Marco Rubio Would Like You to Know that the House Proved its Case, and Trump’s Actions were Wrong

Marco Rubio

A Statement from Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida):

Voting to find the President guilty would not just be a condemnation of his action. If I vote guilty, I will be voting to remove a President from office for the first time in the 243-year history of our Republic.

When they decided to include impeachment in the Constitution, the Framers understood how disruptive and traumatic it would be. As Alexander Hamilton warned, impeachment will “agitate the passions of the whole community.”

This is why they decided to require the support of two thirds of the Senate to remove a President — we serve as a guardrail against partisan impeachment and against removal of a President without broad public support.

Leaders in both parties previously recognized that impeachment must be bipartisan and must enjoy broad public support. In fact, as recently as March of last year, Manager Adam Schiff (D-CA) said there would be “little to be gained by putting the country through” the “wrenching experience” of a partisan impeachment.

And yet, only a few months later, a partisan impeachment is exactly what the House produced.

This meant two Articles of Impeachment whose true purpose was not to protect the nation but rather to, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, stain the President’s record because “he has been impeached forever” and “they can never erase that.”

It now falls upon this Senate to take up what the House produced and faithfully execute our duties under the Constitution of the United States.

Why does impeachment exist?

As Manager Jerry Nadler (D-NY) reminded us Wednesday night, removal is not a punishment for a crime. Nor is removal supposed to be a way to hold Presidents accountable; that is what elections are for.

The sole purpose of this extraordinary power to remove the one person entrusted with all of the powers of an entire branch of government is to provide a last-resort remedy to protect the country. That is why Hamilton wrote that in these trials our decisions should be pursuing “the public good.”

That is why six weeks ago I announced that, for me, the question would not just be whether the President’s actions were wrong, but ultimately whether what he did was removable.

The two are not the same. Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.

To answer this question, the first step was to ask whether it would serve the public good to remove the President, even if I assumed the President did everything the House alleges.

It was not difficult to answer that question on the charge of “Obstruction of Congress.” The President availed himself of legal defenses and constitutional privileges on the advice of his legal counsel. That is not an impeachable offense, much less a removable one.

Negotiations with Congress and enforcement in the courts, not impeachment, should be the front-line recourse when Congress and the President disagree on the separation of powers. But here, the House failed to go to court because, as Manager Schiff admitted, they did not want to go through a yearlong exercise to get the information they wanted. Ironically, they now demand that the Senate go through this very long exercise they themselves decided to avoid.

On the first Article of Impeachment, I reject the argument that “Abuse of Power” can never constitute grounds for removal unless a crime or a crime-like action is alleged.

However, for purposes of answering my threshold question I assumed what is alleged is true. And then I sought to answer the question of whether under these assumptions it would be in the interest of the nation to remove the President.

Determining which outcome is in the best interests requires a political judgment — one that takes into account both the severity of the wrongdoing alleged but also the impact removal would have on the nation.

I disagree with the House Managers’ argument that, if we find the allegations they have made are true, failing to remove the President leaves us with no remedy to constrain this or future Presidents. Congress and the courts have multiple ways by which to constrain the power of the executive. And ultimately, voters themselves can hold the President accountable in an election, including the one just nine months from now.

I also considered removal in the context of the bitter divisions and deep polarization our country currently faces. The removal of the President — especially one based on a narrowly voted impeachment, supported by one political party and opposed by another, and without broad public support — would, as Manager Nadler warned over two decades ago, “produce divisiveness and bitterness” that will threaten our nation for decades.

Can anyone doubt that at least half of the country would view his removal as illegitimate — as nothing short of a coup d’état? It is difficult to conceive of any scheme Putin could undertake that would undermine confidence in our democracy more than removal would.

I also reject the argument that unless we call new witnesses this is not a fair trial. They cannot argue that fairness demands we seek witnesses they did little to pursue.

Nevertheless, new witnesses that would testify to the truth of the allegations are not needed for my threshold analysis, which already assumed that all the allegations made are true.

This high bar I have set is not new for me. In 2014, I rejected calls to pursue impeachment of President Obama, noting that he “has two years left in his term,” and, instead of pursuing impeachment, we should use existing tools at our disposal to “limit the amount of damage he’s doing to our economy and our national security.”

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the President Pro Tempore Emeritus, once warned, “[A] partisan impeachment cannot command the respect of the American people. It is no more valid than a stolen election.”

His words are more true today than when he said them two decades ago. We should heed his advice. I will not vote to remove the President because doing so would inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage to our already divided nation.

Senator Murkowski Has Some Thoughts to Share with You


Her statement today is as follows:

U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) today released the following statement on the Senate vote regarding additional evidence for the court of impeachment:

“I worked for a fair, honest, and transparent process, modeled after the Clinton trial, to provide ample time for both sides to present their cases, ask thoughtful questions, and determine whether we need more.

“The House chose to send articles of impeachment that are rushed and flawed. I carefully considered the need for additional witnesses and documents, to cure the shortcomings of its process, but ultimately decided that I will vote against considering motions to subpoena.

“Given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything. It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed. 

“It has also become clear some of my colleagues intend to further politicize this process, and drag the Supreme Court into the fray, while attacking the Chief Justice. I will not stand for nor support that effort. We have already degraded this institution for partisan political benefit, and I will not enable those who wish to pull down another.

“We are sadly at a low point of division in this country.”

“Inappropriate” is When I Eat My Salad with the Dinner Fork

place setting

A Huge Mystery

Trump continually acts like an asshole and then calls his conduct “strong” and “smart.” He acted like an asshole with the Ukraine military aid, but instead of calling it “strong” and “smart,” he spent months covering it up. He’s still trying to cover it up, viz., the ongoing efforts to block Bolton from telling his story.

The logical explanation is that he knows he’s guilty as sin, or that he fears that too many others will think he’s guilty as sin. That’s generally why criminals cover up their crimes. But that explanation doesn’t seem to fit how Lizard Brain thinks. Especially since he would have been a hell of a lot better off just owning up to what he did and saying “So what.”

And, by the way, the “so what” defense would also have been one hell of a lot better for his lickspittles in Congress. With the “So what” defense, they wouldn’t have had to deny the undeniable. Sure, they would come off as knaves, but they could escape making themselves fools as well.

So why didn’t he do it? I think it’s still a mystery.

A Second Mystery

A related mystery is why he didn’t develop an effective legal defense. Here, however, the explanation is easier to find: he has the mind of a four-year-old, his thinking is magical in nature, and he cannot take competent professional advice.

The Republicans’ Dilemma—and Lamar Alexander’s Resolution of the Republicans’ Dilemma

The dilemma is that you really can’t say

  • he didn’t do it, or
  • the House didn’t prove he did it, because there was no direct evidence,

and then stop your ears to the direct evidence when it becomes available.

Or, rather, you can do those things, but only if you are prepared to come off as both an utter knave and a consummate fool.

It follows that if you are bound and determined not to hear from the direct witness, then you must agree with the premise that he did it (and then take the position it’s not impeachable).

In his statement, Lamar Alexander rightly saw he had to bite this bullet, not just nibble at it.

Going Forward

Every senator who now votes to acquit will have to answer—or brazenly dodge—the question, do you agree with Lamar Alexander that the House proved its case on the facts, and had a mountain of evidence?

If the answer is yes, then the next question becomes, Well, that’s interesting, so why did you spend several months blathering about “lack of proof” and “no direct evidence”?

If the answer is no, then the next question becomes, Well, then, why don’t you want to hear from the goddamn witnesses?

“Inappropriate But Not Impeachable”

Having grasped that he will have to rely on the fallback argument “wrong but not impeachable,” Alexander then punts:

  • first by substituting the hilariously inappropriate word “inappropriate” for the word “wrong,” and
  • second by dodging any coherent account of why he thinks the conduct is not impeachable.

Senator Alexander thus eschews the knavery of denying the undeniable, but beclouws himself as a fool, by asserting an indefensible abstract proposition but failing even to try to defend the indefensible.


Senator Alexander Would Like You to Know that Republican Quibbling is Nonsense, and the House Proved its Case, So There is No Need for More Witnesses, and We Can Now Acquit

missing witness

The following is a press release, issued late last night, by the office of Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee):

Washington, D.C., January 30, 2020 — United States Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today released the following statement on his vote regarding additional evidence in the impeachment proceedings:

“I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense. 

“There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’ There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers. 

“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.

“The Senate has spent nine long days considering this ‘mountain’ of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the president’s lawyers, their answers to senators’ questions and the House record. Even if the House charges were true, they do not meet the Constitution’s ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ standard for an impeachable offense.

“The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles. If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party.

“Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.”   

Adam Schiff’s Closing Argument This Evening

The Joker

Where I come from, the point of an oral argument in court is not, mainly, to convince those who already agree with you: it is, instead, to convince (at least some of) those who disagree with you that you might be (at least partly) right after all.

I caught Adam Schiff’s one-hour prime time speech this evening. Many things might be said, but let me say only of them. The big difference between what Schiff said tonight and what the Republican team will say tomorrow lies in this: Schiff looked the opposition in the eye, implicitly expressed respect for their reason and fairness, and appeared to be actually trying to persuade some of them.

By contrast, beginning tomorrow, Dear Leader’s team will put on a show intended only to persuade the already persuaded, and to give the middle finger to everyone else. Trump’s case is really bad, and would present a problem for any defense lawyer. That said, I could gin up some arguments on his behalf that wouldn’t actually insult your intelligence. But the arguments we are going to hear will be stupid arguments intended only to appeal to stupid people.

A little search of the Google machine this evening shows that Schiff’s wicked strategy—actually trying to persuade the opposition with facts, logic, and appeals to morality, as distinguished from jumping up and down and whooping and hollering—is driving the wingnuts into a frenzy of fear and loathing.

With any luck, the exercise will give the Hogwarts sorting hat process a real kick in the pants. With any luck, white people with college degrees willing to support Brand Republican will become scarcer and scarcer.

