As you know, Wednesday’s meeting of the House Judiciary Committee was a marathon of law professors giving their views on impeachment. As Twitchy reported, Harvard’s Noah Feldman has a history of tweets calling the president’s actions — even a tweetstorm — impeachable, reaching all the way back to just two months after President Trump’s inauguration. And Stanford’s Pamela Karlan joked about how she had to cross the street rather than walk past the Trump hotel.
Ben Shapiro sums it up nicely:
So, just to recap, the Democrats called three law professors. One served in the Obama DOJ. The second served in the Clinton administration and as counsel for Senator Pat Leahy. The third wrote an article in 2017 for the NYT looking for reasons to impeach Trump.
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) December 4, 2019
They couldn’t find one non-partisan expert witness to recommend impeachment here?
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) December 4, 2019
The whole circus was clearly partisan, which bothered Harvard Law School’s Alan Dershowitz, who has been live-tweeting the hearing and fact-checking some of his fellow law professors. This thread’s a little long, but it’s worth the read:
My friend an colleague omitted from his rendition of the history of impeachment the explicit rejection by the framers of “maladministration “ and other open ended criteria of impeachment. (1 of 2)
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
(2 of 2) James Madison worried that such vague criteria would have the president serve at the will of congress. So they insisted on specific criminal-type criteria as a necessary but not sufficient condition for impeachment.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
Professor Carlin’s partisanship was evident in her testimony. Would she have made the arguments she made if Hillary Clinton had been elected and were being impeached on similar grounds ? Does she pass the “shoe on the other foot” test? (1 of 2)
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
(2 of 2)
Hamilton said the greatest danger is that impeachment would be used in a partisan manner. This is the first time in our history that impeachment may be voted along partisan lines.— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
Professor Gerhardt is wrong in arguing that a president can be impeached for insisting that the courts resolve conflicts between the legislative and executive branched. (1 of 2)
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
(2 of 2) Our system of checks and balances permits a president to resist congressional subpoenas if he believes that the information sought is privileged. It is the function of the judicial branch to resolve such disputes.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
Maybe the Democrats can’t ram this through as quickly as they’d hoped.
Professor Gerhardt says that we teach our law students always to comply with congressional subpoenas. No. We teach our students that we have an adversary system which permits the executive to challenge legislative actions.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
The Democratic experts are seeking to “amend” the impeachment provisions of the constitution by adding criteria that were expressly rejected by the framers.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
If every president who put their own partisan or electoral interests over the national interest were to be impeached, there would be no end of impeachments. It would be interesting for presidential historians to document every instance of a president who did this.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
Professor Gerhardt says that if President Trump’s actions are not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. Wrong. What Nixon was accused of were real high crimes.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
Democrats can’t even nail down just what high crime President Trump supposedly committed. Bribery? Extortion? Obstruction of justice? Quid pro quo?
The Democratic experts are selectively quoting the history of the impeachment provisions of the Constitution. A full rendition of the history would not justify their conclusions.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
Why didn’t the my friend and former student Norm Eisen cross examine Turley instead of throwing softballs at the Democratic witnesses?
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
Feldman mistakenly says the Constitution defines bribery. Where? It defines treason, but not bribery
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
I wish the Republican counsel would cross examine the Democratic witnesses and vice versa.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
Professor Turley is correct that impeaching a president for demanding judicial review of Congressional subpoenas would undercut our system of checks and balances.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
Prof Feldman is wrong in suggesting that the courts have no role to play in deciding whether Congressional subpoenas are subject to claims of executive privilege in the context of impeachment.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
Checks and balances — they’re there for a reason.
Prof. Carlin defines bribery to include “ bad practices.” That would be unconstitutionally vague and dangerous.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
The only non partisan expert witness has been Professor Turley. It’s been 3 against 1, but thus far the 1 has been more objective and persuasive than the 3.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
The Democratic witness should be pressed to explain how they can advocate criteria for impeachment that were rejected by the framers. (1 of 2)
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
(2 of 2) How can “high crimes and misdemeanors“ be interpreted to mean precisely what the framers rejected: “maladministration” and other open ended criteria. If they want to reverse what the Framers accepted, they have to amend the Constitution, as they did with the 25 amendment
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
The expert witnesses should be cross examined by opposing counsel instead of just being thrown softballs by counsel on their side. Cross examination is essential to test witnesses. Otherwise the witnesses are just lecturing about their preexisting views.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
He’s exactly right, except for calling them “witnesses” — like many who testified before the House Intelligence Committee, none of them witnessed anything. But yes, all we’ve seen today is lecturing from their preexisting partisan standpoints.
What a waste of time and resources to have no cross examination of hostile expert witnesses. What a missed opportunity to press witnesses instead of throwing them softballs. Why no cross examination?
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
The open ended criteria for impeachment proposed by the Democratic experts are dangerous and place Congress above the law. That’s why the Framers demanded specific criteria that sound of crime, rather than “abuse of office.”
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
I respectfully disagree with Professor Turley that “abuse” of office or power can by itself be the basis for impeachment, unless there is also a designated criminal act (treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors). (1 of 2)
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
(2 of 2) The Constitution would have to be amended to substitute “abuse” for the current criteria.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
As the Democratic candidates for president have clearly demonstrated, there’s a lot of the Constitution they’d like to tear up, all because Hillary Clinton lost and AR-15s are scary-looking.
Finally Congressman Gaetz cross examined Democratic witnesses. We need more.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) December 4, 2019
More on that in another post.
Related:
'WTF is that?' Impeachment witness and Stanford Law prof Pamela Karlan explains that she's 'a scholar of the law of democracy' https://t.co/BFjtlyW9gc
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) December 4, 2019
