her speech without actually naming him. I don’t understand why people think that by not naming names their criticism is somehow less harmful to the recipient. Everyone knows to whom she was referring. Nor do I think it wrong for her to publicly criticize a professor even in a commencement speech. The idea that she should have contacted Turley beforehand is absurd (as if Turley contacts Professor Tribe before each time he disagrees with his opinions).

    When Wild stated:

    “A president no less who instigated an insurrection and a bloody assault on our democratic process and the rule of law.”

    That elicited a round of applause from the assembled graduates and attendees. Turley did not take issue with that statement at all. Admittedly, Turley never used the word “insurrection” to describe the Trumpist attack on our Capitol; he referred to it as a “desecration” which is worse, for times may call for a righteous insurrection, but a desecration is a sign of utter disrespect without any beneficial purpose.

  11. A number or years ago President Bill Clinton came to west Texas to give a speech at the university. I happened to be there for the event. Apparently the university endowment gave a good sum of money to the Flight 93 memorial. He was speaking to a tough crowd, one of the reddest places in the country.

    The speech was labored at the beginning and as he continued the crowd became silent and a person could have dropped a pin and heard it land. Like him, don’t like him, he is an incredibly gifted orator and can give a speech, never looking at notes nor was a teleprompter to be found. He concluded to a standing ovation and loud applause. Students and parents alike stood in line to meet him and shake his hands. What did he speak about?

    The core of his speech was how people of different backgrounds, ethnicities, languages, sexual orientation, ages, political affiliations, etc. can find common ground when it is necessary and that it is not a zero-sum game. Compromise in the truest sense does not mean, “I win” and “You lose.” It means we found a way to meet our key, mutual objectives without anyone giving up the things that are important. That is what good negotiation is all about.

    He gave three examples but he most poignant was the actions of the passengers of Flight 93. Each person booked on that flight woke up to their usual routine, had coffee, tea, breakfast, dressed, showered, bathed, packed their bags, computers, or whatever they were carrying for their journey. Each had a different reason to be on the flight. They were of different ages, ethnicities, professions, sizes, experiences, etc. Under normal circumstances most would not interact with their fellow passengers. Then the unthinkable occurred and when it became known to the passengers that their plane was hijacked and when they were getting wind of what was happening in New York at the Twin Towers and in Washington, they had a paradigm shift. All differences aside, they knew that there was little chance that they would see the end of the day.

    Suddenly, they were not this array of individuals, they became a team with one objective. Win or lose, live or die, their mission was to thwart the terrorists’ agenda. They made a plan and executed it. They lost their lives in the process. Their actions likely saved the lives of many people. There was no individualism in that time of crisis. They acted as one.

    The French brothers who were filming a documentary in NYC were on site when the planes crashed into the first and then the second building. One scene in their vivid documentary is a crowd of scared people talking on their cell phones,. The languages they were speaking were from every part of the world. There was dismay and disbelief. It was similar to the description that Pliny the Younger wrote about his first-hand account of the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius and the doomed city of Pompeii and Herculaneum.

    His point was that something dreadful has happened in this country, especially in Washington D.C. where once senators and congressmen and women would battle it out on the floor and then leave the chamber only to have a drink and play cards or talk about family with their colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Mutual respect. I didn’t vote for him, but what I admired about him was his ability to communicate and to adapt.

    What we have right now is a mostly dysfunctional institution where little if any good appears to happen. The flames are fanned by an even more dysfunctional corporate news media who are talking louder and louder trying to get people’s attention, to stir up strife, to create a schism in the function of the people’s business. Outside money pours in…strings attached.

    The words of John Prine’s Spanish Pipedream would be a healthy change of pace for this nation and for the world. “Blow up your TV, throw away the paper….”

