December 2, 2019

"Inviting the administration now to participate in an after-the-fact constitutional law seminar with yet-to-be-named witnesses only demonstrates further the countless procedural deficiencies..."

"... that have infected this inquiry from its inception and shows the lack of seriousness with which you are undertaking these proceedings. An academic discussion cannot retroactively fix an irretrievably broken process."

Wrote White House Counsel Pat Cipollone in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chair Nadler. The hearing in question, is scheduled for December 4th, and — as Cipollone understands "from rumors and press reports" and not from any official notice — "will consist of an academic discussion by law professors."

ADDED: I must say that as a longtime law professor, I'm finding the disrespect for law professors inadequate. You heard me right. I do not for one minute believe that the 3 lawprofs the Judiciary Committee will put on display will be speaking as if they are conducting something that deserves to be called an "academic seminar." But I understand Cipollone's refraining from getting into the problem of the politicalization of the academic field of constitutional law.

AND: "Seminar" is an interesting word. It's only been in the English language since the late 19th century, according to OED. It was originally something done in German universities, "a select group of advanced students associated for special study and original research under the guidance of a professor" and it came to mean "a class that meets for systematic study under the direction of a teacher." The oldest appearance in English is:
1889 A. S. Hill Our English v. 209 In New York and Washington, if I am not misinformed, ‘seminars’ are periodically held, at which a clever woman coaches other clever women in the political, literary, and ethical topics of the day.
Clever women. You can really feel the insult in "clever." In Samuel Johnson's dictionary (1755), the entry for "clever" is: "This is a low word, scarcely ever used but in burlesque or conversation; and applied to any thing a man likes, without a settled meaning."

58 comments:

Seeing Red said...

Who gets to choose the law professors and does the WH get to investigate them, or are their timeline social media being scrubbed as we speak?

The GOPe is usually The Stupid Party. I. Happy for a brief moment in time they’ve passed the crown.

This is ridiculous.

Chuck said...

From Twitter @BillKristol:
"You’re right. Chairman Schiff refused to hear from Mulvaney, Cipollone, Eisenberg, Bolton, Pompeo, Giuliani, Pence, and Trump himself, all of whom were willing and eager to testify under oath. Really an outrage."

Birkel said...

Analysis: True.

A racist fopdoodle quoted an unimportant boob whose claim to fame is trading on his father's accomplishments.
Ahoy!

rehajm said...

This is ridiculous.

These lawyer letters are quite damning of The House and the entire process. History should not be kind...

robother said...

Hah. Trump will beat the living Constitution right out of 'em.

Mark O said...

The Lawrence Tribe show.

Michael K said...

Poor Chuck. Nobody pays any attention any more.

henry said...

Law Professors. Like Obama?

Dave Begley said...

The Dems should have invited Ann Althouse. Must see TV.

Seeing Red said...

This past week in Powerline’s The Week in Pictures, Tryptophan Edition had a photo of Schitt next to the King Martian from “Mars Attacks.” Now every time Schitt is mentioned , I think “ Ack! Ack!”

rehajm said...

Law Professors. Like Obama?

I was thinking Liz Warren, just to flaunt the asymmetries...

Drago said...

LLR Chuck!!

Doing his standard Soros/Omidyar/Hoffman schtick.....and offering up Hillary lover and democrat party booster Bill Kristol for fake conservative bona fides!!!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Looks like LLR and Lawfare moron Chuck has sunk to new lefty depths!

I didn't think it was possible, but here we are!

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Bill Kristol. LOL. He's lost his mind with Trump-hate. Makes it fun.

Drago said...

Next up for LLR Chuck, quoting Chuck Todd!!

Why not?

LLR Chuck is the biggest NBC/MSNBC fanboy that ever lived. Particularly his absolutely beloved "brilliant" Maddow.

rhhardin said...

They need entertainment executives, not law professors, to get to the bottom of things.

Drago said...

Basically, the supposedly banned lefty-funded LLR Chuck has become the Joy Reid of Althouseblog.

And, uh, LLR Chuck, that was NOT meant to be a compliment.

I just wanted to be sure you understood that.

Roger Sweeny said...

the problem of the politicalization of the academic field of constitutional law.

I think that goes back a lot further than 2016.

Mike Sylwester said...

Chuck and Bill Kristal at 9:02 AM
Chairman Schiff refused to hear from Mulvaney, Cipollone, Eisenberg, Bolton, Pompeo, Giuliani, Pence ...

We need to have a legal seminar about Executive Privilege.

Too many people seem to have the idea that a partisan majority in the House of Representatives can cancel the US President's Executive Privilege simply by declaring an "impeachment inquiry".

