News

Stanford law professor testifies to Trump's 'abuse of power' in House Judiciary Committee

Pamela Karlan among 3 scholars who say president's actions with Ukraine meet legal standard for impeachable offenses

Pamela Karlan, Stanford Law School professor and co-director of the school's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, was one of three legal scholars who testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that President Donald Trump has committed impeachable offenses in his efforts to pressure Ukraine.

"Based on the evidentiary record, what has happened in the case before you is something that I do not think we have ever seen before: a president who has doubled down on violating his oath to 'faithfully execute' the laws and to 'protect and defend the Constitution,'" she said in her opening statement. "The evidence reveals a president who used the powers of his office to demand that a foreign government participate in undermining a competing candidate for the presidency."

Karlan was called by the Democrats to testify, along with Harvard University professor Noah Feldman and University of North Carolina professor Michael Gerhardt. All three agreed Trump's actions with Ukraine met the legal standard for impeachable offenses.

"Everything I know about our Constitution and its values, and my review of the evidentiary record, tells me that when President Trump invited — indeed, demanded — foreign involvement in our upcoming election, he struck at the very heart of what makes this country the 'republic' to which we pledge allegiance," she said. "That demand constituted an abuse of power."

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who was invited to testify by the committee's Republicans (and testified during former President Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings), disagreed, stating that "the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president."

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Palo Alto Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

In Karlan's opening statement, she compared Trump's now infamous July 25 phone call with the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, to the president responding to a U.S. governor's request for disaster assistance with a request for a political favor in exchange for relief funds.

"Imagine living in a part of Louisiana or Texas that's prone to devastating hurricanes and flooding. What would you think if, when your governor asked the federal government for the disaster assistance that Congress has provided, the President responded, 'I would like you to do us a favor.' I'll meet with you and send the disaster relief once you brand my opponent a criminal.'?" Karlan said. "Wouldn't you know in your gut that such a president had abused his office, betrayed the national interest, and tried to corrupt the electoral process?"

Karlan made headlines for firing back at Rep. Doug Collins, a ranking committee member from Georgia, after he suggested that the law professors "couldn't have possibly actually digested" a report on the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment hearings.

"I would like to say to you, sir, that I read transcripts of every one of the witnesses who appeared in the live hearing because I would not speak about these things without reviewing the facts," Karlan retorted. "I'm insulted by the suggestion that as a law professor I don't care about those facts."

Karlan was blasted for making a comment about Trump's son, Barron Trump, during the hearing to make the point that the president cannot be treated like a king. She later apologized for the comment.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

Karlan has taught at Stanford since 1998 and is described in her university biography as "one of the nation's leading experts on voting and the political process." Her primary scholarly interests are in the areas of constitutional litigation and the law of democracy. She is also the co-author of several leading casebooks, according to her biography.

She's been on lists for possible Supreme Court nominees. In 2009, The New York Times described her as "a champion of gay rights, criminal defendants' rights and voting rights ... considered brilliant, outspoken and, in her own words, 'sort of snarky.'"

Karlan has served as a commissioner on the California Fair Political Practices Commission; an assistant counsel and cooperating attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund; and a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. During her time at the Department of Justice, she received the department's highest award for employee performance for her role on the team responsible for implementing the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, which ruled a section of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

In October, Karlan argued in front of the Supreme Court that federal civil rights law protects employees from job discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

Before her teaching career, Karlan served as a law clerk to Justice Harry A. Blackmun of the U.S. Supreme Court. She received her bachelor's, master's and juris doctorate degrees from Yale University.

On Thursday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House of Representatives would begin drafting impeachment articles against Trump.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Stanford law professor testifies to Trump's 'abuse of power' in House Judiciary Committee

Pamela Karlan among 3 scholars who say president's actions with Ukraine meet legal standard for impeachable offenses

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Thu, Dec 5, 2019, 9:14 am

Pamela Karlan, Stanford Law School professor and co-director of the school's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, was one of three legal scholars who testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that President Donald Trump has committed impeachable offenses in his efforts to pressure Ukraine.

"Based on the evidentiary record, what has happened in the case before you is something that I do not think we have ever seen before: a president who has doubled down on violating his oath to 'faithfully execute' the laws and to 'protect and defend the Constitution,'" she said in her opening statement. "The evidence reveals a president who used the powers of his office to demand that a foreign government participate in undermining a competing candidate for the presidency."

Karlan was called by the Democrats to testify, along with Harvard University professor Noah Feldman and University of North Carolina professor Michael Gerhardt. All three agreed Trump's actions with Ukraine met the legal standard for impeachable offenses.

"Everything I know about our Constitution and its values, and my review of the evidentiary record, tells me that when President Trump invited — indeed, demanded — foreign involvement in our upcoming election, he struck at the very heart of what makes this country the 'republic' to which we pledge allegiance," she said. "That demand constituted an abuse of power."

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who was invited to testify by the committee's Republicans (and testified during former President Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings), disagreed, stating that "the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president."

