Democratic impeachment case collapses under weight of time
By: JONATHAN TURLEY
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
As the House and Senate continue their bitter struggle over the coming impeachment trial of President Trump , a judge in the District of Columbia issued an opinion that was largely lost in the crush of New Years stories. The opinion could loom large in the Senate trial, however, and one line in particular, which states “the House clearly has no intention of pursuing” the witness , may be repeated like a mantra by the Trump defense team.
The witness was Charles Kupperman, a deputy to former national security adviser John Bolton. Other than Bolton himself, Kupperman is one of the officials most likely to have direct knowledge of an alleged quid pro quo on aid to Ukraine. After subpoenaing him last fall, the House withdrew its request before the court could rule on compelling his testimony for the record. The House also decided not to subpoena Bolton or any other key witnesses in the administration. Judge Richard Leon dismissed the case before New Years Eve with a hint of frustration, if not bewilderment, that the House did not seem interested in hearing from a possible eyewitness. Historically, that lack of attention in not only witnesses but also a triable case will remain one of the most baffling blunders of this impeachment.
When I testified in the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing, I cited this case in my criticism of the pledge by Democrats to impeach Trump by Christmas despite a very incomplete record. While I opposed some of the proposed articles of impeachment that were subsequently dropped by the panel, I said Trump could be legitimately impeached on abuse of power and obstruction of justice if the House could establish such violations. But the House refused to wait just a couple months to build a much stronger case to remove Trump. In the mad rush to push impeachment, Democrats could not have made it easier for his team.
Securing an impeachment so fast does not earn you a historic prize. It simply earns you a historic failure. By not seeking to compel numerous key witnesses, the House now relies on the Senate to complete its case. Since the House has maintained that the record overwhelmingly proves that Trump is guilty, the Senate could simply try the case on the record supplied by the House. Indeed, in the 1999 impeachment of President Clinton, Senate Democrats, including Minority Leader Charles Schumer, fought against any witnesses and sought a summary vote without a trial.
I was particularly concerned about moving forward by Christmas on the second article of alleged obstruction of Congress. The House elected to push through impeachment with an abbreviated period of roughly three months and declared any delay by Trump, even to seek judicial reviews, to be a high crime and misdemeanor. The administration is currently in court challenging demands for witnesses and documents. Just a couple weeks ago, the Supreme Court accepted one such case for review then stayed the lower court decisions ordering the production of the tax and finance records of Trump. The House impeached Trump before that court or other federal courts could rule on the merits of claims of presidential privileges and immunities. Both Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon had been able to take such challenges to the Supreme Court before they faced impeachment.
The House refused to seek to compel several witnesses in court, burning months in which it could have secured not just decisions in its favor but also testimony. Indeed, a year ago, I testified before the House Judiciary Committee and encouraged it not only to hold a vote on impeachment but to go to court to force testimony of figures like former White House counsel Donald McGahn. While refusing to use its impeachment powers with such a vote, it did take him to court. It won that case shortly before its impeachment vote. The case will be heard by the appellate court this week, even without being expedited for the impeachment investigation.
When faced with the embarrassing timing of that ruling after the hurried impeachment vote, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff insisted there was no time to waste in getting the case to the Senate and that “it has taken us eight months to get a lower court ruling” to compel McGahn to testify. But after members claimed there was a “crime spree in progress” and no time to waste, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked any submission to the Senate to demand witnesses that the House unwisely omitted in its investigation. So it seems time is no longer of the essence.
Schiff also was wrong on McGahn. The House waited until August to go to court to compel him to appear. That was roughly four months to secure a ruling and without proceedings under an impeachment inquiry ordered by the House, which historically places cases on a fast track to the Supreme Court. In the Nixon case, it took three months from the ruling of the trial court to the final decision by the Supreme Court that ultimately led to his resignation. Even if the House had waited until October to seek to compel witnesses, it could have had ample time to secure rulings or testimony by a springtime impeachment. We will never know because Democrats chose to do nothing due to the need to get to a trial that they have now delayed.
Schiff is not the only Democrat undermining the case for the obstruction article. Representative Eric Swalwell, who seeks to be a House manager at the Senate trial, recently declared that not only should a sitting president be impeached if he goes to the courts rather than submit to Congress, but that contesting demands for evidence is actually evidence of guilt on all of the charged offenses. In a complete denial of the critical concepts of the rule of law and due process, Swalwell claimed “we can only conclude that you are guilty” if someone refuses to give testimony or documents.
