Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Professors Testify

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Professors Testify

    1https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/impeachment-hearings-live-updates-professors-called-by-democrats-to-testify-that-trumps-conduct-is-grounds-for-removal-from-office/ar-BBXK9YK?ocid=spartandhp

    Three constitutional scholars summoned by Democrats are testifying Wednesday that President Trump’s conduct toward Ukraine rises to the level of impeachment, as the inquiry moves to a new phase with the first hearing by the House Judiciary Committee, a panel prone to theatrics and partisan brawls.

    Another law school professor, tapped by Republicans, will caution against impeachment. The focus has shifted from the House Intelligence Committee, which voted along party lines Tuesday to approve a 300-page report that concluded that Trump had “compromised national security to advance his personal political interests.”

    2.https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

    Impeachment experts testified before the House judiciary committee on Wednesday that Donald Trump’s misconduct offered a textbook case of impeachable offenses as prescribed by the constitution and applied over the course of US history.

    Four constitutional scholars, including three called by Democrats and one called by Republicans, became the first witnesses to testify in a second round of public impeachment hearings beginning Wednesday and expected to last until late next week.

    In his opening statement, committee chairman Jerrold Nadler said that Trump was the first president to engage in conduct that met all three constitutional criteria for impeachment: “Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

    “Never before has a president engaged in a course of conduct that included all the acts that most concerned the framers,” Nadler said.

    Nadler was echoed by witness Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor.

    “If Congress fails to impeach here, then the impeachment process has lost all meaning, and, along with that, our Constitution’s carefully crafted safeguards against the establishment of a king on American soil,” Gerhardt said.

    The witness called by Republicans, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, offered an opposing view, saying that the impeachment process was being rushed.

    3.https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

    Professor Pamela Karlan, one of the witnesses testifying on Wednesday in the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearing, made a point of scolding the ranking Republican on the committee.

    Congressman Doug Collins railed against the process in his opening statement and had this to say about the witnesses being called:
    “America will see why most people don’t go to law school. No offense to our professors. But please, really, we’re bringing you in here today to testify on stuff most of you have already written about, all four, for the opinions that we already know out of the classrooms that maybe you’re getting ready for finals in, to discuss things that you probably haven’t had a chance — unless you’re really good on TV of watching the hearings over the last couple of weeks, you couldn’t have possibly actually digested the Adam Schiff report from yesterday or the Republican response in any real way.”

    As Karlan began her opening statement, she said, “Today you are being asked to consider whether protecting those elections requires impeaching a president. That is an awesome responsibility.”

    She then took a moment to call out Collins and say, “Mr. Collins, I would like to say to you, sir, that I read transcripts of every one of the witnesses who appeared in the live hearing, because I would not speak about these things without reviewing the facts, so I’m insulted by the suggestion that as a law professor I don’t care about those facts.”

    “But everything I read on those occasions tells me that when President Trump invited, indeed, demanded, foreign involvement in our upcoming election, he struck at the very heart of what makes this a republic to which we pledge allegiance,” she continued.


    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

  • #2
    Wait, why are law professors testifying and of what relevance is their opinion?
    You (and others) have been telling me for weeks this is a "POLITICAL" matter and that the due process protections provided by the law aren't relevant. Was I lied to?

    FYI, their opinions are as meaningless as my own.
    Real legal proceedings wouldn't ever permit such testimony.
    Except it is just a political show "inquiry".
    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Massena View Post
      Three constitutional scholars summoned by Democrats are testifying Wednesday that President Trump’s conduct toward Ukraine rises to the level of impeachment, as the inquiry moves to a new phase with the first hearing by the House Judiciary Committee, a panel prone to theatrics and partisan brawls.

      Another law school professor, tapped by Republicans, will caution against impeachment.
      Partisan hatred of Trump is really evident in the above. "Three constitutional scholars" and "another law school professor"

      Why would they write that and why did you post it?
      "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
        Wait, why are law professors testifying and of what relevance is their opinion?
        By the article posted above; three of them are "constitutional scholars".... only one of them are just a law professor..........
        "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Nichols View Post

          By the article posted above; three of them are "constitutional scholars".... only one of them are just a law professor..........
          Apparently, one of the "Constitutional scholars" the dems called disapproved of the impeachment effort. Weird how his statement wasn't quoted in the above article.

          George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley said:

          "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,”
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo

          Turley makes clear he voted against Trump and is not a supporter and that fact is not relevant.
          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
            Wait, why are law professors testifying and of what relevance is their opinion?
            You (and others) have been telling me for weeks this is a "POLITICAL" matter and that the due process protections provided by the law aren't relevant. Was I lied to?

            FYI, their opinions are as meaningless as my own.
            Real legal proceedings wouldn't ever permit such testimony.
            Except it is just a political show "inquiry".
            real legal proceedings. This is con law which is real legal proceeding. It not the black and white stuff you typical talk about.

            where the why is more important than the actual current written law. I mean you know all this so why are you demanding specifics

            What is a high crime. what its orgins Why was not a bigger list of crimes that would be high crimes listed yadda yadda

            This is more of a supreme court case than a court proceding. ie if we allow this then where is that line.

            In the end when this is over with and the Republicans vote this down it will be guidance for future presidents in that they can use the office of the president to demand political dirt from forgien countries on American citizens. Because it will be deem to not be a high crime.