In Karlan's opening statement, she compared Trump's now infamous July 25 phone call with the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, to the president responding to a U.S. governor's request for disaster assistance with a request for a political favor in exchange for relief funds.

"Imagine living in a part of Louisiana or Texas that's prone to devastating hurricanes and flooding. What would you think if, when your governor asked the federal government for the disaster assistance that Congress has provided, the President responded, 'I would like you to do us a favor.' I'll meet with you and send the disaster relief once you brand my opponent a criminal.'?" Karlan said. "Wouldn't you know in your gut that such a president had abused his office, betrayed the national interest, and tried to corrupt the electoral process?"

Karlan made headlines for firing back at Rep. Doug Collins, a ranking committee member from Georgia, after he suggested that the law professors "couldn't have possibly actually digested" a report on the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment hearings.

"I would like to say to you, sir, that I read transcripts of every one of the witnesses who appeared in the live hearing because I would not speak about these things without reviewing the facts," Karlan retorted. "I'm insulted by the suggestion that as a law professor I don't care about those facts."

Karlan was blasted for making a comment about Trump's son, Barron Trump, during the hearing to make the point that the president cannot be treated like a king. She later apologized for the comment.

Karlan has taught at Stanford since 1998 and is described in her university biography as "one of the nation's leading experts on voting and the political process." Her primary scholarly interests are in the areas of constitutional litigation and the law of democracy. She is also the co-author of several leading casebooks, according to her biography.

She's been on lists for possible Supreme Court nominees. In 2009, The New York Times described her as "a champion of gay rights, criminal defendants' rights and voting rights ... considered brilliant, outspoken and, in her own words, 'sort of snarky.'"

Karlan has served as a commissioner on the California Fair Political Practices Commission; an assistant counsel and cooperating attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund; and a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. During her time at the Department of Justice, she received the department's highest award for employee performance for her role on the team responsible for implementing the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, which ruled a section of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

In October, Karlan argued in front of the Supreme Court that federal civil rights law protects employees from job discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

Before her teaching career, Karlan served as a law clerk to Justice Harry A. Blackmun of the U.S. Supreme Court. She received her bachelor's, master's and juris doctorate degrees from Yale University.

On Thursday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House of Representatives would begin drafting impeachment articles against Trump.

Comments

Mary O
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Dec 5, 2019 at 9:44 am
Mary O, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2019 at 9:44 am
36 people like this

Thank you Professor Karlan for your truly expert testimony yesterday! Brilliant.


R. Ortiz
Menlo Park
on Dec 5, 2019 at 10:13 am
R. Ortiz, Menlo Park
on Dec 5, 2019 at 10:13 am
23 people like this

Professor Karlan spelled things out quite clearly as per the US Constitution & the POTUS must be held accountable.

On the other hand, her snippet about 'Baron' bordered on the petty & she later apologized for her sardonic triviality.


Counter Point
Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 5, 2019 at 10:21 am
Counter Point, Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 5, 2019 at 10:21 am
50 people like this

Of course, the counter point to her clear and expert testimony on the Constitution is "She's very nasty"

That's the kind of 8 year old we're dealing with in the White House right now.


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2019 at 10:35 am
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2019 at 10:35 am
46 people like this

This is more of a note to the headline writer than a disagreement about content. Trump has been accused of at least six -felonies-. Here are five: Web Link while the Mueller Report clearly indicates Obstruction of Justice. Add to that attempted extortion with the goal of foreign interference in a US election.

"Abuse of power" is vague, and, I daresay, even sounds attractive to Right-Wing-Authoritarian voters, who appear to be about 40% of the electorate. The headline should make it clear that legally, felonies are at issue. "High Crimes".

I don't even consider the alleged felonies to be his worst crimes, either. That would be the constant verbal attacks on the US Constitution.

=>Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."<=


Mary O
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Dec 5, 2019 at 10:38 am
Mary O, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2019 at 10:38 am
41 people like this

@ R. Ortiz. I actually didn't think her comment was that petty. She was asked to give an example of the difference between a king and a president. She quickly gave a short, easy to understand example. A president can call his son Barron, but can't make him a baron. Very clear. Concise. What's nuts is that of all the brilliant things she said, that one line is the one that's getting so much press and discussion. And, she apologized for it! Good grief! Trump questioned Greta Thunberg's mental health! In no way did she disparage Trump's son.


:)
Crescent Park
on Dec 5, 2019 at 10:39 am
:), Crescent Park
on Dec 5, 2019 at 10:39 am
53 people like this

I’m in love with Jonathan Turley after watching him yesterday. He is much more neutral and plausible and argues with constitutional law facts vs. the drama and emotional tactics of Karlan.


Oracle
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2019 at 10:49 am
Oracle, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2019 at 10:49 am
56 people like this

Unfortunately professor Karlan's testimony was undercut when she was asked to raise her hand if she had any first hand knowledge of any material fact related to the case, and she was unable raise her hand.

Trump will not be removed from office through impeachment. The hearings are all just tedious theater featuring unskilled actors trying to score political points.

