Open/Close Menu وکیل | مشاوره رایگان | وکالت | وکیل آنلاین

This weekend, after traveling to Utah to speak with the Federal Bar Association, I was unable to attend law school graduation. In almost 30 years of teaching, I have missed only a few graduates. However, I soon received emails from students and colleagues that made me somewhat thankful for not being able to attend.

He was the opening speaker this year Representative Susan Wilde (D) who represents District 7 in Pennsylvania and is an excellent graduate of our Law School. Wilde chose the starting address for the personal attack, accusing me of using the law as an example of “wrongdoing.” He falsely accused me of changing an important legal point in my testimony at the Clinton and Trump interrogation hearings on whether interrogative conduct should be punishable offenses. I felt the answer was needed.

Despite his other positive and inspiring points, Wilde’s representative surprised many with the political aspect of his speech. These beginnings are celebrations for our community as a whole, including students and family members who have opposing views. George Washington, while certainly in the minority, has Republican, Liberal, and Conservative members, as well as those in favor of cohabitation. As someone who has spoken in such beginnings, this is a time when most of us avoid political partisanship and focus on student achievement and our shared values.

Rep. Wild had many of the traditional and inspiring elements of the opening speech. However, he abruptly and surprisingly deviated by attacking my personality, my scientific honesty, and my education. He made no attempt to contact me before starting work and clearly made no attempt to substantiate the substantive claim. In fact, he had many reasons to expect me to be there (as I often am) and to remain silent as he attacks my character. If Wilde’s representative believes that I have misused my educational background for “false intentions,” that would be the wrong tool to make such false claims, especially without a little research.

This text is:

“You have to be careful of those who seek to use their influence and expertise for misguided purposes. For example, GW Law has an official professor who is undoubtedly well versed in the constitution, but who has recently undermined his recent documented scholarship. He has made a name for himself on cable news and on social media, a law professor who once strongly advocated that the president does not need to be indicted for impeachment, and just last year for the president more “He argued the opposite at will. The president, who incited a bloody uprising and attack on the democratic process and the rule of law.”

While it may not come as a surprise to many in our age of rage, using a start to attack a faculty member at our graduation ceremony was unprecedented. What was equally astonishing is that a member of Congress uses such an opportunity to make a claim that is not only clearly false, but easily confirms that it is false.

I really testified both in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and in the first impeachment of President Donald Trump. Remarkably, everything else Rep Wild said in that statement was blatantly false.

First, it is not true that my testimony was influenced by Trump’s preference for Clinton. On the contrary, I testified at the Clinton hearing that I voted for Bill Clinton. I testified at the Trump hearing that I voted for Donald Trump. None of this affected my constitutional views, but the suggestion that I support a president “more [my] “Love” is absurd. In fact, I criticized Trump’s contact with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during his hearing and pointed out my opposition to President Trump’s position.

This leads to Wilde’s representative accusing me of changing my position on whether interpellation articles should be based on punishable crimes.

I have repeatedly stated the same position on indictments in the Clinton and Trump meetings. I have explicitly stated that interrogation articles should not be based on criminal acts or indictments. I have argued that past congresses have often viewed criminal law and records as a benchmark for interrogative crimes – a practice I support. However, I emphasized that criminal acts are not punishable under the Constitution.

Since Representative Wilde focuses on how to change Trump’s testimony on this issue, I will focus on Trump’s hearing so that this answer is relatively short. But I note that Bill Clinton was charged with a criminal offense: perjury. Democrats (like the next federal judge) agreed with Clinton He has knowingly committed false testimony Under oath, however, Democratic witnesses such as Professor Lawrence Trib insisted that the impeachment was not simply widespread. I disagreed and still agree.

In Trump’s impeachment, I would like to note at the outset that not only did I reiterate my position on Clinton’s impeachment, but House of Representatives repeatedly relied on my position to support their impeachment. In fact, they cited this position in both interrogations, including a statement in the second court in which I stated that the interrogation materials did not require criminal or criminal action.

in me Written testimony, I have repeatedly and exactly the opposite of what Rep. Wild claims, I stated. Here are some examples:

“As I have emphasized, it is possible to file an interpellation case on the basis of a non-criminal allegation of abuse of power. However, though Crime is not necessary in such a case“Clarity is needed.”

As discussed below, The strongest allegation is the non-criminal abuse of power “If predictions can be made in the case.”

“While all three acts in the interpellation standard refer to criminal acts in modern terms, it is clear that”“Serious crimes” can include non-criminal behavior. “It is also true that Congress has always looked at criminal law in shaping interrogation materials.”

I have made the same point over and over again in my articles Oral testimony. For example:

There is a reason why every past interpellation has led to crimes, and this is clear. It’s not that you can not impeach a non-criminal, you can. In fact, non-crime has been part of past interrogationsIt is just that they have never been the sole or essentially the basis of interpellation. The problem is that if you prove to the other party, you may be committing a crime. But dealing with a non-criminal case will be the first time in history. “So why is that?”

While emphasizing that past congresses have relied on criminal laws and cases as an objective criterion for interrogation charges, I have repeatedly and unequivocally emphasized that interpellation articles can be based on non-criminal allegations.

I disagreed with other witnesses in opposing the proposed interpellation materials on bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations, or obstruction of justice. I have argued that these interrogative alleged acts contradict the control definitions of those crimes, and that Congress has historically looked at criminal law and cases to guide such allegations.

The committee eventually rejected articles based on those theories and passed only two articles I mentioned that could legitimately advance: the abuse of power and the obstruction of Congress. Chairman of the Board Jarold Nadler He even ended the meeting citing my position on the abuse of power. The leaders of the parliament also relied on my opinion that such a non-criminal article of interpellation is permissible in the constitution.

However, I objected to the impeachment in this case as incomplete and inadequate for submission to the Senate. I asked the parliament to wait and complete the records to support such claims. Ironically, this is something I have disagreed with for a long time (Here And Here And Here And HereWas with Harvard law professor Allen Darshwitz and my opponent Introduced by parliamentary executives In the second interpellation

Over the decades, my view of the interpretation of the Constitution has changed with a greater emphasis on the authority of the text. I am not alone in such a natural evolution of views, Even in the case of interpellation. However, my views on interpellation are not Retrospective experiments. This issue was not raised in Clinton’s impeachment or previous presidential impeachments before Trump’s second impeachment.

Of course it is ironic that rap. Wilde instructs our alumni class to be fair lawyers, making false claims against one of their professors. His attack on the use of the law for “wrong purposes” is clearly based on his opposition to my views. However, instead of merely objecting to these views in a respectful and genuine manner, he made false public claims against my personality and scientific integrity.

I hope Wilde’s representative now has the honesty to apologize as publicly for his wrongdoings.

Here is the start address. The key part is found around 1:19: https://law.commencement.gwu.edu/

Write a comment:

*

Your email address will not be published.

logo-footer