Yesterday, hardworking Americans who are often highly disdained by the global elites who populate leading academic centers, were treated to a lecture by four legal scholars. As a former law professor of advanced constitutional law, allow me to share my perspective on yesterday’s events.
While it is possible that law professors are absolutely fantastic people, and while one professor, Professor Turley, gave a well-reasoned dispassionate defense of the Constitution, concluding that any reading of the facts adduced thus far (without relying on leaps in logic and biased assumptions) leads to the unmistakable result of there being no case for impeachment of the President; it is impossible to ignore the vitriolic display of disdain that three of the four professor exhibited for the intelligence of the American people, the rules of evidence, the four corners of the Constitution itself, and for the American people who duly elected President Trump in 2016.
In reality, three of the four law professors placed their well-known hatred of President Trump on full display. Professor Noah Feldman, for example suggested in March 2017 (nearly three years ago) that President Trump’s claim that President Obama’s decision to spy on his campaign could be seen as an impeachable offense. Professor Feldman’s outrageous claim in 2017 and his claims yesterday are consistent with the likelihood the academic class of elites (liberalocrats) has long-supported impeaching this President.
The pursuit of impeachment despite the lack of evidence, represents the instantiation of anti-Trump hatred that likely goes far deeper: opponents of President Trump are fueled by hatred of Trump voters and see them as a basket of deplorables.
It is clear that the American people will find it impossible to ignore the fact that none of the legal scholars offered any factual evidence in support of impeachment. Instead, relying largely on hearsay, they all said they read a report provided by Adam Schiff that was produced without allowing elementary due process and fairness for the President of the United States. Indeed, none of the testimony adduced over the past several months by either the House Intelligence Committee or the House Judiciary Committee could offer direct, as opposed to hearsay evidence that President Trump committed an impeachable offense within the meaning of the Constitution.
This means that if impeachment proceeds, it will proceed on narrow partisan grounds that may include a number of articles of impeachment that are unsupported by the evidence. Three of the four legal scholars emphasized that conditioning official acts on such things as a White House meeting between President Trump and President Zelensky of the Ukraine constitutes bribery. This potential charge received inordinate attention from the legal scholars but to be clear, even the Washington Post quoting Professor Jonathan Turley essentially concedes that (1) the testimony presented at yesterday’s House Judiciary hearing does not meet the technical definition of criminal bribery and (2) fact witnesses are missing to prove the Democrats’ case. Indeed Professor Turley observed during his testimony that impeaching President Trump on the evidence provided so far would constitute an abuse of power by the United States Congress.
In reality, there are no fact witnesses that can corroborate bribery, quid pro quo, or any other poll-tested charge offered by the liberals in the House of Representatives. Indeed President Trump has released the entire transcript of the disputed July 25, 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky. Hence it is crystal clear that there is an absence of any direct evidence in support of the baseless impeachment inquiry. This means that despite the testimony of the legal scholars any impeachment that proceeds will likely proceed on narrow partisan grounds despite House Judiciary Chairman Nadler’s warning during the President Clinton proceedings, arguing that “[b]oth parties must support impeachment, he said in 1998, or else it would divide the country too much.” He continued stating:
“There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other . . .Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.”
Since many current legal academics are quite happy to call into question the very legitimacy of all of our political institutions and, accordingly, support the abuse of power, when and if it serves their own, as opposed to the American people’s interests, we should not be surprised at yesterday’s testimony. At very same time, the American people should reject such toxic efforts and defend the Constitution from all its enemies, foreign and domestic.
Let us work to end House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s charade now and defend the Constitution.
As we aggressively fight to restore the Constitution and defeat the Deep State and the Left’s attempts to shred it, we urgently need your support. Donate today.
The House Democrats put forward the rules for an impeachment inquiry. Surrender your constitutional rights and maybe you can speak. On today’s Jay Sekulow Live we discussed the rules that are contained in the impeachment inquiry resolution that the House is going to vote on tomorrow. On Fox News,
The fourth Democrat Presidential debate takes place tonight in Westerville, Ohio at Otterbein University and there are questions the candidates NEED to answer. On today’s Jay Sekulow Live we previewed the Democrat Presidential debate that will be moderated by CNN anchors Erin Burnett and Anderson...
It’s outrageous. Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee “Shifty” Adam Schiff now says that whistleblower testimony is NOT NEEDED to impeach the President. On today’s Jay Sekulow Live we discussed Rep. Adam Schiff’s comments on Face the Nation stating the whistleblower does not need to testify...
We’ve spent 2-3 weeks discussing what I call the irregularities of this whole impeachment inquiry. There are serious constitutional issues that have been raised. We’re talking everything from Separation of Powers, the Supremacy Clause, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Association. On today’s show...