You can't just roll out a rerun of Watergate. The cultural context has changed. Boomer culture is collapsing.


Chris Zaharias
another community
on Dec 5, 2019 at 11:06 am
Chris Zaharias, another community
on Dec 5, 2019 at 11:06 am
40 people like this

"... when President Trump invited — indeed, demanded — foreign involvement in our upcoming election, he struck at the very heart of what makes this country the 'republic' to which we pledge allegiance," she said.

Wow, she clearly must've read Schiff's make-believe version of the transcript and not the real one.

I'm voting for Mayor Pete in 2020 after voting Republican all my life (I was the guy who walked down University Ave on election day urgent voters not vote for Hilary, btw). I gotta say to my fellow Palo Altans this: you live in something very, very far from reality, so much so that you can with a straight face say that this whole thing is something other than a desperate attempt to retake the White House by force now that voters didn't side with you.


Reader
Mountain View
on Dec 5, 2019 at 11:07 am
Reader, Mountain View
on Dec 5, 2019 at 11:07 am
49 people like this

Whether or not all PA-Weekly readers get this or try to rationalize it, Karlan will be remembered for a long time for the remark about Trump's child, which strikes many of us (who are not otherwise Trump supporters) as both uncalled-for and condescending.


expert vs fact testimony
Portola Valley
on Dec 5, 2019 at 11:13 am
expert vs fact testimony, Portola Valley
on Dec 5, 2019 at 11:13 am
49 people like this

> was asked to raise her hand if she had any first hand knowledge of any material fact related to the case

There's a difference between Fact witnesses and Expert witnesses.

Gordon Sundland was a fact witness called by the GOP. Mulvaney or Giuliani would be fact witnesses. (Ordering them to not testify to the American People is an example of obstruction.)


Extorting a foreign government to get them to interfere in our elections is criminal.


expert vs fact testimony
Portola Valley
on Dec 5, 2019 at 11:20 am
expert vs fact testimony, Portola Valley
on Dec 5, 2019 at 11:20 am
26 people like this

> for the remark about Trump's child

She apologized. Has Trump apologized for cyber-bullying a 16 yr old girl two months ago?

Has he apologized for *any* of his many "uncalled-for and condescending" remarks?

Has any one on the right apologized for him? Or for remarks made in the past? I don't really care, but we had a couple phone calls from Sasha and Malia, and Chelsea. Amy Carter called earlier.


CrescentParkAnon.
Crescent Park
on Dec 5, 2019 at 11:54 am
CrescentParkAnon., Crescent Park
on Dec 5, 2019 at 11:54 am
35 people like this

>> On the other hand, her snippet about 'Baron' bordered on the petty & she later apologized for her sardonic triviality.

Missed the hearings, but head about that. Silly comment.

How is it that so many are held to account for the smallest of gaffes while the guy who brought impeachment down on himself just keeps lying, insulting and boasting about how brilliant he is.


CrescentParkAnon.
Crescent Park
on Dec 5, 2019 at 11:56 am
CrescentParkAnon., Crescent Park
on Dec 5, 2019 at 11:56 am
38 people like this

A comment today on the radio was how would everyone feel if Trump called
the governor of their state during a national disaster and make their disaster
relief contingent upon undermining his political opponent?

No doubt this is a major and significant crime.


CrescentParkAnon.
Crescent Park
on Dec 5, 2019 at 11:59 am
CrescentParkAnon., Crescent Park
on Dec 5, 2019 at 11:59 am
23 people like this

>> She was asked to give an example of the difference between a king and a president. She quickly gave a short, easy to understand example. A president can call his son Barron, but can't make him a baron.

Thanks for that quick summary Mary O


Jane Gill
East Palo Alto
on Dec 5, 2019 at 12:00 pm
Jane Gill, East Palo Alto
on Dec 5, 2019 at 12:00 pm
72 people like this

Professor Karlan brought shame on Stanford University yesterday, and on the Law School in particular. It used to be that the minor-aged children of politicians were off limits. Not so anymore. Her Trump Derangement Syndrome runs deep.

Even her half-baked apology was insincere. [Portion removed.]


Green Gables
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 5, 2019 at 12:05 pm
Green Gables, Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2019 at 12:05 pm
14 people like this

Tom Campbell, who taught in the Law School at Stanford and was our Congressman for a few years, is an EXPERT on Constitutional knowledge. He's a very kind and respectful person. Too bad he lives in Southern California.


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2019 at 12:14 pm
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2019 at 12:14 pm
28 people like this

Posted by Jane Gill, a resident of East Palo Alto

>> Professor Karlan brought shame on Stanford University yesterday, and on the Law School in particular.

Is that what they are saying in the Alt-Right media? She made a pun.

>> It used to be that the minor-aged children of politicians were off limits. Not so anymore.

Well, nothing is off limits to Donald Trump himself, but, the professor made a pun. So what? It wasn't an attack or an insult.

[Portion removed.]


