December 4, 2019

I thought the law professors would give a very somber, neutral-seeming presentation of what they would characterize as law.

I am surprised that they spoke so severely and stridently and launched right into stating conclusions, applying the law to the facts, and expressing these conclusions in a tone I'm used to seeing in the movies, where hammy actors argue to a jury.

I thought — as I said 2 posts down — the idea would be for the 3 law professors called by the Democrats to provide cover for the Democrats by performing the theater of making everything sound like law and not politics and by speaking in a tone that would feel academic and sadly, grimly inevitable.

But they came on so strong, righteously angry and in an exaggerated tone, making assertions that the things Trump did are impeachable. They did not work to establish our confidence that they were operating in a scholarly zone that was truly their expertise. They did not give us reason to believe we should listen to them as expert witnesses.

What an awful display! And I'm not even counting the motions for who knows what and the roll call votes (which seemed to be the GOP strategy for making the show as annoying as possible). The first 2 witnesses — Noah Feldman and Pam Karlan — scolded and yelled. Michael Gerhardt was a bit milder, but he mumbled and stumbled, and I couldn't believe he brought up the musical "Hamilton."

It was not at all the "constitutional law seminar" that White House Counsel Pat Cipollone decried. It was an unwatchable harangue.

The GOP witness Jonathan Turley stepped back and made an important argument: You need to be careful that whatever you do is going to set a precedent that will be used against future Presidents. Also (and this was quite apt after listening to Feldman and, particularly, Karlan): Everyone is too angry and this isn't the sort of thing we should be doing in a state of high hysteria. Turley bolstered his testimony by assuring us that he didn't like Trump and didn't vote for him. That, ironically, made him the least political of the set of 4 professors, but it isn't quite fair that there's no one on the panel to balance Feldman and Karlan and simply make a scenery-chewing pro-Trump argument.

350 comments:

1 – 200 of 350   Newer›   Newest»
Bay Area Guy said...

The 3 liberal law professors are partisan hacks who have no respect for democracy (63 Million Trump voters) and little understanding of the Constitution.

PB said...

What do we call one sided legal proceedings where the defense is not allowed to present a case? What do we think of law professors who base their conclusions on this skewed process?

h said...


Here's how I see the relevance of the Hunter Biden allegation. I haven't seen this talked about much, and would be happy to have my opinion corrected, or to see a reference to where it has been discussed in the media.

It cannot possibly be impeachable for a President to enter into a quid-pro-quo agreement with a foreign leader in order to pursue a legitimate policy objective, even if that agreement has the effect of helping the President get re-elected. As an extreme example, Truman entered into an agreement with Japan to end WWII in the pacific by promising to stop bombing (the quid) in return for Japan's surrender (the quo). There is little doubt that ending the war helped Truman get elected in 1948. Nobody believes this was an impeachable action on the part of Truman.

So what was the legitimate policy objective being pursued by Trump in seeking an investigation of Hunter Biden? We know (a) the US gave money (and intended to give more) to the Ukrainian government; (b) the Ukrainian government gave money to the company Burisma; (c) Burisma gave money to Hunter Biden in return for a position of questionable value to the company. This is a prima facie case that Ukrainian aid was used to kick-back money to an influential US policymaker (Joe Biden).

If you want to object to this line of reasoning, you can't just say, "there's no proof". You have to say "This doesn't even warrant investigation." Or I guess you could say, "Kickbacks from foreign aid do not create a serious enough problem for ending it to qualify as a legitimate policy objective.

This helps explain why the Democrats do not want the impeachment hearings to address the Hunter Biden issue. It's not because it makes Joe Biden look bad. It's because it pokes a huge hole in the argument for impeachment.

ga6 said...

Drag a hundred dollar bill through a law school and.....

mccullough said...

This is a Progressive Pep Rally.

Pam Karlan has been a nut for a long time. She lives in a Bubble thick Er than a reptile egg.

I was in law school when Bush v Gore came out.

The nuts outed themselves then.

This is what happens when The Speaker of the House is from San Francisco.

Swede said...

Well. That was just ugly.

I confess that I only watched bits here and there, but I don't think this will turn out the way Democrats hope.

Screechy and weirdly animated. That woman appears to have a stick up her butt.

Not to worry, though. None of this will matter in the end.

And by the end, I mean the Senate.

Francisco D said...

Turley's main point was that future Presidents would serve only at the pleasure of Congress, should the Democrat impeachment model prevail.

Of course, when there is a Democrat POTUS, that model will be swept into the dustbin of history.

This charade is being conducted for many reasons. One reason seems to be that we cannot allow the deplorables to elect a POTUS.

tim in vermont said...

They did not work to establish our confidence that they were operating in a scholarly zone that was truly their expertise.

I am not sure these people could have passed my elementary school lesson on how to write a paragraph. You know, Topic sentence... Evidence and argument.... Conclusion.

This is like

Steal underwear
?????
Profit!

Bob said...

In the 1990's, the Republicans acquired (and earned) the reputation for just being out to get Clinton. I would have been happy to see him go, but I was not blind to the malice with which he was pursued.

Even Barry Goldwater said the Republicans needed to leave Clinton alone.

The Republicans impeached, failed to convict, and earned the name, "The Party of Stupid". At least they could point to a crime with their impeachment.

Now the Democrats are doing it. Unbelievable how little people learn from the experience of others.

Just Sore Loser Syndrome, that's all.

tim in vermont said...

"Turley's main point was that future Presidents would serve only at the pleasure of Congress, should the Democrat impeachment model prevail.”

You are already seeing that argument around, and if you question it, you are .... wait for it... a Putin stooge!

Automatic_Wing said...

Jonathan Turley stepped back and made an important argument: You need to be careful that whatever you do is going to set a precedent that will be used against future Presidents.

It's a nice thought but we all know it will be different for Dem presidents Because Reasons.

narciso said...

the dems held out against removal, because reasons, the same way they are pushing for impeachment, tory blue bad, donkey red good (that's pre 2000)

wild chicken said...

I've come to the conclusion that a lot of really smart people aren't really smart.

tim in vermont said...

"he Republicans acquired (and earned) the reputation for just being out to get Clinton.”

You must be a real expert on the ins and outs of that impeachment! I bet you can quote for us verbatim the recording of Bill Clinton suborning perjury in a trial and then tell us that he should have been left in peace to sexually harass women who worked on his campaign.

Anonymous said...

Do these people really not understand that the republicans are going to use recordings and still images from these proceedings in next year's elections?

IMAGE: Dem lawprof raving

VOICEOVER: This is what Congressman Donkey Leverpuller voted for. He ran on "no impeachment", but gave us this. He lied to you. Vote for Elephant Pullenlever instead.

narciso said...

the same way the bombing of Vietcong sanctuaries in Cambodia was bad, but bombing kadaffi an ally was good, how supplying the Nicaraguan resistance was bad (because Vietnam) but arming islamist rebels in Libya and Syria was good,

Amadeus 48 said...

If you are attempting a kangaroo court, you have to move the Overton window so far it goes off the screen. Hence, the silly and embarrassing show the House Dems are staging. It isn't going to get better.

