Trump lawyers to Jerry Nadler: We won’t participate in your sham Wednesday law professor hearing
Planned hearing “does not begin to provide the President with any semblance of a fair process.”
The impeachment torch is about to be passed from Adam Schiff (House Intelligence Committee) to Jerry Nadler (House Judiciary Committee).
Nadler scheduled a “hearing” for Wednesday, but it’s not an evidentiary hearing and the witnesses (as of this writing) are unknown.
What is known it that there will be three pro-impeachment law professors called by Democrats to opine on what constitutes an impeachable offense. (Spoiler — if Democrats are calling the law professors, they will opine that anything and everything Trump did is an impeachable offense). Republicans will be allowed one legal expert to say the opposite.
In other words, it’s a show hearing, meant to give the pro-impeachment mainstream media a news cycle dominated (by numbers) by pro-impeachment opinions.
Trump’s lawyers sent a letter tonight to Nadler rejecting the premise and procedure of the hearing, and refusing to participate. Politico reports:
The White House informed House Democrats on Sunday that it will not participate in the Judiciary Committee’s first impeachment hearing, excoriating Democrats’ impeachment inquiry as a “baseless” and “partisan” exercise in scathing five-page letter to the panel’s chairman.…
“Under the current circumstances, we do not intend to participate in your Wednesday hearing,” White House Counsel Pat Cipollone wrote in a letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), adding that “an invitation to an academic discussion with law professors does not begin to provide the president with any semblance of a fair process.” …
Nadler has yet to identify any witnesses, but Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the committee, has requested that the witness panel include an equal number of Democratic- and GOP-selected scholars.
This is a failure of the Judiciary Committee to be able to talk to fact witnesses, to be able to talk to the people that have actually been a part of this, and actually have the president viably participate in his own defense — which he’s not had the opportunity to do now,” the Georgia Republican said on “Fox News Sunday.“ …
“It is too late to cure the profound procedural deficiencies that have tainted this entire inquiry,” Cipollone wrote Sunday, adding: “We cannot fairly be expected to participate in a hearing while the witnesses are yet to be named and while it remains unclear whether the Judiciary Committee will afford the president a fair process through additional hearings.”
Here’s Doug Collins previewing Republican objections that will raised at the hearing, including the demand that Adam Schiff testify:
More from the Trump lawyer letter:
The Committee’s unfair process regarding this hearing follows numerous other violations of due process by the House-both before and since the adoption of House Resolution (“H. Res.”) 60-including the outright prohibition on participation by the President at any stage in the proceedings before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (“HPSCI”). There, Chairman Schiff attempted to concoct a false narrative through selective citation of the testimony of witnesses of his choosing, after vetting them during closed-door depositions hidden from both the President and the American public. The President was not allowed to present evidence, to call witnesses, to cross examine witnesses, or even to see transcripts until weeks after testimony had been taken, and he was allowed absolutely no participation in the public hearings that followed. Further, witness requests made by Republicans were denied. In addition, certain questioning of the witnesses who did testify was censored by Democrats….
It is too late to cure the profound procedural deficiencies that have tainted this entire inquiry. Nevertheless, if you are serious about conducting a fair process going forward, and in order to protect the rights and privileges of the President, we may consider participating in future Judiciary Committee proceedings if you afford the Administration the ability to do so meaningfully….
As for the hearing scheduled for December 4, we cannot fairly be expected to participate in a hearing while the witnesses are yet to be named and while it remains unclear whether the Judiciary Committee will afford the President a fair process through additional hearings. More importantly, an invitation to an academic discussion with law professors does not begin to provide the President with any semblance of a fair process. Accordingly, under the current circumstances, we do not intend to participate in your Wednesday hearing.
The impeachment inquisition is being conducted in a dishonest, deceptive and manipulative manner, engineered by Adam Schiff. House Republicans appear ready to put Schiff on trial, or at least to try to do that. Should make for good TV.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Pathetically desperate and transparent ploy by the democrats.
They NEED Trump to be there so they can goad him into an outburst, then they’ll cut out the Democrat antics and play it on loop on the Democrat media.
That’s all they have. If they had a single shred of actual evidence they would have used it or leaked it weeks ago.
Now they’re desperate to salvage SOMETHING out of this schiffshow.
It’s actually pathetic.
“No”
“You, and the horse you rode in on…”
“Cordially”
It has to be balanced against separation of powers problems, but Schiff, Nadler et al are prima facie guilty of sedition, abuse of process, and probably a hundred other serious crimes.
What to do about it is above my pay grade, and I’m very glad that it is.
It will involve us all regardless of pay grade. They say all politics is local, but I add all bureaucracies aren’t.
What they’ve done is dishonest and destructive and stinks to high heaven, but it’s not against the law.
If it weren’t for the fact that everything he’s said has been on the House floor, Schiff could be found guilty of slander by any unbiased jury, even with the higher standard needed for proving slander or libel against public figures.
Anything said on the house floor is not actionable… congresscritters are held to lower standards than the rest of us.
Seeing how the government must operate under the restrictions imposed by the constitution it is against the law.
Which is why my comment is phrased as it is.
Great argument for legalizing dueling – let those slandered or libeled hold them to account directly.
No, it is not against the law. There is no law against it. That is not an opinion, it’s a fact, so you’re not entitled to your own.
I’m not even sure there should be a law against it. Such a law would probably do more harm than good. The only remedy against such abuses is at the ballot box, and since the voters are dumber than the average jury, and that’s not a high standard, they’re likely to go unpunished.