Agree
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2019 at 12:18 pm
Agree, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2019 at 12:18 pm
28 people like this

I worked at Stanford Law School when Tom Campbell was there and indeed, he is a nice person. In a speech to the Stanford law students, he advised them to stay grounded, respect everyone, and for example, say hello to the janitor. Perhaps he’s too nice to return to politics.


expert vs fact testimony
Portola Valley
on Dec 5, 2019 at 12:21 pm
expert vs fact testimony, Portola Valley
on Dec 5, 2019 at 12:21 pm
2 people like this

> "... was insincere. [Portion removed.]"

Nice. And your 'sincerity' was so "brillllyent" (read it in Trump's voice) it was immediately removed. Sorry I missed it.

(not)

iokiyar.


Don’t mention minors
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 5, 2019 at 12:26 pm
Don’t mention minors, Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 5, 2019 at 12:26 pm
50 people like this

She lost her gravitat when she mentioned the President’s minor son. No excuse for that - it was nasty and intentional. Just don’t do it.


Tony Favero
another community
on Dec 5, 2019 at 12:26 pm
Tony Favero, another community
on Dec 5, 2019 at 12:26 pm
44 people like this

A judicious approach to a rush to judgement:
Jonathan Turley at the unending congressional ‘witch hunt’….“I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and abundance of anger.” Turley continued… “This is not how you impeach an American president.” “I get it. You’re mad. The president’s mad. My Republican friends are mad. My Democratic friends are mad. My wife is mad. My kids are mad. Even my dog seems mad — and Luna is a golden doodle and they don’t get mad,” he continued.
“If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing exactly what you’re criticizing the president of doing,” he said.
Turley’s reasoning in all this is thoughtful, esp. so on the last quote above. The other legal ‘expert testimonies, esp. Professor Karlan, seem fraught with anger & a measure of irrationality that, in my view, excoriates a reasoned appraisal this kangaroo court style approach to impeachment.

Remember, Bill Clinton had committed perjury & lost his law license….a felon. Yet, he was not convicted in a Republican controlled senate. Impeachment is not a casual affair people. A future Democratic president may be treated likewise in the future, is this impeachment effort to become a new 3rd world standard for America?


Don’t mention minors
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 5, 2019 at 12:28 pm
Don’t mention minors, Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 5, 2019 at 12:28 pm
16 people like this

*gravitas


Reader
Mountain View
on Dec 5, 2019 at 12:33 pm
Reader, Mountain View
on Dec 5, 2019 at 12:33 pm
42 people like this

"She lost her gravitat when she mentioned the President’s minor son. No excuse for that - it was nasty and intentional. Just don’t do it."

It was also contrived. The given name in question is Barron, not Baron, and has a long history of its own as a name (including in Palo Alto, as all local readers know -- even one of the drop-down neighborhood options for Town Square has it, I believe). Karlan forced a pun in order to be deliberately nasty, and apologized only later, after backlash.

No "What-aboutism" references to anyone else, Trump included, justify it. This was an authentic, honest, unguarded example of TDS.


How Dare You
Stanford
on Dec 5, 2019 at 12:43 pm
How Dare You, Stanford
on Dec 5, 2019 at 12:43 pm
16 people like this

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2019 at 1:05 pm
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2019 at 1:05 pm
26 people like this

Posted by Tony Favero, a resident of another community

>> Yet, he was not convicted in a Republican controlled senate. Impeachment is not a casual affair people. A future Democratic president may be treated likewise in the future, is this impeachment effort to become a new 3rd world standard for America?

You are absolutely correct, it is not a casual affair, it is not a game. We have someone occupying the office of President of the United States who constantly verbally attacks the Constitution which he is sworn to "preserve, protect and defend", and, has committed at least seven felonies that we know of. We the people have the right and the duty to impeach and remove. Any President of any party should be impeached under these circumstances, Republican, Democrat, Green, or whatever. This is where every person in Congress has to place the Constitution higher than any official or any party.

In the military, there are several versions of a motto that is something like, "we salute the office, not the officer", or "we salute the uniform, not the man". Don't be deceived into thinking that people who want Trump impeached are not respecting the office of the President. It is Donald Trump who is disrespecting the office.


expert vs fact testimony
Portola Valley
on Dec 5, 2019 at 1:07 pm
expert vs fact testimony, Portola Valley
on Dec 5, 2019 at 1:07 pm
35 people like this

It's been observed that the right cannot defend trump on facts (he extorted for personal gain) but can only make noise about process, or in this case, some contrived offense at a poor pun.

Trump was running (and still is, as Rudy is continuing in Europe) an extortion scheme to subvert the 2020 election.

but... puns! Oh, noes!


CrescentParkAnon.
Crescent Park
on Dec 5, 2019 at 1:31 pm
CrescentParkAnon., Crescent Park
on Dec 5, 2019 at 1:31 pm
28 people like this

This comment that is drawing so much fire ... in what is really the fake media,
did not insult, disparage or say anything negative about Trump's little boy ...
she was just comparing the offspring of an "American President" versus a
monarch or dictator, and it to the point and brief.