The Senate will present a wealth of opportunity to correct--perhaps over-correct--the story, but there is no going back on the issues Turley is raising.

I'd say the odds of Althouse voting for Trump in 2020 are about 90% at the moment, but they'll come down as the months go by and settle in at about 65%. Then the Democrats will nominate somebody.

narciso said...

so mueller used a known sexual predator George nader, who had given money to Hillary in the past, as his trump card to check support for the emirates the kingdom and Israel, in favor of Qatar and turkey,

Limited blogger said...

This exercise has been another lead zeppelin.

BamaBadgOR said...

I went into law because of my interest in constitutional law, an interest fostered by my undergrad professors at the University of Wisconsin - Madison, including Stanley Kutler. Feldman and Kaplan were so over the top they would have caused me to stick with my true interest, golf. I am pleased to read Ann's critical comments re their testimony.

chuck said...

Wow, they sound like a bunch of psychiatrists.

tim in vermont said...

ABC *forgets* to give one guy any kind of title, guess which one.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1202267713869099008

n.n said...

The Republicans impeached, failed to convict, and earned the name, "The Party of Stupid".

They overestimated the rule of law, and Feminist support for women.

Iman said...

"Screechy and weirdly animated. That woman appears to have a stick up her butt."


Thou hypocritical law professor, first cast out the plank out of thine own ass; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the 2x4 out of Howard's ass.

narciso said...

this is like that last season of game of thrones, except some of those were good,

Mike Sylwester said...

h at 11:10 AM
We know (a) the US gave money (and intended to give more) to the Ukrainian government; (b) the Ukrainian government gave money to the company Burisma; (c) Burisma gave money to Hunter Biden in return for a position of questionable value to the company

You missed a point.

(a) Vice President Biden was appointed to be the US Government's "point-man on Ukraine"

(b) the US gave money (and intended to give more) to the Ukrainian government

(c) the Ukrainian government gave money to the company Burisma

(d) Burisma gave money to Hunter Biden in return for a position of questionable value to the company

Bob said...

wild chicken said, "I've come to the conclusion that a lot of really smart people aren't really smart."

Many decades ago I worked for a very conservative Mormon CPA auditor. He told me, "Everyone has a price". Everyone can be corrupted. I don't think he excluded himself.

Bob Boyd said...

Education and intelligence are no obstacle for the TDS virus.

Ken B said...

I don’t think I can recall a time in American history since the civil war when one party has run explicitly against the constitution. Yet I think it is clear that is precisely what the Democrats are doing.

narciso said...

burisma also provides a lot of gravy to ex European grandees like joshka fischer, the green parties foreign minister, with red army faction affiliation, and mary 'Louisiana purchase' Landrieu,

Bay Area Guy said...

I have a lot of respect for Turley. He is the Thomas More amidst these wacko leftist law professors.

Paul said...

All we are seeing is a kangaroo court. Star chamber. Things Russian apparatchiks would do.

And yes... what goes around, comes around.

And still, the Senate requires 2/3s to convict. Lots of luck on that. For most Republican senators know if they vote for conviction they vote themselves out of a job.

tim in vermont said...

Somebody should ask one of them about this:

Kimberley Strassel @KimStrassel
1) Still waiting for my fellow members of the media to express their deep outrage and alarm that Intelligence Chair Schiff snooped thru and published phone records of member of the free press. The silence is deafening.

gspencer said...

"I am surprised that they spoke so severely and stridently and launched right into stating conclusions"

Really? You're really surprised?

The only thing I'm surprised at is that the Capitol Police denied Nadler's request that these law professors be allowed to bring their pitchforks and torches into the hearing.

n.n said...

The evidence supports that the reason for a delay was time taken to process due diligence before transferring lethal weapon systems and funding to a regime established after a violent coup to depose a democratically elected government and in a community where there is a history of corruption. The inference, including rumor, innuendo, and invention, is that there was a quid pro Joe or Bo, is not supported by eyewitness testimony or forensic evidence.

Yancey Ward said...

That went exactly as I thought it would go. All of the three Democratic witnesses had already shown themselves to be rabid anti-Trumpers, and I saw no reason at all to think they would be able to control themselves. Anger isn't an emotion that lends itself to cool, analytical, purposeful intent. I learned this lesson around age 18-19, and only completely incorporated this knowledge into my actions in my late 20s. I think the Republican minority did exactly the right thing in having Turley be their lone witness in this section- by being a long-time Democrat, Turley wasn't likely to be an angry partisan attacking the impeachment circus, and it showed- Turley was the only one of four that didn't seem demented.

narciso said...

Solomon speaks crimethink, so no safe harbour for him,


https://www.steynonline.com/9887/unlearning-together

tim in vermont said...

Jolly Phil@philllosoraptor
Oh goodie! Now the Dem witnesses are making the Twitter commenter talking point of "getting caught during a bank robbery doesn't excuse the person of consequences". Cool, why did we need professors when we could've gotten "RESISTMAMA4545" to testify?


LOL

Limited blogger said...

This Turley testimony is enthralling.

This needs to be shared and shown as far and wide as possible.

Yancey Ward said...

The Democrats should have hired witnesses who aren't anti-Trump to be Devil's Advocates- money can buy you whatever you need most of the time, and testimony from a law professors shouldn't be all that expensive. Instead, the Democrats, angry themselves, went out and found angry partisans as their witnesses, and it was an obvious mistake.

tim in vermont said...

"I learned this lesson around age 18-19, and only completely incorporated this knowledge into my actions in my late 20s.”

It’s no coincidence that one’s late 20s are when the prefrontal cortex is finally fully developed.

Lurker21 said...

Bob said...
In the 1990's, the Republicans acquired (and earned) the reputation for just being out to get Clinton. I would have been happy to see him go, but I was not blind to the malice with which he was pursued.


My memories of that time are hazy, but I think it was more a question of Ken Starr exceeding his mandate. If a crime was uncovered, there was going to be an impeachment or a censure, but independent counsels shouldn't be given unlimited time and resources to dig for possible crimes in areas unrelated to their original instructions.

Narayanan said...

It's being alleged that Professora has Politics Lexicon says:

R : Repulsive

D : Desirable

Forevermorrrr

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Turley's opening statement:

"This is a case w/o a clear criminal act and would be the FIRST such case in history if the House proceeds w/o further evidence. In all 3 impeachment inquiries, the commission of criminal acts by Johnson, Nixon and Clinton were clear and established"

Limited blogger said...

Congressman Doug Collins is the person Trump wanted appointed to serve out the remainder of resigned Georgia senator Isakson's term. And be in position to run as incumbent next year.

I hope he runs in the primary against the appointee.

The Crack Emcee said...

"I thought the law professors would give a very somber, neutral-seeming presentation of what they would characterize as law."

What would lead you to assume that?

The way people behave otherwise?

I hear it's called "civilized" or something.

Ray - SoCal said...

Agree with Kimberly Strassel on the phone records debacle.

I wonder if it will be like the fishing expedition on Bork renting x rated videos, a law was passed due to that invasion of privacy.

I can’t convey my level of disgust at what Schiff did on the phone records, it’s so beyond the pale. And publicizing it? Trumps wire tapping is not as big a scandal, since it’s been buried by the msm successfully so far.

