As the impeachment fiasco continues, legal scholars have weighed in and taken sides. Most recently, one such group enlightened everyone with a joint letter supporting the president’s impeachment.
While the letter made for some fairly interesting reading, its drafters ultimately reached an incorrect conclusion.
“In light of these considerations, overwhelming evidence made public to date forces us to conclude that President Trump engaged in impeachable conduct. To mention only a few of those facts: William B. Taylor, who leads the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, testified that President Trump directed the withholding of hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid for Ukraine in its struggle against Russia — aid that Congress determined to be in the U.S. national security interest — until Ukraine announced investigations that would aid the President’s re-election campaign. Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified that the President made a White House visit for the Ukrainian president conditional on public announcement of those investigations. In a phone call with the Ukrainian president, President Trump asked for a ‘favor’ in the form of a foreign government investigation of a U.S. citizen who is his political rival. President Trump and his Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney made public statements confirming this use of governmental power to solicit investigations that would aid the President’s personal political interests. The President made clear that his private attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was central to efforts to spur Ukrainian investigations, and Mr. Giuliani confirmed that his efforts were in service of President Trump’s private interests.”According to these scholars, the so-called “facts” referenced in their letter support their conclusion that the president engaged in impeachable conduct. However, the “facts” that they referenced were selective in nature and incomplete. A review of the testimony of the various witnesses reflects the flaws in their reasoning and analysis.
To further bolster their conclusion, these legal scholars conveniently pointed to one specific portion of Sondland’s testimony. However, they seemingly overlooked Sondland’s subsequent testimony.
Finally, their reliance on the president’s request for a “favor,” as set forth in the transcript of the telephone call between Trump and the president of Ukraine, is petty and, in and of itself, doesn’t constitute impeachable conduct (the transcript speaks for itself). Moreover, the fact that Giuliani may have played a role in the president’s desire to investigate corruption in Ukraine doesn’t constitute impeachable conduct, as the president is entitled to investigate such corruption.
While it’s not unusual for people to reach different conclusions on a given set of facts, it’s vital to consider all of the facts when doing so and not let personal animus cloud one’s judgment. In this case, there was no direct or firsthand evidence of any impeachable conduct. Rather, there was testimony that amounted to nothing more than speculation, conjecture, assumptions, and hearsay.
“Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as ‘a calculated and orchestrated political hit,’ rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.”Kavanaugh was ultimately confirmed, despite the partisan attacks and incorrect conclusions reached by some in academia.
While professors and legal scholars are free to form their own opinions, they should do so objectively and in a manner in which they consider all of the facts, as opposed to those selective “talking points” that appear to support their desired conclusions.
In this case, the recent letter supporting Trump’s impeachment was “incomplete” and unsubstantiated. Sadly, the alleged “facts” cited in the letter appear to have been selectively chosen in an effort to paint a grim picture of the president’s alleged conduct.
In reality, the testimony, when considered in its entirety, painted an entirely different picture that easily refuted this unsubstantiated conclusion.
