'Strongly Disagree': 300 Law Professors Criticize Cipollone's Opposition to Impeachment
The law professors claim that White House counsel Pat Cipollone's letter "fails to recognize the seriousness of the charges against President Trump for abusing executive power for personal political gain and violating federal election law."
October 18, 2019 at 02:55 PM
5 minute read
More than 300 legal scholars are speaking out against White House counsel Pat Cipollone's letter refusing to cooperate with the U.S. House's impeachment inquiry, saying they "strongly disagree" with Cipollone's claims that the inquiry is unconstitutional.
The White House counsel faced almost immediate criticism from the legal community over his Oct. 8 letter to the House, in which Cipollone argued that the impeachment inquiry "violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent." He said the White House wouldn't engage with the inquiry until the entire House passed a resolution authorizing the proceedings.
That backlash advanced again Thursday, when an open letter signed by the hundreds of law professors said they "strongly disagree" with the White House counsel's assertions.
"Quite the contrary, the Constitution does not mandate the process for impeachment and there is no constitutional requirement that the House of Representatives authorize an impeachment inquiry before one begins," the law professors' letter reads. "Cipollone wrongly condemns the impeachment inquiry as the House 'seeking to overturn the result of the 2016 election.' This fails to recognize the seriousness of the charges against President Trump for abusing executive power for personal political gain and violating federal election law."
Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California Berkeley, School of Law, who authored the letter, said Friday that he thought it was important to publish the letter because "law professors need to be heard on this."
"Statements of law were being made that were just wrong," he said.
Chemerinsky said he wrote the letter about a week ago, and that it was circulated by the American Constitution Society for signatures. However, Chemerinsky added, he's been "deluged with emails" from other law professors interested in signing.
The dean also criticized those who have made suggestions that a president can't be impeached in an election year, calling such claims "nonsense." While Chemerinsky didn't specifically name him, John Yoo—also a law professor at Berkeley Law—faced criticism for making that claim during a Fox News appearance this week.
Federal agencies like the Pentagon and the Office of Management and Budget have refused to hand over documents for the inquiry, and Vice President Mike Pence and Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, have also not complied with subpoenas, in line with Cipollone's directions.
However, Cipollone's letter does not seem to have much staying power when it comes to witnesses testifying in the inquiry.
Both current and former Trump administration officials have been showing up at the House since the letter was issued, testifying for hours behind closed doors about what they allegedly witnessed at the State Department and White House over the withholding of military aid from Ukraine in exchange for investigations into former Vice President and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his family.
After the Trump administration tried to block testimony for some witnesses, committee chairmen overseeing the inquiries quietly issued subpoenas for the witnesses—and they seem willing to comply.
A subpoena was issued for former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch after State Department officials, "at the direction of the White House," told her not to appear at a voluntary interview, according to committee chairmen.
EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland is also among those who testified behind closed doors, meeting with the committee Thursday. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at first blocked Sondland from appearing at a voluntary interview, but the ambassador agreed to an interview with the committees after a subpoena was issued.
However, Sondland's legal team at Paul Hastings, attorneys Robert Luskin and Kwame Manley, wrote in a letter to lawmakers Thursday that Sondland couldn't comply with a request for documents because the papers are under State Department control.
"Ambassador Sondland has encouraged the State Department to provide the committees with the requested documents in advance of his deposition. He strongly believes that disclosure will lead to a more fulsome and accurate inquiry into the matters at issue and will corroborate the testimony that he will give in key respects," the letter, obtained by multiple news outlets, reads. "However, the choice is not his to make, and so we must regretfully decline to produce the documents that the committees have requested from Ambassador Sondland."
The White House faces its own subpoena deadline Friday, but it's all but certain to defy the congressional mandate.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDemocrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
'Radical Left Judges'?: Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden's Judicial Picks
4 minute readHolland & Knight, Akin, Crowell, Barnes and Day Pitney Add to DC Practices
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Florida-Based Law Firms Start to Lag, As New York Takes a Bigger Piece of Deals
- 2Supreme Court Drops Facebook's Appeal in Securities Case as 'Improvidently Granted'
- 3Newsmakers: Scott Bailey Joins Jones Day’s Corporate Practice in Dallas
- 4The Swinging Pendulum of Title IX Politics
- 5The Big Weakness of Legal AI
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250