It is unclear if his concept of due process would be extended to President Obama, who refused both critical witnesses and documents to Congress on the basis of claims that were eventually dismissed by federal courts as untenable. Likewise, former Vice President Joe Biden has made headlines by declaring that, if subpoenaed, he would defy the Senate. But someone must have explained to Biden that the man he seeks to replace was just impeached for defying the House, even without a subpoena, because he clarified his earlier remarks by stating the opposite in a later interview.
None of this bodes well for the Senate trial. Developments are unfolding from a former aide to Rudy Giuliani, who seeks to give new evidence that is relevant to impeachment. Giuliani himself was never subpoenaed and recently said he would be willing to testify. It is like pushing for a murder trial before an autopsy is completed because everyone has holiday plans. There are also new documents showing that Trump may have moved to freeze the military aid after speaking with the Ukrainian president. Those documents were produced after a trial court ordered their release under the Freedom of Information Act, and the administration did not appeal.
However, none of that is part of the impeachment record because it was more important to vote on it before Christmas than to build a full record before a trial. The nation will likely witness the collapse of a Senate trial on an incomplete record, as the witnesses and documents are still coming forward. Those Democratic voters who supported this premature act will be left to wonder, as did Doctor Seuss, “How did it get so late so soon?”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a witness expert in the House Judiciary Committee hearing during the impeachment inquiry of President Trump.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
329 visitors
They wanted to stain this President. They have only exposed themselves.
"And yes, I think it is time to send the impeachment to the Senate and let Mitch McConnell be responsible for the fairness of the trial. He ultimately is."
Within hours, Smith walked back his remarks in a pair tweets .
"I misspoke this morning, I do believe we should do everything we can to force the Senate to have a fair trial,"
Poor Adam Smith lost his underwear.
We can all agree on that. It's Pelosi that thinks holding them is smart. Today she is having the House vote to limit President Trump's "war powers." Perhaps the Senate leader can hold onto that until Pelosi turns over the Articles of Impeachment.
As the saying goes, haste makes waste. The Dems tried to hurry and totally wasted their time and that of the American public and taxpayers!
He's been impeached, will always be impeached, will go down in history as impeached.
With an asterisk that says it wasn't real. Tose who were that invested in hate will go down in history as SCUM!
Just look at Nancy's face
Vic - a question - do you try to make your comments have a cartoonish tinge for effect?
It's hard to believe that you think some of your pronouncements are realistic.
Trolling?
Please John, stop with the Projection. It's getting very ridiculous.
I just call 'em as I see 'em. I do realize that every great tragedy contains some comedy.
It's hard to believe that you think some of your pronouncements are realistic.
It would be to the progressive mind. Too much CNN.
Sparty, I have had a lot of patience with you trying to troll me. It will wear thin soon enough.
I haven't called Trump supporters "scum" although I could, so why do you call those who want to impeach Trump "scum" ? There is in your face evidence that Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate Trump's political opponent Joe Biden, which is an impeachable offense. I am not speculating about this, or wishing, it is fact.
Your side is the one that has not been honest, maybe that is their way of emulating their hero, who lies , to the public, many times EVERY DAY.
It's real and will always be real...he was impeached
You have attacked Trump supporters, you may not have called them scum, but nonetheless you attacked them for voting for someone you don't like. The people who want to impeach Trump have been wanting it since inauguration day. Do you remember? Do you remember the so-called "women's march" on that day when we heard about "blowing up the White House?" And how about the violent antifa riots that took place on that day? Or the harassment of Trump officials and their families at restaurants or their homes? Or the vile treatment of Brett Kavanaugh? Then there is the nature of the Russia-hoax and the impeachment proceedings. What about that?
I think the name scum is appropriate. Just as applied to the Weathermen, who are the pedigree for the current progressive hoard.
There is in your face evidence that Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate Trump's political opponent Joe Biden, which is an impeachable offense.
It is NOT an impeachable offense!
Your side i
No john, its your side that lied and divided America.
Sorry buddy but that's not a troll. I'm sure you think it is but it isn't. Its the truth. The truth is not a troll You were inferring that someone else here was doing things that you do rampantly here nearly every day. If mine is a troll, then so is yours.
But feel free to report it and don't act like you ever do me any favors here John. We both know thats simply just disingenuous.
In that case, Clinton's impeachment wasn't real either. But anyone with a basic grasp of civics understands that both Clinton and Trump WERE IMPEACHED even if not removed from office.
How can people live in such fantasy lands?
You follow me around and try to insult me with your petty little insults, because the TRUTH about your hero Trump is too disturbing for you to contemplate.
IF YOU support Donald Trump you support someone who is a KNOWN liar, crook, bigot and moron. These conclusions are not really open to debate, so you Trumpsters spend most of your time trying to ridicule those who oppose him. This is all YOUR problem, not the problem of those who are anti-Trump.
