Jonathan Turley Criticizes Alan Dershowitz’s “Suprising and Baffling” Claims on the Floor of the Senate

Turley

Some of you remember Jonathan Turley.  He is the George Washington University law professor who testified before the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment inquiry.  Turley argued that there was not enough evidence to impeach Donald Trump.

Turley still believes that the House did not have enough evidence (at least right now) to impeach Trump.  But he also thinks the current Trump defense during the Senate trial is filled with problems.  This is especially the case with Alan Dershowitz’s claims that removal from office in an impeachment trial requires a crime.  Turley believes that abuse of power is an impeachable offense, he just doesn’t believe that the House has made its case for the abuse of power.  Moreover, Turley rejects Dershowitz’s argument that Trump had every right to solicit Ukraine’s help in the investigation of his political rival because Trump believed he was doing so for the “public interest.”

Here is Turley today in USA TODAY:

While I praised Dershowitz’s presentation of his theory on Monday as cogently and powerfully argued, I still believe that he is fundamentally wrong in maintaining that impeachable offenses must be based on actual crimes or “crime-like” conduct. However, the tight argument on Monday seemed to gradually loose more and more definition with every hour and day. Dershowitz declared that “Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly, you’re right. Your election is in the public interest. And if a president does something, which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

It was a surprising and baffling statement. Where his definition of impeachable offenses would proscribe too little, this argument would protect too much in presidential misconduct. Clearly everything that a president does in office will come with a patina of politics. However, this argument would make that common denominator into an absolute defense. It is akin to saying that the Navy cannot commit maritime crimes carried out in water. Politics is the common element of presidential conduct just as water is the common element of naval action. That is why the argument becomes circular.  Presidents cannot be impeached for politics but he argues all is politics for presidents. To use a Simpson-like construct: if it is political, there must be acquittal. 

While Dershowitz encourages senators not to consider the overwhelming view of academics (who he described as biased and dishonest), his narrow view of impeachment quickly unravels using the very hypotheticals that he raised.  

For example, Dershowitz repeatedly cited how President Abraham Lincoln’s call on General William Tecumseh Sherman to release Indiana soldiers to return to that state to vote in the key 1864 election. Dershowitz also noted that Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended habeas corpus but was not impeached for either act. The examples however prove the contrary to Dershowitz’s position. 

Degrading our defenses for political benefits or suspending habeas corpus are non-criminal act that show why we cannot limit impeachable conduct to the criminal code. They are examples of potential impeachable abuses of power. While Lincoln could defend his authority or privileges in the courts, it is precisely such abuses that militate against the narrow definition advanced by Dershowitz. Otherwise, a president could be impeached for accepting a small bribe but not denying an entire nation the protections of its army or the great writ. 

Read the entire piece here.

Jonathan Turley: Trump WAS Impeached

Trump impeachment

Was Trump impeached?

Last weekend Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman argued that Donald Trump will not be officially impeached until the House transmits the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Jonathan Turley disagrees.

Some of you may remember Turley.  He is the George Washington University law professor who argued before the House Judiciary Committee on December 4, 2019 that there was not enough evidence to impeach Donald Trump. (The other three law professors called to testify–Pamela Karlan of Stanford, Michael Gerhardt of UNC-Chapel Hill, and Feldman–argued that Trump’s phone call to Ukrainian president Zelinsky was an impeachable offense).

In a recent Washington Post op-ed titled “I testified against Trump’s impeachment. But let’s not pretend it didn’t happen,” Turley writes:

Last Saturday in West Palm Beach, Fla., in remarks to a group of young supporters, President Trump road-tested a talking point that appeared to be aimed at changing the narrative around his December impeachment: “You had no crime. Even their people said there was no crime,” he said of congressional Democrats, before adding: “In fact, there’s no impeachment. There’s no — their own lawyers said there’s no impeachment.”

Trump was clearly baiting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) after she refused to send her chamber’s two just-passed articles of impeachment to the Senate before leaving town for the holidays. The move caused something of a stalemate with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and precipitated a curious debate about whether Trump is actually impeached. It’s unclear what Pelosi and McConnell may do in their game of constitutional chicken between now and when the House reconvenes in January, but one thing is clear: Trump was impeached.

As I testified earlier this month before the House Judiciary Committee, I was opposed to this impeachment. While I said that this president could be legitimately impeached on these two articles, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress (while rejecting other potential articles like bribery), the record is the thinnest of any modern impeachment to go to the Senate, which could result in a trial as cursory as its investigation. Trump’s suggestion that he remains unimpeached appears based on a theory recently floated by my colleague, Harvard Law School’s Noah Feldman, that “Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate.” But while this theory may provide tweet-ready fodder for the president to defend himself and taunt his political adversaries, it’s difficult to sustain on the text or history or logic of the Constitution.

Read the rest here.

Law Professor Jonathan Turley Weighs-In on the Duke Divinity School Case

Duke

You see him on CNN, NBC, FOX News, CBS, and other news channels.  Now George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley offers his thoughts on the recent controversy at Duke Divinity School.

Turley believes that Paul Griffiths, who recently resigned his post at the school, did not receive a written account of the charges against him and did not get a chance to confront his accuser.  Duke may have denied Griffith due process.

Here is a taste of Turley’s post:

Notably, Griffiths asked for a written account of the charges against him, a chance to confront his accuser, and the evidence against him before a meeting. He was denied those accommodations, which is consistent with the denial of due process in our university proceedings.  I have written about that loss of due process in prior columns: here and here.  Duke of course has a troubling history of the denial of due process and the rush to judgment in cases involving students and faculty.  Many of us were appalled by the actions of Duke against the lacrosse players accused of gang raping a stripper. Eager to appease the outraged public, the university suspended the players and all but declared their guilt. It was not just an abdication of their responsibility to their own students, but a betrayal of a long-standing academic tradition to protect the community from prejudice and threats. For a column on the symbol of this academic tradition, click here.  Schools now routinely deny the accused access to witnesses, the right of confrontation, and other basic protections.

While Pfau said that he believe Griffiths resigned without pressure from the school, his resignation has led to a great deal of concern over the response to his original email and the language of the Dean in her email.  He is an accomplished academic who studied at Oxford University and the University of Wisconsin. He is the author or co-author or editor of 17 books.

Interesting.

Read Turley’s entire post here.