╌>

Democratic Law Professor: It Is Wrong to Impeach Trump Just Because You're All Mad

  
Via:  XXJefferson51  •  7 years ago  •  79 comments

By:   Katie Pavlich

Democratic Law Professor: It Is Wrong to Impeach Trump Just Because You're All Mad
Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad or will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration? That is why this is wrong...it's wrong because this is not how you impeach an American president," Turley argued, adding that the evidence Democrats are using is severely lacking, the process is rushed and that a number of witnesses haven't been subpoenaed. "I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance...

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

The democrats have no grounds for impeachment.  They are sore losers angry over their loss of the 2016 election and are throwing a three plus year long temper tantrum.  


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Speaking during a House Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday morning, George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley called out Democrats and fellow members of the panel for moving forward with impeachment because "everyone is mad."

“I get it. You're mad. The president's mad. My Republican friends are mad. My Democratic friends are mad. My wife is mad. My kids are mad. Even my dog seems mad and Luna is a golden-doodle and they don't get mad. So, we're all mad. Where has it taken us? Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad or will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration? That is why this is wrong...it's wrong because this is not how you impeach an American president," Turley argued, adding that the evidence Democrats are using is severely lacking, the process is rushed and that a number of witnesses haven't been subpoenaed.

"I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided,” he said.

And by the way, Turley isn't a Republican and voted against President Trump in 2016.

“I'm not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him. My personal and political views of President Trump are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote," he continued. “As I have previously written, such misuses of impeachment would convert our process into a type of no-confidence vote of Parliament. Impeachment has become an impulse buy item in our raging political environment.”

You can watch his entire opening statement below.









Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2  Buzz of the Orient    7 years ago

Watch the rabid Democrat powers-that-be attack one of their own now.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    7 years ago

I watched the entire hearing and Democrats treated Turley with respect. He was 1 of 4 constitutional law professors and the only one who believed more was needed for impeachment. And he wasn't saying that what had already been alleged wasn't enough for impeachment. He clearly stated that it was his opinion that the defiance of congressional subpoenas by key witnesses was preventing congress from getting what they need, the actual evidence of a crime, not a 2nd hand telling from career civil servants. He merely expressed the opinion that impeachment was being rushed, not that it was implicitly wrong or that the President didn't do anything worthy of impeachment. He said he wanted the third branch of government to weigh in on the subpoenas before the impeachment proceeding so then if Trump continued to command his staff to defy the subpoenas that had been upheld by the SCOTUS then he would clearly be obstructing congress.

So really, Turleys not on the Republicans side, he just wants the damning evidence revealed before impeachment and thinks if Democrats rush this they could do more harm than good. He believes jumping to conclusions based on the civil servants testimony, regardless of how compelling it was, will not be enough for the majority of American people to clearly see the criminality in what Trump did. He wants Bolton, Pompeo, Perry, Mulvaney and Guiliani to testify before drawing up the articles of impeachment. But it's not as if he's defending this President, he just wants to have a slam dunk case before taking that step and feels Democrats are risking ridding our nation of a monumentally inept half wit criminal by rushing things.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.2.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2    7 years ago
So really, Turleys not on the Republicans side, he just wants the damning evidence revealed before impeachment and thinks if Democrats rush this they could do more harm than good.

He's right on both counts.

He believes jumping to conclusions based on the civil servants testimony, regardless of how compelling it was, will not be enough for the majority of American people to clearly see the criminality in what Trump did.

He's right again.  

He's also right when he says there is a "paucity of evidence".

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Participates
2.3  Dulay  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    7 years ago

Turley isn't a Democrat Buzz. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.3.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dulay @2.3    7 years ago

Guess I got fooled by the headline.  So being democratic does not mean one is a Democrat.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Quiet
2.3.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.3.3    7 years ago

Exactly.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.3.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.3.4    7 years ago

And being a Democrat does not necessarily mean they are democratic.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.3.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.3.3    7 years ago
Guess I got fooled by the headline.  So being democratic does not mean one is a Democrat.

That depends on what the definition of "is" is.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Participates
2.3.9  Dulay  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.3.3    7 years ago
So being democratic does not mean one is a Democrat.

Haven't you noticed that the right is incapable of using the proper name of the Democratic party? They say 'Democrat party' because in their small minds calling the party by it's proper name somehow relinquishes the concept of democratic to it too. It's childish but it's all they've got. 

Turley holds democratic beliefs but he is decidedly conservative in his legal opinions and advocacy. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.3.10  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dulay @2.3.9    7 years ago

Actually I was always quite confused as to whether the proper name was the Democrat Party or the Democratic party.  Extend that to whether the members are called Democrats or Democratics.  Maybe it should be called the Democracy Party, but then isn't the nation a Republic?  If so, then why aren't all citizens called Republicans?  Forgive me my confusion Dulay, but you know I'm a Canadian.  In Canada there's no such confusion.  There is a party called the Liberals and a party called the Progressive Conservatives (is it an oxymoron to put those two words together?) so there's no confusion about where you stand.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Expert
2.3.11  Ender  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.3.10    7 years ago

I would say it is the Democratic party yet when I call someone of that party it is just a Democrat.