Meanwhile, Gabe Sherman reports that all is not going well in Trumpworld. Delusional Don is not doing himself any good:

As Donald Trump’s defense team prepares to make its first arguments on the floor of the Senate on Saturday, top Republicans are increasingly worried that Trump’s lawyers are woefully unprepared to counter Democrats’ meticulous, fact-based case for removing Trump. In the president’s circle there’s not full-blown panic—but there’s worry. “A lot of Republicans think the Democrats have done a very good job,” a prominent Republican who is close to Trump’s legal team told me. “It’s been a lot better than we expected.” Florida congressman Matt Gaetz, one of Trump’s fiercest House allies, seemingly spoke for many when he blasted Trump’s lawyers, telling Politico this week that the Trump team’s presentation was worse than “an eighth-grade book report.”

Trump himself is making the situation worse, both with his rages—he set a 142-tweet record on Wednesday—and his insistence that Republicans buy in fully to his defense strategy. “It’s really not helpful,” the Republican close to the legal team said. “Trump is mad at Republicans that they aren’t saying his call with [Volodymyr] Zelensky was perfect. He really thinks his call was perfect. It wasn’t.”

Removing Trump from office remains a distant outcome, but the dynamics of the Senate trial are clearly shifting in directions that are dangerous for the president. A new Emerson poll released on Thursday showed 51% of registered voters support removal, an uptick of two points. A Reuters poll published on Wednesday showed nearly three quarters of Americans want to hear new witnesses. The prospect that former national security adviser John Bolton would testify is alarming Republicans. (Trump and Bolton’s relationship is badly damaged. A day after Bolton left the administration in September, Trump raged that Bolton was “a liar and a leaker,” according to a person briefed on the conversation.) “If witnesses start coming and Bolton is negative, it could win some Republicans,” a source close to Trump told me. “Senators really dislike Trump and are tired of having to go to the mat for him on crazy, batshit stuff,” the source said. “We know if senators took a secret vote today, he’d be removed.”

Trump’s circle is waking up to the notion that impeachment is a serious drag on his campaign. “Impeachment is drowning out all his accomplishments,” a Republican insider said. But impeachment is only one aspect of the problem. Inside the campaign there is an intensifying debate between Trump and his advisers about whether the campaign should run on base-incitement issues like immigration or a moderate-appealing message about the economy that could win back suburban voters. “They’re all trying to get Trump to run on general election issues and not get caught up in side issues,” a source close to the campaign said. “But Trump is focused on other stuff and going after [Joe] Biden.”

The Bottom Line

Even if you are a bad person determined to do bad thing, it turns out that not knowing the difference between right and wrong is a fairly serious handicap in your struggle to achieve your evil ends.

Who knew?

Lawrence Tribe, Who Actually Teaches Constitutional Law at Harvard, Has a Few Choice Words for Alan Dershowitz, Who Used to Teach Criminal Law at Harvard

Con Law

Professor Tribe writes,

The president’s lawyers have made the sweeping assertion that the articles of impeachment against President Trump must be dismissed because they fail to allege that he committed a crime — and are, therefore, as they said in a filing with the Senate, “constitutionally invalid on their face.”

Another of his lawyers, my former Harvard Law School colleague Alan Dershowitz, claiming to represent the Constitution rather than the president as such, makes the backup argument that the articles must be dismissed because neither abuse of power nor obstruction of Congress can count as impeachable offenses.

Both of these arguments are baseless. Senators weighing the articles of impeachment shouldn’t think that they offer an excuse for not performing their constitutional duty.

The argument that only criminal offenses are impeachable has died a thousand deaths in the writings of all the experts on the subject, but it staggers on like a vengeful zombie. In fact, there is no evidence that the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was understood in the 1780s to mean indictable crimes.

On the contrary, with virtually no federal criminal law in place when the Constitution was written in 1787, any such understanding would have been inconceivable. Moreover, on July 20, 1787, Edmund Randolph, Virginia’s governor, urged the inclusion of an impeachment power specifically because the “Executive will have great opportunitys of abusing his power.” Even more famously, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65 defined “high crimes and misdemeanors” as “those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

Any number of such violations of the public trust — such as working with foreign governments in ways that make the president beholden to their leaders, or cooperating with those governments to bolster the president’s reelection — clearly must be impeachable even though they might violate no criminal law and indeed no federal statute at all.

The related suggestion that, even if some noncriminal offenses might be impeachable, “abuse of power” is not among them is particularly strange. No serious constitutional scholar has ever agreed with it. The suggestion turns the impeachment power on its head.

The logic of impeachment as applied to the presidency is that the president has unique authority conferred by Article II. If he abuses that authority for personal advantage, financial or political, he injures the country as a whole. That is precisely why the framers rejected the idea of relying solely on an election to remove an abusive president from office. Indeed, waiting for the next election is an option that is obviously insufficient when the abuse of power is directed at cheating in that very election.

Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1833 that there are “many” impeachable offenses, none of which is “alluded to in our statute book,” because the abuses of power that constitute “political offences” are “of so various and complex a character, so utterly incapable of being defined, or classified, that the task” of enumerating them all through “positive legislation would be impracticable.”

As if to match one great justice with another, Dershowitz on Sunday cited Justice Benjamin Curtis, a dissenter from the infamous Dred Scott decision. Curtis, after stepping down from the court, represented President Andrew Johnson in the 1868 impeachment trial and, Dershowitz claimed, prevailed by insisting that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense.

That is false. They actually lost a Senate majority (and avoided by a single vote the supermajority needed to remove Johnson) only because one senator appears to have been bribed to vote for the president. And, so far as the arguments themselves were concerned, Dershowitz is also misrepresenting. The fact is that Curtis, in his opening statement representing the president, and Attorney General Henry Stanbery, in his closing statement, insisted both that Johnson had broken no valid law and that he had not abused his presidential powers in any way.

They objected to impeaching Johnson on the basis of his unsuccessful attempts to fire his secretary of war in violation of the Tenure of Office Act, arguing that Johnson hadn’t actually violated the act and that in any event was within his rights to deem it unconstitutional, as it ultimately was held to be. They objected to impeaching Johnson for the manner of his “executive administration.” They objected to impeaching him for having disgraced the office through his outlandish insults to members of Congress, arguing that doing so would undermine the “precious right … of free speech.”

But, far from viewing “abuse of power” as unimpeachable, the defense team in Stanbery’s closing took the opposite tack, saying of Johnson that he never misused “public money” or injured any “public officer” or “appropriated the public funds … unlawfully to his own use” but, rather, “stood firm as a rock against all temptation to abuse his own powers or to exercise those which were not conferred upon him.”

The president is entitled to robust legal representation. But his lawyers should not be allowed to use bogus legal arguments to mislead the American public or the senators weighing his fate.

A Posture of Aloof, Resigned, World Weary Insouciance

Ho hum. Snooze snooze. The House will impeach. The Senate will acquit. Lots of people will yell at lots of other people. A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I shall go back to sleep.

crystal ball

I misplaced my crystal ball, so I don’t know what is going to happen. A reasoned guess is that the Senate trial will not be a snoozer in any sense of the word.

The articles of impeachment will focus on Ukraine, but will be carefully crafted to allow for introduction of newly discovered evidence. (And, in case you wondered, ladies and germs, preparing articles of impeachment featuring a narrow focus combined with broad language is an exercise in legal draftspersonship of childish ease, to anyone who knows what she is doing. It is the work of a morning, with time off for tea at eleven.)

So, what might unfold between now and January?

The House Intelligence Committee is still investigating. Who knows what new witnesses they will find between now and the Senate trial? What new documents they will uncover?

Rudy, meanwhile, has been in Ukraine again, and is apparently prepared to pull some kind of a Ukrainian rabbit out of a Ukrainian hat. That should be fun.

And forget not the possibility of a bolt from Bolton.

Plus, here are some real head-scratchers. Will Trump even have a lead defense counsel? Who the hell will it be? And what the hell will he or she say in Trump’s defense? (See prior post on Knots.)

And we are surely going to see us some Republican senators acting like a cat on a hot tin roof.

fat ass on shingles

We will probably wait in vain for a moment of repentance—a scene that would look something like the end of a Perry Mason trial and Saint Paul falling down on the road to Damascus.

But I think we may pleasurably anticipate a whole lot ‘o squirmin’ by empty-suited Republicans. (Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of guys.)

Do, please, lay in an ample supply of popcorn and beer.

Constitutional Scholars Speak

We, the undersigned legal scholars, have concluded that President Trump engaged in impeachable conduct.

We do not reach this conclusion lightly. The Founders did not make impeachment available for disagreements over policy, even profound ones, nor for extreme distaste for the manner in which the President executes his office. Only “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” warrant impeachment. But 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. 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.

We take no position on whether the President committed a crime. But conduct need not be criminal to be impeachable. The standard here is constitutional; it does not depend on what Congress has chosen to criminalize.

Impeachment is a remedy for grave abuses of the public trust. The two specific bases for impeachment named in the Constitution — treason and bribery — involve such abuses because they include conduct undertaken not in the “faithful execution” of public office that the Constitution requires,but instead for personal gain (bribery) or to benefit a foreign enemy (treason).

Impeachment is an especially essential remedy for conduct that corrupts elections. The primary check on presidents is political: if a president behaves poorly, voters can punish him or his party at the polls. A president who corrupts the system of elections seeks to place himself beyond the reach of this political check. At the Constitutional Convention, George Mason described impeachable offenses as “attempts to subvert the constitution.” Corrupting elections subverts the process by which the Constitution makes the president democratically accountable. Put simply, if a President cheats in his effort at re-election, trusting the democratic process to serve as a check through that election is no remedy at all. That is what impeachment is for.

Moreover, the Founders were keenly concerned with the possibility of corruption in the president’s relationships with foreign governments. That is why they prohibited the president from accepting anything of value from foreign governments without Congress’s consent. The same concern drove their thinking on impeachment. James Madison noted that Congress must be able to remove the president between elections lest there be no remedy if a president betrayed the public trust in dealings with foreign powers.

In light of these considerations, overwhelming evidence made public to date forces us to conclude that President Trump engaged in impeachable conduct. To mention only a few of those facts: William B. Taylor, who leads the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, testified that President Trump directed the withholding of hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid for Ukraine in its struggle against Russia — aid that Congress determined to be in the U.S. national security interest — until Ukraine announced investigations that would aid the President’s re-election campaign. Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified that the President made a White House visit for the Ukrainian president conditional on public announcement of those investigations. In a phone call with the Ukrainian president, President Trump asked for a “favor” in the form of a foreign government investigation of a U.S. citizen who is his political rival. President Trump and his Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney made public statements confirming this use of governmental power to solicit investigations that would aid the President’s personal political interests. The President made clear that his private attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was central to efforts to spur Ukrainian investigations, and Mr. Giuliani confirmed that his efforts were in service of President Trump’s private interests.

