... the answer is I am going to try, but I'm not going to be your law professor, only your blogger, and we'll find out what that means.
My take on it, to start, is that the House Democrats are using their law professors to create a theater of principled neutrality, to waft the illusion that it's not partisan politics. I am certain the law professors know this, and it's most likely that these are the chosen law professors because they will play their role in grand style. The more the professors speak about law, the more it will be politics, ironically. But will that show at all or will they keep it leaden and serioso?
The House Republicans have their one professor, and he'll be performing in much the same way for the other side, I presume.
Just my working theory.
ADDED: I was wrong, and, oh, my lord, this is so much worse than I thought it would be. I need to turn away.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१३४ टिप्पण्या:
Sounds right. No expert witness is ever called for their expertise. They are called for their willingness to put their credentials to work for the side that called them.
The one and only criticism of today's hearing that I have found convincing so far was from Jonathan Adler and Heath Mayo (as well as Prof. J.W. Verret of the George Mason Scalia Law School); they have all suggested that the Dems make a big tactical mistake by inviting only left/liberal-leaning law profs to testify. They could have found lots of Federalist Society-member law profs willing to describe how Trump is eminently impeachable.
No, they could not, Chuck.
argumentum ad verecundiam...ad nauseam
noah Feldman, who wrote the Iraqi constitution, when he was at the cpa, that really worked out, who bought the muh Russia stuff lock stock and barrel,
Well yahoo. Maybe these learnED “experts” can finally spell it out in small words.
"They could have found lots of Federalist Society-member law profs willing to describe how Trump is eminently impeachable."
Instead, they found a Obama/Clinton-voting, Cornell U., lefty law professor who says impeachment has no legitimate legal basis and is a mistake.
"I am not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him in 2016 and I
have previously voted for Presidents Clinton and Obama. Second, I have been highly
critical of President Trump, his policies, and his rhetoric, in dozens of columns. Third, I
have repeatedly criticized his raising of the investigation of the Hunter Biden matter with
the Ukrainian president. These points are not meant to curry favor or approval. Rather
they are meant to drive home a simple point: one can oppose President Trump’s policies
or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just
woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment
of an American president. " Jonathan Turley
Mortal gods, straw clowns, and progress.
Chuck said...
the Dems make a big tactical mistake by inviting only left/liberal-leaning law profs to testify.
Really? A tactical mistake? That's the only thing you find problematic here? Tactics?
We want the full Althouse treatment as only Ann can do!
Blogger Chuck said...
Trump is eminently impeachable.
What impeachable offense do you think PDJT has committed, Chuck?
John Henry
It please keep in mind “experts” also told a generation or 3 we’d have to learn live with the Soviet Union and we”really going to die by the Ed o the 70s. And 80s. And 90s and Aughts from climate change .
Now it’s 2030.
I’m taking bets.
I’m recalling that letter signed by 100+ law profs (including two I know personally) opposing Kavanaugh because the anger he displayed while denying being a rapist showed he was temperamentally unfit to be a judge.
Sickening what politics can do to people.
The whole thing is illegitimate.
But this will make it appear legitimate.
We'll check back in later.
THEOLDMAN
They could have found lots of Federalist Society-member law profs willing to describe how Trump is eminently impeachable.
Delusions are not good for you, Chuck. Even the NT at Ricochet is not that deluded.
Althouse said...
"If you're wondering whether I'm going to watch the big lawprof show today..."
Performing on a stool
We've a sight to make you drool
Seven virgins and a mule
Keep it cool. Keep it cool
We would like it to be known
The exhibits that were shown
Were exclusively our own
All our own. All our own
Come and see the show
Come and see the show
Come and see the show
See the show
See the show
George Conway is not a law professor,
I’m wondering if the law profs are all going to be white.
That seems to be Professor Althouse’s theme for the day: all white democrat debate, all white Christmas decorations and “ridiculous” white coat, all white lefty law profs talking about impeachment...
The left and the media, but I repeat myself, suck.
I think Chuck is right. A Never-Trump Conservative lawprof would have given them a huge political boost, even if all he said was something mild like, "The conduct alleged is sufficiently serious to warrant an impeachment inquiry." That would be the headline tomorrow and the leading talking-point on impeachment for months to come.
Have they given up on trying to persuade independents?
AllenS said...
No, they could not, Chuck.
Orin Kerr
J.W. Verret
Jonathan Adler
Charles Fried
Ilya Somin
Jonathan Rose
Carrie Cordero
Just as a start; names off the top of my head.