            For example impeaching Trump over his hush money payments would be more of stretch because we already established that personal life issues are not grounds for impeachment. ie Clinton.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

              Apparently, one of the "Constitutional scholars" the dems called disapproved of the impeachment effort. Weird how his statement wasn't quoted in the above article.

              George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley said:

              "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,”
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo

              Turley makes clear he voted against Trump and is not a supporter and that fact is not relevant.
              They also didn't mention the bit when he talked about his labradoodle.....

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jutland View Post

                They also didn't mention the bit when he talked about his labradoodle.....

                Yes, he said something about his dog being mad at times too in an apparent effort to mock the proceedings.
                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by craven View Post

                  real legal proceedings. This is con law which is real legal proceeding. It not the black and white stuff you typical talk about.

                  where the why is more important than the actual current written law. I mean you know all this so why are you demanding specifics

                  What is a high crime. what its orgins Why was not a bigger list of crimes that would be high crimes listed yadda yadda

                  This is more of a supreme court case than a court proceding. ie if we allow this then where is that line.

                  In the end when this is over with and the Republicans vote this down it will be guidance for future presidents in that they can use the office of the president to demand political dirt from forgien countries on American citizens. Because it will be deem to not be a high crime.


                  For example impeaching Trump over his hush money payments would be more of stretch because we already established that personal life issues are not grounds for impeachment. ie Clinton.

                  My comment had to do with responses to my comments about due process. (not from you)
                  When I have pointed out the lack of due process (constitutional issue) the counter was that this was a "political inquiry" and not a legal proceeding as if that made due process irrelevant.

                  As a result, I found it interesting that suddenly the law is relevant. Apparently, because some law professors agree with the proceedings. However, as is evident from my other post, one of those professors was very critical of the entire matter and noted the "paucity of evidence".
                  He seemed to think legal standards applied too.

                  With respect to your conclusion about a "high crime" I will defer to the opinion of Professor Turley who noted a "paucity of evidence".
                  Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                  Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


                    My comment had to do with responses to my comments about due process. (not from you)
                    When I have pointed out the lack of due process (constitutional issue) the counter was that this was a "political inquiry" and not a legal proceeding as if that made due process irrelevant.

                    As a result, I found it interesting that suddenly the law is relevant. Apparently, because some law professors agree with the proceedings. However, as is evident from my other post, one of those professors was very critical of the entire matter and noted the "paucity of evidence".
                    He seemed to think legal standards applied too.

                    With respect to your conclusion about a "high crime" I will defer to the opinion of Professor Turley who noted a "paucity of evidence".
                    The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land, and its interpretation is the field of Constitutional scholars. And if the articles of impeachment include the violation of some federal statutes, it is obvious that nobody can argue (and none to my knowledge argued) that the law is irrelevant. The latter, however, does not mean that this procedure is not political.

                    If we counted as correct legal interpretation only a unanimous agreement between Constitutional scholars or legal experts in general , we would have rejected some of the most important legal decisions in this country.
                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It's up to Congress to decide what an impeachable offense is. It is up to the Senate and the Chief Justice to determine if the impeachment is valid. The house is clearly the weaker player in the process.
                      We hunt the hunters

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                        Wait, why are law professors testifying and of what relevance is their opinion?
                        You (and others) have been telling me for weeks this is a "POLITICAL" matter and that the due process protections provided by the law aren't relevant. Was I lied to?

                        FYI, their opinions are as meaningless as my own.
                        Real legal proceedings wouldn't ever permit such testimony.
                        Except it is just a political show "inquiry".
                        This is called an "Appeal to Authority." It is a logical fallacy, particularly when the academics are on record as Trump haters...

                        Michael Gerhardt, University of N. Carolina:

                        “I was at the University of Pennsylvania Law School yesterday, where I teach a class, and my law class is still in therapy,” in a video taken shortly after the 2016 election.
                        Noah Feldman, Harvard Law:

                        “I’m a registered Democrat and have been my whole life”
                        Pamela Karlan, Stanford Law:

                        "I had to cross the street to avoid him (Trump)."
                        Nothing new to see here. More cherry picked testimony from "witnesses" who are fully behind impeachment and have made up their minds about it long ago. Stalin would be proud.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


                          My comment had to do with responses to my comments about due process. (not from you)
                          When I have pointed out the lack of due process (constitutional issue) the counter was that this was a "political inquiry" and not a legal proceeding as if that made due process irrelevant.

                          As a result, I found it interesting that suddenly the law is relevant. Apparently, because some law professors agree with the proceedings. However, as is evident from my other post, one of those professors was very critical of the entire matter and noted the "paucity of evidence".
                          He seemed to think legal standards applied too.

                          With respect to your conclusion about a "high crime" I will defer to the opinion of Professor Turley who noted a "paucity of evidence".


                          btw now I remember why congressional hearing are pointless. Not enough learning way to much preaching. Personaly if I was the dems I would be hammering Turley. He has left a big hole in his view.

                          What the dems and reps are both missing is where the bright line is if their points of view prevail. The reps make a good case if this should be where the line for impeachment is to be drawn. But I have yet to see how much further a president would have to go to warrant impeachment. Especially considering most people of power know how to keep some seperation.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by pamak View Post
                            its interpretation is the field of Constitutional scholars.
                            Where did you get that from?





                            "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              btw saw this on wiki it appears no crime was committed lol
                              The first impeachment conviction by the
                              United States Senate
                              was in 1804 of
                              John Pickering
                              , a judge of the
                              United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire
                              , for chronic intoxication

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X