Ultimately, whether to impeach the President and remove him from office depends on judgments that the Constitution leaves to Congress. But 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. 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.

Mark,Aaronson,Professor of Law Emeritus,Univ. of Calif. Hastings College of the Law
Nancy,Abramowitz,Professor of Practice,American University Washington College of Law
Kathryn,Abrams,Herma Hill Kay Distinguished Professor of Law,UC-Berkeley School of Law
Jeffrey,Abramson,Professor of Law and Government,University of Texas
Nadia,Ahmad,Associate Professor of Law,Barry University School of Law
Miriam,Albert,Professor of Skills,Hofstra Law School
Craig,Alexander,Adjunct Professor of Law,University of Alabama School of Law
Anthony,Alfieri,Professor of Law,University of Miami School of Law
Michael,Algeo,Judge/Adjunct Professor,Washington College of Law
Jessie,Allen,Associate Professor,University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Sean,Anderson,Teaching Associate Professor,University of Illinois College of Law
Kate ,Andrias,Professor of Law,University of Michigan Law School
Catherine,Archibald,Associate Professor of Law,University of Detroit Mercy School of Law
Fabio,”Arcila, Jr.”,Visiting Law Professor,Univ. Illinois-Chicago John Marshall Law School
Robert,Aronson,”Betts, Patterson & Mines Professor of Law Emeritus “,University of Washington
Jonathan,Askin,Professor of Clinical Law,Brooklyn Law School
Barbara,Atwood,Mary Anne Richey Professor of Law Emerita,University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
Sahar,Aziz,Professor of Law and Chancellor’s Social Justice Scholar,Rutgers Law School
Barbara,Babb,Associate Professor of Law,University of Baltimore School of Law
Samuel,Bagenstos,Frank G. Millard Professor of Law,University of Michigan Law School
Nicholas,Bagley,Professor of Law,University of Michigan Law School
William,Bailey,Professor From Practice and Director of Trial Advocacy,University of Washington School of Law
Shalanda,Baker,”Professor of Law, Public Policy and Urban Affairs”,Northeastern University
Carlos,Ball,Distinguished Professor of Law,Rutgers Law School
Beverly,Balos,Clinical Professor of Law Emerita,University of Minnesota
William,Banks ,Board of Advisers Distinguished Professor,Syracuse University
Charles,Baron,Emeritus Professor,Boston College Law School
Christine,Bartholomew,Associate Professor of Law,University at Buffalo School of Law
Rick,Barton,Adjunct Professor of Law,University of San Diego School of Law
Ian,Bartrum,Professor of Law,”William S Boyd School of Law, UNLV”
Lawrence,Baxter,David T. Zhang Professor of the Practice of Law,Duke Law School
Linda,Beale,Professor of Law ,Wayne State University Law School
Mary,Beck,Emerita Professor of Clinical Law,Missouri University School of Law
Roxana,Bell,Assistant Professor of Law,University of Detroit Mercy School of Law
Steven,Bender,Professor of Law,Seattle University School of Law
Emily,Benfer,Visiting Associate Clinical Professor of Law,Columbia Law School
Susan,Bennett,Professor of Law,American University Washington College of Law
Beth,Bennion,Assistant Director & Adjunct Professor,Stetson University College of Law
Eric,Berger,Earl Dunlap Distinguished Professor of Law,University of Nebraska College of Law
William,Berman,Clinical Professor of Law,Suffolk University Law School
Emily,Berman,Associate Professor of Law,University of Houston Law Center
Caroline,Bettinger-Lopez,”Professor of Law and Director, Human Rights Clinic”,University of Miami School of Law
Warren,Binford,”Professor & Director, Clinical Law Program”,Willamette University College of Law
Susan,Bitensky,Professor of Law,Michigan State University College of Law
Henry,Blair,Robins Kaplan Distinguished Professor of Law  ,Mitchell Hamline School of Law
Beryl,Blaustone,Professor of Law,CUNY School of Law
Robert,Bloom,Professor,Boston College Law School
Grace,Blumberg,Distinguished Professor of Law Emerita,UCLA School of Law
Ted,Blumoff,Professor of Law,Mercer University Law School
Donald,Bogan,Professor of Law,University of Oklahoma College of Law
Carl T.,Bogus,Professor of Law,Roger Williams University
Richard,Boldt,T. Carroll Brown Professor of Law,University of Maryland Carey School of Law
Hyla,Bondareff,Electronic Resources Librarian & Lecturer in Law,Washington University School of Law in St. Louis
Vincent,Bonventre,Justice Robert H. Jackson Distinguished Professor of Law,Albany Law School
Pamela,Bookman,Associate Professor,Fordham Law School
Linda ,Bosniak,Professor,Rutgers University
Amelia,Boss,Trustee Professor of Law,Thomas R. Kline School of Law Drexel University
Richard,Boswell,Professor of Law,”University of California, Hastings”
Michael,Boucai,Associate Professor,University at Buffalo School of Law
Margaret W. ,Bowman ,Assistant Professor of Law ,University of Tulsa
Bruce,Boyer,Curt and Linda Rodin Professor of Law and Social Justice,Loyola University of Chicago
Shawn Marie,Boyne,Professor of Law,Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law
Kiel,Brennan-Marquez,Associate Professor and William T. Golden Scholar,University of Connecticut School of Law
Frank,Bress,Professor of Law,New York Law School
Katrice,Bridges Copeland,Professor of Law ,Penn State Law
Lea,Brilmayer,Howard Holtzmann Professor of International Law,Yale Law School
Mark,Brodin,Professor,Boston College Law School
James,Brook,Professor of Law Emeritis,New York Law School
Susan,Brooks,Associate Dean and Professor of Law,Drexel University Kline School of Law
Patricia,Broussard,Professor,FAMU College of Law
Charles,Brower,Professor of Law,Wayne State University
Karen,Brown,Professor of Law,George Washington University
Allison,Brownell Tirres,Associate Professor,DePaul University College of Law
Charles Luke,Brussel,Professor ,Fordham Law School
Tom,Buchele,Clinical Professor of Law,Lewis & Clark School of Law
Barbara,Bucholtz,Professor of Law,University of Tulsa College of Law
Jessica,Bulman-Pozen,Professor of Law,Columbia Law School
Stephen,Burbank,David Berger Professor for the Administration of Justice,University of Pennsylvania Law School
Dan,Burk,Chancellor’s Professor of Law,”University of California, Irvine”
Margaret,Burnham,University Distinguished Professor,Northeastern University School of Law
Grace,Calabrese Tonner,Professor,”University of California, Irvine”
Mark,Cammack,Professor of Law,Southwestern Law School
Marilyn Blumberg ,Cane,Professor Emerita,Nova Southeastern University
Julie,Cantor,Lecturer in Law,UCLA School of Law
Eduardo R.C.,Capulong,Professor of Law,CUNY School of Law
Dale,Carpenter,Judge William Hawley Atwell Chair of Constitutional Law and Professor of Law,SMU Dedman School of Law
Gilbert,Carrasco,Professor of Law,Willamette University College of Law
Jenny,Carroll,”Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis Professor of Law”,University of Alabama School of Law
Timothy,Casey,Professor in Residence,California Western School of Law
David,Cassuto,Professor of Law,Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University
Helen,Chang,Professor of Law,Golden Gate University School of Law
Faisal,Chaudhry,Assistant Professor of Law & History,University of Dayton
Angelica,Chazaro,Assistant Professor,University of Washington School of Law
Erwin,Chemerinksy,Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law,Berkeley Law School
Kenneth,Chestek,Professor of Law,University of Wyoming
Luis,Chiesa,Professr of Law and Director of the Buffalo Criminal Law Center,”University at Buffalo School of Law, The State University of New York”
Michael,Chiorazzi,Associate Dean for Information Services,University of Miami School of Law
Carol,Chomsky,Professor,University of Minnesota Law School
Cyra Akila ,Choudhury ,Professor of Law,FIU
Eric,Christiansen,Professor of Law & Associate Dean,Golden Gate University School of Law
Richard,Chused,Professor of Law,New York Law School
J. Stephen,Clark,Professor of Law,Albany Law School
Roger,Clark,Board of Governors Professor of Law,Rutgers Law School
Sarah,Cleveland,Louis Henkin Professor of Human & Constitutional Rights ,Columbia Law School
John,Clynch,Senior Lecturer,University of Washington School of Law
James,Coben,Professor of Law,Mitchell Hamline School of Law
Linda,Coco,Associate Professor of Law,Barry University School of Law
Cary,Coglianese,Edward B. Shils Professor of Law,University of Pennsylvania Law School
Laura,Cohen,Distinguished Clinical Professor of Law and Justice Virginia Long Scholar,Rutgers Law School
David,Cohen,Professor of Law,Drexel Kline School of Law
Clare Keefe,Coleman,Associate Professor of Law,Drexel University Kline School of Law
Robin,Collin,Professor of Law,Willamette University College of Law
Anna,Cominsky,Visiting Associate Professor of Law,New York Law School
Jenny-Brooke,Condon,Professor of Law,Seton Hall Law School
Elizabeth,Cooper,Professor of Law,Fordham Law School
Caroline Mala,Corbin,Professor of Law and Dean’s Distinguished Scholar,University of Miami School of Law
Daniel,Coyne,Clinical Professor of Law (Ret.),Chicago-Kent College of Law
Gregory,Crespi,Homer R. Mitchell Professor of Law  ,Southern Methodist University
Richard W.,Creswell,Professor of Law Emeritus,Mercer University
Phyllis L,Crocker,Dean and Professor of Law,University of Detroit Mercy School of Law
McKay,Cunningham,Professor of Law,Concordia University School of Law
Perry,Dane,Professor of Law,Rutgers Law School
Seth,Davis,Adunct Professor of Law,Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University
April,Dawson,Professor,North Carolina Central University School of Law
Frank,Deale,Professor of Law,CUNY Law School
Margaret,deGuzman,James E. Beasley Professor of Law,Temple University Beasley School of Law
Richard,Delgado,John J. Sparkman Chair of Law,University of Alabama School of Law
Jacques,deLisle,Professor of Law,University of Pennsylvania
Joy,Delman,Professor of Law Emerita,Thomas Jefferson School of Law
David,DeMatteo,Associate Professor of Law & Psychology,Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law
Nora,Demleitner,Roy L. Steinheimer Jr. Professor of Law,Washington and Lee University
Melanie,DeRousse,Clinical Associate Professor,University of Kansas School of Law
Stephen,Diamond,Associate Professor of Law,Santa Clara University School of Law
Amy,Dillard,Associate Professor of Law,University of Baltimore Law School
Paul,Diller,Professor of Law,Willamette University
Anthony M.,Dillof,Professor of Law,Wayne State University Law School
Robert,Dinerstein,Professor of Law ,American University Washington College of Law
Ciji,Dodds,Assistant Professor ,Albany Law School
Michael,Dorf,Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law,Cornell Law School
Michael,Dorff,Professor,Southwestern Law School
Joshua,Dressler,Distinguished University Professor ,”The Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law “
David,Driesen,University Professor,Syracuse University College of Law
Sarah,Duggin,Professor of Law,”The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law”
Heather,Dunbar,Associate Professor,WMU Cooley Law School
Ilene,Durst,Professor,Visiting Professor California Western School of Law
Thomas,Eaton,J. Alton Hosch Professor Emeritus,University of Georgia School of Law
Peter,Edelman,Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law and Public Policy,Georgetown Law Center
Mark,Edwards,Baillon Professor of Law,Mitchell Hamline School of Law
Leora,Eisenstadt,Assistant Professor of Legal Studies,Temple University Fox School of Business
Bram,Elias,Clinical Professor of Law,University of Iowa College of Law
Heather,Elliott,”Alumni, Class of ’36 Professor of Law”,University of Alabama School of Law