But Jonathan Turley's was trite, low brow and off topic.


Scotty
Green Acres
on Dec 5, 2019 at 2:07 pm
Scotty, Green Acres
on Dec 5, 2019 at 2:07 pm
50 people like this

She provided a great service for all Republicans seeking re-election. Thanks Professor.


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2019 at 2:51 pm
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2019 at 2:51 pm
9 people like this

Posted by Scotty, a resident of Green Acres

>> She provided a great service for all Republicans seeking re-election. Thanks Professor.

Everybody makes verbal mistakes all the time. People who base their vote on simple, dumb slogans will find something, regardless. Character and policy, or, slogans?


mauricio
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Dec 5, 2019 at 3:28 pm
mauricio, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2019 at 3:28 pm
25 people like this

Extorting a foreign government to investigate a domestic political opponetwas much more than abuse of power. It was gangster behavior. If Mueller hadn't assumed, erroneously, that a sitting president cannot be indicted, we wouldn't even have to go through this process. Trump had invited back in 2016 a foreign power to interfere in the US election, and his representatives, met Russian agents at Trump Towers in NYC to plot it. That was treason.


What Will They Do Next
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 5, 2019 at 3:53 pm
What Will They Do Next, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2019 at 3:53 pm
39 people like this

[Portion removed.]

These so called "Constitutional Experts" were nothing more than partisan hacks who were an embarrassment to the entire dog and pony show and their respective universities. It was particularly interesting to see them not raise their hands when asked if they had any direct knowledge of wrongdoings by the president. Karlan, a former front runner for a Supreme Court nomination got passed over by Barack Obama for a more moderately sensible justice, Sonia Sotomayor. Maybe that's where her anger comes from.

I know these are difficult times for Palo Alto liberals and progressives because they are smart enough to know that the Senate will not vote for the impeachment, the Democrats don't have a candidate that can beat Trump and most likely, he'll win by a landslide in 2020. Such is life in the real world.


expert vs fact testimony
Portola Valley
on Dec 5, 2019 at 4:09 pm
expert vs fact testimony, Portola Valley
on Dec 5, 2019 at 4:09 pm
15 people like this

> It was particularly interesting to see them not raise their hands when asked if they had any direct knowledge of wrongdoings by the president.

Someone else who doesn't know the difference between the two types of witnesses described above:

"There's a difference between Fact witnesses and Expert witnesses.

Gordon Sundland was a fact witness called by the GOP. Mulvaney or Giuliani would be fact witnesses. (Ordering them to not testify to the American People is an example of obstruction.)

Extorting a foreign government to get them to interfere in our elections is criminal."

Lots of juvenile name calling and derision, but zero refutation of the expert testimony given by constitutional law professors.


mauricio
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Dec 5, 2019 at 4:11 pm
mauricio, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2019 at 4:11 pm
20 people like this

<The way that it does it is exactly what President Washington warned about, by inviting a foreign government to influence our elections. It takes the right away from the American people, and it turns that into a right that foreign governments decide to interfere for their own benefit. Foreign governments don't interfere in our elections to benefit us, they interfere to benefit themselves.>

If every Democratic candidate for president doesn’t adopt this framing on impeachment on the stump, then none of them deserve to win. This puts the president*’s crimes right in everyone’s living room.


pmarca
Stanford
on Dec 5, 2019 at 4:17 pm
pmarca, Stanford
on Dec 5, 2019 at 4:17 pm
35 people like this

[Portion removed.]

The law and certainly people being touted as legal experts should not be partisan or invoking their personal views, political bias or acting on behalf of any party.

Her statements were obviously biased. [Portion removed.]

Law schools are declining in admissions, but Stanford's credibility took a major hit thanks to Karlan.

[Portion removed.]


Enough!
Mountain View
on Dec 5, 2019 at 4:28 pm
Enough!, Mountain View
on Dec 5, 2019 at 4:28 pm
30 people like this

It's amazing how the -45 cult find ways to portray themselves as the victims on this discussion board.

Never mind the fact (yes, FACT) that -45's campaign actively sought out Russia's help in influencing the 2016 election; never mind that -45's administration put pressure on Ukraine to help subvert the 2020 election; never mind that -45's administration is doing everything possible to subvert the rule of law in each case.

In the eyes of the -45 cult, none of that is real. What is put out from Putin by way of Fox "News," Breitbart, InfoWars, and right-wing AM talk radio -- that, somehow, is real.

[Portion removed.]


What Will They Do Next
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 5, 2019 at 4:42 pm
What Will They Do Next, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2019 at 4:42 pm
38 people like this

@ Enough!....."Tell Vlad I'll have more flexibility after November's election," "give me space on missile defense," said Barack Obama to Dimitry Medvedev, caught on an open mike. Oops! I guess you forgot about that, didn't you.

BTW, the so-called Russian interference in the 2016 election happened under Obama's watch. Oops! I guess you forgot about that, too.