Nancy's face is real?
That is even more horrifying!
Lol hardly. Don't flatter yourself John. I really believe, deep down, you are better than that. You just let your emotions get the best of you. Not the end of the world but it is what it is.
Face by AbbVie ..... that is to say ..... Botox
I didn't agree with Clinton's impeachment. Clinton did commit the offenses he was charged with - Perjury & Obstruction of Justice. However both of those crimes were committed because of an event that had nothing to do with what the investigation was supposed to be about. In Trump's impeachment you don't even have actual crimes - "abuse of Power" and "Obstruction of Congress" are slogans not crimes.
The Clinton impeachment was partisan and the Trump impeachment was bitterly partisan. The voters vindicated Clinton and they will do the same for Trump!
Well, you have us back in the mud pile again. Is this all progressives on NT want to do? You keep repeating the same drivel and you convince nobody. Just look at what this is doing to you?
I dont care what you think is better. If you support Trump, and evidently you do, you are the one who has to explain himself, the people who oppose him dont.
On its face, he is a horrible human being. He lies, he cheats, he is incredibly vain, he is incredibly ignorant, and he is buffoonish.
And you support him. Why do you think that is someone else's problem? It's yours.
I've got no problems in this regard but you seem to. Very badly i might add.
I really hope for your sake that this is just act for you here because if its not, and your posting here is how you really are day in and day out. You are headed for the big one. Do yourself a favor and chill out there buddy.
Hate is not the answer
Ok, You have no problem supporting a known liar, crook, bigot and moron. I understand. You probably should keep it to yourself though.
So what....he doesn't care.
It's called bullying and taunting and he does it all the time.
Doesn't matter...he has been impeached...full stop. Crooked donnie and his supporters can come with any excuse in the book...he's been impeached and that is that.
And still President, and always will be a President.
It means everything...too bad you can't see it.
And he's been impeached and will always be remembered for being only 1 of 3 presidents to be impeached.
So?
Did Clinton's impeachment make him less of a President?
GOP lawmaker offers resolution to censure Pelosi for holding articles of impeachment
hill.cm/mmQUEEL
Really? How much did it mean to the other two?
enuff said!
Please don't try to put words in my mouth John. [deleted]
I support this President who has my country clicking along at a fantastic pace. And other than a loud group TDS ridden individuals, who still can't accept his legal election, so do many, many other people.
Which is pretty amazing considering he's had a mass media hacking away at him nonstop for over three years. A do nothing partisan congress constantly trying to make shit up to get rid of him and the Hillary faithful who no matter what Trumps does, will never accept him. The amazing thing about that is many of those dumbasses are railing against their own prosperity. Pretty amazing to say the least.
Keep ridiculing the opposition John. You're just solidifying his base and helping add to it for that matter.
removed for context
Bingo!!!!!!
See any similarities here...........
Compared to this.........
He doesn't care...it means nothing. It was just a trumped up vote by the dopey Dems on bogus allegations.
He will continue to have his magnificent and forceful leadership for 5 more years.
That's comical John. I have seen you repeatedly go out of your way to rant at great length how much you despise Trump and any conservative you believe may support him and to explain in great detail how evil you think he is with little or no evidence other than progressive leftist liberal Democrat talking points to attempt to back yourself up with.
I doubt that I have ever said I despise Trump.
I have said he is a known liar crook bigot and moron who is not fit for office, and of course all that is true.
I am quite sure that, to you in your mind, he certainly is. Problem is that you just cannot seem to stand the thought that there are people that disagree with you.
If you want to say that you dont care if he is a known liar crook bigot and moron, that is of course your right.
As to whether or not , those things are true, there is no debate.
I have been over and over this with people here, and the facts are indisputable.
Donald trump was the head of a racist conspiracy theory (birtherism) for gods sake.
Wake up.
There is an ongoing list of his lies. Even if we throw out 90% of them just for the hell of it, he has still told thousands of lies since he started to run for office. Donald Trump paid more than 20 million dollars to the victims of his Trump U. fraud. He also participated in inheritance fraud with his family, as a NYT article from 2018 proved. That makes him a crook.
He was the "leader" of the racist birther movement. He has also retweeted white supremacists multiple times and pretended not to know who David Duke was in order to try and keep Duke's endorsement. Bigot. As for proving he's a moron - should we really go there?
Maybe, maybe not. Can an impeachment vote be overturned if proven false statements where given under oath during proceedings?
Who do you think gave false statements under oath? NONE of the witnesses in the Impeachment inquiry were rebuttal witnesses. In fact they ALL corroborated one another. So that would mean that ADDITIONAL witnesses would have to testify. Whose testimony will you rely on to rebut existing testimony?