Scott,England,Principal Lecturer & Regents’ Lecturer,University of New Mexico School of Law
Monica,Eppinger,Professor,Saint Louis University School of Law
Jules,Epstein,Professor,Temple Beasley School of Law
Sam,Erman,Professor,USC Gould School of Law
Marie,Failinger,Professor of Law,Mitchell Hamline School of Law
Daniel,Farbman,Assistant Professor,Boston College Law School
Anthony,Farley,Matthews Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence ,Albany Law School
Susan,Feathers,Assistant Dean,Rutgers
Jeffrey,Feldman,Professor,University of Washington
Stephen,Feldman,Housel/Arnold Distinguished Professor,Wyoming
Mary,Fellows,Professor of Law Emerita,University of Minnesota
Eugene,Fidell,Florence Rogatz Visiting Lecturer in Law,Yale Law School
Robert,Field,Professor of Law,Drexel University Kline School of Law
Eric,Fink,Associate Professor,Elon University School of Law
Claire ,Finkelstein,Algernon Biddle Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy,University of Pennsylvania
Susan,Fino,Professor,Wayne State University
Fern,Fisher,Judge,Hofstra Law Dchool
Joseph,Fishkin,Marrs McLean Professor in Law,University of Texas
Rebecca,Flanagan,Assistant Professor ,UMass Law
Akilah,Folami,Professor of Law,Hofstra law
Richard ,Ford,Professor of Law,Stanford Law School
Caroline,Forell,Professor Emerita,University of Oregon School of Law
Gregory,Fox,Professor of Law,Wayne State University Law School
Jill,Fraley,Associate Professor of Law,Washington and Lee University School of Law
Gary,Francione,Board of Governors Distinguished Professor,Rutgers University School of Law
Alexandra M,Franco,Visiting Assistant Professor,IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
David,Franklin,Associate Professor ,DePaul University College of Law
Kris,Franklin,Professor of Law,New York Law School
Ann,Freedman,Associate Professor of Law ,Rutgers Law School
Eric M.,Freedman,Siggi B. Wilzig Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Rights,Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
Lawrence,Friedman,Marion Rice Kirkwood Professor,Stanford University School of Law
Lawrence,Friedman,Professor of Law,New England Law | Boston
Richard,Friedman,Alene and Allan F. Smith Professor of Law,University of Michigan Law School
William,Funk,Lewis & Clark Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus,Lewis & Clark Law School
Barry,Furrow,Professor of Law,Kline School of Law at Drexel University
Craig,Futterman,Clinical Professor of Law,University of Chicago Law School
Martha,Gaines,Distinguished Clinical Professor,University of Wisconsin Law School
Paula,Galowitz,Clinical Professor of Law Emerita,New York University School of Law
James,Gardner,Professor of Law,University at Buffalo School of Law
Bernadette,Gargano,Vice Dean of Students and Lecturer-in-Law,University at Buffalo School of Law
Frederick Mark,Gedicks,Guy Anderson Chair & Professor of Law,Brigham Young University Law School
Bennett,Gershman,Professor of Law,”Elisabeth Haub School of Law, Pace University”
Nancy,Gertner,”Retired Judge, Senior Lecturer”,Harvard Law School
Sarah,Gerwig-Moore,Professor of Law,Mercer University School of Law
Doni,Gewirtzman,Professor of Law,New York Law School
Brittany,Glidden,Professor,UC Hastings College of Law
Miriam,Gohara,Clinical Associate Professor of Law,Yale Law School
A. Thomas,Golden,”Professor of Law, Emeritus”,Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Julie,Goldscheid,Professor,CUNY School of Law
Jared,Goldstein,Professor of Law,Roger Williams University School of Law
Jasmine,Gonzales Rose,Associate Professor of Law,University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Patrick,Goodman,Lecturer in Law,UCLA School of Law
Robert,Gordon,Professor of Law,Stanford University
Kathleen,Gordon,”Associate Director, Clinical Program”,American University Washington College of Law
Neil,Gotanda,Professor Emeritus,Western State College of Law
Jonathan,Gould,Assistant Professor of Law,Berkeley Law School
Mark,Graber,Regents Professor,University of Maryland Carey School of Law
Tiffany,Graham,Associate Dean of Academic Affairs and Senior Lecturer,University of South Dakota School of Law
John,Greabe,Professor of Law,University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law
Jennifer,Green,Associate Clinical Professor of Law,University of Minnesota Law School
Steven,Green,Fred H. Paulus Professor of Law,Willamette University
Michelle,Greenberg-Kobrin,Associate Clinical Professor of Law,Cardozo Law School
Sara,Greene,Professor of Law,Duke Law School
Jamal,Greene,Dwight Professor of Law,Columbia Law School
Kent,Greenfield,Professor of Law and Dean’s Distinguished Scholar,Boston College
Carolyn,Grose,Professor of Law,MItchell Hamline School of Law
Joanna,Grossman,Ellen K. Solender Endowed Chair in Women and Law,SMU Dedman School of Law
Catherine,Grosso,Professor of Law,Michigan State University College of Law
Martin,Guggenheim,Fiorello LaGuardia Professor of Clinical Law,New York University Law School
Pratheepan,Gulasekaram,Professor of Law,Santa Clara University
Jennifer,Gundlach,Emily & Stephen Mendel Distinguished Professor of Law and Clinical Professor of Law,”Maurice A. Deane School of Law, Hofstra University”
Jimmy,Gurule,Professor of Law ,Notre Dame Law School
Jill,Habig,Lecturer,Berkeley Law School
Phoebe,Haddon,Chancellor and Professor of Law,Rutgers- CAMDEN University
Hiba,Hafiz,Assistant Professor of Law,Boston College Law School
Monica,Hakimi,James V. Campbell Professor of Law,University of Michigan Law School
Amy ,Halbrook,Professor of Law,Salmon P. Chase College of Law
Nicole,Hallett,Associate Clinical Professor of Law,University of Chicago Law School
Susan Pace,Hamill,Professor of Law and Honors Professor,University of Alabama School of Law
Ian,Haney Lopez,Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Public Law,UC Berkeley
Dana,Harrington Conner,Professor,Delaware Law School of Widener University
Jeffrey,Harrison,Professor of Law,University of Florida
Emily Albrink,Hartigan,Professor of Law,St. Mary’s University School of Law
Renee,Hatcher,Assistant Professor of Law,UIC John Marshall Law School
Oona,Hathaway,Professor of Law,Yale Law School
Stacy,Hawkins,Professor of Law,Rutgers Law School
Grant,Hayden,Professor of Law,SMU-Dedman School of Law
Antony,Haynes,Associate Dean,Albany Law School
Thomas,Healy,Professor of Law,Seton Hall University School of Law
Henry,Hecht,Herma Hill Kay Lecturer in Residence,”University of California, Berkeley School of Law”
Lynne ,Henderson,Professor Emerita,UNLV-Boyd School of Law
Leslie,Henry,Professor of Law,University of Maryland Carey School of Law
Helen,Hershkoff,Herbert M. and Svetlana Wachtell Professor of Constitutional Law and Civil Liberties,New York University School of Law
Steven,Heyman,Professor of Law,”Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Tech”
John,Heywood,Associate Professor/Law Librarian,American University Washington College of Law
Michael,Higginbotham,Joseph Curtis Professor of Law,University of Baltimore School of Law
Jim,Hilbert,Professor of Law,Mitchell Hamline School of Law
B. Jessie,Hill,”Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development, Judge Ben C. Green Professor of Law”,Case Western Reserve University
Laura J.,Hines ,Professor of Law,University of Kansas School of Law
Bill,Hing,Professor of Law,University of San Francisco
Michael,Hoffheimer,Professor of Law and Jamie L. Whitten Chair of Law and Government,University of Mississippi School of Law
Barbara,Hoffman,Assistant Clinical Professor of Law,Rutgers Law School
Stephen,Holmes,Walter E. Meyer Professor of Law,New York University School of Law
Kari,Hong,Associate Professor,Boston College Law School
Joan,Howarth,Distinguished Visiting Professor,”Boyd School of Law, UNLV”
Babe,Howell,Professor,CUNY School of Law
Aziz,Huq,”Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law, Mark Claster Mamolen Teaching Scholar”,University of Chicago Law School
Alex,Hurder,Clinical Professor of Law – Retired,Vanderbilt Law School
Rebecca,Ingber,Associate Professor of Law,Boston University School of Law
Jack,Jackson,Assistant Professor ,Whitman College
Craig,Jackson,Professor of Law,”Thurgood Marshall School of Law, Texas Southern University”
Sandra,Janin,Professor of Legal Writing,New York Law School
Eric,Janus,Professor of Law,Mitchell Hamline School of Law
Peter,Jaszi,Emeritus Professor,American University Law School
Stewart,Jay,William L. Dwyer Chair in Law Emeritus,University of Washington School of Law
Danielle,Jefferis,Clinical Teaching Fellow,University of Denver Sturm College of Law
Dalie,Jimenez,Professor of Law,”University of California, Irvine School of Law”
Kari,Johnson,Professor of Research and Writing,Chicago-Kent College of Law
Stephen,Johnson,Professor of Law,Mercer University Law School
Lawrence,Joseph,Tinnelly Professor of Law,St. John’s University School of Law
Irving,Joyner,Professor,North Carolina Central University School of Law
Andrew,Jurs,Associate Dean and Professor of Law,Drake University Law School
Dan,Kahan,Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology,Yale Law School
Jeffrey,Kahn,Professor of Law,SMU Dedman School of Law
David,Kairys,”James E. Beasley Professor of Law, Emeritus”,Temple University Beasley School of Law
Anil,Kalhan,Professor of Law,Drexel University Kline School of Law
Sam,Kamin,Professor of Law,University of Denver
Helen,Kang,Professor of Law,Golden Gate University School of Law
Daniel,Kanstroom,”Professor of Law, Thomas F. Carney Distinguished Scholar”,Boston College Law School
Robin,Kar,Professor of Law and Philosophy,University of Illinois
Ken,Katkin,Professor of Law,”Chase College of Law, Northern Kentucky University”
Eileen,Kaufman,Professor of Law Emerita,Touro Law Center
Andrew,Kent,Professor of Law,Fordham University School of Law
Lisa,Kern Griffin,Professor of Law,Duke University
Amalia,Kessler,Professor of Law,Stanford University
Paul,Kibel,Professor,Golden Gate University School of Law
Michael,Kimberly,”Visiting Lecturer in Law & Co-Director, Supreme Court Clinic”,Yale Law School
Shani,King,Professor of Law,University of Florida College of Law
Kit,Kinports,Professor and Polisher Family Scholar,Penn State Law
Heidi,Kitrosser,Robins Kaplan Professor of Law,University of Minnesota Law School
Harold Hongju,Koh,Sterling Professor of International Law,Yale Law School
Mehmet,Konar-Steenberg,Professor of Law,Mitchell Hamline School of Law
Judith,Koons,Professor of Law,Barry University School of Law
Don,Korobkin,Professor of Law,Rutgers Law School
Minna,Kotkin,Professor of Law,Brooklyn Law School
Lee,Kovarsky,Professor of Law,University of Maryland School of Law
Stefan,Krieger,”Richard J. Cardali Distinguished Professor in Trial Advocacy and Director, Center for Applied Legal Reasoning”,Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
Paul,Kurtz,J. Alton Hosch Professor Emeritus,University of Georgia School of Law
Patricia,Kuszler,Professor,University of Washington
Mae,Kuykendall,Professor Law,Michigan State University College of Law
John,LaFond,”Edward A. Smith/Missouri Chair in Law, the Constitution and Society”,University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law
John,Lande,Isidor Loeb Professor Emeritus,University of Missouri School of Law
Eric,Lane,Eric J. Schmertz Distinguished Professor of Public Law and Public Service,Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
Laura,Lape,Associate Professor of Law,Syracuse University College of Law
David,Larson,Professor,Mitchell Hamline School of Law
Carlton,Larson,Professor of Law,UC Davis School of Law
Sylvia,Law,Professor Emerita ,New York University