Or just jackass, depending on who it is or my mood.  : )

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
2.3.12  Jasper2529  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.3.10    7 years ago

I'm not a constitutional scholar and am not affiliated with a US political party, but from what I've read  ...

  • Democratic Party (Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Obama, etc), but members want to call themselves Democrats.
  • Republican Party (Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike, Nixon, the Bushes, Trump, etc) and members call themselves Republicans.
 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Participates
2.3.13  Dulay  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.3.10    7 years ago

That confusion started early on here Buzz. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison founded, get ready for it, the Democratic-Republican Party in the early 1790's. 

Per their charter, it's the Democratic Party and it's members are Democrats. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Participates
2.3.14  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.3.2    7 years ago

Secular:
People who are not exclusively allied with or against any particular religion.

Progressive
People who are open to or favor new ideas, policies, or methods, especially in politics.

THE HORROR!

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.3.15  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.3.9    7 years ago
They say 'Democrat party' because in their small minds calling the party by it's proper name somehow relinquishes the concept of democratic to it too. It's childish but it's all they've got. 

How do you know that's the reason? It strikes me as either over-sensitive or egotistical to assume that so many people are doing it just to piss you off. People frequently use shorter variations on words just because it's quicker and easier.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Participates
2.3.16  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.15    7 years ago
How do you know that's the reason?

I've asked. 

It strikes me as either over-sensitive or egotistical to assume that so many people are doing it just to piss you off.

I didn't say anything about being pissed off. Save your strawmen for those who bit. 

People frequently use shorter variations on words just because it's quicker and easier.

Why yes Tacos!, yes they do. That isn't why the RW say Democrat Party though. 

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Quiet
2.3.17  Revillug  replied to  Jasper2529 @2.3.12    7 years ago

"Democrat Party" has its own Wikipedia page:

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Quiet
2.3.18  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.3.5    7 years ago

True.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.3.19  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.3.16    7 years ago
I didn't say anything about being pissed off. Save your strawmen for those who bit. 

omg talk about being over-sensitive! You don't need to use the words "pissed off" to make it clear that you are. The way you keep going on about it is evidence enough. I'm not even trying to judge you for it, so you needn't be defensive. I'm just suggesting that maybe you could consider the possibility that some people say "Democrat Party" and don't mean anything disrespectful by it. Assuming the worst in everyone who says it is prejudice.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Participates
2.3.21  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.19    7 years ago
omg talk about being over-sensitive!

OMG, talk about missing the mark. 

You don't need to use the words "pissed off" to make it clear that you are.

I didn't say I did. I denied that I felt that particular emotion or was reflecting it in my comments.

Your strawman arguments are piling up.

Most of the supercilious morons that use the term aren't worthy of my ire. 

The way you keep going on about it is evidence enough.

I've made to comments about it in reply to members. Weak. 

I'm not even trying to judge you for it, so you needn't be defensive.

I'm not being defensive, I'm merely replying to your comments and pointing out yet another one of your strawmen. 

I'm just suggesting that maybe you could consider the possibility that some people say "Democrat Party" and don't mean anything disrespectful by it. 

Again a strawman. I didn't say that EVERY person on the fucking planet that says 'Democrat Party' is being 'disrespectful'. In fact, I presume, based on my experience here on NT, that some of them are merely willfully ignorant. 

Assuming the worst in everyone who says it is prejudice.

Then by your standard, assuming that I do is too. jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.3.22  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @2.3.21    7 years ago
I denied that I felt that particular emotion

No. You said,

I didn't say anything about being pissed off

That's a quote.

Your strawman arguments are piling up.

You use "strawman" incorrectly a lot .

Strawman Fallacy

Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.

I haven't misrepresented you. I quoted you. You misrepresent yourself (as I just demonstrated) far more efficiently than I ever could.


I didn't say that EVERY person on the fucking planet that says 'Democrat Party' is being 'disrespectful'

And neither did I. Now that's a strawman.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Participates
2.3.23  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @2.3.12    7 years ago
 but members want to call themselves Democrats. 
and members call themselves Republicans.

Interesting innuendo. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3.25  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.15    7 years ago
How do you know that's the reason? It strikes me as either over-sensitive or egotistical to assume that so many people are doing it just to piss you off. People frequently use shorter variations on words just because it's quicker and easier.

Originally it was probably just sloppy use of words, but over time "Democrat Party" did become a way of insulting Democrats. Rather juvenile , no?  It is difficult to tell just what any particular user of the words problem is.  All you need to know is that the proper usage is "Democratic Party". 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.3.26  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.25    7 years ago

People still say "Newkular" and if you can spell the word "nuclear" I don't see how you can justify that pronunciation.

My point is that while I'm sure somebody says "Democrat" to be a dick, I don't think there's any reason to assume it about people generally. There are so many words and phrases that offend people. It's not like a daily memo goes out, and even if there were such a thing, people wouldn't read it. So I don't think we should expect that everybody knows the proper term.