    It is amazing to me how people change their tone when they are in the same room, no phones, computers, or any form of technology, face-to-face, eye-to-eye, in close contact. It is not so easy to hide. That is my favorite part of travel, meeting people from every background from every place and spending time together, comparing notes. When we peel back to cover, we are not so different from each other and it is my suspicion that we share many of the same goals and aspirations. We live in the most amazing country in the world, a place that gives opportunity to the individual with a dream to fulfill their full potential or to see that their children have these opportunities.

  12. Iowan says:

    “The difference, Trump is in sales for his whole life. he is an, oh so typical, salesman.”

    One man’s “salesman” is another man’s “carnival snake charmer” as Turley long ago dissed him.

    1. ‘Carnival Snake Charmer’

      David Copperfield, Penn and Teller, Harry Houdini, David Blain, Harry Blackstone. Bill Clinton

      Honorable men?

      But you only have ad hominem attacks, (the same boring ad hominem) lacking the intellect to debate with facts.

      1. Turley- not I- disparaged Trump’s character by describing him so. It dismays you that someone you revere is held in such contempt by Turley whose opinion you respect. It delights me every time I remind of the inescapable fact that Turley has been and always will remain a NeverTrumper just like me…

    2. In an article about Wild selling garbage, Silberman piles on the merchant class – there really is no self-awareness on the left. I guess that is a defense mechanism to keep themselves off the roof, or from outright laughing in your face.

  13. I think it is fair to say that most, if not all, those that take political office will sell some part of their soul in order to further the narrative of their chosen tribe. This applies to both sides of the divide. There are exceptions, of course, especially on particularly controversial issues. Joe Manchin and MTG come to mind, although there are others. Unfortunately, rather than celebrating the courageous act of pushing back, they are often villified.

  14. Stop with the idiocy of insisting Impeachment being some objective fact finding, tightly controlled process. BECAUSE it is NOT. It is literally a political rally. Evidence consists of plausible narratives, shaped to build a critical mass of agreement in the public to get the President to resign. Until approvals fall into the 30’s rendering the President a political corpse, unable to move any agenda item.
    There is a reason you need 2/3 of the Senate to convict. It is a politcal action and that requires overwhelming reasons that 67 Senators can take back to their voters. Sitting Senators are going to be more convinced by polling in their own state, than what ever the House brings to the impeachment hearing.

          1. I have faith in the system.
            You don’t understand the system. I just explained it to you. The system is 100% political, that means the Politicians are taking their voters position on impeachment into account, more than what every the House presents. The House must present a very compelling POLITICAL case to have a successful Presidential Impeachment

            That you have been sucked into the House’s snake charming scam, is understandable.

            1. In an Impeachment trial, Senators are supposed to act as fact-finders and render an impartial judgment based upon the law and facts. They are not supposed to act as politicians which is why they are required to take this ADDITIONAL oath:

              “I solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God.”

              Try to understand, ok?

              1. Again….what is the enforcement? This is POLITICAL. that means the accountability is political.

                Dem Senatrors refused to convict Clinton in his impeachment. Found by the courts to have lied under oath. By your account, Those Senators broke their Oath

                I’ve explained it to you three times, But I can’t understand it for you.

                Impeachment works exactly as designed.

              2. Jeff, impeachment is part of the checks and balances system created by the Constitution. Unfortunately, Democrats used impeachment as a political tool similar to what they have done with Jan6. 2000 Mules prove Democrats will act criminally, so Jan6 politics should be no surprise.

                Of course, you know that because you follow the Democrat line and spin everything.

                Do we hear Democrats discuss policy? Of course not. Most in Congress don’t know much more than you, something one shouldn’t be proud of. Just listen to yourself. What policy have you discussed? What knowledge have you imparted to the blog? Almost nothing. You prefer to throw mud and call everyone else liars even though it has been revealed by 2000 Mules that Biden lost the election.

          1. You agree with what he has not said?
            Your stupid is an full display.

            If you have an opinion, out with it. But Stop speaking for others. Its disrespectful….if you care about manors.

            1. Iowan2 says:

              “Your stupid is an full display.”

              Hilarious coming from a guy who spells “manners” as “manors.”