Drago said...

Turley is wiping the floor with LLR Chuck's dem team's nonsense.

Naturally.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Isn't this all a desperate campaign ad for the democrat party?

Yancey Ward said...

"Revenge is a dish best served cold" is the applicable adage for what we are watching today.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

If you yell and scream loud enough, you can cover-over Biden and Clinton international graft.

narciso said...

they only have the meta data, not the actual content, so did the puzzle palace pull the records, if so on what basis, cnn apparently forgot to check nunes schedule for filing he was in the med in Libya (meeting with haftar) and in malta, at the time they said he was in Vienna,

pacwest said...

I took a quick peek at the show. It took a second to realize I wasn't watching a CNN panel discussion.

Yancey Ward said...

The phone data was almost surely sent to Schiff by the SDNY office who is investigating Parnas.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

The GOP witness Jonathan Turley stepped back and made an important argument: You need to be careful that whatever you do is going to set a precedent that will be used against future Presidents. Also (and this was quite apt after listening to Feldman and, particularly, Karlan): Everyone is too angry and this isn't the sort of thing we should be doing in a state of high hysteria.

I'm no law professor (or attorney for that matter) but that's what stuck out to me. They almost seemed to be arguing that no sitting President can investigate anyone because that person (or some of his relatives) might decide to run against the sitting President at some point in the future without being liable to impeachment.

henry said...

These must be the top 4 law professors ever (per Schiff & Nadler plus Media cheerleaders), and they are blithering idiots. Our gracious hostess should claim to be a retired fast food fry cook for better social status.

Bay Area Guy said...

The Democrat Party is not a serious party. They are a party of statists and overly educated lefting idealogues, who can get cushy jobs in gov't and academia, but nowhere else.

Turley is what a real law professor looks like. The other 3 are worthless hacks.

rehajm said...

Partisan lawyers and professors need to be careful that whatever they do is shaping the perception of their entire professions.

narciso said...

some footage here,


https://twitter.com/RepAndyBiggsAZ/status/1202262306626908163?s=20

narciso said...

about the other guy:

https://twitter.com/ArthurSchwartz/status/1202253298721529856?s=20

Gregg said...

I love how Alan Dershowitz is pummeling his colleagues on Twitter, in real time, during the hearings. Although, I'm sure the Dems are going to to accuse his tweets of obstructing justice.

Quayle said...

Do the Representatives actually, you know, represent the people in their district? Or do the Representatives have to do what the Law Professors tell them to do, because the Law Professors are experts?

I'm just wondering if I need to update my understanding of how this democratic republic works. As of right now, it looks like a bunch of coward Representatives that are looking for someone to tell them what they should do.

"I had to vote for impeachment. Professor Ruckenmesser told me it was required.

Yancey Ward said...

Seriously, you can literally hire lawyers, good lawyers, to make any argument you need to have made on your behalf, either in a court of law or in the court of public opinion- arguments that can be made cooly and analytically.

Pacwest above is correct- the three Democrats looked like any CNN/MSNBC panel you might find on any given night, but only angrier and less coherent.

Nonapod said...

The first 2 witnesses — Noah Feldman and Pam Karlan — scolded and yelled. Michael Gerhardt was a bit milder, but he mumbled and stumbled, and I couldn't believe he brought up the musical "Hamilton."

These are the people who are supposed to be the sober experts. They're supposed to be brilliant, clear headed, fair minded, objective, and reasonable... perhaps to the point of even being stuffy.

Instead we get steroetypical limousine liberal nonsense (Hamilton?). And we get hot blooded haranguing and scolding. We get opinion instead of evidence. It's almost as if our supposed betters aren't really that better. It's sort of sad, or it would be if it weren't stirring up so many people on the left to to heights of derangement.

Francisco D said...

I am enjoying Jonathon Turley's presentation before Rep. Collins. It should be an educational experience for the entire committee, but some people just don't want to learn.

He is not just well learned, but comes across as a clear and independent thinker who is aware of his own biases and limitations.

Original Mike said...

"I am surprised that they spoke so severely and stridently and launched right into stating conclusions"

Not sure why you're surprised. Your community of commenters isn't.

rehajm said...

(Hamilton?)

He must need tickets...

Beasts of England said...

Are we at the point in these solemn hearings when they announce who’s the baby daddy?

Howard said...

I can't wait to see Rachel Maddow spin this for the troops.

gilbar said...

They did not work to establish our confidence that they were operating in a scholarly zone that was truly their expertise. They did not give us reason to believe we should listen to them as expert witnesses.

BUT! they didn't NEED TO!
They aren't just liberals, they're liberal PROFESSORS!
That means, That THEY are the High Priests, and are speaking ex cathedra

Drago said...

"Wafer thin"!!!

LOL

Turley is a treasure.

"Wafer thin".......like LLR Chuck's non-existent "conservatism"....

Michael K said...

In the 1990's, the Republicans acquired (and earned) the reputation for just being out to get Clinton. I would have been happy to see him go, but I was not blind to the malice with which he was pursued.

I distinctly remember Sam Donaldson saying the week after the blue dress was found that Clinton should resign and he expected him to do so in a week or two.

I never knew Sam Donaldson was a Republican "out to get Clinton."

rehajm said...

I am not surprised Ann is surprised.

Michael K said...

In all 3 impeachment inquiries, the commission of criminal acts by Johnson, Nixon and Clinton were clear and established"

Disagree. This is as bad as the Johnson impeachment as the Tenure in Office Act was clearly unConstitutional. Johnson was a War Democrat and was chosen by Lincoln (actually the convention) to avoid the partisan wrangling when the war ended.

Stanton ensured that the South hated the North for another 100 years.

Sebastian said...

"But they came on so strong, righteously angry and in an exaggerated tone, making assertions"

I can't believe you seemed to expect otherwise! It's sad!

"They did not work to establish our confidence that they were operating in a scholarly zone that was truly their expertise."

Who the hell needs "confidence"? This is a political operation, intended to achieve a political purpose. Prog "scholars" are happy to whore themselves out.

"What an awful display!"

There you go again with your petty-bourgeois sensibilities. This is a maneuver in a war.

"It was an unwatchable harangue."

Well, that's what I expected, and I suspect every non-prog commenter here.

Why the tone of disappointment about your former colleagues -- is it that the veil on their essential corruption is being lifted, just as the deep-staters are being exposed by means of their own shenanigans?

Quayle said...

As my daughter said: "So, we're always told that original-ism is bad in the court. But the same people are now saying that if George Washington were here, he would say that Trump should be impeached."

Cassandra said...

Thank you for this post, Ann.

I just watched Turley's closing statement. I had read his testimony already, which he posted at his blog this morning. I usually prefer reading transcripts to watching live videos - it helps me evaluate the arguments separately from their presentation or the speaker's mannerisms.

But this was an exception. Turley shortened up his closing remarks - at least from the advance version - but he spoke with gravity and measured conviction. I was so proud of my country today, and I just love that it was a Democrat who made me feel that way. I'm a registered Independent, but nearly always vote R. But there are good people in both parties who deserve our respect and recognition. The country won't make it if each side believes they alone occupy the moral high ground.