Considering that members of the Democratic Party are commonly called Democrats, it doesn't strike me as very bizarre that someone would refer to the organization as the Democrat Party.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Participates
2.3.27  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.22    7 years ago
You use "strawman" incorrectly a lot .

Nope. You use strawman arguments ad nauseam. 

The straw man is a fallacy in which an opponent's argument is overstated or misrepresented in order to be more easily attacked or refuted. The technique often takes quotes out of context or, more often, incorrectly paraphrases or summarizes an opponent's position.

Yep, the MO of your comments to a T. 

That's a quote.

Yes it is and you're deflecting from the FACT that you insisted that is how I FEEL. You said:

You don't need to use the words "pissed off" to make it clear that you are.

Your own reply proves that it's about an alleged state of BEING and not about SAYING something. You even claimed that I was being defensive about it. 

I haven't misrepresented you. I quoted you. 

You did Tacos!

I didn't mention how I FELT about ANYTHING. 

As is your usual practice, when you can't make an argument about the topic, you chose to make your replies about ME personally. You did so with the use of a strawman. 

You misrepresent yourself (as I just demonstrated) far more efficiently than I ever could.

Says the guy whining about rudeness. 

And neither did I. Now that's a strawman.

No the strawman is insisting that I assume the worst in everyone who says Democrat Party. In fact, the statement I made in 2.3.9 is nowhere near the 'worst' I can think of them.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    7 years ago

This is Jonathan Turley's website, which mainly consists of his commentaries on stories in the news.  You will rarely find a story favorable to liberals on there, but you will sometimes see stories that repeat conservative positions and conclusions. 

Turley was at one time perceived to be "liberal" I believe, but that time is pretty long gone.  I would characterize his politics as center right. 

Here are a few of his recent topics

No Free Speech For “Overtly Racist Old White Dudes”: Northwestern Protesters Force The Cancelation of Jeff Sessions Event

-

Detroit Festival Imposes Racist Entry Fee On Fans

-

DNA Test Proves Hunter Biden To Be Father Of Child With Former GW Student Despite His Denials

-

Harvard Study: Only 35 Percent Of Young Republicans Feel Comfortable Sharing Their Views On Campus

-

Ha, Ha . . . Trump: Hillary Laughs About Conspiracy Theories Surrounding Epstein’s Death

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3    7 years ago

It's funny that defending basic principles of  free speech and open debate makes one a right winger these days.

Turley is a liberal. He's just one of those almost extinct  types  who believe that Constitutional and civil rights, due process and  evidence before conviction  apply to everyone, not just those with the right ideological credentials. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1    7 years ago

He is a liberal the way Alan Dershowitz is a liberal. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    7 years ago

That  Alan Dershowitz liberal bona fides are now in question illustrates how extreme the left has moved this century.

It's like watching the Soviet/French Revolutions play out without the executions (so far).  Yesterday's Left wing radical revolutionary is branded  a "right wing reactionary" overnight, as soon as he dares deviate in any way from the new approved thought. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
3.1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.2    7 years ago
It's like watching the Soviet/French Revolutions play out without the executions (so far).  Yesterday's Left wing radical revolutionary is branded  a "right wing reactionary" overnight, as soon as he dares deviate in any way from the new approved thought. 

You are clearly failing to demonstrate the requisite amount of anti-Trump hysteria.  

I'm guessing you don't even put forth the effort to cross the street to avoid walking in front of his hotels.

Your behavior has been noted, and you will be dealt with once the revolution has concluded.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
3.1.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1    7 years ago
He's just one of those almost extinct  types  who believe that Constitutional and civil rights, due process and  evidence before conviction  apply to everyone, not just those with the right ideological credentials.

The bastard.  How anybody like that can look themselves in the mirror is difficult to believe.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
3.1.7  Jasper2529  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.6    7 years ago

Allegations (ala Kavanaugh) are all that's needed.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
3.1.8  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.2    7 years ago

BRAVO!!!

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
3.1.9  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.6    7 years ago

Her comments about Dershowitz are irritatingly ignorant and libelous falsehoods.

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Quiet
3.1.10  Revillug  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    7 years ago

He is liberal the way Trump is a liberal.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Expert
3.1.11  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.5    7 years ago
Did he rape minors like Dershowitz?

Are you still beating your dog?

See how that works.....................................

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Participates
3.1.12  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.11    7 years ago
Are you still beating your dog? See how that works.....................................

Are there court filings about this dog beating that you speak of? 

See how that works? 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Expert
3.1.13  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @3.1.12    7 years ago
Are there court filings about this dog beating that you speak of?

Nope. Don't need it in the Democrat playbook. Evidence of that presented a LOT lately. jrSmiley_22_smiley_image.gif

See how that works?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Participates
3.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.13    7 years ago
Don't need it in the Democrat playbook. See how that works?

No, I don't have a copy. Tell me what yours says. 

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Quiet
4  Revillug    7 years ago

Turley was totally down with impeaching Clinton for lying about a blowjob.

He's a hack.

 
 

Who is online






Ozzwald


301 visitors