Michael,Lawrence,Professor of Law,Michigan State University College of Law
Anne,Lawton,Professor of Law,Michigan State University College of Law
Laurie,Leader,Clinical Professor of Law,”Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Tech”
Jaime,Lee,Associate Professor of Law,University of Baltimore School of Law
Jennifer,Lee,Associate Clinical Professor of Law,Temple University Beasley School of Law
Brant,Lee,Professor of Law,University of Akron School of Law
Carpenter,Lee,Associate Professor of Law,Temple University Beasley School of Law
Nicole,Lefton,Assistant Professor ,Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
Amanda,Leiter,Professor,American University Washington College of Law
Mark,Lemley,William H. Neukom Professor,Stanford Law School
Arthur,Leonard,Robert F. Wagner Professor of Labor & Employment Law,New York Law School
Kevin,Leske,Professor of Law,University of Dayton School of Law
John,Leubsdorf,Distinguished Professor of Law,Rutgers Law School
Raleigh,Levine,James E. Kelley Chair in Tort Law,Mitchell Hamline School of Law
Sanford,Levinson,”W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood Jr. Centennial Chair in Law, University of Texas Law School, Professor of Government, University of Texas at Austin “,University of Texas
Martin,Levy,Professor of Law,Thurgood Marshall School of Law
Meredith,Lewis,Professor and Vice Dean,University at Buffalo School of Law
Theo,Liebmann,Clinical Professor of Law,Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
Francine,Lipman,William S. Boyd Professor of Law,”William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas”
Leah,Litman,Assistant Professor,University of Michigan Law School
Rory,Little,Professor/Visiting Professor,UC Hastings/Yale Law School
Edward,Lloyd,Evan M. Frankel Clinical Professor of Environmental Law,Columbia Law School
Anne,Lofaso,Arthur B. Hodges Professor of Law,West Virginia University College of Law
Stephen,Loffredo,Professor of Law,City University of New York School of Law
Rachel,Lopez,Associate Professor of Law,”Drexel University, School of Law”
J.C.,Lore,Clinical Professor of Law,Rutgers Law School
John,Lunstroth,Lecturer,University of Houston
Warren,Lupel,Prof of Law (ret.),Northwestern Law
Ira,Lupu,F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor Emeritus of Law,George Washington University
Mary A. ,Lynch,Kate Stoneman Chair in Law and Democracy ,Albany Law School
Robert,MacCoun,Professor of Law,Stanford University
Gregory,Magarian,Thomas and Karole Green Professor of Law,Washington University in St. Louis
Rhonda,Magee,Professor of Law,University of San Francisco School of Law
Suparna,Malempati,Associate Professor,Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School
Lisa,Manheim,Associate Professor,University of Washington School of Law
Maya,Manian,Visiting Professor,Howard University School of Law
Naomi ,Mann,Associate Clinical Professor of Law ,Boston University School of Law
Michael,Mannheimer,Professor of Law,”Salmon P. Chase College of Law, Northern Kentucky University”
Peter,Margulies,Professor of Law,Roger Williams University School of Law
Daniel,Markovits,Guido Calabresi Professor of Law,Yale Law School
Shauna,Marshall,Professor Emerita,UC Hastings College of the Law
Jim,Marshall,Former Professor of Law,Mercer University
Francisco,Martin,Former Sallows Professor of Human Rights,University of Saskatchewan College of Law
Miriam,Marton,Associate Dean of Experiential Learning ,University of Tulsa College of Law
Jerry,Mashaw,”Sterling Professor of Law, Emeritus and Professorial Lecturer”,Yale Law School
Dayna,Matthew,Professor,University of Virginia Law School
Nancy,Maurer,Professor,Albany Law School
Connie,Mayer,Professor of Law,Albany Law School
Sharia,Mayfield,Adjunct Professor & Lawyer,Willamette University College of Law
Goldburn,Maynard,Associate Professor of Law ,University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law
Thomas,McAffee,William S. Boyd Professor,”Boyd Law School, UNLV”
Karen,McDonald Henning,Associate Professor of Law,University of Detroit Mercy Law School
M. Isabel,Medina,Ferris Family Distinguished Professor of Law,Loyola University New Orleans College of Law
Joan,Meier,Professor of Law,George Washington University Law School
Michelle,Mello,Professor ,Stanford Law School
Michael,Meltsner,Matthews University Professor of Law,Northeastern University School of Law
Peter,Menell,Professor of Law,UC Berkeley School of Law
Carrie,Menkel-Meadow,Distinguished Professor of Law,University of California Irvine
Gillian,Metzger,Harlan Fiske Stone Professor of Constitutional Law,Columbia Law School
Thomas,Metzloff,Professor of Law,Duke University School of Law
Amy,Meyers,Professor of Legal Writing,Willamette University College of Law
Jon,Michaels,Professor of Law,UCLA School of Law
Binny,Miller,”Professor of Law and Co-Director, Criminal Justice Clinic”,”American University, Washington College of Law”
Jessica,Millward,Practitioner-in-Residence,”American University, Washington College of Law”
Nancy,Modesitt,Professor of Law,University of Baltimore School of Law
Charles W,Mooney Jr,”Charles A Heimbold, Jr. Professor of Law”,University of Pennsylvania Law School
Michael S.,Moore,Walgreen University Chair and Center for Advanced Study Professor of Law,University of Illinois
Jennifer,Moore,Professor of Law ,University of New Mexico School of Law
Perry,Moriearty,Professor,University of Minnesota Law School
Alan,Morrison,Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest & Public Service Law,George Washington Law School
Elora,Mukherjee,Jerome L. Greene Clinical Professor of Law,Columbia Law School
Steve,Mulroy,Bredesen Professor of Law ,University of Memphis Humphreys School of Law
Jane,Murphy,Laurence M. Katz Professor of Law,University of Baltimore School of Law
Ann,Murphy,Professor,Gonzaga University School of Law
Justin,Murray,Associate Professor of Law,New York Law School
Kristen,Murray,Professor of Law,Temple University Beasley School of Law
Karen,Musalo,Professor,U.C. Hastings
Athena,Mutua,Professor of Law,University at Buffalo School of Law
Makau,Mutua,SUNY Distinguished Professor,SUNY Buffalo Law School
Sheldon,Nahmod,University Distinguished Professor Emeritus,IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Louis,Natali,Professor of Law,Temple University Law School
Alan,Nemeth,Adjunct Professor of Law,American University Washington College of Law and University of Baltimore School of Law
Gerald,Neuman,”J. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International, Foreign, and Comparative Law”,Harvard Law School
Elizabeth,Nevins,Professor of Clinical Law,Hofstra University’s Maurice A. Deane School of Law
Stephen,Newman,Professor of Law Emeritus,New York Law School
Anthony,Niedwiecki,Dean and Professor of Law,Golden Gate University School of law
Luke,Norris,Assistant Professor of Law,University of Richmond Law School
Kimberly,O’Leary,Professor of Law,WMU-Cooley Law School
Anthony,O’Rourke,Joseph W. Belluck and Laura L. Aswad Professor ,”University at Buffalo School of Law, SUNY”
Reginald,Oh,Professor of Law,”Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University”
Michael A.,Olivas ,William B. Bates Distinguished Chair in Law ,University of Houston Law Center
Andy,Olree,Professor of Law,”Faulkner University, Jones School of Law”
David,Oppenheimer,Clinical Professor of Law,”University of California, Berkeley Law”
John,Orcutt,Professor of Law,University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law
Marisol,Orihuela,Clinical Associate Professor of Law,Yale Law School
Lauren,Ouziel,Associate Professor,Temple University Beasley School of Law
Patrick,Parenteau,Professor of Law,Vermont Law School
J. Wilson,Parker,Professor of Law,Wake Forest University School of Law
Stephen ,Paskey,Lecturer,University at Buffalo School of Law
Frank,Pasquale,Piper & Marbury Professor of Law,University of Maryland Carey School of Law
Juan,Perea,Professor of Law,Loyola University Chicago
Michael,Perrry,Robert W. Woodruff Professor of Law ,Emory University
Philip,Peters Jr.,Ruth L. Hulston Professor Emeritus of Law,”School of Law, University of Missouri”
Huyen,Pham,Professor,Texas A&M University School of Law
F. Peter,Phillips,Distinguished Adjunct Professor and Director Alternative Dispute Resolution Skills Program,New York Law School
Daniel,Pi,Visiting Assistant Professor,Mitchell Hamline School of Law
Justin,Pidot,Professor of Law,University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
Tamara,Piety,Professor of Law,University of Tulsa
Joseph,Pileri,Practitioner in Residence,American University Washington College of Law
Ascanio,Piomelli,Professor of Law,UC Hastings College of the Law
Stacey ,Platt,Curt & Linda Rodin Clinical Professor of Law & Social Justice ,Loyola University Chicago School of Law
James,Pope,Distinguished Professor of Law,Rutgers Law School
Cedric Merlin,Powell,”Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs Professor of Law”,University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law
David,Pozen,Professor of Law,Columbia Law School
Sharon,Press,Professor,Mitchell Hamline School of Law
Charles,Press,Clinical Professor of Law,University of Texas School of Law
Richard,Primus,Theodore J. St. Antoine Collegiate Professor of Law,The University of Michigan Law School
Edward,”Purcell, Jr.”,Joseph Solomon Distinguished Professor,New York Law School
Asifa,Quraishi-Landes,Law Professor,University of Wisconsin
Srividhya,Ragavan,Professor of Law ,Texas A&M School of Law
Lynne,Rambo ,Professor of Law,Texas A&M University School of Law
Vernellia,Randall,Professor Emerita of Law,The University of Dayton School of Law
Sara,Rankin,Associate Professor ,Seattle University School of Law
Alan,Rau,Mark G. & Judy G. Yudof Chair in Law Emeritus,University of Texas at Austin School of Law
Robert,Reinstein,Dean Emeritus and Clifford Scott Green Professor of Law Emeritus,Temple University Beasley School of Law
W. Michael,Reisman,Myres S. McDougal Professor of International Law,Yale Law School
Daphna ,Renan ,Assistant Professor of Law,Harvard Law School
Judith ,Resnik ,Arthur Liman Professor of Law ,Yale Law School
Richard,Reuben,James Lewis Parks Professor of Law and Journalism,University of Missouri School of Law
Deborah ,Rhode ,Professor of Law ,Stanford Law School
Kim D.,Ricardo,Professor of Law,UIC John Marshall Law School
William D.,Rich,Emeritus Professor of Law,University of Akron School of Law
Michelle ,Richards,Assistant Professor of Law,Detroit Mercy School of Law
Henry,Richardson,Professor of Law,Temple University Law School
Sandra,Rierson,Associate Professor,Thomas Jefferson School of Law
David,Ritchie,Professor of Law and Philosophy,Mercer University
Judith,Ritter,Distinguished Professor of Law,Widener University Delaware Law School
Allie,Robbins,Associate Professor of Law,CUNY School of Law
Ira,Robbins ,Professor of Law,American University Washington College of Law
Zoe,Robinson,Professor,DePaul University College of Law
Kimberly,Robinson,Elizabeth D. and Richard A. Merrill Professor of Law  and Professor of Education Curry School of Education,University of Virginia School of Law
Cristina,Rodriguez,Leighton Homer Surbeck Professor of Law,Yale Law School
Christopher,Roederer,Assistant Professor of Law,University of Dayton
Sarah,Rogerson,Professor of Law,Albany Law School
Shalev,Roisman,Associate Professor of Law,University of Arizona
Ediberto,Roman,Professor of Law,Florida International University College of Law
Victor,Romero,Maureen B. Cavanaugh Distinguished Faculty Scholar and Professor of Law,Penn State Law-University Park
Tom,”Romero, II”,Associate Professor,University of Denver Sturm College of Law