Mary Beth (the commenter) said...

An academic seminar where the professors give instruction on RightThink.

We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.

Dave Begley said...

If John Hinderaker and Scott Johnson of Power Line can be on Fox News I see no reason why Ann Althouse can't be. She's an expert on constitutional law.

mccullough said...

Tribe would be a bad idea as a witness.

If he shows up, someone should ask him whether the Senate should expel Liz Warren for lying about her Cherokee heritage to get her job at Harvard.

Drago said...

Mike Sylvester: "We need to have a legal seminar about Executive Privilege."

Nope!

LLR Chuck knows all about Executive Privilege, but as a democrat operative he doesn't care. That's the point.

Do not assume any "good intentions" or honest posting on the part of our Noted Racist Poster and #StrongDemDefender Chuck. He is here only to advance democrat/lefty narratives and daily talking points.

As always.

That's why he can't give up posting here even though he was banned. He is clearly being paid to post here and he simply cannot stop.

AllenS said...

Where in constitutional law do you find cruel neutrality?

Seeing Red said...

This Impeachment BS has gone too far Chuck. Give it up.

gahrie said...

How many conservatives did the University of Wisconsin at Madison Law school hire while you worked there?

Michael K said...

Too many people seem to have the idea that a partisan majority in the House of Representatives can cancel the US President's Executive Privilege simply by declaring an "impeachment inquiry".

Actually, if Nancy held a vote on an impeachment resolution, they would have a case to pierce executive privilege as they did with Nixon but she does not have the votes.

The key is that this is an "inquiry," not impeachment.

MartyH said...

If you need three constitutional law pressers to explain why Trump should be impeached you’ve already lost.

MartyH said...

Professors...

bagoh20 said...

Haven't law professors already done enough damage to this democracy?

Bruce Hayden said...

“Bill Kristol. LOL. He's lost his mind with Trump-hate. Makes it fun”

Apparently though his Twitter feed is one of a dozen or so followed by Lisa Page. Discovered that last night on CTH with their articles on her Coming Out party yesterday.

Wince said...

Alan Dershowitz said he'd testify, if asked.

And while substantively not what they'd like to hear, it may offer some Democrats an escape route.

Chuck said...

Was "academic seminar" a phrase used by Nadler and/or House Democratic leadership?

Or was it a deliberately sarcastic term (or else a term intended to invite sarcasm) concocted by Pat Cippolone in his letter to Nadler?

I do not know the answer to this question. I'm honestly asking it. I wonder if Althouse knows the answer.

I don't expect, and never expected, "an academic seminar." I expect expert testimony. Expert testimony is often -- not always, but often -- helpful and illuminating. It's especially good for lawyers like Althouse and me, who like reading transcripts and following direct- and cross-examination. That is what expert testimony is.

We are going to get expert testimony with direct examination by Democrats, and cross-examination by Republicans.

But here again today I wonder if Althouse has changed her mind about not being interested in the details of impeachment since November 8, to now becoming interested in details.

readering said...

From WaPo 11/10/98:

"Members looking for guidance about whether Clinton's misconduct warrants impeachment -- -or, perhaps more likely, to buttress their already stated positions -- had an array of choices yesterday.

"The panel of experts was divided among those who argued that Clinton's alleged conduct could easily justify impeachment and those who said it fell far short of what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they envisioned removing a president from office for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Ten of the 19 who testified represented the Republican side, eight the Democratic approach, and one -- William and Mary law professor Michael Gerhardt -- was a "shared" witness."

Birkel said...

A racist fopdoodle pretends that Xe and Althouse are somehow equivalent.
Seems like fighting words, if I were Meade.

Birkel said...

readering proves the point.
This hearing is 3-1 in favor of Democratics.
No sense of balance.

The last one was (according to the completely partisan and unreliable WaPo 10-8-1 in favor of the majority.

75% to 55% means one-sided versus at least a gig leaf of non-partisanship.

Also, Clinton committed the crimes of rape, perjury, and obstruction of justice (witness tampering).

Birkel said...

Fig is a perfectly good word.
Auto-Un-Correct is stupid.

rehajm said...

Clever women.

Clever girl...

Yancey Ward said...

I am guessing that impeachment is dead at this point. At some point in Janauary, Pelosi will try to bail out into a censure resolution. I wonder if she will get any Republican votes for that given how badly she and Schiff rigged the process to date.

rehajm said...

I'm finding the disrespect for law professors inadequate.