Sounds like Nadler at al need some attention from that Well Regulated Militia.
It’s either defend or deny … looks like they’ve chosen deny. OTOH … I don’t think Trump or his lawyers are clear headed enough to speak for themselves … so the D’s and the media would have a field day.
“…so the D’s and the media would have a field day.”
Right. It’s worked so well to date.
LOL, you Fing progs live in a fantasy world.
Deny what?
Mueller found zero grounds for charges. The (D)s came up with nothing in the secret hearings. They came up with nothing in the public hearings. They have nothing in these new hearings, or else they wouldn’t have invited yet another round of losers to give their opinion about whether Trump should be impeached on ah, er, uh, um, what was it again that he was being impeached for?
Oh that’s right – winning in 2016, which didn’t give you tyrants the power you crave.
How about you move to Venezuela. They could really use your help right now as Minister Of Toilet Paper.
Whereas for the Democrats it’s either double down on the lies or surrender.
I see you’ve opted for the former.
“While we choose not to participate in your sham hearing, we DO wish to offer you this wafer-thin mint”
Pat Cipollone is an artist with the pen. That is one of the most brutal, yet polite cutdowns I’ve ever seen. A good lawyer is one who can tell you to go to h*ll and have you look forward to the trip, and Pat is indeed a very good one. That letter deserves to be run full-size, front page on every newspaper in the country, and if Trump were a Democrat, it would be.
Good. The president has no case to answer, so he shouldn’t try answering it.
The question now is: aside from Pelosi, biden, Kerry and Obama, how much did nadler get in the Ukraine US foreign aid kickbacks?
Good question. Trump delayed the aid (a normal procedure) while trying to reduce the obnoxious share the US pays, but more importantly, stop throwing US dollars into an abyss of corruption where the ‘aid’ gets laundered and distributed to cronies.
Example: Where did Burisma get the money to pay Hunter Biden?
Smells to me like the whole DC swamp establishment shakes down the US tax payer and then concocts schemes to make it appear that graft payments are going to legit causes.
So Hunter was responsible for redistributing a portion of the stolen $1 bil in “aid” back to the Biden family, and Trump tried to do something about it…
The President is no more entitled to get his oar in during House hearings than a defense attorney is entitled to participate in discussions in a DA’s office. The representation, cross examinations, etc. happen during the trial (in quotidian legal cases) or in the Senate (in impeachment proceedings). What the D’rats are doing aren’t “show trials” as they aren’t trials at all; they’re D’rat strategy meetings and news conferences.
That doesn’t mean the R’s can’t throw in some hand grenades, but this is the House’s show, and the House is a Dem stomping ground. If they want to impeach DJT with the excuse that they don’t think that his hair will look good when future Americans put his face on some large-denomination bit of paper money, they can do that. Of course such a tactic will collapse in the Senate, but they’ll have successfully delivered their propaganda assault.
But they won’t vote to impeach. They’re really dragging this out, and that’s deliberate. This business of having two different committees go through their circus hoops in series makes the stall tactic too obvious for even the press to ignore.
i. They have nothing.
ii. There’s no realistic prospect that they’ll find anything in the future.
iii. Even if they did it will die a grim death in the Senate.
iv. So all they have left is to drone on and pretend that he’s as good as removed already.
v. The D’rats won’t run the danger of being cross-examined in the Senate, so they can’t actually vote for impeachment. But they can make piles of noise about it. And they’ll continue to do so.
vi. Watch for them to claim that POTUS can’t nominate an Associate Justice while he’s under “investigation” for high crimes, misdemeanors, or “hey, whatever, dude.” They know the RBG clock is ticking and they’re desperate to prevent another Federalist Society justice on the Court.
Which begs the question: Is their panel of legal scholars there to convince the Dems that they have a case or to convince the public to play along?
Mitch will not cave on a scotus nomination. Chuckie will cry and shout but in the end if another scotus slot opens between now and November, Mitch will hold confirmation hearings.
Libs will cry and stomp feet but at the end of the day, another justice will be seated.
You’re right, but I can’t help but wonder what’s going to happen if and when the Dems run the table again. I can see the possibility that they will try to remove Trump’s SCOTUS judges because they are “illegitimate”.
Only if they have 2/3 in the Senate.
Between now and January 2021.
It’s a genre of MSM news, playing to half the country. It’s more an entertainment trial than a show trial.
What they get out of it isn’t selling eyeballs to advertisers but control in the next election, they hope. But it still depends on the entertainment force and soap opera.
IMHO the Republicans should call Alan Dershowitz as their academic witness.
Dershowitz, sure, only if he can dump his first hand details on Epstein and snag them all. The Animal House Wink….We took a few liberties.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROxvT8KKdFw
I would not trust Dershowitz as far as I can throw him.
The abuse of Due Process by the Democrats is an serious issue here. People in this country need to wake up. Just because it is Trump just shows you to what extent they will go to denie people their rights.
You ain’t seen nothin’ yet. I had a “debate” on Breitbart a few days ago with some guy who was trying in all seriousness to argue that the 17th Amendment was unconstitutional. Just let that argument find its way into mainstream nutcase and see what they try to get away with.
I want to see Schiff testify under oath and forced o either perjure himself or take the fifth.
I want to see Schiff testify under oath and forced to either perjure himself or take the fifth.
So, are we to expect more talking points from pro impeachment law professors. Can’t wait for the excitement this will generate, since we’ve been listening to pro impeachment talking points for 3 years.