Kaelyn,Romey,”Associate Professor, Director of Litigation Center”,Golden Gate University School of Law
Kermit,Roosevelt,Professor of Law,University of Pennsylvania Law School
Leslie,Rose,Professor Emerita ,Golden Gate Univ. School of Law
Henry,Rose,Professor of Law,Loyola University Chicago
Stephen,Rosenbaum,Frank C. Newman Lecturer,”Univ of Calif, Berkeley”
Rand,Rosenblatt,Professor of Law Emeritus,Rutgers University Law School
Darren,Rosenblum,Professor,Pace Law School
Catherine,Ross,Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law,George Washington University Law School
Stephen,Ross,Professor of Law,Penn State Law
Ezra,Rosser,Professor of Law,American University Washington College of Law
Brad,Roth,Professor of Political Science & Law,Wayne State University
Andrew,Rothman,Associate Professor of Professional Practice,Rutgers Law School
Laura,Rovner,”Professor of Law & Director, Civil Rights Clinic”,University of Denver College of Law
Denise,Roy,Professor,Mitchell Hamline School of Law
Judith,Royster,Professor of Law,University of Tulsa College of Law
John,Ruple,Professor of Law (Research),University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law
SpearIt,S,Professor of Law,Thurgood Marshall School of Law
Zahr,Said,Associate Dean,University of Washington School of Law
Michael,Salerno,Clinical Professor,UC Hastings College of the Law
Peter,Salib,Climenko Fellow and Lecturer on Law,Harvard Law School
Joyce ,Saltalamachia ,Professor Emerita ,New York Law School
Jack,Sammons,Griffin B. Bell Professor of Law Emeritus,Mercer Law School
Steve,Sanders,Professor of Law,Indiana University Maurer School of Law
Eli,Savitt,Lecturer,University of Michigan Law School
Thomas,Schaaf,Associate Professor,Golden Gate University School of Law
Barbara,Schatz,Clinical Professor of Law,Columbia Law School
Andrew,Schepard,Siben & Siben Distinguished Professor of Law,Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
Andrew,Scherer,Visiting Associate Professor of Law,New York Law School
James,Schiavenza,Professor and Dean,Lincoln Law School of Sacramento
Margo,Schlanger,Wade H. and Dores M. McCree Collegiate Professor of Law,University of Michigan
Randall,Schmidt,Clinical Professor of Law,University of Chicago Law School
Richard,Schragger,Perre Bowen Professor of Law,University of Virginia School of Law
Joshua,Schwartz,E.K. Gubin Professor of Law,The George Washington University Law School
Andrew,Schwartz,Lecturer,Stanford Law School
David,Schwartz,Foley & Lardner-Bascom Professor of Law,University of Wisconsin Law School
Paul,Schwartz,Professor of Law,Berkeley Law School
Steven,Schwinn,Professor of Law,UIC John Marshall Law School
Robert,Sedler,Distinguished Professor of Law,Wayne State University
Louis,Seidman,Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law,Georgetown University Law Center
Gil,Seinfeld,Robert A. Sullivan Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Academic Programming,University of Michigan Law School
Jeffrey,Selbin,Clinical Professor of Law,UC Berkeley School of Law
Joshua,Sellers,Associate Professor of Law,”Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University”
Malinda,Seymore,Professor of Law,Texas A&M University School of Law
Gregory,Shaffer,Chancellor’s Professor,”University of California, Irvine School of Law”
Bijal,Shah,Associate Professor of Law,”Arizona State University, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law”
Ann,Shalleck,Professor of Law and Carrington Shields Scholar,”American University, Washington College of Law”
Colleen,Shanahan,Associate Clinical Professor of Law,Columbia Law School
Peter,Shane,Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law,Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
Amanda,Shanor,Assistant Professor,”University of Pennsylvania, the Wharton School “
Joan,Shaughnessy,Roger D. Groot Professor of Law,Washington and Lee University
Gary,Shaw,Professor Emeritus ,Touro Law Center
Richard ,Sherwin ,Wallace Stevens Professor of Law,New York Law School
Jed,Shugerman,Professor of Law,Fordham University School of Law
Marjorie,Shultz,”Professor of Law, Emerita”,Berkeley Law School
Michael,Siebecker,Professor of Law,”University of Denver, Sturm College of Law”
Neil,Siegel,David W. Ichel Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science,Duke Law School
Katharine ,Silbaugh,Professor of Law and Law Alumni Scholar,Boston University
Kenneth,Simons,Professor of Law,University of California Irvine School of Law
Gary,Simson,Macon Chair in Law,Mercer University School of Law
Joseph,Singer,Bussey Professor of Law,Harvard Law School
Anita,Sinha,Associate Professor of Law ,”American University, Washington College of Law”
Shirin,Sinnar,Professor of Law,Stanford Law School
Peter,Smith,Arthur Selwyn Miller Research Professor of Law,George Washington University Law School
Charisa,Smith,Associate Professor,City University of New York School of Law
Linda,Smith,James T. Jensen Professor of Law,University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law
Susan Lea,Smith ,Professor,Willamette University
William,Snape,Assistant Dean and Professor ,”American University, Washington College of Law”
Robert,Solomon,Clinical Professor of Law,UC Irvine School of Law
Larry,Spain,Alvin R. Allison Professor of Law,Texas Tech University School of Law
Sophie,Sparrow,Associate Dean for Faculty Research & Development; Professor of Law,University of New Hampshire School of Law
Norman W.,Spaulding,Nelson Bowman Sweitzer and Marie B. Sweitzer Professor of Law,Stanford Law School
Shanin,Specter,Professor of Practice,UC Hastings
Mark,Spiegel,Professor,Boston College Law School
Jane,Spinak,Edward Ross Aranow Clinical Professor,Columbia Law School
Peter,Spiro,Charles Weiner Professor of Law,Temple University Beasley School of Law
Laura,Spitz,Associate Professor,University of New Mexico School of Law
Max,Stearns,”Venable, Baetjer & Howard Professor of Law”,University of Maryland Carey School of Law
Mike,Steenson,Professor of Law,Mitchell Hamline School of Law
Allan,Stein,Professor of Law,Rutgers Law School
Norman,Stein,Professor,”Kline School of Law, Drexel University”
Michael,Steinberg,Professor from Practice,University of Michigan Law School
Adam,Steinman,University Research Professor of Law,University of Alabama School of Law
Joan,Steinman,”Professor of Law Emerita, University Distinguished Professor Emeritus”,”Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Tech”
Beth,Stephens,Distinguished Professor,Rutgers Law School
Faith,Stevelman,Professor of Law,New York Law School
Geoffrey,Stone,Edward H. Levi Distinguished Professor of Law,The University of Chicago
Robert,Strassfeld,Professor of Law and Deputy Director Financial Integrity Institute,Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Christian,Sundquist,Professor of Law,Albany Law School
Allison,Tait,Associate Professor,University of Richmond School of Law
Dan,Tarlock,University Distinguished Professor Emeritus,”Illinois Tech, Chicago-Kent College of Law”
David,Tarrien,Associate Professor,WMU Cooley Law School
Jennifer ,Taub,Professor of Law,Vermont Law School
Zephyr,Teachout,Associate Professor of Law,Fordham University School of Law
Evelyn,Tenenbaum,Professor of Law,Albany Law School
Rick,Tepker,Professor of Law and Calvert Chair of Law & Liberty,University of Oklahoma
Joseph,Thai,Glenn R. Watson Centennial Chair in Law and Presidential Professor of Law,University of Oklahoma College of Law
Suja,Thomas,Professor of Law,University of Illinois College of Law
Alice,Thomas,”Associate Professor and Interim Director, Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning and Assessment”,Howard University School of Law
Joseph,Thome,Emeritus Professor,University of Wisconsin Law School
Dana,Thompson,Clinical Professor of Law,University of Michigan Law School
Elizabeth,Thornburg,Richard R. Lee Endowed Professor of Law,SMU Dedman School of Law
Michael,Tigar,Emeritus Professor ,Duke Law School
Adam,Todd,Professor of Lawyering Skills and Human Rights Coordinator,University of Dayton School of Law
Franita,Tolson,Professor of Law ,USC Gould School of Law
Ciara ,Torres-Spelliscy ,Professor of Law,Stetson University College of Law
Laurence,Tribe,Carl M. Loeb University Professor,Harvard Law School
Enid,Trucios-Haynes,Professor of Law ,University of Louisville
C. Cora,True-Frost,Associate Professor of Law,Syracuse University College of Law
Alexander,Tsesis,Professor or Law,”Loyola University School of Law, Chicago”
Nicole,Tuchinda,Visiting Assistant Professor and Director of the Juvenile and Special Education Law Clinic,University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law
David,Uhlmann,”Jeffrey F. Liss Professor from Practice and Director, Environmental Law and Policy Program”,University of Michigan Law School
Rodney,Uphoff,Elwood L. Thomas Missouri Endowed Professor Emeritus of Law,University of Missouri School of Law
Rachel,Van Cleave,Professor of Law,Golden Gate University School of Law
Joyce ,Vance,Distinguished Professor of the Practice of Law,University of Alabama School of Law
Julia ,Vazquez ,Associate Clinical Professor of Law,Southwestern Law School
J.W.,Verret,Associate Professor of Law,George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School
Joseph,Vining,Hutchins Professor of Law Emeritus,University of Michigan Law School
Joan,Vogel,Professor of Law,Vermont Law School
Rachel,Vorspan,Professor of Law,Fordham Law School
Dov,Waisman,Vice Dean & Professor of Law,Southwestern Law School
Rangeley,Wallace,Practitioner-in-Residence,”Washington College of Law, American University”
Adrian,Walters,Ralph L. Brill Professor of Law,IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Daniel,Warshawsky,Professor of Law,New York Law School
Jonathan,Weinberg,Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development and Professor of Law,Wayne State University Law School
Mark S.,Weiner,Professor of Law,Rutgers Law School
Brandon,Weiss,Associate Professor of Law,University of Missouri Kansas City School of Law
Deborah ,Weissman ,Reef C. Ivey II Distinguished Professor of Law ,University of North Carolina
Donal,Wells,Emeritus Associate Professor ,Mercer University
Keith,Werhan,Ashton Phelps Chair in Constitutional Law,Tulane Law School
James Q.,Whitman,Ford Foundation Professor,Yale Law School
Jonathan,Wiener,William R. & Thomas L. Perkins Professor of Law,Duke Law School
Grace,Wigal,Teaching Professor Emeritus,West Virginia University College of Law
Bryan H.,Wildenthal,Professor of Law Emeritus,Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Amelia ,Wilson ,Associate Research Scholar,Columbia Law School
Michael,Wishnie,William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of Law,Yale Law School
John,Witt,Allen H. Duffy Class of 1960 Professor of Law,Yale Law School
Brian,Wolfman,”Director, Appellate Courts Immersion Clinic and Associate Professor of Law”,Georgetown University Law Center
Evan,Wolfson,Distinguished Visitor from Practice,Georgetown Law Center
Barbara,Woodhouse,L.Q.C. Lamar Professor of Law,Emory University Law School
Lauris,Wren,Clinical Professor of Law,Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
Dwayne,Wright,Visiting Assistant Professor ,George Washington University Law School
Gideon,Yaffe,Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld Professor of Jurisprudence,Yale Law School
Ray,Yasser,Professor of Law,University of Tulsa College of Law
Donna,Young,President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy,Albany Law School
Rebecca,Zietlow,Charles W. Fornoff Professor of Law & Values,University of Toledo College of Law
Paul,Zwier,Professor of Law,Emory University School of Law