  15. To follow-up on my earlier comment, my research indicates that the congresswoman’s criticism of Turley regarding his inconsistent views on impeachment are similar and consistent with the criticism that several commentators said and wrote right after Turley testified at the first Trump impeachment hearing.

    1. are similar and consistent with the criticism that several commentators said and wrote right after Turley testified at the first Trump impeachment hearing.

      Similar in that both are wrong on the facts. Because there is no inconsistency.

      1. Just because you say there is no inconsistency does not make it so. In addition and more importantly, JT should not have been surprised by the substance of the Rep. Wild’s criticism because of the similar previous criticism.

        1. Turley laid out his testimony in both impeachments. They are consistent. If not ,point it out. All you have to do is scroll up and find those inconsistencies. The scroll back down, post them and prove me wrong.

          Yes multiple people accuse Turley of being inconsistent. But not cite the evidence.

  16. Democrats, especially the elected breed, will lie to you, just for the sake of lying. They will smear you, just for the sport of it. So, Mr. Turley can explain until he’s blue in the face, Democrats don’t care.

    1. In doing my due diligence before commenting on Turley’s article, I re-visited his testimony in the first Trump impeachment:

      https://youtu.be/zmu5FDJYSTk

      I suggest you listen to it. I agree with his testimony 95%. He declared that he “was not a supporter of President Trump; I voted against him.” Turley also stated that Trump’s call to Zelensky was “anything but perfect.” As I have noted repeatedly, Turley has been a NeverTrumper ever since he labeled him a “carnival snake charmer.”

      My only difference of opinion is Turley’s claim that there was an insufficient evidentiary record to convict in the Senate because not ever material witness had been compelled to testify. That’s a matter of opinion, but in principle Turley did NOT object to the Impeachment of Trump- just the paucity of the evidence, but I have yet to hear him explain specifically what about the evidence he found unpersuasive or wanting.

    2. She’s a politician. Truth & integrity take a back seat to pushing her partisan agenda.

  17. Clearly you used technicalities of the law as a foundation to defend your authoritarian pal Mr. Trump. Your defensiveness in this post also illustrates that you realize you’re a complete heel with no moral standing, your ground is a quagmire of self-interested justification.

    1. Trump is to authoritarianism as Biden is to competent government. You’re projecting.

    2. “Clearly you used technicalities of the law as a foundation to defend your authoritarian pal Mr. Trump.” LOL how does Trump compare to the dictator of Biden or Obama. Trump never did ingnore court order, Biden and Obama does and did it all the time.

    3. That’s comical, as your comment very readily reveals your own intense bias. But you were drooling when you wrote it, so you probably weren’t aware.

    4. Your comment is laughable as you betray intense partisan bias yourself. Do you think that enhances your credibility?

    5. Clearly you used technicalities, ofthe law as a foundation to defend your authoritarian pal MrPresident Trump.

      There is hardly anything as despicable as a lawyer using the law to defend a person wrongly accused.

      1. “There is hardly anything as despicable as a lawyer using the law to defend a person wrongly accused.”

        Shouldn’t a lawyer use the law to defend a wrongly accused person??? A person wrongfully accused especially ought to be defended.

  18. If the left is attacking you, spreading lies about you, vilifying you…, you must be doing something right!

  19. The congress woman knows she is lying. But like the leftists MO, lying is the method to spread and amplify the phony narrative. Sticking with the facts sways no votes, and does nothing the feed the know nothing base of the Democrat party. That is the base she was talking to.

  20. OT: “Relatives of Buffalo’s supermarket-slaughter suspect are copping the COVID defense, telling The Post on Monday that the teen likely snapped because of his paranoia and isolation from the pandemic.” NYP

    They are doing a Biden. Blaming his actions on Covid.

    1. Biden couldn’t be bothered to go to Waukasha, to comfort White families, he must know they didn’t vote for him. But he not wasting time jetting off to Buffalo. King pander man.

Leave a Reply to jeffsilberman Cancel reply