Maybe I'm a bad citizen but I'm not even remotely interested in this impeachment shit show.
Crying isn't going to help, praying will do you all good.
My assumption is that the Democrat law professors are going to "set the bar" for impeachable offenses and that Jonathon Turley is going to challenge where they set that bar.
It will be interesting to see how that bar moves when there is a Democrat POTUS.
Will POTUS phone calls be routinely monitored in order to determine if they said something objectionable? Will we reward people who monitor the POTUS in that way?
Will any of these witnesses opine that when a president litigates against Congress, he commits an impeachable offense?
Because so long as the executive resists congressional subpoenas, litigates the issue in a trial court, appeals an adverse outcome, then appeals to the Supreme Court, that seems like straightforward litigation -- until there is an adverse Supreme Court ruling.
But it seems that the Ds want to say that "obstruction" of what they want in this way is impeachable.
It is absurd to have four law professors give their opinion on impeachment to an impeachment inquiry. Really, what could be more absurd?
They should only show it on the Cartoon network, because that is what it has become.
I pointed out in the earlier links the Hawaiian judges, that roam the Pripyat,
Have they given up on trying to persuade independents?
Yep. They are trying to win by appealing Obama's base of liberal whites, minority identity groups and new illegal immigrant voters...
Do the Dems really believe this latest show will "move the needle" any more than all the other shows?
Are normal people generally impressed by law professors? I imagine that many law professors imagine that normal people find them impressive. But I'm probably being unfair to law professors.
The preponderance of cynical lawyer jokes suggests to me that lawyers are often viewed with derision by the public. But I don't have a good sense of what most people's views are regarding the people who teach lawyers.
Nadler is actually trying to make the joke Trump made about Russia finding Hillary's emails into part of the evidence for impeachment.
Just ask each of the law professors, under oath, to tell them who they voted for in 2016. That should fix that.
’They could have found lots of Federalist Society-member law profs willing to describe how Trump is eminently impeachable.’
Or - and not to get too picky - someone could tell me which laws Trump is alleged to have broken. That would be a good start.
If the excitable Harvard Prof. Larry Tribe's not testifying, I ain't watching.
How does CNN, NBC and WaPo keep the outrage meter pegged at 11?
Ask each what they think of the impeachment of Alcee Hastings for taking bribes as a federal judge.
Next ask them if the Senate didn’t expel Robert Menendez for taking bribes then why should Trump be removed for not taking a bribe?
Next ask them if a President takes a $50 million bribe from Netflix to push through Net Neutrality if that President should be prosecuted after leaving office
’...lawyers are often viewed with derision by the public.’
Only because it’s illegal to shoot them. ;)
With the notable exception of our beloved Hostess, most law professors are boring pedants.
Schiff couldn't sell it. The media couldn't sell it. Maybe some imminent professors can sell it. Frankly, I have my doubts.
Trump was elected in part because of policy makers giving too much credence to imminent professors.
So Trump voters are going to watch this and then say, "Darn it. I hate to admit it, but Dr Snoots is right. Trump's gotta go."? Please. It's the very definition of lipstick on a pig.
They'd be better off bringing in the Shamwow guy.
The law professors who are interesting thinkers aren’t partisans.
These four are partisans. Pamela Karlan is a whack job.
This sounds like a mistake to me. It's Meta-meta days
They are offering their opinions. Other law professors have different opinions.
This episode opens with Adam Schiff Sooper Genius prying the top off a crate marked "Imminent Professors". Guess how it ends.
Is the impeachment clown show still on? I thought it was cancelled due to low ratings.
Judas Priest, just vote for impeachment now. Stop the madness.
Left-wing Democrat Law profs give us malarkey that Trump has committed "High Crimes" blah, blah. All clothed in Fake Constitutional bullshit. Dumbos are impressed. News at 11.
"Nadler is actually trying to make the joke Trump made about Russia finding Hillary's emails into part of the evidence for impeachment."
Indeed. They are circling back to old and busted and desperate absurdities.
The goof baby goof baby goof baby goof: That baby goof like a little lawyer aloof!
LOL
Leftists like LLR Chuck and Nadler think this little lineup is going to move the needle on fake impeachment as an election strategy?
Yes, of course they do!
Sorry Chuckie. All your latest sad lefty ploys are going the way of the previous ones...which is to say no where.
Get used to having Trump around for another 5 years and get ready for more conservative judges which we all know you hate.