*Affiliations noted for identification purposes only.


Yo, Garment Renders, You Might Want to Check This Out

garment render

Here’s the latest Morning Consult polling on Trump’s approval in 15 states, where the 2020 race may be close. The second column shows how the state voted in 2016. The third column shows Trump’s negative or positive approval currently.

  Trump 2016 Vote Net % Trump Current Approval

Net %

Arizona plus 3.57 minus 4
Colorado plus 4.91 minus 15
Florida plus 1.20 plus 1
Georgia plus 5.09 minus 3
Iowa plus 9.41 minus 13
Michigan plus 0.23 minus 14
Minnesota plus 1.51 minus 13
Nevada plus 2.42 minus 7
New Hampshire minus 0.37 minus 15
North Carolina plus 3.66 minus 2
Ohio plus 8.13 minus 5
Pennsylvania plus 0.72 minus 7
Texas plus 8.99 plus 3
Virginia minus 5.32 minus 7
Wisconsin plus 0.77 minus 14

In Sum

Trump carried 13 of these 15 swing states in 2020. Now, his approval is under water in 13 of the 15.

In Context

Some Trump “Approvers” Will Vote Against Trump, Depending on the Democratic Candidate

That’s what lots of polling has shown. (Presumably, when the pollster asks if they “approve of the job Trump is doing as President,” they think of some policy or outcome they like, such as their big tax cut.)

You Can Fool Some of the People All of the Time, and Now We Know Who They Are, and There Aren’t Enough of Them

The 2016 data show that just over half of Wisconsinites could be fooled at least some of the time. But the 2019 data show that only 36 percent of them can be fooled all of the time.

The Trump Sorting Hat

sorting hat

The Trump effect on the country is like the Hogwarts sorting hat. It drives away everyone who can’t be fooled all of the time.

What about Impeachment?

I entertain not the slightest doubt—zero, zilch, nada—that if the case for impeachment were weak on the facts OR if it were weak as a matter of constitutional principle, the effort to impeach would be a negative for Democrats. That it might, for example, push some of the 15 percent of Wisconsinites who have changed their minds since 2016 to rethink their views and change their allegiance back to Trump.

But the Democrats’ case is very strong on the facts, and it is very strong on constitutional principle.

The Republicans deny the facts and ignore the constitutional principle. But sayin’ ain’t showin’. It’s true that if you tell the same lies over and over, your lies may tend to get accepted as truth. But that rule of thumb doesn’t work so well if, every time you repeat your lie, a voice of equal strength sounds off to explain why it is a lie.

And that Hogwarts sorting hat just keeps on sortin’.











Paging Goldilocks. Goldilocks, Please Pick Up any White Courtesy Phone.


This morning, we read that some of the Republican empty suits are trying to rally around Professor Turley’s argument that the impeachment is going way too fast. Meanwhile, someone else thinks it should be even faster.

Fast Tweet

This is the sort of thing that happens when you try to deal with a tough situation without the effective assistance of counsel.

Advocates Gonna Advocate

ballistics expert

Yesterday, Professor Turley’s role was as an expert witness advocate, not a scholar delivery an unbiased opinion grounded in factual and legal scholarship. Dana Milbank nails down the point:

[Turley] made almost exactly the opposite case against President Barack Obama in a 2013 hearing. “This will not be our last president,” he argued then, saying it would be “very dangerous” to the balance of powers not to hold Obama accountable for assuming powers “very similar” to the “the right of the king to essentially stand above the law.”

Now we have a president soliciting campaign help from a foreign country while withholding military aid, then ignoring duly issued subpoenas — and Turley says Congress would be the entity committing an “abuse of power” if it holds Trump to account. Trump shared that quote on Twitter.

Back in 1998, arguing for President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, Turley said there was “no objective basis” to claim that the Framers intended a “restrictive definition of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ ” Now Turley argues that the Framers intended a restrictive definition, applying “bribery” only to “money” transactions.

How Did Turley Do as an Advocate?

Tone and Manner

He affected the tone and manner of a coolly aloof, highly confident person masquerading as an objective expert, all while mouthing arguments in support of his client.

Pretty much what you want in an expert witness.

I turn now from theater criticism to substance.

