Hundreds of Law Profs Declare Trump's Conduct 'Clearly Impeachable'
"There is overwhelming evidence that President Trump betrayed his oath of office," the professors said in an open letter sponsored by the government watchdog Protect Democracy.
December 06, 2019 at 01:36 PM
4 minute read
Hundreds of law professors from schools across the country published an open letter Friday declaring President Donald Trump's conduct involving Ukraine as "clearly impeachable," an assertion that comes after a daylong hearing earlier this week at which Republicans and Democrats sharply divided over their assessment of the president's actions.
The letter, posted on the website Medium and sponsored by the government watchdog Protect Democracy, had been signed by 520 professors as of Friday afternoon. The assertions were an attempt to frame the debate as one of law, and not partisan politics.
"There is overwhelming evidence that President Trump betrayed his oath of office by seeking to use presidential power to pressure a foreign government to help him distort an American election, for his personal and political benefit, at the direct expense of national security interests as determined by Congress," the professors said in the letter. "His conduct is precisely the type of threat to our democracy that the founders feared when they included the remedy of impeachment in the Constitution."
Professors signed the letter from a variety of law schools across the country, including Columbia Law; Yale; Stanford; Harvard; Duke; Emory University; Georgetown Law; Berkeley Law; University of Florida; University of Pennsylvania; Albany Law; University of Texas; Rutgers; and the University of Georgia.
The House impeachment investigation focuses on claims Trump abused the power of the presidency to pressure Ukraine to meddle in U.S. politics to the president's benefit. The Trump administration withheld nearly $400 million in military aid from Ukraine as the president asked for a "favor" from the country to investigate Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
Trump has denied he put any untoward or unlawful pressure on Ukraine to meddle in U.S. political affairs. Trump's allies have argued he was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, and that military aide to the U.S. ally was delivered, in the end, without any promise from Ukrainian leaders to investigate the Bidens. Many Republicans have raised questions that point to Ukraine, and not Russia, as having orchestrated the 2016 presidential election interference campaign.
At last Wednesday's impeachment hearing in the House Judiciary Committee, the Republican-named witness, Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University School of Law, said a proven quid pro quo involving Trump and Ukraine could be impeachable. But he alleged the evidence is not there to make such a conclusion.
"This is a process that must focus on impeachable conduct, not imprudent or even obnoxious conduct," Turley said in his prepared testimony.
The letter-signers did not take a position on whether Trump should be impeached and removed for his conduct, saying ultimately that's a question for House and Senate members.
"If the House of Representatives impeached the President for the conduct described here and the Senate voted to remove him, they would be acting well within their constitutional powers," the professors wrote. "Whether President Trump's conduct is classified as bribery, as a high crime or misdemeanor, or as both, it is clearly impeachable under our Constitution."
House Democrats are drafting articles of impeachment, and scheduled a hearing for Monday at which counsels for the House intelligence and judiciary committees will present evidence purporting to support impeaching Trump. White House Counsel Pat Cipollone faces a 5 p.m. deadline today to say whether and how the president might participate in House proceedings.
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 All'Sharp and Profound' Policy Shifts Prompt DC Law Firms to Evaluate Opportunities, Challenges
5 minute read'Rapidly Closing Window': Progressive Groups Urge Senate Votes on Biden's Judicial Nominees
5 minute readBig Law Practice Leaders 'Bullish' That Second Trump Presidency Will Be Good for Business
3 minute readWhere May Vacancies for Trump Arise? These GOP-Appointed Circuit Judges Qualify for Senior Status
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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