There has been so much over the top emotion since the election. I feel it, too. But we need to get back to the right side of Turley's evocative "line between rage and reason". Jettisoning every rule put in place over 2+ centuries to help us restrain our passions is no way to defend 'norms' and 'the rule of law'.

Drago said...

Turley vs the 3 lunatic dem partisan jackass "witnesses" & the entirety of the dem party and their LLR lap poodles & 98% of the media......

......and Turley wins hands down.

Easily.

Effortlessly.

Quayle said...

Maybe Trump believes in a living, breathing constitution that has adapted and evolved, and now allows him to do whatever such and such the Dems say was bad.

Drago said...

Quayle: "As my daughter said: "So, we're always told that original-ism is bad in the court. But the same people are now saying that if George Washington were here, he would say that Trump should be impeached."

Is your daughter familiar with Fen's Law?

The left (and LLR fakecons) don't actually believe a single thing they lecture the rest of us about.

AllenS said...

Wait a minute, this isn't what Chuck promised.

tim in vermont said...

I like how these Democrats interpret the Constitution as if the Bill of Rights had not been written to modify it as a whole.

Drago said...

AllenS: "Wait a minute, this isn't what Chuck promised."

LLR Chuck only goes by what he reads at Media Matters, the DNC website and whoever happens to be on the Maddow show.

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gilbar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sebastian said...

"You need to be careful that whatever you do is going to set a precedent that will be used against future Presidents."

No, you don't. Precedent means nothing. Dems will fabricate whatever they need whenever they need it. They can be as careless a they damn well please.

"Everyone is too angry and this isn't the sort of thing we should be doing in a state of high hysteria."

Their anger is just a tool. The hysteria serves a purpose. Dems will do any sort of thing they want to do when they want to do it.

In the face of the manifest bad faith on the part of the Dems, confronted with their "angry" desire to remove the president and tear down the system, at some point Althousian reasonableness becomes itself unreasonable.

Drago said...

Turley's warning to LLR Chuck's beloved dems that impeaching a President over a President going to the courts to resolve Congressional power (Art 1) vs Executive Power (Art 2) disagreements WOULD be an abuse of power.....on the part of LLR Chuck's beloved dems in congress.

gilbar said...

one party has run explicitly against the constitution. Yet I think it is clear that is precisely what the Democrats are doing.

no! No! NO! NO!
The Demo' aren't against the constitution! They're just against:
The Electoral College
The Bill of Rights
The US Senate
Providing for the common defense
well, nearly Everything except The Commerce Clause, and promoting the general Welfare

MountainMan said...

I am not watching but my wife has Fox News on in another room and I can’t help but hear it. I thought Turley was impressive, just as I expected, and was correct, as Ann pointed out, on how this could play out in the future to the harm of our republic. I was also glad to hear him quote Lyman Trumbull, Senator of IL, who was on top of this 150 years ago.

The other three were nothing but partisan hacks.

Michael K said...

This will backfire big time with anyone who is not convinced "Orange Man Bad."

MBunge said...

There are principled reasons to dislike Trump. There are policy reasons to dislike Trump. There are political reasons to dislike Trump.

NONE of that has a thing to do with impeachment. This is about the people who think they run America, who think they're on "the right side of History" finding out they're not as smart as they think they are and they can't handle it. They are children who are frustrated and angry that they can't get their way and they're throwing a tantrum over it.

Mike

wendybar said...

What's a scholar of the law of democracy and how do you degree in that?

Greg the class traitor said...

Lurker21 said...
Bob said...
In the 1990's, the Republicans acquired (and earned) the reputation for just being out to get Clinton. I would have been happy to see him go, but I was not blind to the malice with which he was pursued.

My memories of that time are hazy, but I think it was more a question of Ken Starr exceeding his mandate. If a crime was uncovered, there was going to be an impeachment or a censure, but independent counsels shouldn't be given unlimited time and resources to dig for possible crimes in areas unrelated to their original instructions.



That's what EVERY "special prosecutor" does. Teh Democrats were only pissed because this time it was hitting them.

Drago said...

After today's performance thus far, I don't think Turley is going to be welcome at any more democrat or LLR (but I repeat myself) gatherings.

Jonathan Turley, welcome to Modern America Political Purgatory.

Your pal Alan Dershowitz is already there so at least you'll have someone with whom you can chat.

Drago said...

Collins was smart enough to just shut up and let Turley keep on talking.

Some of the most effective congressional testimony I've seen to date.

LLR Chuck is no doubt curled up in a corner with his bottle of gin while sucking his thumb as he gazes longingly into his favorite Maddow photo.

Tomcc said...

On TV, as in everyday life, calm, reasonable arguments appeal to the less-excitable among the population. That is not the cohort to whom the Democrats wish to appeal.

Michael K said...

What this confirmed again is that Nadler is a clown. Cory Lewandowski took him to the cleaners in that hearing , which is why Nancy took the case away and gave it to Schiff.

The Lewandowski hearing was hilarious. Nadler would ask him a question and Lewandowski would ask for the page where the item being asked was. Nadler didn't know ! He would have to search for it. The next question would be the same. Nadler looked a fool.

bleh said...

Pam Karlan was the one who failed the CA bar exam when she moved to Stanford, right?

gilbar said...

here's an oddball thought (that assumes that demo's are at least A Little bit Sane*)

It Could Be, that the effect of the demo's actions will be to remove the 'stigma' of impeachment
After Clinton and now Trump; when the next President is impeached, it will results in YAWNS

It could be, that the demo's are Counting on the premise, that Republicans won't EVER have a viable 2/3rds majority. The demo's too, probably

So, thanx to Schifty Schift; impeachment is no longer a threat, NO President is going to be removed; and if a democrat Pres gets impeached get impeached.... WHO CARES?


A little bit Sane* I'm NOT saying this is the case; i'm just putting out there
ALL THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TO DO IS NOT BE CRAZY — AND THEY CAN'T EVEN DO THAT.

Sydney said...

Unfortunately, I know quite a few people who will have their righteous anger dialed up to "11" because of the emotional testimony of expert law professors. Sigh.

Michael K said...

I think it was more a question of Ken Starr exceeding his mandate.

No, items kept turning up and he was asked to follow up. The alternative was another special prosecutor.

It began with White Water and then Paula Jones, then Monica.

gilbar said...

Chuck? Igna? Howard? Anybody?
How's this HELPING the democrats?

J. Farmer said...

"And I think in the Intelligence Committee you heard testimony that it isn't just our national interest in protecting our national elections, it isn't just our national interest to make sure that the Ukraine remains strong and on the front lines so we can fight the Russians there and we don't have to fight them here" -Pamela Karlan

We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here? What the fuck?

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

Doing a good job as president in the first term is corrupt, because it's only done to win re-election. IMPEACH!

tcrosse said...

We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here? What the fuck?

That was one of the justifications given for our involvement in Viet Nam. Remember the Domino Theory?

Bay Area Guy said...