Trump is all happy braggadocio and the Democrats reek of flop sweat.
This guy’s trying to pretend Trump subverted the security of our country. This is so dumb
...I'm not going to be your law professor, only your blogger,..."
The best law professors merely ask the questions that keep the analysis going. They don't provide answers. It is Ann's skill as a law professor that makes this blog so interesting.
The black letter law on impeachment is terse and vague.
so when Obama didn't provide heavy weapons against the little green men, for three years, where does that fall
Schitt show. The democrat party is corrupt. Top to bottom.
like ed buck and Epstein, who was allowed to roam for years,
https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-convicted-pedophile-used-in-mueller-investigation-indicted-for-funneling-millions-in-illegal-contributions-to-hillary-doj-says
I went to law school with Mike Gerhardt (UNC law professor who is testifying today) and considered him a friend. Very nice and sincere fellow. But also very predictably liberal.
Turned it on for a minute. Some law prof was screaming at me how outrageous Trump's actions were.
Wow, she's still screaming.
Is that compelling?
Limited blogger: "Is that compelling?"
Every bit as compelling as the Soros/Omidyar/Hoffman directed commentary of LLR Chuck.
Next guy is taking the Trump thinks he's king approach.
Do these people have any perspective at all?
so the swamp judges and bureaucrats of the Ukraine, do everything to keep the gravy train running, probably to Cyprus and Estonia,
He is actually trying to make the case that Trump is forming a monarchy.
this might go in the other thread:
https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1202227375918010379?s=20
McCullough @9:24 makes a great point.
He is actually trying to make the case that Trump is forming a monarchy.
Hmm, wasn't that the case against Caesar before the Ides? Were I Trump, I would not ignore anyone giving me a prophecy!
The flowery language, the exaggeration. I can't help but think... It's a duping tell...
...and they're now back to the Mueller report to question his conclusions?
Ooooh, the new approach and talking point is Trump's 'obstruction of congress'.
It's always the process crime that gets you.
'If Congress fails to impeach here, then the impeachment process has lost all meaning,'
This is the kind of garbage the left are spewing.
Prof Gerhardt also a mind reader...
Schitt:
'The evidence that we have found is really quite overwhelming that the president used the power of his office to secure political favors and abuse the trust American people put in him and jeopardize our security.
How? How is a phone call asking to look into the left's corruption in 2016 "jeopardizing our security"? It wasn't a bribe. It was a question.
It's the opposite. The truth is the left's corruption jeopardizes our security.
All in the name of secret mega-money for the Deep State controlled Biden/Clinton contingent.
Crazy thought: could they be using these profs as “cover” for not voting to impeach, and shifting to censure?
By all accounts impeachment is not selling well with independents and in swing states. Even Schiff said in a recent interview he hadn’t decided whether he favors impeachment.
Turley is on the panel. He's pretty good. I amend my overly broad, generalized, vituperative remarks against boring law professors as a whole.
Turned it on for a minute. Some law prof was screaming at me how outrageous Trump's actions were.
Wow, she's still screaming.
Is that compelling?
It would compel me to deploy the mute button.
"If Congress fails to impeach here, then the impeachment process has lost all meaning."
-Gerhardt
Well, there you have it. 'Because says so', is the left's offical stance.
Gerhardt isn’t a liberal. He’s a communist
How many of these law professors had anything to say about Hillary's million felonies?
they should have put in dershowitz, he's been consistent over 20 some years,
https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/04/democrats-judiciary-impeachment-lawyers-witnesses-partisan/
Congress doesn’t impeach. The House does. The Senate removes
Law Professor can’t even get the basics right.
Boring and pointless, grammatically correct yapping about nothing. Frankly, I'd rather have Chuck on the panel. At least, we'd have some fun.
Turley does a great job explaining why LLR Chuck's and the dems willingness to make up fake violations against a republican President just to return the dems to power would be the ruin of the nation.
Tapping out. I'll wait for the lowlights
after his protégé avenatti, made a mess of things, but turley has been reasonably consistent on issues of privilege over a period of 20-25 years, he went overboard with gitmo back in the 00s,
Ukraine has a population of 42 Million people. Bigger country than I envisioned.
Obviously, I have nothing against Ukraine, but remind me again when they became the focal point of US foreign policy, and why?
4 Presidential impeachment hearings in the history of the United States, Jerry Nadler sat in position of power for half of them.
Gerhardt isn’t a liberal. He’s a communist
In today's usage the terms are interchangeable.