Turley’s Approach to His Job as Expert Witness Advocate

Let’s say you are an advocate—whether as lawyer or expert witness, it doesn’t matter, because you’re all on the same team—for a bad client with a rotten case. There are two things you don’t want to do, and one thing you do want to do.

You do not want to just throw spaghetti at the wall, in a transparently desperate effort to divert the judge’s and the jury’s attention from your client’s wickedness. It’s unethical, but it’s still a bad idea, even if you lack scruples, because it’s unlikely to work.

And, if you’re an expert witness, you do not want to abuse your credentials as an expert by offering an opinion that is just bullshit. If, for example, you are an expert on materials science, you do not want to offer bullshit testimony about tensile strength. (One: you’ll get found out. Two: because you’ll get found out, your client will probably lose. Three: it’s really bad for your future employment prospects as an expert witness.)

Here’s what you do want to do: you want to ask yourself, “Self, what plausible or semi-plausible arguments can I make that do not make me look like a charlatan and sound like a fool?” If that’s the way you approach the task, you will probably find some plausible or semi-plausible arguments that fill the bill.

I would say that Turley generally approached his with the right mindset.

The Standard of Impeachability and the Constitutional Definition of “Bribery”

He probably did about the best he could do to support a losing case.

Ditto for the views he shared on the timing of impeachment.

Likewise for his opinion on the “thinness” or “thickness” of the factual record.

He probably understood that his job was not to convince the unpersuaded. His job was to give the Trump Cultists some talking points that would appeal to them.

A Bridge Too Far for Professor Turley

For legal scholars and advocates, thinking about hypothetical cases is as natural as eating a ham sandwich for lunch. So the professor thought of a hypothetical case: a case where Congress—or at least one branch of Congress—violates the balance of power by refusing to recognize the judicial branch’s constitutional right to referee disputes between the legislature and the executive over what is or is not a proper assertion of executive privilege, and over what documents and testimony must or must not be provided in response to a congressional subpoena.

Turley’s expert opinion was that, in such a case, Congress would be abusing its power.

And so it would, in that hypothetical case.

It’s a perfectly fine hypothetical, and Turley’s analysis is perfectly fine.

The problem is that in the real world, it’s not Congress that is denying the constitutional principle of checks and balances. It’s Trump.

It was unprofessional for Turley, even as an advocate, to ignore or misstate legally relevant facts.

Auditioning for Defense Counsel in the Senate Trial?

I believe that is what Turley is up to.

Clearly, the job is currently vacant.

Turmp could do a lot worse. And probably will.




The Republican Minority Report: Standing on Shaky Ground

Screen Shot 2019-12-03 at 9.55.52 AM

I have reproduced the second paragraph of the Conclusions section of the Republican minority report issued yesterday. It’s a long document, and this quotation appears on page 109. (If you have time on your hands and want to read it, it will be found here.)

Please read the first sentence of the paragraph thoughtfully and carefully. It declares, “The Democrats have not established an impeachable offense.”

Then look at the remaining four sentences of the paragraph, each making the demonstrably false claim that the Democrats’ evidence “does not support” or “does not establish” this, that, or the other.

I will not say that the paragraph I have reproduced amounts to an admission that proof of any, or some, or all of the four undeniable propositions which they try to deny WOULD amount to proof of an offense—and not only that, but also proof of an impeachable offense.

I will not claim an “admission,” because I do not wish to overstate my case. And I do not wish to overstate my case, because an argument that overstates the case is not a persuasive argument.

However, I do claim that paragraph two of the Republicans’ Conclusion, as reproduced above, contains the very strong implication  that proof of any, or of some, or of all of the four undeniable propositions would justify impeachment.

And that, ladies and germs, puts the Republicans on shaky ground indeed.

It implies that, to avoid impeachment, Trump must persuade voters to believe him, not to believe their own lying eyes.

shaky ground

Waiting for Impeachment

Useful Idiot

Pundits are pontificating on Louisiana’s Senator Kennedy as a useful idiot for Russian propaganda[1] and on the utter bad faith of the Republican defense of Trump.[2] And a Never Trump web site informs us about The Twelve Senate Republicans Who Might Vote to Remove Trump from Office.

Of course, a great many things might happen. I might wake up tomorrow morning and decide to become a professional wrestler. The sun might rise tomorrow in the west rather than the east. The pope might join the Satanic Temple.[3] Or, His Holiness might decide to walk in the woods and take a shit among the trees.

As I said, many things might happen. But I shall speak of what is  happening.

What Is Happening

One. Democrats have produced abundant evidence supporting the accuracy of their Ukraine narrative. Republicans have not offered any contrary evidence. They have not proffered a plausible alternative narrative. They have not even proffered an implausible alternative narrative.

One might say, speaking metaphorically, that the DNA on the blue dress has been tested, and the results are not good.

Two. This is unfortunate for the Republicans. But they are left with a binary choice. If they want to make any faint effort by way of an argument that some folks in the middle might find persuasive, they would adopt the bad-but-not-impeachable. I have explained the five overwhelming reasons to take this approach.

Or, in the alternative, they might argue—again speaking metaphorically—that the DNA test was fake and that using a cigar on your intern’s nether regions is not “sex.”

Three. Clearly, they are going for the metaphorical fake-DNA-test-cigar-stimulation-OK defense.

Four. Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, and the Republican pols have chosen to make arguments that will meet with approbation by the 53 percent of self-identified Republicans who think that Trump is a greater president than Abraham Lincoln.

And, probably, only by that group.

Five. In consequence of all the above, the impeachment effort will contribute significantly to the ongoing processes that are dividing us into two distinct and discreet groups: Trump Cultists and Everybody Else.

[1] James Downie, The useful idiot from Louisiana

[2] Greg Sargent, The latest defense of Trump is a total scam. Republicans just confirmed it themselves.

[3] On going to the web site, I happened to notice that they have some special holiday deals on their merchandeise, but the deals are expiring soon. Act quickly, or the opportunity will pass.

A Little Thought Experiment—with a Cigar and a Blue Dress


I just shared some thoughts on a rational Trump’s best and worst impeachment defenses. Let me follow up with a little thought experiment.

Suppose that Bill Clinton hadn’t stopped with asking senators to vote for acquittal.

Suppose he had demanded, in addition, that they all join in affirming that stimulating your intern’s clitoris with a big cigar is not, by ironclad and indisputable definition, an act of “sex.”

Suppose that he also required his senatorial supporters to proclaim—loudly but without any evidence at all—that the people who did the DNA test on the blue dress were a bunch of crooked Republicans who produced fake test results.

That the DNA on the blue dress actually belonged to Lindsey Graham.

That the real DNA results had been stolen, and hidden away in a rural Ukrainian village.

How do you think it would have worked out for Bill Clinton if he had made those arguments?

Alternative Defenses, Blueberry Pies, and Three-Year-Olds

The time has come for Trump to lay out his defense to the charge that he used military aid to extort and bribe Ukraine.

With that thought in mind, let’s do this thought experiment. Let’s say you are a three-year-old named Al. Mamma has made some blueberry pies, but she has stepped out of the kitchen. You’re hungry and eat one of the pies, leaving evidence all over your face. Mamma comes in and demands an explanation. You have four possible lines of defense.

  1. Admit that You Ate the Pie, But Offer a Justification

For example: “I was starving, and. the blueberry pie was the only food I could find.”

  1. Admit that You Have Blueberries All Over Your Face, But Offer an Alternative Narrative

For example: “My big brother is the one who actually ate the pie, and then he rubbed some blueberries on my face to make me look guilty.”

  1. Admit that You Ate the Pie, But Argue that Spanking Your Butt is Unwarranted

For example: “Did you know that many studies have shown that spanking kids’ butts causes permanent psychological injury?”

Or maybe this: “Eating blueberry pie is not nearly as bad as all the other things I thought about doing.”

Or this: “When Bill Clinton was little, he ate blueberry pies, too, but he didn’t get spanked.”

But, since you are a three-year-old, you do not offer any of the above defenses. Instead, you pick number four:

  1. Just Stand There and Deny There is any Blueberry Pie on Your Face


Good day to the nice folks in Finland, India, and Thailand, who checked out this blog while I was busy writing my earlier posts this morning. They have joined early morning (US time) readers from Austria, Kenya, and the United States.

Words for Republicans to Use Defending Trump and Attacking Democrats, Helpfully Arranged in Alphabetical Order


Please Forward to Your Favorite Republican Senators and Congresspersons

Good advocates stand up, state the proven facts in an understandable way and in logical order, sit down, and let the listener draw her own conclusion. There is no need for the advocate to state the conclusion; it flows naturally from the proven facts, properly presented.

Some advocates, however, have no case to make. Others have not got the slightest idea of how to be a good advocate. These kinds of advocates just stand up and hurl insults.

Now, Aardvark is nothing but a caring and compassionate person. And so, in the spirit of caring and compassion, I offer the following Words for Republicans to use in defending Trump and characterizing Democrats’ words and actions.

Words for Republicans

below the belt
make believe
mock trial
show trial
three-ring circus
uncalled for
witch hunt


What’s Your Defense and Who’s Your Lawyer? Please Respond Promptly. Signed: Love and Kisses, Jerry Nadler

Yesterday, Rep. Nadler, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote to Orange Man:

Earlier this week, Chairman Schiff announced that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) is “preparing a report summarizing the evidence we have found this far, which will be transmitted to the Judiciary Committee soon after Congress returns from the Thanksgiving recess.” That report will describe, among other things, “a months-long effort in which President Trump again sought foreign interference in our elections for his personal and political benefit at the expense of our national interest” and “an unprecedented campaign of obstruction in an effort to prevent the Committees from obtaining documentary evidence and testimony.” As you are also aware, the Judiciary Committee has been engaged in an investigation concerning allegations that you may have engaged in acts of obstruction of justice, as detailed in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election. For detailed discussion of the scope of the impeachment inquiry, I refer you to the report accompanying House Resolution 660.

In anticipation of our consideration of these matters, I am writing to determine if your counsel will seek to exercise the specific privileges set forth in the Judiciary Committee’s Impeachment Procedures adopted pursuant to H. Res. 660 and participate in the upcoming impeachment proceedings. In particular, please provide the Committee with notice of whether your counsel intends to participate, specifying which of the privileges your counsel seeks to exercise, no later than 5:00 pm on December 6, 2019.

I look forward to your prompt response.