Not true, they actually contradicted each other.
So now all you have to do is post the statements that were contradictory. Please proceed.
It's sad to see that after all this time you and so many others are so uninformed about what was actually testified to by the witnesses.
Vindman, Williams and Holmes ALL had direct, first hand knowledge about what was said by Trump.
I'm not surprised that someone that relied on others truncated versions of testimony would believe that.
I on the other hand rely on my own FULL review of the testimony.
The quote that you posted was from Vindman's opening statement about the July 10 2019 National Security meeting between Ukraine’s National Security Advisor and Bolton.
Vindman statement:
Vindman on the call:
There's much more in his deposition and open hearing testimony about that. You can always review that for yourself if you were so inclined, which I doubt.
Yes.
Yes, seriously.
... and re-elcted.
Impeachment without removal amounts to the proverbial bucket of warm spit.
The House vote amounts to a shitstain on their credibility and body blow to the loser reputation.
Wishful thinking, he has been impeached...end of story.
Explain what you think impeachment means.
Explain what you think end of story means.
When you talk about impeachment in the Senate , you have to start with the conclusion that the Republicans will acquit Trump basically no matter what. So it is a sham. Therefore, the Democrats cannot "fail". All they can do is choose to use the material that they have which shows Trump's guilt in whatever way they think is best. I don't have any problem with what has been done so far, though I do think they should subpoena Bolton and McGahn before its all said and done.
Jonathan Turley is Alan Dershowitz lite, a tv and internet lawyer whose audience (his moneymaker) are conservatives and Trumpsters. Nothing he says has any importance.
It wouldn't be that democrats were determined to impeach - no matter what? Which is a sham!
I don't have any problem with what has been done so far, though I do think they should subpoena Bolton and McGahn before its all said and done.
I'm sure you don't. Like you admitted to us, many months ago - "He probably didn't collude with Russia, I just want him gone." I haven't forgotten those words. You are more honest than your fellow progressives. For elected officials to act the way the dems have is a national disgrace. The fact that they could be elected is frightening!
Jonathan Turley is Alan Dershowitz light, a tv and internet lawyer whose audience (his moneymaker) are conservatives and Trumpsters.
That's right smear anyone who counters the progressive lies.
Donald Trump is not fit, ethically, morally, or by judgement or intellect to be president of the United States. He is a known liar, crook, bigot, and moron. Nothing on this earth can change those facts.
Nominate someone else for 2020.
I can make the same claim:
Barak Obama was not fit, ethically, morally or by judgement or ideologically to be president of the United States.
He is a known radical, who politicized & weaponized agencies of government and divided America. Nothing on earth can change those facts.
5 more years John!
I think I read something a while back showing that Trump has personally attacked or insulted something like 600 different people , since he became president, either with his mouth or with his twitter output. He's a clown.
You compare Obama to Trump, I will compare Trump to Hitler. The comparisons are just about equally apt and realistic.
I take it you don't plan on voting for him huh?
No other party has had a sitting president who lied to the public 15,000 times while in office. Duh?
I'm sure you do. You do know that is an insult to the 6 million Jews and their families, who were murdered by the Nazis as well as the 55 million who died in the European theater during World War II.
I think I read something a while back showing that Trump has personally attacked or insulted something like 600 different people , since he became president, either with his mouth or with his twitter output.
Well maybe some need it. Nobody from antifa has ever been prosecuted and then there are all those local officials openly defying immigration law or the media which has done nothing but lie to us about Trump. Ya, I'd say verbal attacks on the like of such swine is justified!
According to whom?
Texan, unlike some people, I think before I type things.
I didnt say Trump is like Hitler, I said if you want to compare Obama to Trump, I will compare Trump to Hitler.
Is it outrageous to compare Trump to Hitler?
Well, you should get the picture.
Reality.
That's what I thought.
There is the answer from the man who supposedly thinks before he types!
Thar she stands!
It leans more toward asinine.
The evidence shows that the Democrats didn't seek impeachment until after Trump's blatant abuse of power came to light. If the were determined 'no matter what', they would have gone after him based on the Mueller report.
" unlike some people, I think before I type things."
😅😂🤣😹
That is something you are not familiar with
Arkpdx, is Donald Trump, a KNOWN liar, crook, bigot, and moron, fit to be president of the United States?
Let's get you on the record.
Four times is the limit John. Iv'e been very generous to you. Back to the topic which is Pelosi
[deleted]
[deleted]
Ohhh, 'formal efforts were initiated'. That sounds scary.
Here, read it for yourself:
Note that it was never assigned to a committee and never acted on other than being introduced. Like I said, scary.
