Free Republic

The past 50 years have not been good for presidential impeachment. In 1974, the Constitution worked as it should have when President Richard Nixon resigned on the brink of certain impeachment in the US House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. With substantial proof of Nixon’s misconduct assembled by the House, Senate and special prosecutor, the public overwhelmingly agreed with removing Nixon from office. In contrast, Republicans last Wednesday voted to authorize an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden based on unspecified, undemonstrated misconduct. There is no evidence, much less any established public consensus, that impeachment is warranted or...

There have been suggestions that the White House defense team could be brought up on bar charges for their arguments in the Senate. I have previously written that such statements by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others are vindictive and ill-informed. The White House team were effective advocates for their clients and we do not disbar lawyers for making arguments or defending individuals that we do not like. I was surprised and disappointed therefore that my fellow witness from the Trump impeachment hearing, North Carolina Law Professor and CNN Legal Analyst Michael Gerhardt joined this dubious argument on CNN yesterday. The...

It is tempting to describe Wednesday’s impeachment hearing before the House Judiciary Committee as a farce. But it was worse than that. It made a travesty of fairness. With Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. at the helm of the Judiciary Committee, there was no real chance that President Trump would be treated equitably. After all, Nadler’s confederate and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., had already obliterated any semblance of due process in impeachment hearings before his committee. The Schiff hearings were a lollapalooza of hearsay, opinion and grotesque speculation. So there was no reason to believe...

In his impeachment preview, Scott notes that on Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee will begin its hearings by taking testimony from four law professors: Pam Karlan, Noah Feldman, Michael Gerhardt, and Jonathan Turley. It’s easy to ridicule leading off with law professors, and it’s true that doing so isn’t the best way to capture the public’s interest. Logically, however, it makes sense to begin the hearings by discussing the standard for impeaching a president. One can then analyze the evidence through the prism of the standard. But this assumes that the discussion of the standard isn’t filtered through the prism...