Btw, since Nadler is currently talking to crazy lefty screaming lady, did anyone catch Sly LLR Chuck casual attempt yesterday to once again falsely connect Trump to Epstein?
If you are wondering why that was, its because reports came out yesterday that Bill AND Hillary AND even Chelsea had been "frequent visitors" to Epsteins New Mexico ranch and electric underage sex bugaloo palace.
Whenever bad news comes out against the dems #Strong Dem Defender LLR Chuck springs into action.
I know return you to the dem/far left/LLR-left circle jerk.
So this is the trial?
All these esteemed law profs have convicted Trump.
Pack up your shit, and go Don.
because Obama had granted putin 'greater flexibility,' in 94, and Fiona hill counseled keeping things on a low boil, of course the Ukraine was the supply line to Syria, and to a lesser extent with north korea, re the hwasong boosters,
Nadler has scheduled lunch breaks every hour on the hour.
Beasts of England said...
Or - and not to get too picky - someone could tell me which laws Trump is alleged to have broken. That would be a good start.
The constant refrain I see on Facebook is the crime is OBSTRUCTION!, with the same problem - they can't exactly say what was obstructed.
This is insane.
Impeaching a President for refuting your impeachment inquiry subpoenas is a recipe to impeach every single president
"Abuse of Power" is an undefined catch-all term, much like "collusion", and has no legal foundation.
john Solomon, was only following the work of peter Schweitzer, who had taken a gimlet eye to not only biden but trump Kerry and daley kin,
BAG: "Obviously, I have nothing against Ukraine, but remind me again when they became the focal point of US foreign policy, and why?"
Prior to the opening of the Nordstream underwater pipelines feeding Russian Natural Gas directly into Germany via the Baltic Sea, the vast majority (80%+) of Russian natural gas went to Europe via pipelines in Ukraine.
Thats why Putin wants it all back and the destabilization efforts there made it a rip target for the left and select GOPe-ers to set up a lucrative system which could be politically exploited for tons and tons of corrupt cash.
This is what Trump is beginning to expose...and what the dems/left/LLR-left are desperate to keep hidden.
Sure looks like Turley is going to have alot of free time for a bit, eh?
Actually this story read better in the works of ex?? operative alex Dryden's series beginning with red to black, he outlines putins 'plan' going back to the early post soviet days, he writes real flesh and blood characters, like his avatar, finn and his future ex kgb paramour,
Drawing conclusions after only allowing the prosecution to present their case and denying the defense to present theirs. This makes a law professor so incompetent as to require censure and disbarment.
"Obviously, I have nothing against Ukraine, but remind me again when they became the focal point of US foreign policy, and why?"
Location, location, location.
this is the last one which hasn't been available in the states for years,
http://alexdryden.com/death_in_siberia.php
I like Jonathon Turley. His opening remarks were clear and nonpartisan.
House Democrats are trying to create an impeachment standard that goes against the Founders' enlightened understanding based on their experiences with impeachment abuse in English history. It creates a standard that is abusive to all future Presidents, allowing them to serve only at the pleasure of the Congress.
None of those Federalist Society bow tie wearers matter either, Cuck. Whoever they are, their time is over, so they might as well start attending those American Constitutional Society meetings with you.
You can paint over real law with partisan wallpaper. who knew?
Turley is approaching this like a trial lawyer reasoning with a Jury. And he is humble. The others, especially the female troll, are acting out like mini-tyrants who have never had an opposing argument to contend with in their privileged lives in Academia.
Hillary and Biden did nothing wrong! You're all Russian agents.
I wonder why the Dems allowed Turley to testify? He's sane and lucid. Perhaps, he gives them an out, if they want a reason not to impeach. They should call Dershowitz next!
in previous work, turley has referenced the disgraceful impeachment of warren hastings, by Edmund burke, the former's performance in the mysore wars, was one of the bright lights, that balanced the disaster in the colonies,
And that is why you never hire a top law professor to try a case in court. NEVER!
Here is what is happening: lawprofs say he’s guilty! I mean why even have a trial? Alice in Wonderland studd
Holy Schiff! Phone Records Show Schiff Spied on Giuliani, Rep. Devin Nunes, and a 'Hill' Reporter
Not found in MSM
tossing out bromides.
"Abuse of power."
"Collusion"
"Obstruction"
"worse than Nixon"
this is law, according to the corrupt left.
“Not found in MSM”
He bragged about it! "Trump is talking to his lawyer! OMG, Impeach!”