This is terribly frustrating for me. I lose trust and respect for the profession when members refrain from criticism of political crap like this. Kind of like if during exam the doctor were to ask if I have a gun in the house or when Obama used the fake doctors. Nobody int he profession is worried about the damage it causes?

Perhaps after the professors testify? Ha! Who am I kidding...

PB said...

Lawrence Tribe should be a hoot. Get him to explain the constitional basis for his articles insisting Trump needed to be impeached, written just after Trump was elected and then just two weeks after he was inaugurated.

Drago said...

I think that my favorite LLR Chuck fake persona, even more than his hilarious "principled conservative one, is his "gee whiz, just honestly asking questions here" persona.

Even more fake with laughter-inducing faux "sincerity" tossed in.

Truly entertaining performances by our LLR-lefty Chuck.

Truly.

Seeing Red said...

Let’s open up Clinton’s impeachment files for a true comparison.

narciso said...

now podesta was the one that manafort was holding the money, so podesta and weber would represent Ukrainian interests, oddly they weren't indicted,


https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1201550351800901641

Todd said...

It is still nothing but a faux show trial. They have yet to even vote on anything of substance, like actual impeachment. They took a vote to continue to do the sneaky "impeachment INQUIRY" thing, and not an actual investigation. Stalin would be proud.

As with most lefties, this is all projection. If Trump were as bad as they all publicly say he is, they would have all "disappeared" in the middle of the night by now. The fact that all these "oh so brave resisters and firefighters" are still walking and squawking shows how Trump is exactly NOT what they claim.

At this point they are simply trying to salt the earth so that when RBG steps (falls?) down, they can claim a President under "investigation" should not be selecting a SCOTUS. Which means that this circus will go on for 5 more years...

narciso said...


if you think morning joke has a clue, you might need a sign,

https://twitter.com/davidharsanyi/status/1201516091425603584

hombre said...

Chuck said...
‘From Twitter @BillKristol:
"You’re right. Chairman Schiff refused to hear from Mulvaney, Cipollone, Eisenberg, Bolton, Pompeo, Giuliani, Pence, and Trump himself, all of whom were willing and eager to testify under oath. Really an outrage."’

Chuck tires of channeling Schumer and abandons the concept of “presumption of innocence” to channel neocon Kristol who has been crippled emotionally and intellectually by virulent Trump hatred.

What a surprise! LOL!

hombre said...

Adding law professors to the proceedings, Nadler gives new meaning to P.J. O’Rourke’s appellation “Parliament of Whores.” Next, we need a few Obama judges to complete the mix.

hombre said...

Democrats found law professors to testify that Clinton’s crimes were not among “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” They will now present law professors to testify that Trump’s non-criminal behavior amounts to “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

It’s just who they are: “In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy.” 1984.

Gospace said...

rehajm said...
This is ridiculous.

These lawyer letters are quite damning of The House and the entire process. History should not be kind


The letter from the DOJ in reply to Peter Strzok's complaint of unfair job termination is also pretty epic.

It will be more epic when some of these characters who invented crimes to initiate investigations end up in jail instead of seeing epic letters.

Sebastian said...

"I'm finding the disrespect for law professors inadequate"

You mean, inadequately contemptuous of "professors" who besmirch the reputation of their profession by agreeing to participate in the Dem farce?

Mark said...

Way to circle the wagons there.

narciso said...

of course the Chinese regard this as crime think, as well as the dnc,


https://www.theepochtimes.com/court-filing-obama-holdover-heading-office-under-investigation-for-illegally-leaked-classified-document_3157447.html

narciso said...

if you enabled the terrorists, yell squirrel:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7747555/Jeremy-Corbyn-uses-London-Bridge-terror-attack-memorial-image-election-video.html

JamesB.BKK said...

About that extract on the term "clever" in the context of university girls you may have a point, but the term clever is a perfectly useful word that is in itself not inherently negative or low.

daskol said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
daskol said...

I’ve called things clever as a compliment, once in a while. Never critically. Not a word that pops in often. Clever is only always an insult in the hands of the very understated, which include most of the English most of the time. I’ve never heard clever used positively by an Englishman. It’s a favored subtle insult of the most understated, English Englishmen I’ve met, also deployed sparingly, to maintain its effect. I think clever in the English sense is about all these professors can aim for in their testimony.

readering said...

Yeah, worst criticism I ever received from an English schoolteacher was that I was clever. (Ok to add that he was a little dim?)

Greg the class traitor said...

I really enjoyed reading Cipollone's letter. I thought it was masterful, in that it didn't get tied up in pointless legalese, but made the point that the hearing was utter trash in an entirely erudite manner.

Hiring him was a good move by Trump