YouTube: The Impeachment Handbook with John Yoo & Richard Epstein

Two constitutional scholars discuss the articles of impeachment. They agree, to the extent two lawyers might, that the first article is “a joke” and the second a disgrace.

16 thoughts on “YouTube: The Impeachment Handbook with John Yoo & Richard Epstein

  1. So that makes 3, 4 if you add the shill Dershowitz. In House testimony there were 3 (out of 4) that are just as scholarly, who said the opposite. Keep finding those that back your opinion and ignore those who don’t.

    How are things in your echo chamber?

    Liked by 2 people

      1. I listen to others, read the drivel you post and give it a fair shot. You ignore other things or attack them because you don’t like the source or disagree with their much more learned than you opinion. I open the door. You can’t even find the handle to let the sun shine in.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: “I open the door. You can’t even find the handle to let the sun shine in.”

        Your childishness is tiresome, but in this case you create an opportunity for me to preach what I practice, as it were.

        To wit: Assertions require substantiation.

        Any fool can make assertions. Only someone capable of thinking can prove them, or would take the trouble to try, or deserves to be paid attention to.

        To illustrate, you make a number of assertions about me in the comment I am responding to. I challenge you to prove any of them. For example, you say I “ignore” things because I don’t like the source. But I know you cannot find a single example of me disagreeing with a source and not explaining the reason for my disagreement. You have asserted something about me that you cannot prove, or if you could you have been too lazy to do it.

        Your problem is you don’t understand that unsubstantiated assertions are dishonest. In a discussion forum such as this, you are entitled to state your opinions, no matter what they might be. But you are not entitled to have your opinions taken seriously when you offer them on the cheap, without substantiating them or standing behind them in any way.

        What do you expect, that everyone on Earth already recognizes you as the epitome of intelligence and wisdom?

        Like

        1. No just for you to stop spreading lies and disinformation and distortions and conspiracies and all of the other crap you espouse in support of the most derelict and corrupt administration in the history of this country. Harding looks like a saint compared to trump.

          Like

          1. You use a lot of words to say very little.

            The list is long and illustrious. I have done that before and you tried, in vain to convince me and others, otherwise. You are so deep in conspiracy land you can’t see your way out.

            Like

  2. Epstein makes several declarations that are, to me, false.

    “No criminal action”.

    He dismisses High Crimes which historically refers to abuses specific to high office, but may not be criminal to the average citizen.

    “No pressure” on Ukraine.

    Sure, a struggling country which is fighting for its life against the second most powerful military in the world and needs both credibility through visible support by an invite to the Oval Office and weapons is going to do whatever it can to not piss off our president and still maintain some international standing. No pressure, my butt.

    “Biden stopped investigation”. No, he withheld funds because there were no investigations. The same reason the international community was withholding $18 billion in guarantees.

    All this in the first 5 minutes.

    Oh, and saying “Pelosi is always, always wrong” adds a final tier to the bias layer cake.

    IMHO

    Liked by 3 people

    1. RE: “No criminal action.”

      I agree with Epstein. It is mere common sense to point out that the phrase high crimes implies that a crime must have been committed.

      Moreover, abuse of power cannot be a high crime in and of itself because two question arise:

      • What power was exercised?
      • How was the exercise of power either proper or improper? If proper then there was no abuse. If improper, a crime must have been committed.

      It may be, as Yoo argues, that a high crime is a special category of offense, but Epstein is still correct that without some sort of criminal action, there is no high crime.

      RE: “‘No pressure’ on Ukraine.”

      You argue that Ukraine was under pressure, but that’s irrelevant. The only relevant question is whether the president caused that pressure. If he didn’t, then there is no impeachable offense.

      RE: “Biden stopped investigation.”

      This is unarguably true. Biden himself took credit for doing so. Also, the Ukrainian prosecutor is on record confirming Biden’s statement.

      There is evidence, some of it posted here in the Forum, that Burisma operated as a money laundering operation for various international interests. If true, that would explain why the “international community” wanted the prosecutor removed.

      Like

      1. “Daria Kaleniuk, an American-educated lawyer who founded Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Action Center, expressed frustration that two recent front-page stories in the New York Times, on how the conspiracy theory is being used to attack Biden, failed to properly debunk the false accusation. According to Kaleniuk, and a former anti-corruption prosecutor, there is simply no truth to the rumor now spreading like wildfire across the internet.

        The accusation is that Biden blackmailed Ukraine’s new leaders into firing the country’s chief prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, to derail an investigation he was leading into a Ukrainian gas company that the vice president’s son, Hunter, was paid to advise.

        The truth, Kaleniuk said, is that Shokin was forced from office at Biden’s urging because he had failed to conduct thorough investigations of corruption, and had stifled efforts to investigate embezzlement and misconduct by public officials following the 2014 uprising.”

        https://theintercept.com/2019/05/10/rumors-joe-biden-scandal-ukraine-absolute-nonsense-reformer-says/

        Shokin lied when asked about this. After all, he was the fired prosecutor. And Lutsenko, Shokin’s successor, was arranging a business deal with Giuliani for $200,000

        https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/16/21024076/impeachment-giuliani-trump-biden-conspiracy-theory-ukraine-burisma

        Pressure is certainly relevant. That was the whole raison d’être for the phone call. “Do us a favor…”.
        When a “favor” is asked in a very lopsided power relationship, that is pressure.

        Finally, High Crimes and Misdemeanors:

        “The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, and tax evasion.”

        In my opinion, Epstein is wrong on all counts.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. @Roberts

    LOL!

    You are asking us to put any weight on what John Yoo thinks? As a reminder, John Yoo is the legal genius who declared that torturing helpless captives is not a war crime. I would call him a partisan hack but that would be far too generous.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “You are asking us to put any weight on what John Yoo thinks?”

      I’m not asking you to do anything. If you can’t deal with Yoo’s substantive statements in this instance, that’s your problem.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s