Democratic Law Professor: It Is Wrong to Impeach Trump Just Because You're All Mad
By: Katie Pavlich
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
Who is online
93 visitors
"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.”
That doesn't prove he is a Democrat; your source's headline is potentially misleading.
Remember, Turley, who's anti Democrat screeds you often publish here,
was a huge supporter of the impeachment of Bill Clinton over a single lie.
If he is a typical Democrat, that party is doomed, lol.
"A single lie"????? C'mon SP, you're better than that. How 'bout lying UNDER OATH to Congress. Quite a "Single Lie", eh?
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.”
He lied under oath in court as well and lost his law license over it.
"A single lie"?????
Ironic, isn’t it, how dishonest the arguments are that are used to claim trump is a liar.
For more information about Turley:
A "single" lie. Riiiiiight.
Clinton didn't lie to Congress.
OPPS.
Nope that's wrong too. Clinton did not lie under oath in court either.
Would it help if I told you he wanted President Bush and VP Cheney charged with war crimes?
After nearly 14 hours of debate, the House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, charging him with lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice. Clinton, the second president in American history to be impeached, vowed to finish his term.
Did you read your own quote Xx?
A Grand Jury isn't a 'court' Xx.
Is that supposed to be a difference that means something? The original claim was
In court. "Court" is a location where legal proceedings take place. A Grand Jury is a group of people and/or the legal proceeding they are part of.
The Grand Jury is typically located in a court room and persons testifying before the grand jury swear to tell the truth under penalty of perjury, just the same as if they were in preliminary hearing or a trial.
Whether a procedure is a meeting of a grand jury, a trial, an arraignment, or a hearing, and whether it's criminal or civil, felony, misdemeanor, traffic, family, or juvenile court, it's perfectly valid to describe it as being "in court."
Regardless of your meaningless hairsplitting, his lies under oath affected the civil rights of another person in the related court case and his punishment was the same regardless. A grand jury can be considered as a court event as it decides on the nature of charges or none at all a subject can be indicted for.
He lied about it over and over and over, was it a single lie, or do you count every time he stuck to the lie?
hmmm?
Where does he claim to be a Democrat as opposed to an Independent?
Not totally correct. Yes he lied. Was he convicted or impeached by the Senate?
His license to practice law in Arkansas was suspended for 5 years and as far as anyone knows, he has never asked to have it reinstated. He also paid the Arkansas State Supreme Court a $25,000 fine.
He resigned from the Supreme Court bar before they could disbar him.
Curiously, Hillary just had her Arkansas license reinstated this past March.
The 'related court case' was a civil case and NOT connected to civil rights in any way. Try some facts next time Xx.
But the deposition wasn't held before a Grand Jury, was it Xx?
It's "OOPS" - not "opps"
Oh - I'm sorry - he lied, under oath, to the Grand Jury, made up of White House Aides.
Nah,. it's you and your fellow tRump supporters who are always promoting a false narrative and mis/disinformation and outright lies.
What the holy hell??????????????????
Is there some clarification that you need Jim? Spit it out.
Strawman. No mention of Turley's testimony was made in the comment you replied to.
Why would anyone believe a bio over their impression of his actual writings and statements?
No 'false narrative' was promoted BF. Claiming that one was is a false narrative.
Oh and BTW, you lack standing to critique anyone about false narratives.
Watch the rabid Democrat powers-that-be attack one of their own now.
See 1.1.
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.
He's right on both counts.
He's right again.
He's also right when he says there is a "paucity of evidence".
He also said that congress can’t charge him with obstruction or divine any guilt out of the President using the courts regarding subpoenas, executive privilege, and other congressional demands as the courts are the third equal branch of government that resolved disputes between the other two all the way to the Supreme Court and that if they try to impeach him for using the courts, they would be guilty of every abuse of power themselves that they accused the President of doing.
Turley isn't a Democrat Buzz.
What Turley has called his "socially liberal agenda"[12] has led liberal and progressive thinkers to consider him a champion for their causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law,[14][23] civil rights,[11][24] and the illegality of torture.[25][26][27] Politico has referred to Turley as a "liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian."[28]
Turley has nevertheless exhibited his disagreement with rigid ideological stances in contradiction to the established law with other stated and published opinions.[14][28]
In numerous appearances on Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show, he called for criminal prosecution of Bush administration officials for war crimes, including torture.[29]
In USA Today in October 2004, he famously argued for the legalization of polygamy,[30]provoking responses from writers such as Stanley Kurtz.[31][32]
Commenting on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which, he contends, does away with habeas corpus, Turley says, "It's something that no one thought—certainly I didn't think—was possible in the United States. And I am not too sure how we got to this point. But people clearly don't realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us."[27]
He is a critic of special treatment for the church in law, asking why there are laws that "expressly exempt faith-based actions that result in harm."[33]
Turley disagrees with the theory that dealing with bullies is just a part of growing up, claiming that they are "no more a natural part of learning than is parental abuse a natural part of growing up" and believes that "litigationcould succeed in forcing schools to take bullying more seriously".[34]
He has written extensively about the injustice of the death penalty, noting, "Human error remains a principal cause of botched executions. ... eventually society will be forced to deal directly with a fundamental moral question: Has death itself become the intolerable element of the death penalty?"[35]
He worries that the Supreme Court is injecting itself into partisan politics.[36] He has frequently expressed the view that recent nominees to the court hold extreme views.[37][38]
However, Turley has said, "It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right."[12]Moreover, Turley testified in favor of the Clinton impeachment.[39]
In another commentary, Turley defended Judge Henry E. Hudson's ruling declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional for violating the Commerce Clause of the Constitution: "It's very thoughtful—not a screed. I don't see any evidence this is motivated by Judge Hudson's personal beliefs. ... Anybody who's dismissing this opinion as a political screed has obviously not read the opinion."[28]
