Search This Blog

Thursday, December 5, 2019

Constitutional scholars provided interpretation for the Judiciary Hearing for the Impeachment of Donald John Trump


Constitutional scholars (L-R) Noah Feldman of Harvard University, Pamela Karlan of Stanford University, Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina, and Jonathan Turley of George Washington University are sworn in prior to testifying before the House Judiciary Committee in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill December 4, 2019 in Washington, D.C.

==========================
Professor Feldman, Professor Karlan and Professor Gerhardt were witnesses for the Judiciary Hearing on November 4, 2019.  Their knowledge of U.S. Constitutional law and review of the issues relative to Donald John Trump asking Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky, for a favor to make announcements to discredit Candidate Joe Biden.  He told Zelensky that he was to do the favor in public if he was to get the $400M approved by the U.S. Congress for assistance.

The three (3) law professors spoke continuously of the lawlessness behavior of Donald Trump, his lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and his staff according to witnesses before the investigative and judiciary hearing  the law which states "no one was above the law".
They were/are obstructionists.

Professor Johnathan Turley was the Republican witness.  Unfortunately, Professor Turley used comments that questioned his understanding of the intent of the U.S. Constitution and the issues at hand.  His facial expressions appeared to be distracted and often distorted.

U.S. Representative Eric Swalwal shared how Turley represented a federal judge who was IMPEACHED for his ruthless behavior and bribes of lawyers and others in his court.  Turley's defense for the criminal-acting judge, Federal judge, G. Thomas Porteous Jr. who was "impeached" with several admonitions and a ruling he is never to hold public or private office.

Interesting enough, the prosecutor against Turley was U.S. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.

Turley's argument was that the thuggish judge was a "moucher".


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.