Democratia
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 5, 2019 at 7:38 pm
Democratia, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2019 at 7:38 pm
20 people like this

Have we been listening to the same hearings?
Professor who was invited as expert witness was harassed by bullies (have you watched representative Gaetz? Rude and ignorant)
She made a somewhat unfortunate pun while explaining the difference between democracy and dictatorship.
I get that USA is divided . Palo Alto is divided took?
I have a young child . You know what kills me? How am I supposed to explain to my child that people support this and residency ? I don’t understand how any person of decent character can support a person such as Trump and his republican backers. [Portion removed.] You complain about a first name of a minor child of president being used in a pun as if it was the most powerful person in the world twitting crap about a child who is passionate about climate change. Remember Greta? She is 16. A child. A minor.


What Will They Do Next
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 5, 2019 at 8:58 pm
What Will They Do Next, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2019 at 8:58 pm
32 people like this

@ Democratia .... there was nothing "unfortunate" about her "pun." It was planned and rehearsed and the question set her up to deliver it. Only the very naive or biased would see it any other way. Can you imagine what the reaction would be if a young Chelsea Clinton had been brought up during her father's impeachment trial? Liberals and the press would be going off the rails. Think about it. Most of the country supported Trump and so did many Palo Altans. That's why he is the president. Decent people aren't exclusive to democrats. Most felt about Hillary Clinton as you do about Donald Trump. How could anyone support her? Well, they didn't. That's why she lost for the second time.


Democratia
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 5, 2019 at 9:26 pm
Democratia, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2019 at 9:26 pm
10 people like this

Most of the country did not support Donald Trump. He lost the popular vote by a few million, you know.
I cannot imagine Chelsea as a child being Brough up in her father's impeachment trial, and I am very grateful she wasn't. But I also cannot imagine Bill Clinton mocking a journalist with a disability, making negative comments about a war hero, or questioning patriotism of Purple Heart recipient. So there is that.

Oh, and I do remember a lot fo negative BS about our previous president's daughters looking bored while he was pardoning a turkey. You know, two teenagers who had to be there and put up with their father's dad jokes who looked kinda like teenagers who put up with their father's dad jokes? Remember how they were shamed for not "looking the part"? Yeah, they were minors too.

anyway. I used to feel like our bubble here was complete. I was wrong. Thank you for the wake up call.


Scotty
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 5, 2019 at 10:00 pm
Scotty, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2019 at 10:00 pm
38 people like this

@Democratia--Somebody disagrees with you....Rasmussen latest polling has him at 52% Approval today -highest of his presidency. Popular vote whatever........Its called "winning"


That User Name is already
Registered user
another community
on Dec 5, 2019 at 11:06 pm
That User Name is already, another community
Registered user
on Dec 5, 2019 at 11:06 pm
4 people like this

Scotty: the rest of the Rasmussan numbers - "38% who Strongly Approve of the job Trump is doing and 40% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -2"

As you are aware, Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million (-2%.) Also, since his election, republicans have UNDERperformed in virtually every election. if you somehow disagree, go ahead and list the top three elections where the GOP overperformed.

Rasmussan is widely recognized as slanted; historically they only pull back into line with other pollsters only just before the actual election (the "final" polls.) For example, despite having Trump favored for months, Ras's final 2016 poll came into line with many others that had a range of Clinton +2% to Clinton +4%.


A better indication is an average of a broad selection of polls, such as RCP.

Here's the toplines from RCP today (excuse the formatting:)

RCP Average 11/21 - 12/4 -- 43.8 52.7 -8.9
Trump approve 43.8
Trump disapprove 52.7


Economist/YG 12/1 - 12/3 1200 RV 46 52 -6
Rasmussen 12/2 - 12/4 1500 LV 52 47 +5
Reuters/Ipsos 12/2 - 12/3 955 RV 42 54 -12
Quinnipiac 11/21 - 11/25 1355 RV 40 54 -14
Politico/MC 11/22 - 11/24 1988 RV 40 56 -16
CNN 11/21 - 11/24 910 RV 43 53 -10

Go ahead and take a look - since July, only Rasmussan and Emerson have Trump above water.


What Will They Do Next
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 6, 2019 at 7:39 am
What Will They Do Next, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2019 at 7:39 am
27 people like this

@ Democratia....the popular vote difference comes from those that live in a bubble. The rest of the country doesn't. And we're very fortunate they don't. That's why we have the electoral college. And we're very fortunate we do. Most people don't want the politics of California,New York and a few other scattered pockets determining how the country should be run.

Dad jokes and what Karlan did are vastly different. She was intentionally snarky. The smirk on her face while she paused for laughter said it all. Maybe she should try stand up. Uh, maybe not.


Democratia
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 6, 2019 at 8:02 am
Democratia, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2019 at 8:02 am
16 people like this

She made a pun. Did not say anything about the minor child; used a name his parents gave him in a pun.
Conservative media was horrible discussing the character flaws etc of two minor girls who looked bored.
You really don’t see the difference?