@J. Farmer,

"And I think in the Intelligence Committee you heard testimony that it isn't just our national interest in protecting our national elections, it isn't just our national interest to make sure that the Ukraine remains strong and on the front lines so we can fight the Russians there and we don't have to fight them here" -Pamela Karlan"

We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here? What the fuck?

More so, why the fuck is a LAW PROFESSOR even opining on foreign policy decisions?

Iman said...

Just when one thinks the Democrats couldn't get more ridiculous, one learns one has underestimated the ninnies.

Lead on, Chairman Waddler...

Bruce Hayden said...

“The phone data was almost surely sent to Schiff by the SDNY office who is investigating Parnas”

But how did they do it legally? The SDNY portion of the DoJ can’t just ship the data that they acquired from a different investigation over to Schifty in the House, just because he asked for it. I think that would be a significant 4th (and maybe 5th) Amdt violation. Schifty wouldn’t care. But the SDNY USA (or supervising AUSA) who authorized the transfer very definitely should have. That leaves having done so pursuant to a Congressional subpoena. An (A1S1) oversight subpoena would not be legally sufficient, since this had nothing to do with Congress’ legislative power. Which potentially leaves an (A1S2) impeachment subpoena. But wouldn’t that require at least a vote of Schifty’s HSCI? Unlikely, since the phone records of HSCI Ranking Member Nunes got swept up, without his knowledge, until apparently yesterday. Which seems to require that whatever was done was done by Schifty, and his staff, alone.

Bay Area Guy said...

"Lead on, Chairman Waddler..."

Nadler should be breaking for lunch soon. It's safe to repeat this several times a day.....

tim in vermont said...

"No, items kept turning up”

Like when Giuliani was looking into meddling out of Ukraine and rumors of the server that did the hacking being there, and the stink of Biden corruption was everywhere.

ThunderChick said...

n.n said...
The evidence supports that the reason for a delay was time taken to process due diligence before transferring lethal weapon systems and funding to a regime established after a violent coup to depose a democratically elected government and in a community where there is a history of corruption. The inference, including rumor, innuendo, and invention, is that there was a quid pro Joe or Bo, is not supported by eyewitness testimony or forensic evidence.


Maybe I am misinterpreting what you meant by the above, but are you suggesting that there was no quid pro quo between Biden and the Ukraine? There is evidence of a quid pro quo, not an inference - it is called an admission - made by Biden at the Counsel on Foreign Relations where he bragged about withholding military aid to the Ukraine as a tactic to get them to fire a prosecutor investigating Burisma.

I can't see how Biden's actions are OK yet Trump's are not. Not sure how Hunter Biden was allowed to sit on the Board of Burisma, when his dad (the VP of the US) was the point man on the Ukraine. Seems like a bit of a conflict of interest, doesn't it? Where's the legal opinion by White House counsel which found this wasn't a conflict of interest? Haven't seen it yet because I'm sure it does not exist.

tim in vermont said...

"An (A1S1) oversight subpoena would not be legally sufficient, since this had nothing to do with Congress’ legislative power. Which potentially leaves an (A1S2) impeachment subpoena. “

Yeah, Schiff pulled a fast one by using both powers for the committee without a formal impeachment vote. It’s abuse of power in big flashing lights.

NYC JournoList said...

All NPR is talking about is Turley’s testimony. They are trying to rebut it, but Turley may have left a mark.

Yancey Ward said...

Bruce, I assume it was just an illegal leak to Schiff directly. Just one more thing to ask Schiff about when he is called as a witness in the Senate trial, assuming the Democrats don't bail out of impeachment.

Given that the call logs added nothing to the impeachment report as evidence, I think it was just an ham-handed attempt at intimidation- Schiff basically saying to the Republican minority that he can get phone records on any Trump supporters. I don't think Schiff thinks things through to more than the next step- deep thinking seems to be beyond him.

Lance said...

It began with White Water and then Paula Jones, then Monica.

There was troopergate and cattle futures as well, and maybe some other areas of investigation I've forgotten.

Bay Area Guy said...

I reckon one way to look at this Junior varsity, pseudo legal circus is that the price we pay for one good, honorable, cogent legal authority (Turley) is having to endure the rantings of the other 3 over-educated legal poseurs.

NYC JournoList said...

Gilber @12:50 is onto something ... so is Hayden @1:02. We need a special counsel to look into the grabbing of a reporter’s phone records with sources. Talk about violating first amendment norms.

gilbar said...

make sure that the Ukraine remains strong and on the front lines so we can fight the Russians there and we don't have to fight them here" -Pamela Karlan

The Eighties called; they want their foreign policy back
Isn't Eurasia, a co belligerent in our struggle against Eastasia?

Yancey Ward said...

I skipped the earlier thread because it was already 100+ comments when I log on this morning, but I did go back and read what Chuck predicted. To his credit, he made a valid critique of the Democrats' strategy of today, though he didn't take it any deeper than pure political ideology of the witnesses. I also don't think the Democrats could have found a LLR law professor who wouldn't have been just as deranged as the Democrats they did choose. The Democrats would have had to buy witnesses with the right political stripes and temperment, and they weren't smart enough to do that- in other words, there are no Jonathan Turleys on the right that I have seen- the NeverTrump law professors are just as foaming at the mouth crazy. I wouldn't even have gone with a law professor of any type- I would have chosen a practicing courtroom lawyer of high stature who is accustomed to playing Devil's Advocate.

Dave Begley said...

Thank you Ann Althouse. You are a real constitutional law professor (now retired) and not a hack partisan.

I certainly wish Fox News would put you on TV and repeat the substance of this post.

Those three hacks have brought shame upon their profession.

wholelottasplainin' said...

Truman entered into an agreement with Japan to end WWII in the pacific by promising to stop bombing (the quid) in return for Japan's surrender (the quo). There is little doubt that ending the war helped Truman get elected in 1948. Nobody believes this was an impeachable action on the part of Truman.
*****************

Except that it didn't happen.

Japan accepted the Potsdam Conference's demands for an unconditional surrender.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/japan-accepts-potsdam-terms-agrees-to-unconditional-surrender

YoungHegelian said...

I suspect that the choice of law scholar was self-selecting. Turley wanted to show up to make his point, which he has made repeatedly in the press before now, that this impeachment is a BAD IDEA. The three scholars chosen by the Democrats wanted to show up & whoop & howl about ORANGE MAN BAD.

Every responsible scholar was lying low, not wanting to be seen publicly doubting the wisdom of toppling the Evil Orange Cheeto (such heresy is a potential career ender!), but also realizing that the case against Trump is pretty weak tea by historical impeachment standards.

I think most constitutional scholars are well aware that it is the Congress that history sees as the villains in the impeachment of Pres. Andrew Johnson, and that we seem to be in for a repeat performance.

tim in vermont said...

They settled on “bribery” because regular Americans understand “bribery,” then Americans saw the case and said “I know bribery, and this isn’t bribery."

Bilwick said...

Skylark wrote: "They settled on 'bribery,' because regular Americans understand 'bribery,' then Americans saw the case and said “I know bribery, and this isn’t bribery."

"Liberal" Democrats were angry because it wasn't the kind of bribery they approve of: "Vote for me, and if elected, I'll plunder your neighbor and split the swag with you."

wholelottasplainin' said...

Anyone remember when the saying was, "Politics stops at the water's edge"?

What a quaint idea----that the Constitution conveys plenary power over foreign policy to the POTUS!!!!

Clyde said...

Althouse said...
...it isn't quite fair that there's no one on the panel to balance Feldman and Karlan and simply make a scenery-chewing pro-Trump argument.


Perhaps the fact that Jonathan Turley is not a Trump partisan would make his arguments more persuasive to anyone who still has not made up their minds about impeachment than a scenery-chewing pro-Trump partisan would have. When you're trying to make the argument that this entire process is partisan, then having clearly partisan scholars supporting the other side's argument helps you.

Dave Begley said...

It should be shouted from the mountaintops that 3 of the 4 professors are hard core liberals and they are just offering their biased OPINIONS about this case.

If Karlan failed the CA bar she should be crossed on that point.

J. Farmer said...

@gilbar:

The Eighties called; they want their foreign policy back
Isn't Eurasia, a co belligerent in our struggle against Eastasia?


Well I wouldn't say "co-belligerent," but we certainly have more convergent interests than divergent interests with Russia, and it is certainly foolish for us to try to pull Ukraine into a pro-West/pro-EU orbit or to pick a fight over as minuscule an issue as Ukraine. We should accept that Russia has security concerns on their Russian borders and allow them to handle those interests as they see fir, while cooperating on bigger issues. There is absolutely no reason that US and Russia should have an adversarial relationship, especially considering the rise of China.

MayBee said...

It would be ridiculous to try him for Beibery when it was Hunter Biden who got millions because his father was in office

Browndog said...

No, items kept turning up and he was asked to follow up. The alternative was another special prosecutor.

It began with White Water and then Paula Jones, then Monica.


Correct. Starr was given evidence of a potential crime--he wasn't looking for it. Starr didn't exceed his mandate, nor did he ask to expand it. He was essentially ordered to.

Further, the notion that White Water" was a nothingburger....ever single person associated with White Water went to prison...

...except the Clintons.

n.n said...

Maybe I am misinterpreting what you meant by the above, but are you suggesting that there was no quid pro quo between Biden and the Ukraine?

Sorry, there is a missing or ambiguous context. I don't think there is evidence to support that there was a quid pro quo between Trump and Kiev. I do think there is evidence for a quid pro quo, or, as you mention, at minimum a conflict of interest, between Biden and Kiev. My comment refers to Democrats' claim of a Trump quid pro quo, or, affectionately, a quid pro Joe. At most, Trump carried out due diligence before transferring systems and funds, which, apparently, caused a domestic panic, and gave his antagonists yet another excuse to continue their persecution.

MayBee said...

The Starr investigation was a good example of why the special council/prosecutor law was left to expire. Having a constant prosecutor overlooking the executive was untenable. But the Democrats want it back. They tried to do it for Valero Palme- and came close. But the same people got more mileage out of the Great Russia Panic

tim in vermont said...

"MayBee said...
It would be ridiculous to try him for Beibery when it was Hunter Biden who got millions because his father was in office”

No more ridiculous than thinking that of the Conways, it’s George that is worth listening to, and not Kellyanne.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Liberals in any profession, including law, who actually care about the COnstitution and due process are few and far between. Why would you expect different just because they are professors?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

But they came on so strong, righteously angry and in an exaggerated tone...

Probably didn't help that Pam Karlan was wearing her Planned Parenthood scarf...

Browndog said...

Blogger Skylark said...

They settled on “bribery” because regular Americans understand “bribery,” then Americans saw the case and said “I know bribery, and this isn’t bribery."


Stellar observation.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Bay Area Guy said...

Nadler should be breaking for lunch soon. It's safe to repeat this several times a day.....

Wouldn't that be a hoot?! They're in the middle of testimony and a Domino's guy walks in looking for Fat Jerry.

MayBee said...

Today is one more exhibit that the Democrats are moving away fro due process. A bunch of law professors declaring The President guilty in front of Congress.

MayBee said...

“So the president can name his son Baron, but he can’t make him a baron”. Actually just said by the fallen law professor in front of congress.

n.n said...

we certainly have more convergent interests than divergent interests with Russia

The Soviet Union was our enemy. Russia is not our enemy. They are our competitor. We do share common, reconcilable interests and standards.

There is absolutely no reason that US and Russia should have an adversarial relationship, especially considering the rise of China.

China's methods and expansion are a common, historical risk. Their internal policies are evidence of its persistence and external policies of its progress.

Martin said...

... when you have neither the law nor the facts, pound the table.

Angle-Dyne, Servant of Ugliness said...

J.Farmer quoting Karlan: "...so we can fight the Russians there and we don't have to fight them here."

Ah, come on, you're putting me on, right? I'm not watching any of this, surely you're joking, Mr. Farmer...

No kidding? This is for real?

As you say, what the fuck? What the fuckety fucking fuck?

I didn't think Clown World could get any clownier. I was wrong.

narciso said...

well they probably are our adversary in iran in Venezuela, and other places, but professor karlan is not serious, ot what I was pointing out last night,


https://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/2019/11/the-irishman-is-great-filmmaking-but-lousy-history-says-hoffa-expert-dan-moldea.html

hstad said...

AA, thank you for your sobering comments on these propoganda driven idiots! But what surprised me most is that you thought [maybe hoped] that these 3 law professors would actually regale us with their expertise. I don't think much of publicity seeking law professors they are a dime a dozen [ambulance chasers]. "...The Law Professors are experts?..." That's an 'Oxymoron'.

CWJ said...

J. Farmer,

I'm pretty sure gilbar's reference was literary ("1984") rather than literal.

TJM said...

Alan Dershowitz whose scholarship on constitutional matters is widely known and head and shoulders above the 3 Dem Stooge professors, said this impeachment was an abomination. Why isn't that in the record?

MayBee said...

. Blogger Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...
J.Farmer quoting Karlan: "...so we can fight the Russians there and we don't have to fight them here."

Ah, come on, you're putting me on, right? I'm not watching any of this, surely you're joking, Mr. Farmer...

No kidding? This is for real?


Yes. That’s the way Trump put or national security in jeopardy according to this impeachment inquiry

Angle-Dyne, Servant of Ugliness said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

Karlan was wearing her Planned Parenthood scarf...

The audacity of self-deception.

Liberals in any profession, including law, who actually care about the COnstitution and due process are few and far between

Liberalism is a divergent ideology. With progress, classical liberalism is left behind, then rediscovered by succeeding generations, individually, and, with a fortuitous alignment, as a consensus.

Otto said...

Once the law profession is completely political (almost there )in our country we will be in dire straits. Almost reverting to 3rd world status.

Bleachbitandhammer said...

Kap

Bleachbitandhammer said...

Karlan went on a schittsonian falls analogy rant about trump bribing Louisiana a governor. What the hell? Oh right in 2009 the but wrote about her saying she is a fierce leftist full on board with all radical left ideology including supporting late term abortion

Brown Hornet said...

The 3:1 witness stacking just makes clear to John Q Public what a sham the entire process is. Pelosi's a fool if she lets this get anywhere near a Senate trial.