When I say that 'Democrats didn't seek impeachment until after Trump's blatant abuse of power came to light' I mean the PARTY.
I'll wait until the McGahn litigation is over.
Pelosi is doing a press conference now. The giddy reporters asked her if she's going to the 49ers game. She said I'd like to go, but I have to save the country. They are all giggling and laughing. The current state of affairs in progressive America!
Did she mention the piles of human fecal matter she has to dodge on her sidewalks and roads?
Tough to do in heels i suspect
Oddly enough, it never came up. Possibly because Nancy lives in a walled in estate away from the common folk. She probably has her own security service to protect the place. BTW, that would be a good business to start out in San Francisco.
Lovely, Isn't it?
Tough to do in heels i suspect
Nancy is well past the age for her to be wearing heels.
Already covered by the City of SF public services.
Note the compensation package for poop washers these days:
Bazinga!
Wow! Now that's good money. And every one of them will vote democrat!
I know. Note the difference in wage and bennies. Most benefit packages are less, or at most, equal with wage
The taxpayers in SF are getting gored big time.
As usual. And the poop patrol looks to democrat leadership to keep the poop coming!
Come on Vic,
Pelosi's house can be seen from one of the wrap around porches, complete with daily protesters.
Wow, 4 more Dem votes in San Fran, stop the presses.
There are like 300,000 cats & dogs roaming SF along with thousands of small & large parrots
and 7,500 homeless humans.
The city, like it's residents does not differentiate or identify where the poop comes from, i.e., it's not all human.
Annual precipitation is 8 inches of rain in the "winter", the rest of the year zero which cause poop to accumulate.
The city budget for the poop patrol is $750,000, enough for 4 employees at $184,000 and a few power washers.
They probably can't even afford to live in SF.
From one of the wrap around porches my ass........................
That McMansion is NOWHERE in sight if the map is correct.
I don't know who lives in Pelosi's house in SF and I'm pretty sure they will only hold on to it until she is retired,
it's nothing special on the outside as you can see.
Now when I lived in Napa, I passed this Pelosi vineyard every day.
This is what you cannot see from the road.
Not sure what you are looking at.
So you didn't follow my links....................color me surprised /s
You can't really expect those on the right to use facts do you? If you limited them to facts they'd have nothing to mock or try and turn into a "leftist" wicker-man they're so desperate to burn on their pyre of hypocrisy.
That 'McMansion' is right around the corner from Pelosi's house.
I won't pretend to know what you are contesting Jim.
2724 Pacific is one of the highest homes in zip code 94115 with views of the Presidio, the Marina District and the Bay,
Per your own link the Pelosi home is either at the corner of Broadway and Normandie Ter or one house in on Normandie.
Either way the 2 homes are a block apart and clearly visible to each other as the Pelosi home is downhill from Pacific Ave.
which is parallel to Broadway.
You can see from the map that most SF lots were shotgun style with multi level homes set right on the street
allowing for large year round gardens in the rear.
2724 Pacific is fairly unique because the house is set back from the street to take advantage of the elevation and
views with gardens on either side.
An incomplete record dooms the impeachment trial. They can't build the record now, it's too late.
"This is a challenging time to create bipartisan agreement. But the Speaker Pelosi has managed to do the impossible. She has created growing bipartisan unity — in opposition to her own reckless games with impeachment."......Mitch McConnell
I wonder why Turley wrote such a demonstrable lie.
No one sought a summary vote without a trial.
Trent Lott initially wanted to deny any and all witnesses and stated that his GOP conference convinced him to allow witnesses so he changed the content of the Senate Resolution that was passed by 100-0. That includes Schumer.
I wonder why Turley wrote such a demonstrable lie.
It's not. Sadly, you don't understand what's going on. The Senate Resolution Schumer supported simply allowed for a vote on witnesses, not that witnesses would be called.
Schumer, and the other Democrats, did, in fact, seek a summary vote to end the trial before any witnesses were called. Look it up.
Your comment is obtuse Sean.
READ MORE CAREFULLY. This is what I quoted from Turley:
Now you make an utterly irrelevant argument with your statement:
That vote was DURING the fucking trial, NOT 'a summary vote without a trial' Sean. Look it up.
Since Nancy "Bot" Pelosi hasn't turned over any paperwork.....the "Senate" doesn't have to do Squat !
Crying Chuckies comments to date.....mean NOTHING !
In Conclusion:
Nancy Pelosi will have the embarrassing job of climbing down from her position on holding the Articles of Impeachment until Mitch McConnell declares how he intends to run the Senate trial. It's too bad the Speaker put herself in this position.