Turley described U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in an op-ed as President Barack Obama's sin-eater, writing:
In a December 2013 congressional hearing, responding to a question from Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) about the danger posed by President Barack Obama's apparent unilateral modification of laws passed by Congress, Turley said:
On November 21, 2014, Turley agreed to represent House Speaker John Boehner and the Republican Party in a suit filed against the Obama administration alleging unconstitutional implementation of the Affordable Care Act, specifically the individual mandate.[42]
On October 11, 2016, Libertarian Party candidate for President, Gary Johnson, announced that if elected Turley would be one of his two top choices for the Supreme Court seat that remained open following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.[43]
In a 2017 column for The Hill, Turley was critical of military intervention in the Middle East and questioned its constitutionality. He also mentioned that he supported the Supreme Court nomination of Neil Gorsuch.[44]
Testimony before Congress
The conceptual thread running through many of the issues taken on by Turley is that they involve claims of executive privilege. For example, he said, "the president's claim of executive authority based on Article II would put our system on a slippery slope."[45] He has argued against national security exceptions to fundamental constitutional rights.[37][46]
He is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues.[47][48] as well as tort reform legislation.[3]
Turley has testified regularly during national controversies. He testified at the confirmation hearings of Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch,[49]Attorney General Loretta Lynch,[50] and Attorney General William Barr.[51] He also testified during the Clinton impeachmenthearings.[52]
Turley has also testified in Congress against President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program and was lead counsel in a case challenging it. In regard to warrantless wiretaps he noted that, "Judge Anna Diggs Taylor chastised the government for a flagrant abuse of the Constitution and, in a direct message to the president, observed that there are no hereditary kings in America."[53]
When Congressional Democrats asked the justice department to investigate the CIA's destruction of terrorist interrogation tapesTurley said, "these are very serious allegations, that raise as many as six identifiable crimes ranging from contempt of Congress, to contempt of Justice, to perjury, to false statements."[54]
In October 2006, in an interview by Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, he expressed strong disapproval of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.[27]
When the U. S. Senate was about to vote on Michael Mukasey for U.S. attorney general, Turley said, "The attorney general nominee's evasive remarks on 'water-boarding' should disqualify him from the job."[26] On the treatment of terrorism suspect José Padilla, Turley says, "The treatment of Padilla ranks as one of the most serious abuses after 9/11 ... This is a case that would have shocked the Framers. This is precisely what many of the drafters of the Constitution had in mind when they tried to create a system of checks and balances." Turley considers the case of great import on the grounds that "Padilla's treatment by the military could happen to others."[24]
Turley, in his capacity as a constitutional scholar,[55] testified in favor of the Clinton impeachment.[39][56] He was extensively quoted by congressman James Rogan during the impeachment of Bill Clinton.[57]
On December 4, 2019, Turley testified before the House Judiciary Committee regarding the constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment in the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump.[58]
95% of the time secular progressives would consider Turley their best friend.
Guess I got fooled by the headline. So being democratic does not mean one is a Democrat.
Exactly.
And being a Democrat does not necessarily mean they are democratic.
That depends on what the definition of "is" is.
His profile in 2.3.3 is clearly and strongly liberal.
Nope.
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.
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.
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. : )
I'm not a constitutional scholar and am not affiliated with a US political party, but from what I've read ...
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.
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!
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.
I've asked.
I didn't say anything about being pissed off. Save your strawmen for those who bit.
Why yes Tacos!, yes they do. That isn't why the RW say Democrat Party though.
"Democrat Party" has its own Wikipedia page:
True.
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.
Yes, that's why I prefer to use CONS rather than conservative and because CONS is actually more truthful as well.
OMG, talk about missing the mark.
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.
I've made to comments about it in reply to members. Weak.
I'm not being defensive, I'm merely replying to your comments and pointing out yet another one of your strawmen.
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.
Then by your standard, assuming that I do is too.
No. You said,
That's a quote.
You use "strawman" incorrectly a lot .
I haven't misrepresented you. I quoted you. You misrepresent yourself (as I just demonstrated) far more efficiently than I ever could.
And neither did I. Now that's a strawman.
Interesting innuendo.
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".
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.
Nope. You use strawman arguments ad nauseam.
Yep, the MO of your comments to a T.
Yes it is and you're deflecting from the FACT that you insisted that is how I FEEL. You said:
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.
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.
Says the guy whining about rudeness.
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.
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
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.
He is a liberal the way Alan Dershowitz is a liberal.
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.
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.
The bastard. How anybody like that can look themselves in the mirror is difficult to believe.
Did he rape minors like Dershowitz?
Do you have proof that happened or is it a horrible sweeping generalization?
Allegations (ala Kavanaugh) are all that's needed.
BRAVO!!!
Her comments about Dershowitz are irritatingly ignorant and libelous falsehoods.
He is liberal the way Trump is a liberal.
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?
Nope. Don't need it in the Democrat playbook. Evidence of that presented a LOT lately.
See how that works?
No, I don't have a copy. Tell me what yours says.
He is too much into individual liberty and personal freedom to be a progressive. He’s still very liberal.
I think he is just a hack.
He was a TV lawyer in favor of impeaching Clinton.
And now he is a TV lawyer opposed to impeaching Trump.
He's a hack with a nose for pleasing the right wing.
Like when he wanted Bush and Cheney tried for war crimes?
Turley was totally down with impeaching Clinton for lying about a blowjob.
He's a hack.