Francisco D said...

Today is one more exhibit that the Democrats are moving away fro due process.

Due process was born out of White Supremacy. Get over it.

Deplorables need to be ruled by their betters, such as the Democrat law professors.

Lucien said...

If Ukraine had (on its own)announced that it was investigating whether there was anything improper in the Obama administration's efforts to strongarm Ukraine into firing Shokin, would that really constitute "interference" in our 2020 presidential election? Who actually believes that? Assuming such an investigation would not constitute interference, then how can requesting such an investigation (or announcement) count as soliciting interference?

Suppose a court ruled on Monday that some specific congressional subpoenas to the executive were defective or invalid: would Professors Feldman et al. say that Trump could be impeached on Tuesday for obstruction of Congress based on noncompliance with those subpoenas? If the answer is no, then what could be the basis for impeaching on Tuesday if the court's ruling were expected on Wednesday? Doesn't one coequal branch get to fully litigate its dispute with another?

J. Farmer said...

@CWJ:

I'm pretty sure gilbar's reference was literary ("1984") rather than literal.

Yes, I wasn't taking exception to anything he said. Just using it as a springboard to say what I wanted to say.

Drago said...

Angle-Dyne: "I didn't think Clown World could get any clownier. I was wrong."

Just wait until LLR Chuck posts again!! You ain't seen nothing yet!

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

I am surprised that they spoke so severely and stridently and launched right into stating conclusions, applying the law to the facts, and expressing these conclusions in a tone I'm used to seeing in the movies, where hammy actors argue to a jury

Maybe they would be more self circumspect in an alternate universe where they didn't have the world's biggest media/propaganda arm to carry their water. With that kind of wind at your back it's easy to get lazy and assume that screaming louder will win the debate.

How you would be surprised at any of this after living through the Democrat tantrums in Wisconsin in beyond me.

Angle-Dyne, Servant of Ugliness said...

wild chicken: I've come to the conclusion that a lot of really smart people aren't really smart.

We do seem to be breeding our Best and Brightest® a tad on the thick side these days, don't we?

Greg the class traitor said...

n.n said...
we certainly have more convergent interests than divergent interests with Russia

The Soviet Union was our enemy. Russia is not our enemy. They are our competitor. We do share common, reconcilable interests and standards.


No, Putin is the enemy of the US. Whether or not Russia as a whole is, so long as Putin's in charge, they're our enemy.

The USSR and China hated each other. Russia and China hate each other. Other than that, there is no place where Russian influence is making the world a better, or even just "not worse" place for America.

They are not competitors. They are not opponents. They are our enemy.

Which is one of the reasons why I support Ukraine.

But I have no problem with, no, I "highly approve of", the US gov't doing due diligence to make sure that the weapons we sent to Ukraine don't end up on the black market. And I highly approve of Trump using the leverage of US aid to crack down on corruption, and on a foreign country interfering in US elections.

Which is why I think Trump has nothing to apologize for from that conversation

Greg the class traitor said...

Brown Hornet said...
The 3:1 witness stacking just makes clear to John Q Public what a sham the entire process is. Pelosi's a fool if she lets this get anywhere near a Senate trial.


I don't think Pelosi is a fool.

But I do think that the Democrat base voters won't let the Democrats back down on this. This is just like the Gorsuch filibuster. Anyone sane can see it's a bad idea. But their funders (like Steyer) and their voters both demand it.

So I expect they will do it

readering said...

Some folks with the California bar comments are confusing Pam Karlin with Kathleen Sullivan, who made the classic mistake of failing to study when taking the California bar after many years of practice elsewhere.

readering said...

PS Sullivan one of the most brilliant lawyers around, now name partner at one of the very richest law firms.

traditionalguy said...

Karlan must be a plant by the Trump team. She alone is destroying the Dems by leading them to a bonzai charge on Trump's automatic weapon firepower. She is a Judas Goat leading them to the slaughter.

J. Farmer said...

@Greg the class traitor:

No, Putin is the enemy of the US. Whether or not Russia as a whole is, so long as Putin's in charge, they're our enemy.

Why?

n.n said...

No, Putin is the enemy of the US. Whether or not Russia as a whole is, so long as Putin's in charge, they're our enemy.
...
there is no place where Russian influence is making the world a better, or even just "not worse" place for America.


Why do you think so?

jnseward said...

I had the same reaction. I was surprised at how rabid the law professors were.

Francisco D said...

They are not competitors. They are not opponents. They are our enemy.

That strikes me as a statement of emotion rather than reason.

Enemies want to conquer us, such as radical Islam and the Soviet Union.

Putin is basically an organized crime boss. He wants a piece of the action, not world Communism.

Greg the class traitor said...

Francisco D said...
They are not competitors. They are not opponents. They are our enemy.

That strikes me as a statement of emotion rather than reason.

Enemies want to conquer us, such as radical Islam and the Soviet Union.

Putin is basically an organized crime boss. He wants a piece of the action, not world Communism.



No, Putin wants to harm the US, even when it harms Russia, too.

Look at their relationship with Iran. Russia has a severe problem with Chechen terrorists, and other islamic terrorists. Those terrorists get support from Iran. But Putin backs Iran, because Iran harms the US. The fact that they also harm Russia doesn't matter.

Putin misses the USSR, and wants to bring it back. Can he invade the US now? No. Would he, if he could?

Hell yes

Amadeus 48 said...

This shambles today is all fairly predictable. If you have no facts, you argue the law. If you have no law, you argue the facts. If you have no case, you pound the table.

Just imagine what the World's Greatest Showman would do if he controlled the stage. It might be idiotic, but beneath all the music, lights, showgirls, comedy, mockery, jokes, exaggeration, deflection and general outrage, there would be a fundamental grain of common sense, that the duly elected POTUS has the right and power to conduct foreign policy, and if you don't like it (but you are going to like it so much because he puts America First!), you can vote him out next time, but you aren't going to do that because everything is so perfect and wonderful. Here's Melania--isn't she great--an immigrant to America, and she loves it, just the way every immigrant and every citizen should love it. What is the matter with those people who don't?!!?

It is a fundamental mistake is to attempt to be neutral. Who wants to be Sweden in WWII? No one.

For Trump and his supporters, and for the Democratic opposition, this is WWIII.

Kirk Parker said...

Quayle,

"Do the Representatives actually, you know, represent the people in their district? "

Are you kidding??? The way it works, these days, is that they represent DC (aka "the swamp") to their districts.

Browndog said...

No, Putin wants to harm the US, even when it harms Russia, too

I couldn't disagree more.

Also, your remark how Russia only allies with Iran only because they hate America even though they strengthen Chechnya is non-nonsensical.

J. Farmer said...

@Greg the class traitor:

Look at their relationship with Iran. Russia has a severe problem with Chechen terrorists, and other islamic terrorists. Those terrorists get support from Iran. But Putin backs Iran, because Iran harms the US. The fact that they also harm Russia doesn't matter.

What harm does the Russia-Iran relationship due to the US?

Putin misses the USSR, and wants to bring it back. Can he invade the US now? No. Would he, if he could?