That User Name is already
Registered user
another community
on Dec 6, 2019 at 9:29 am
That User Name is already, another community
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2019 at 9:29 am
6 people like this

Democratia - all s/he wants to do is argue about a pun, or process. Anything rather than the fact that a US president is accused of engaging another country to interfere in the 2020 election, a blow at the very core of the Constitution.

While s/he obviously supports part of the Constitution, she doesn't want to talk about testimony about the Constitution and how it relates to the facts provided thus far regarding extortion, bribery and high crimes.

Quite selective. Puns are more important to her/him than supporting American principles.


What Will They Do Next
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 6, 2019 at 10:41 am
What Will They Do Next, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2019 at 10:41 am
23 people like this

@ That User Name is already......hearsay is not fact. Accusations are not fact. There is no factual evidence. Selectivity is all you've got. Schiff and his minions select bits and pieces of information that support their narrative and leave out the entire context. That is a fact. First it was Russia (fail) then collusion (fail) and now it's bribery. What will it be next when that fails?

The three "experts" based their constitutional lectures/opinions on hearsay and couldn't raise their hands when asked if they had direct knowledge of wrongdoing. That is also a fact.


That User Name is already
Registered user
another community
on Dec 6, 2019 at 10:53 am
That User Name is already, another community
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2019 at 10:53 am
10 people like this

"First it was Russia (fail)"

The entire American intelligence community has told you that Russia attacked our country and interfered with the 2016 election.

But you deny it (except, oddly, where you admit it elsewhere.)

Why do you dislike American democracy so much? Why are you siding with Russia, like so many of today's 'right'?


****


"The three "experts" based their constitutional lectures/opinions on... "

...their expertise on the US Constitution (a given that even you can't deny) and previous congressional testimony, on record.


What Will They Do Next
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 6, 2019 at 11:51 am
What Will They Do Next, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2019 at 11:51 am
21 people like this

@ That User Name is already.....the"Russia attack on the 2016 election" occurred during the Obama presidency. The left conveniently forgets that fact. I am not in denial of the facts. What Russia did was wrong and efforts to stop future incursions into our elections need to be a priority, but Donald Trump was not the POTUS when it took place. You might want to look it up. That is a fact.

The expert testimony by the academics (who BTW are very noted liberals) was based on congressional testimony which was based on hearsay and partisan interpretation of a phone conversation. They gave Schiff exactly what he wanted, biased blather.


That User Name is already
Registered user
another community
on Dec 6, 2019 at 12:08 pm
That User Name is already, another community
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2019 at 12:08 pm
14 people like this

"I am not in denial of the facts."

Then you are well aware that:

- Moscow Mitch McConnell blocked action against Russia and releasing knowledge of the attack to the American public
- Trump and friends are lying when they try to pin 2016 Russian election interference on Ukraine


gene786
Registered user
Palo Verde
on Dec 6, 2019 at 12:16 pm
gene786, Palo Verde
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2019 at 12:16 pm
17 people like this

@what will they do next, et al.

Jokes or laughs arise from the clash of incongurous ideas in the mind. So one has to know what each idea means for them to appear incongruous. The only problem Professor Karlin had was to overestimate the intelligence of a significant portion of her audience.


Mark Weiss
Registered user
Downtown North
on Dec 6, 2019 at 2:51 pm
Mark Weiss, Downtown North
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2019 at 2:51 pm
10 people like this


Too hip for the room.


What Will They Do Next
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 6, 2019 at 2:57 pm
What Will They Do Next, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2019 at 2:57 pm
14 people like this

@ That User Name....Schiff and friends are lying about everything. So as of yesterday it's back to the Russia thing again. Russia, collusion, bribery, Russia. When will the lemmings get it? They have nothing.....nada.....zilch.

Wisely, the Trump administration will not participate in the impeachment hearings. Let them vote and end the charade. The Senate, with some democrats jumping ship, will then finish it off.


Mark Weiss
Registered user
Downtown North
on Dec 6, 2019 at 3:08 pm
Mark Weiss, Downtown North
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2019 at 3:08 pm
6 people like this

Professor Turley disparaged the impeachment arguments by comparing it to "improvised jazz". One characteristic of jazz musicians is their ability to listen to each other, which our leaders do not do. In 1963 Dizzy Gillespie ran for president: I'd argue that we'd be way better off if he had won.

Michael McFaul the Stanford professor who is literally Putin's nemesis, listens to jazz. (His father was a music teacher).

A lot of our policy quagmires could be resolved if leadership could think in more subtle and abstract terms, that are required for art and music.


Mark Weiss
Registered user
Downtown North
on Dec 6, 2019 at 3:16 pm
Mark Weiss, Downtown North
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2019 at 3:16 pm
Like this comment

We, the cats, shall hep ya:
Web Link


That User Name is already
Registered user
another community
on Dec 6, 2019 at 3:16 pm
That User Name is already, another community
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2019 at 3:16 pm
14 people like this

See the trick?

"...Russia. When will the lemmings get it? They have nothing.....nada.....zilch."

