Holding the first House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing today, Chairman Jerold Nadler (D-N.Y.) invited three liberal law professors to answer legal questions about impeachment. Harvard Law School’s 59-year-old Noah Feldman, Stanford Law School’s 60-year-old Pamela Karlan, Univ. of North Carolina Law School’s 63-year-old School’s Michael Gerhardt, all agree with House Democrats that Trump committed impeachable offenses. Only George Washington Univ. Law School’s 58-year-old Jonathan Turley disagreed with the entire impeachment proceedings. Unlike Feldman, Karlan and Gerhard, Turely disagreed with the entire premise of the impeachment case that Trump (a) coerced Ukrainian President Voldymyr Zelensky into investigating Joe Biden and (b) engaged in a quid pro quo, demanding dirt on the Bidens in exchange for $391 million military aid.
When asked about impeachment Dec. 6, 2018, Nadler said it must follow three basic conditions. (1) evidence of impeachable offenses, (2) offenses of extreme gravity and (3) some consensus by the opposition. Based on Nadler’s criteria, Democrats have failed to meet his three conditions for impeachment. House Intelligence Committee hearings offered partisan witnesses leading to unfounded conclusions about impeachable offenses. Nothing in 73-year-old President Donald Trump’s call with Zelensky showed much gravity. Nadler insisted to have a credible impeachment, some members of the opposition must be persuaded to go along. Democrats have proceeded to impeach Trump without meeting Nadler’s condition that there must be some bipartisan support for the action. Over loud objections, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calilf.) asked the professors to raise hands if they backed Trump for president.
McClintock’s point was simple: If the Judiciary harings were only a partisan exercise, then the impeachment hearings lacked credibility. Nadler squirmed in his seat when Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) reminded Nadler about his three conditions for impeachment. She concluded that none of Nadler’s three conditions were met. All three liberal law professors parroted back House Democrats’ conclusions that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo with Zelensky but, more importantly, tried tied to influence the 2020 presidential election. Whether or not accepted as fact by House Democrats, there’s no compelling evidence that Trump withheld Congressionally authorized funds for political purposes or sought information on former Vice President Joe Biden, currently the front-runner Democrat candidate. All professors accepted House Democrats’ interpretation of impeachment evidence.
Trump has denied emphatically that he tried to dig up dirt on Joe and his 50-year-old son Hunter Biden. All three liberal law professors accepted House Democrat facts that Trump used a quid pro quo with Zelensky to get information on Joe and Hunter Biden. Trump insisted he tried to investigate corruption in Ukraine before releasing $391 million in military aid. Turely reminded his law professor colleagues to rise above partisanship, stating only evidence known as facts. Calling the impeachment case of Trump “woefully inadequate,” none of the three professors addressed his concerns. Karlan confessed to spending Thanksgiving reading witness testimony. She cited U.S. Amb. William Taylor who testified Nov. 14 that withholding U.S. military aid to Ukaine was “crazy,” especially if it was due to getting dirt on the Bidens. Karlan didn’t admit that Talyor hedged his testimony under cross-examination.
Taylor said he wasn’t sure why Ukrainian military aid was withheld, confessing under oath he assumed it was due to Trump not getting the information he sought from Zelensky. Karlan said nothing about Taylor saying under oath he didn’t actually know the reason beyond the delay in Ukraine’s military aid. He admitted he “assumed” that it was due to Trump not getting what he wanted about the 2016 presidential election or Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings. Yet Karlan, Feldman and Gerhardt assumed House Democrats’ partisan impeachment conclusions: That Trump engaged in quid pro quo violations U.S. election law. When Turley talks about the House impeachment case as “woefully inadequate,” he’s referring to Democrats concluding that Trump engaged in quid pro quo for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the 2020 election.
Testifying today in the House Judiciary Committee, all three liberal law professors accepted without reservation Democrats’ case against Trump. Only Turley asked the three to question the partisan nature of the hearing, where not one Republican accepted House Democrats’ case against Trump. As Lofgren said, Democrats’ case does not meet Chairman Nadler’s three conditions for impeachment, especially the fact that the evidence has not persuaded one Republican to sign on. “I see a pattern in which the president’s views about the propriety of foreign governments intervening in our election process are the antithesis of what our framers were committed to,” Karlan testified, not admitting that she has no proof that Trump tired to influence the 2020 election. If Democrats couldn’t persuade one Republican to back impeachment, it speaks volumes about a partisan story.
