Thoughts on the Impeachment Hearings in the Judiciary Committee…

by Adam Alcorn

Nadler
Doug Collins

Just jotting down some thoughts as I digest the impeachment hearings taking place today in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. The witnesses include four law professors, three in support of impeachment and one opposed.

  • Noah Feldman, Harvard Law Prof.
  • Pamela Karlan, Stanford Law Prof.
  • Michael Gerhardt, University of North Carolina Law prof.

and the lone opponent of impeachment

  • Jonathan Turley, predictably from George Washington University.

My first thoughts are regarding the credibility of this particular group of witnesses. As should be expected the GOP’s main focus throughout this process has been on what they see as the lack of credibility regarding the facts, and the presence of bias amongst the witnesses.

  • In previous hearings. they fairly successfully portrayed the NSC officials and State Dept. staff as career bureaucrats with a preexisting antipathy towards Donald Trump.
  • Judging from their opening statements the GOP won’t have to say a word to paint the first three law professors as proud residents atop the ivory towers of the uber leftwing academic bubble. They appear to be more interested in securing spots on tonight’s MSNBC panels than projecting anything resembling credibility as dispassionate legal experts.

 

  • Mr. Turley has done a better job at presenting himself as credible. He first mentioned that he does not support Trump and that he voted against him.
  • He made the argument that the basic facts underlying this impeachment are in dispute, whereas the previous witnesses took them as sacred Truth and proceeded from there.
  • What makes Turley’s point less than entirely persuasive is that there is basically no one questioning the basic facts outside of Trump’s staunchest partisan allies, and if that counts as the facts being “in dispute” then the only facts that will ever be undisputed are those that agree with the regime in every detail. That is a dangerous precedent.

If you don’t agree with my appraisal of Mr. Turley’s credibility, check out his opening statement on his own website from the 1998 impeachment hearings regarding President Clinton. To say he has done a U-turn is disrespectful to an entirely reasonable traffic maneuver. A few quotes:

  • “When Congress decides that certain criminal conduct does not rise to the level of impeachable offenses, it is defining a permissible parameter for future presidential conduct. Executive power will fill the space created by any decision of this body.”
  •  The following quote seems to dispute his opposition today by suggesting referral to the senate “if proven”. If the facts are “disputed” as he claims today, then certainly proving them one way or the other puts that issue to rest. “It is my view that the allegations in this inquiry, if proven, would constitute clear and compelling grounds for impeachment and the submission of this matter to the United States Senate for a determination of the merits.”
  • Further to that point, “the Framers defined the process of impeachment with specificity but not the standard applied in the respective inquiries or trials of either house.”
  • And “For the House to take on a broader role of litigating the merits would be akin to a grand jury convicting an individual without benefit of the protections of a trial, including the rules of evidence. The House serves an accusatory not an adjudicatory function.”
  • Interesting, yet contradictory take here “Because the Constitution is written to make a penalty less likely in the Senate, it is essential that the House fully perform its detection and accusation role to achieve deterrence under this system. The Senate may then choose to acquit but the standard of conduct for future presidents has not been lowered by the adoption a narrow threshold definition in the House.”

This is the most telling paragraph I’ve been able to read during the first recess, and boy does it refute his opening statement from today:

  • “Early in this process, I suggested that Congress should not view impeachment as requiring conviction and removal. I stated that there may be circumstances in which the proper penalty for a president is indictment in the House but not removal. Impeachment performs the very constitutional function that is sought in a censure. It defines conduct as sufficiently egregious to warrant removal. The actual removal of a president, however, depends on a variety of circumstances considered in the Senate. The Senate is expected to balance many factors in the interests of the public. In this sense, the Framers appeared to anticipate that the Senate could engage in “jury nullification.” The Senate has the authority to simply deny conviction on the articles of impeachment. If criminal conduct committed in office is to be nullified,(20) however, the Senate is the designated body to make such a decision in the interests of the nation. In the Senate trial, a president will be called as a witness and placed under oath. Unlike the House, all three branches will be present by design in the Senate trial. With the members sitting as jury, the Chief Justice sitting as presiding judge, and the President as witness and accused, all three branches participate in the final outcome. If a President’s crimes are to be excused, it is the Senate that should make that decision after the public has been given a fully defined set of allegations and allowed to hear sworn testimony of the President.“

The Democrats would be wise to read the last paragraph of his own conclusion into the record today. It reads as follows:

  • “The allegations against President Clinton go to the very heart of the legitimacy of his office and the integrity of the political system. As an individual, a president may seek spiritual redemption in the company of friends and family. Constitutional redemption, however, is found only in the company of representatives of all three branches in the well of the Senate. It is there that legitimacy, once recklessly lost, can be regained by a president.”

Okay moving on from Mr. Turley’s 1998 testimony, he is finally getting a chance to speak beyond his opening now that Rep. Collins (GA) has a go at it.

  • He is making the exact argument I predicted he would regarding the comparison with Clinton’s impeachment. Notably that the facts were not in dispute. I would totally agree with him here if someone could point to a single disputation of the facts by someone outside the Trump/GOP orbit.

Back to the Democrats.

  • These lawyers do nothing for their credibility by using phrases like “If this congress cannot impeach we no longer live in a democracy.” Screw a panel slot, these guys are going for their own show on MSNBC.
  • Nadler asking “What would the founders say?” and actually gets a response is pure political theatre.
    • Collins rightly calling it out as lunacy and theatrics.

The whole thing really got boring, rehashing the same points. It is basically a contest between Counsel over who can ask the same questions in the most different ways.

It would make a whole more sense if the Democrat Counsel asked questions of Turley and GOP counsel asked questions of Feldman, Karlan, and Gerhardt.

Still planning to update as we go along, but there won’t be much to add if they do not cover any more ground.

Committee Reconvenes at 2:30 pm.

More of the same. Democrats waving around a pocket Constitution as if to pretend this wasn’t the first time they have cared about it since before FDR tried to stack the court, they seem to be solely incapable of doing anything right. This impeachment will fail not on the merits, but because of who is attempting to prosecute the matter.

And now we get treated to another rendition of Jim Jordan’s tired act thanks to a game of Musical Committees.

This is likely the end of the updates as we have moved on from rehashing opening statements to rehashing the Intelligence Committee hearings from two weeks ago. Nothing. New. Here. If something notable happens I will be sure to correct the record.

Thanks for reading!

Checking Back In …

Leave it to the most ridiculous congressman present to make the most impactful statement of the day. Rep. Matt Gaetz (FL) finally kicked the ball into the open goal that has been staring back at them all day. He listed the donations made by the three witnesses supporting impeachment, and surprise, surprise they ranged all the way from Barack Obama, to Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton. He went onto quote Prof. Karlan making a personal attack on conservatives from a podcast called “Versus Trump”. It should not have taken this long to score this point, but when the soundbites are cut and the witnesses well and truly discredited, it will not matter at which point in the hearing Rep. Gaetz made this point, everyone will have seen it with their own eyes.

This exchange demonstrated the absolute lack of ability on the part of the Democrats to successfully prosecute a case in which the evidence is as clear as the space between their ears.

Check back for updates as the hearing continues . . .