S/he knows she can't deny the reality that Russia interfered with the 2016 election, so she mucks it up with name-calling, etc..

- Trump and friends are lying when they try to pin 2016 Russian election interference on Ukraine


What Will They Do Next
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 6, 2019 at 4:02 pm
What Will They Do Next, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2019 at 4:02 pm
23 people like this

@ That User Name.... for the third time, I am NOT in denial that Russia interfered with the 2016 election. Trump was not the president then, Obama was. Trump was not involved despite what the dem narrative is pushing. There is nothing he has said or done that is impeachable by any legal standards. Allegations by Adam Schiff and the democrats based on hearsay won't cut it. My last words on this matter.


That User Name is already
Registered user
another community
on Dec 6, 2019 at 4:31 pm
That User Name is already, another community
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2019 at 4:31 pm
17 people like this

" I am NOT in denial that Russia interfered with the 2016 election "

They did. And Trump's campaign had over 100 contacts with Russians. Trump obstructed justice ten times in the investigation of those contacts.

Facts. Read the Mueller report.

Fact: Trump and friends are lying when they try to pin 2016 Russian election interference on Ukraine. Poster above just admitted it was Russia.

Fact: Trump extorted Ukraine to get help in blaming Ukraine for Russia's interference.

'I would like you to do US a favor though'

Hearsay?!? You HEARD him SAY it.

So yeah, you should quit. Once you agree with American intelligence services about Russia's interference, the rest of Trump's crimes become obvious, and indefensible.


Democratia
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 6, 2019 at 6:11 pm
Democratia, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2019 at 6:11 pm
29 people like this

And this is what scares me the most. No matter how much information, expertise, knowledge, facts, etc is provided no mind has been changed as of now. There are excuses, reasoning and just plain fantasy that people keep repeating to themselves until they fully believe it.
Yes, Obama was president in 2016. The Senate, however, was Republican. And that Republican Senate stopped any attempt of then president Obama to do anything about the interference.

Professor Karlan came to testify as an expert witness. She brought her expertise to the table. First thing she had to deal with is statements that she (along with the other expert witnesses) did not do their job. Literally, right off the bat.

Then, in trying to make a point, she made an unfortunate joke. Yes, we are all aware that liberals are held to a much higher standard in being PC. She - probably - should not have mentioned a name of the president's minor child. Not that its a secret, nor did she make any derogatory comments about him - unlike the president along with numerous members of "party of family values" who made plenty of derogatory comments about another child not two months ago. Greta is 16. She is a child.

And now, just a curious point, now that same party of family values members are putting down elite educational institutions.

When did we stop respecting education and expertise that comes from education?

I am sorry I know I am rambling. I am just so tired of this complex of fake victimhood that seems to be rampant in the country.


Scotty
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 6, 2019 at 8:41 pm
Scotty, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 6, 2019 at 8:41 pm
30 people like this

Dig in @ Democratia. You're going to have 5 more years of this...and she didn't help irrespective of her name calling. Remember, those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.


What Will They Do Next
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 7, 2019 at 10:30 am
What Will They Do Next, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2019 at 10:30 am
25 people like this

@ Democratia... you're referring of course to Hillary Clinton (victim #1) and Kamala Harris (victim #2), correct? I could add to a quite long list but won't. And not all are women, but are most certainly democrats. Victimization is a strategy for them. Not taking responsibility isn't. Rampant is a good way to describe it.


That User Name is already
Registered user
another community
on Dec 7, 2019 at 11:22 am
That User Name is already, another community
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2019 at 11:22 am
10 people like this

Excellent!

They are now reduced to arguing about puns and gender now that they admitted Russia interfered with the 2016 election.

- Trump's campaign had over 100 contacts with Russians.
- Trump obstructed justice ten times in the investigation of those contacts.
- Trump and friends are lying when they try to pin 2016 Russian election interference on Ukraine.
- Trump extorted Ukraine to get help in blaming Ukraine for Russia's interference
- 'I would like you to do US a favor though'

Hearsay?!? You HEARD him SAY it.

Once you accepts facts from our American intelligence services about Russia's interference, the rest of Trump's crimes become obvious, and indefensible.

Put pence under oath about his participation in Trump's crimes and judge them both.

But puns!


What Will They Do Next
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 7, 2019 at 2:50 pm
What Will They Do Next, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2019 at 2:50 pm
26 people like this

@ Democratia...I would call them "elitist educational institutions" complete with their condescending faculty.


Democratia
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 7, 2019 at 4:24 pm
Democratia, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2019 at 4:24 pm
18 people like this

I am being trolled, right ?
Or that “what will they do next “ username is unable to read and comprehend information provided.
Probably the first one though.
And I prefer not to feed the trolls.


What Will They Do Next
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 7, 2019 at 7:57 pm
What Will They Do Next, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 7, 2019 at 7:57 pm
22 people like this

@ Democratia ...No, your comments are being challenged. Not everyone thinks or has the same opinions as you. Get used to it. Free speech isn't an exclusive format for liberals.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.