Hell yes


Even if it were true that he "wants to bring it back," he might as well want to bring Peter the Great back to life. It isn't going to happen. Russia is motivated by what every other major power is motivated by: the desire to remain a major power.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Some folks with the California bar comments are confusing Pam Karlin with Kathleen Sullivan, who made the classic mistake of failing to study when taking the California bar after many years of practice elsewhere.”

“PS Sullivan one of the most brilliant lawyers around, now name partner at one of the very richest law firms”

I wouldn’t hire her to defend me in traffic court. What you have described is called “cutting corners”. And you don’t want your attorney cutting corners for your case.

With very few exceptions (I know one woman who was on law review, but failed her first attempt due to stress - she ended up a decade later moving from being an attorney into law librarianship, where she was better suited). Almost everyone else whom I have known or known about their failing a state bar, was either too stupid, or too willing to cut corners, and didn’t properly prepare. One guy I know has failed the NV bar 5 times. Not too stupid - he passed the Patent Bar (approx. 35% pass rate at that point). He just never buckles down long enough to properly prepare for the bar exam. I will admit that taking the bar again, after a decent period of time (10 years for me) for admission in a different state is a pain. But you do it, because it is necessary. You do it right the first time, so you don’t have to go through it a second time.

Amadeus 48 said...

Has anyone got any access to the bids on Hillary futures?

Warren looks like a nonstarter. Bernie is a either Trotskyist without the intellectual rigor or a Stalinist without the charm. Biden is stupid and getting stupider. Pete B. needs to get South Bend straight before he tries for higher office. Amy K. comes across as John Kasich in drag, etc. Everybody hates Bloomberg, and Trump just decredentialed Bloomberg News. I just don't see a winner here.

Maybe the Dems do need Hillary. She wants it. She's thirsty for revenge. She's ready for her close-up.

Carter Wood said...

Bruce Ackerman of Yale Law was raging this morning on NPR too. https://www.npr.org/2019/12/04/784670064/4-legal-scholars-to-appear-before-house-panels-impeachment-hearing ACKERMAN: They are correct. But rather than only focusing on a single issue, we have to recognize that President Trump's behavior is unprecedented in American history because from the crime that he committed in bribing Stormy Daniels to the violation of the First Amendment in declaring that Muslims coming from majority-Muslim countries cannot become eligible for American citizenship - this is a fundamental violation of the First Amendment.

MARTIN: So are you saying that those issues should be part of articles of impeachment?

ACKERMAN: Completely. Completely. We should have - because what we have here is not a precedent of one serious blunder - and it is of a criminal character, no question about that - but an assault on the entire foundations of the American constitution. Notice, this president has, in dramatic violation of international law, ripped infants and young children from their parents and - which will traumatize them for life.

These are fundamental, serious offenses, one after another. You look at his tweets and you will find others. What the House should do - and, of course, there is the Mueller report, which details another...

Amadeus 48 said...

Cripes. J Farmer is starting to make sense to me. Should I drink more or less?

Amadeus 48 said...

Bruce Ackerman?? Please.

Francisco D said...

Look at their relationship with Iran. Russia has a severe problem with Chechen terrorists, and other islamic terrorists. Those terrorists get support from Iran. But Putin backs Iran, because Iran harms the US

Putin is just a whore like the other European heads of state. That is why he does business with Iran.

Follow the Benjamins, err... the rubles and dinars.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

phone-posts suck.

Jim at said...

Watch a bunch of over-educated left-wing twits screeching about things that never happened?

Hard pass.

William said...

Bob said:

In the 1990's, the Republicans acquired (and earned) the reputation for just being out to get Clinton. I would have been happy to see him go, but I was not blind to the malice with which he was pursued. etc., etc.

False equivalence. Clinton misbehaved and got caught. What he did was personal; it had nothing to do with policy. The Senate didn't convict, and that was probably a good thing. But Clinton was (and is) personally very dirty.

With Trump, it's all about his POLICIES. They're going after him because they don't like what he's doing and how he's doing it. Mueller tried his damnedest to pin something on Trump personally and came up empty. Why? Because Trump didn't do anything wrong.

And he hasn't done anything fundamentally wrong here. End of story.

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, I certainly hope that a large number of voters who are neither hardcore Republicans nor drooling, slobbering Democrats feel much the same that you do.

J. Farmer said...

@Amadeus 48:

Cripes. J Farmer is starting to make sense to me. Should I drink more or less?

Haha. It always happens eventually. It is nice to see the conservative movement after 20 years finally catching up to me :P

Bay Area Guy said...

Here's the written testimony of Prof. Turley

It is a scholarly tour de force. Very long though, may wanna consider biting off small chunks.

A sample quote:

To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my only concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of impeachment.

President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger.

If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided.


Here's his testimony to watch, if you prefer. Courtesy of Last Refuge guys.

James K said...

I had the same reaction. I was surprised at how rabid the law professors were.

You probably haven't spent much time in academia. It's a sad scene.

readering said...

Bruce Hayden she wouldn't take your case. Appellate specialist for which she is paid the big bucks when not pro bono.

Kirk Parker said...

J. Farmer @ 3:13PM,

Nah, this is just your stopped-clock moment; don't let it go to your head.

MountainMan said...

So Karlan just took a cheap shot at 13-year old Barron Trump. How much lower will these losers go? Just lost all respect for Stanford Law School. How does someone like this become a professor at what is supposed to be one of our elite law schools? This is just bizarre. I’m done with this and with all Democrats, now and forever more.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Pam Karlan was horrendous. She went full Schitt with her false analogy/parody of a non-existent event.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Pam was on Hillary's short list for Supreme court justice?

wow. and she is a major HIllary donor. wow.

media won't report.

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

@Kirk Parker:

J. Farmer @ 3:13PM,

Nah, this is just your stopped-clock moment; don't let it go to your head.


20 years of opposition to immigration, endless wars, and "free" trade is a "stopped-clock moment?"

StephenFearby said...

A newly discovered text message between the Masters of the Universe:

In December 2015, Lisa Page texts Peter Strzok, “You get all our oconus [outside the continental United States] lures approved? ;).”

Durham Needs to Bring Indictments
by Chris Farrell

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15219/durham-indictments

Phidippus said...

As Glenn Reynolds says, all the Democrats have to do is not be crazy, and they can't even manage that.

Once again, thanks to Our Hostess to watching the unwatchable so that we don't have to.

I'll speak to the management and see if I can get you credit for time served off your time in Purgatory.

tim in vermont said...

Jeezum.

narciso said...

the daniels matter was a private issue, but ackerman is one of the jacobin corp even before there was a so called resistance,

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

Trump naming his son Barron violates the Emoluments Clause, apparently.

Hippogryph said...

Ann mentions "hysteria", which is apposite.

Though, I think I'd also make more use of the word "histrionics". These people, those three law professors included, thrive on drama and receipt of attention. Part of the energy we see is true hysteria. But a lot of it is play-acting by people who get off on that kind of thing.

tim in vermont said...

Haven’t seen she who shall not be named in a while with a stock market report. If you bought every time she came on reporting doom, you would be buying that new boat right now.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 350   Newer› Newest»