He must have an awful lot of confidence that the Senate can’t get his phone records in the same exact way, or it’s never going to the Senate.
I didn't actually realize until just now that our experts can't just veto Presidential elections when necessary. It's terrifying that they can't.
Bay Area Guy: "I wonder why the Dems allowed Turley to testify?"
The dems gave the republicans one seat to fill knowing that if they hadnt one the first day of this sham effort it would be too much.
But its clear that they will minimize Turley's input.
And remember, Turley, like LLR Chuck, is not a Trump voter or supporter but unlike LLR Chuck, Turley is sane and does not post racist comments nor attacks women and children.
Which is a big plus in my book.
Four democrats who voted against Trump in 2016 are testifying today. Three are dishonest and one has integrity. I will forever remember Turley in a positive light.
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"
Stanford Law Professor Pamela Karlan sounded like she was speaking at a pussy-hat wearing #RESIST rally.
again:
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"
Not a big fan of Brietbart, I feel like they are trying to be the WaPo of the right, but this guy is a solid follow: https://twitter.com/joelpollak
Joel B. Pollak@joelpollak
The law school professors were supposed to testify about their area of expertise -- i.e. the law and the Constitution. Instead they are testifying as to their personal political opinions of the president's guilt. This is an abuse of the #impeachment process -- just the latest one
If I could pick the impeachment panel:
Turley
Althouse
Dershowitz
CornPop (one non-lawyer)
Browndog: "Stanford Law Professor Pamela Karlan sounded like she was speaking at a pussy-hat wearing #RESIST rally."
She is the embodiment of what LLR Chuck represents on this blog.
Thus spake Jabba the Hut when the shoe was on the other foot.
https://twitter.com/RepMattGaetz/status/1202246023738990592
This guy’s trying to pretend Trump subverted the security of our country.
Even if he had, it wouldn't be impeachable. It would be "maladministration," which founders explicitly said was not grounds for impeachment.
But of course, investigating wrongdoing by a previous administration is hardly that. Especially when there's a treaty between the two countries mandating cooperation over such investigations.
Supposedly the Democrats are looking to get Pamela Karlan onto SCOTUS. The only R vote she should get should be Romney.
no she's as incoherent as our Brazilian troubadour, or the fraulein,
Andrew Johnson was accused of firing his Minister of War, which was a political act, not a criminal act.
The impeachment report by House Democrats is too muddled to change any minds
Impeachment is a political act that relies on making a legal case. And the lawyering in this report is atrocious.
NBC said what?
Sorry, but law profs are not who I would go to for clarity, even about the law. You can find some that will tell you anything you want. It's just opinion shopping. Then you play the Appeal to Authority fallacy, which is a pretty effective tactic on most people. Although recently it's been openly discredited as never before, it still works wonders on the left.
The Dems main charge is that Trump tried to investigate a political rival, but that is exactly what they have been doing for three years openly, proudly, emotionally, and dishonesty, and they started it first before Trump even had a chance to use his power.
"The Dems main charge is that Trump tried to investigate a political rival, but that is exactly what they have been doing for three years openly, proudly, emotionally, and dishonesty, and they started it first before Trump even had a chance to use his power. "
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.
Democrat playbook:
To defeat a Republican in an election, anything goes. The end justifies the means.
If the Republican somehow wins anyway, sabotage his term and attempt to remove him. Once again, anything goes.
It has a logic to it. It is not the system envisioned by our founders.
The Dems main charge is that Trump tried to investigate a political rival, but that is exactly what they have been doing for three years openly, proudly, emotionally, and dishonesty, and they started it first before Trump even had a chance to use his power.
Not to mention the house is doing the exact same thing live on television. Are they to be censured or removed from office for this high crime and/misdemeanor? Are they above the law?
One wonders how principled and patriotic the "Founders" themselves would have been if Soros/Rothschild/Saudi merchant investors, drug dealers and child traffickers along with the Tech and Hedge fund created sudden billionaires and and their CIA friends were busy splitting up laundred USSR collapse loot, drug and child trafficking wealth together with a side order of Chinese bribes to ignore Red China's Mercantile Trade attacks was on the table free for the taking.
well there was the east indian company, which was involved in shipping opium to india, a while later the forbes Delano and weld firms got into the business, yes the family john Kerry's father, franklins grandfather, and 'Sweeney todd' will's which turned to merchant banking,
So congress has to call in “experts” to tell them how to do their job. So they’re admitting to their incompetence. Ok.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा