Fox News legal expert says Turley is wrong. It's even worse than that. Turley is BS-ing us.
"Jonathan Turley is wrong — Trump committed a clear act of ‘obstruction’: Fox News legal analyst"
By Sky Palma 4 Dec 2019
"According to Turley, Trump’s conduct with regards to Ukraine does not rise to the level of a crime that’s impeachable. But speaking on Fox News this morning, legal analyst Andrew Napolitano disagreed, saying that Trump committed a clear act of obstruction."
Here is Nap's point:
" . . . where I disagree with my dear friend — I’ve worked with him and I’ve testified alongside of him, Jon Turley — on the significance of obstruction of justice, he is forgetting that the House has the sole, S-O-L-E power of impeachment,” he continued. “It doesn’t need to go to a court for approval. It doesn’t need go to a court to get its subpoenas enforced. When the president receives a subpoena, or in this case Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo receive a subpoena and they throw it in a drawer, they don’t comply or challenge because the president told them to, that is the act of obstruction.”"
"‘Pathetic’: GOP witness Jonathan Turley ripped for ’embarrassing’ himself at impeachment hearing"
By Bob Brigham 4 or 5 Dec 2019
"Republicans called one lawyer to the impeachment hearing. He contradicted himself and said his dog was mad"
Today's Jonathan Turley should really have a coffee with 2014's Jonathan Turley, who argued the complete opposite of what he argued today in a newspaper column
Ahmed Baba Washington DC 4 or 5 Dec 2019
Trump abuse IS impeachable per 3 law experts testifying in the impeachment hearings, and innumerable others who did not testify. Meanwhile, a smiling Professor Turley is obvious trying to convince Democrats to:
1. diminish the responsibility he stated was the most important duty of the House, to set the standard for future Presidents (his 1998 testimony against Clinton, by going slow, slower, slowest, (my emphasis on "speed")
2. confuse the public about all that is worth knowing with a crazy 53 page statement, long is not always good, and a lot of muddled, obfuscated testimony and word games, and
3. undermine already substantial evidence by saying it is paper thin.
You tried Turley, but you didn't get me to "bite." I think I speak for intelligent people who listened carefully and read your words.
"What the Law Professors Brought to the Trump Impeachment Hearings"
By Amy Davidson Sorkin December 5, 2019
"In their testimony on Wednesday, the four legal scholars showed varying degrees of willingness to take risks—something that has been missing from these fairly controlled hearings."
The word "risk" is a sad element in this proceedings. I say this because the professor who seemed least willing to open up to the risk element was Turley. I say this because Turley displayed less willingness to take a "risk" in 2019 than he displayed in 1998 when he stated it did not take a crime to impeach, and 2013 when he said an act by Obama was impeachable.
"Even the Republican witness helped the Democrats"
By Jennifer Rubin - Opinion writer covering politics and policy, foreign and domestic
Dec 5, 2019
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/05/even-republican-witness-helped-democrats/
"Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe gave Turley poor marks, commenting on Twitter that Turley’s “call for solid evidence was a truism. He gave no reason at all to regard the evidence gathered by [Rep. Adam B. Schiff] as insufficient to establish impeachable offenses.” Tribe also tweeted that Turley made a fatal error in pointing out a “French mistress” would be a “thing of value” in a bribery case. Tribe observed, “Fake dirt on Biden was of way more value to Trump than any number of French (or Russian) mistresses. [Turley] has cooked Trump’s French goose.”"
It seems like the GOP got a poor witness for their "side." It's almost funny if the situation was not so serious. ; < ( Read it.
"“The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.” And we would assume that conditioning a White House meeting desperately needed by an ally could also be an impeachable act. Well, we had multiple witnesses including Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland testify to precisely that. Experienced prosecutors, I am quite certain, could get a conviction under the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Even Turley’s primary excuse for not proceeding to impeachment is helpful to Democrats. They cannot, he says, do a thorough investigation without the testimony of key senior officials. Hmm, doesn’t that mean Trump has obstructed Congress in a way Richard Nixon never did? (Turley incorrectly asserted that Nixon defied court orders; in fact, the third of his impeachment articles referenced refusal to respond to subpoenas.)"
I will say again and again, Turley doesn't understand his own words. I can add he also doesn't know the history he is quoting or the facts he is using. If I were a student at his law school and I could avoid his class, I would sign up for whomever other Professor was teaching the required (I assume and hope Constitutional Law is required.) class.
Turley is a clown as I dig deeper into his material, of which he has given way too much.
"The Republicans’ Star Impeachment Scholar Is a Shameless Hack"
Jonathan Turley’s testimony was so inconsistent, it contradicted his own previous statements on impeachment.
By Elie MystalTwitter 5 Dec 2019
https://www.thenation.com/article/turley-impeachment-hypocrisy/
The words "shameless hack" might be the exact words to describe Turley as he is at best DISINGENUOUS in what he says, contradicting his prior opinions on impeachment, but it suggests bias, so I wish Elie had just said "Turley Opposes Turley" or perhaps, "Turley Contradicts Turley."
" . . . Jonathan Turley from George Washington University Law School. Republicans know that all they have to do to outflank the Democrats is serve up talking points Sean Hannity can use on his show. They tapped Turley to do the easy work of poisoning the well with more misinformation."
At best, Turley sets forth many confusing arguments, and probably does so with ill intent because he is contradicting his opinions from 1998 and 2013.
Turley is wrong about his point on first impeachment suggesting this impeachment is going so fast, needing more discussion, and I say this given the 1898 3 days to impeach then President Johnson when he fired the War Secretary.
Muddy the waters, confuse the facts, favorite GOP tactics.
"I believe this impeachment not only fails to satisfy the standard of past impeachments, but would create a dangerous precedent for future impeachments…. This would be the first impeachment in history where there would be considerable debate, and in my view, not compelling evidence, of the commission of a crime.”"
In fact,, Turley has stated the Constitution does NOT require the President to commit a crime to be impeached. What made Turley change his mind?
Even Turley's defense of himself contradicts what he wants us to believe what he means from what he says. Here is Turley defending himself, which is, in itself, a problem. Nevertheless, lets read Turley defending Turley.
"Turley: Democrats offering passion over proof in Trump impeachment"
By Jonathan Turley, opinion contributor 5 Dec 2019
I'll try to insert a fair representation of what Turley thinks proves he is not contradicting himself. It is hard though since he wraps what should be a simple explanation in so many obfuscating words. I studied Sociology in graduate school, Trinity University, San Antonio, TX, so I know about using too many words to make a point!
I don't care about his anger and passion argument. It is vacuous, an "empty barrel." Ditto his words about Eric Swalwell .
The Professor's prior commentary supporting a Constitutional balance of powers under Obama in 2013 because Obama seemed to be stepping beyond the pale, seemed useless as well. The Professor says his comments were not about impeachment so his comments in 2013 should not be considered in relation to Trump. Really? "King Trump" is not threatening the balance of powers, checks and balances, separation of powers?
How many ways can Turley trip over his own words? Try this.
"In my testimony Wednesday, I stated repeatedly, as I did 21 years ago, that a president can be impeached for noncriminal acts, including abuse of power. I made that point no fewer that a dozen times in analyzing the case against Trump and, from the first day of the Ukraine scandal, I have made that argument both on air and in print. Yet various news publications still excitedly reported that, in an opinion piece I wrote for the Washington Post five years ago, I said, "While there is a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable," and it could include "serious misconduct or a violation of public trust.""
Yet Turley says there is NOT enough evidence of abuse of power by Trump yet to impeach? What is a call to a foreign government president to shake him down to announce an investigation to find non-existing corruption as a step to win the 2020 election in the United States? IT IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFIECNSE EVEN IN TURLEY'S WORDS! So Turley said the impeachment investigation did not have enough evidence? The notion of needing more evidence is ridiculous!
"My objection is not that you cannot impeach Trump for abuse of power but that this record is comparably thin compared to past impeachments and contains conflicts, contradictions, and gaps including various witnesses not subpoenaed."
Why should Dems seek witnesses Trump says will not be allowed to show? Turley knows why Trump wants to stonewall the impeachment and prevent substantive testimony from people like Pompeo, Mulvaney, and Bolton! Turley knows subpoenas would be IGNORED! The delay is not worth the "thicker" evidence Turley claims to seek.
Turley wants the Dems to look into perjury like under Clinton. How can the Dems do that without Trump testifying or other Trump witnesses? Turley is trying to take the Dems down rat holes and waste time rather than simply prove an easy point of abuse of power, WHICH TURLEY HAS STATED IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED.
In his conclusion, Turley turns to more blather than boldness.
"As I said 21 years ago, a president can still be impeached for abuse of power without a crime, and that includes Trump. But that makes it more important to complete and strengthen the record of such an offense, as well as other possible offenses. I remain concerned that we are lowering [Is a lie about a BJ a "high" standard, or a bumbled burglary for a file cabinet a "high" standard - both used to impeach in the past] impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence [Subjective Turley, your opinion of what is a "paucity."] and an abundance of anger [BS, Turley, BS. You would grade this sort of argument from one of your students, "They were much too angry." as an "F." It is off point and specious blather.]. Trump will not be our last president. [Trump will not be the last President if we can get him out of the White House. I am not sure what will happen if he is not voted out next year. President for Life?] What we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. [A scandal Trump made, not the Dems!] These "agitated passions" will not be a substitute for proof in an impeachment. We currently have too much of the former and too little of the latter." [Sorry, "F" is all I can give you for the "agitated passion" BS. Pelosi kept her powder dry as long as she could. When Tweety Trump went to Ukraine for a personal favor, shook down a foreign power in the heat of a war for personal gain, then said he did nothing wrong, the die was cast, and you know it Mr Turley, you know it.]
It seems to me Turley does not understand his own words.
"Professor Turley Is Dead Wrong on Impeachment and Here’s Why"
We don’t need Professor Turley’s hand-wringing performance to scare us away from defending our democracy through the exercise of our political power to hold an oligarchic authoritarian accountable.
by Hank Edson 5 Dec 2019
"
In his opening statement emphasizing the importance of legal standards, George Washington University constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley claimed that impeaching, “a president on this record would expose every future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment” and warned, “I hope you will consider what you will do when the wind blows again perhaps for a Democratic president.”
In making this argument, Turley might just as well have argued that the founding patriots should not have declared independence because once they were in power, the people might declare their independence from them. The founding patriots, after all, were not asserting a codified legal standard in declaring their independence, they were asserting their political power."
Turley is wrong about so much in his thinking.
" . . . Thomas Jefferson famously welcomed such exercise of the people’s authority under natural law to assert their political power when he said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” But Jefferson and the other founding patriots were also wise enough to allow for a process that would avoid the need for such bloodshed in the assertion of the people’s authority and power under natural law to remove an illegitimate government. They gave us impeachment.
Turley’s “turn-about is fair play” gambit is in fact nothing more than, what I must sadly label, the despicable false relativism plaguing our public debate that mischaracterizes every argument as nothing more than opinion, with each side in a dispute entitled to equal respect as though each were equally legitimate."
In Turley's twisted logic we should all turn a blind eye to Tweety Trump seeking foreign power help against his political opponent in 2020 because a Democrat might do the same opne day? Come on man! Are you kidding me?
"
This ploy is nothing more than a defense of the double-speak George Orwell warned about in his dystopian novel, 1984, and which we see everywhere today proclaiming that what is false is true, what is real is fake, what is war is peace, and what is an exercise of authority under natural law is a violation of the people’s rights. Sadly, Professor Turley has become just such a doublespeak mouthpiece.Nothing more clearly demonstrates this doublespeak than Professor Turley’s own remarks to congress in the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton in 1998. Whereas yesterday Turley warned of the threat to our political process if the House impeached President Trump, in 1998 he made quite clear that the most profound influences on his thinking about impeachment as a constitutional law scholar, Benjamin Franklin and James Madison, regarded congress as serving a vital accusatory role that posed no threat to our political process at all, but that, to the contrary, allowed no room for exceptions. Turley testified:
“… the founders wanted impeachment issues, serious impeachment questions to go to the Senate for resolution. … [The House of Representatives] has an accusatory function in a tripartite system that I hope you will not ignore. … It is your function to detect such conduct, to deter it by your voice of condemnation. There is a censure provision in the Constitution. It’s called articles of impeachment. It’s where we define conduct that we find unacceptable for a president. And when we do that, we don’t just define what a president is, we define something about who we are. You don’t have to worry about what the President’s oath said, what he agreed to do. It’s your oath that’s at stake. You will define what we expect from a president. Regardless of whether the President is removed in the Senate, you will define it for future presidents.”
Turley went on to emphasize:
“I think the only thing that would bother Madison… is this view that we have such a fragile system, that the system is in danger by your decision. The system will last this hearing. The system will last this crisis. It’s lasted crises far worse than this. … The only thing that you can’t do in a Madisonian system is grant an exception. … What it does is it addresses factions, things that divide us, and it forces it into open and deliberative process where we resolve it instead of letting it fester and letting it divide. There is nothing more divisive, nothing more divisive, than an allegation that a president lacks the political and legal legitimacy to govern. That’s when the Madisonian democracy and the process is so important. That’s why you can’t grant exceptions. There’s a place where that decision is made. It is that other body [the Senate]. Your function [in the House of Representatives] is to define conduct which we cannot tolerate, conduct that is incompatible with the President’s office. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if the President is removed. That’s not a concern for this body. … You’ve got a more important function than the Senate. Your function is to help define what we expect from future presidents.”"
Count Turley as a Trump agent sent to testify in the impeachment hearings to muddle the waters as best he can, nothing more.
I sense Turley is afraid of being caught up in the mess that is Tweety Trump and his gangster GOP villains vengeful words and deeds. Here is the evidence of my suspicion why I think Turley fears something,
"early an hour and a half into Wednesday’s impeachment hearings before the House Judiciary Committee, Norman Eisen, a counsel for the majority, drew the attention of the witnesses, all law-school professors, to an excerpt from the key findings of fact from the Trump-Ukraine impeachment-inquiry report that had been sent over by the House Intelligence Committee. It read, “Donald J. Trump . . . solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 U.S. presidential elections.” Eisen asked, “Professor Feldman, did President Trump commit the impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power based on that evidence and those findings?”“Based on that evidence and those findings, the President did commit an impeachable abuse of office,” Noah Feldman, who teaches at Harvard, replied.
“Professor Karlan, same question,” Eisen said, addressing Pamela Karlan, of Stanford.
“Same answer,” Karlan said.
“And Professor Gerhardt,” Eisen asked, turning to Michael Gerhardt, of the University of North Carolina, “did President Trump commit the impeachable high crime and misdemeanor of abuse of power?”
“We three are unanimous, yes,” Gerhardt said.
Eisen did not pose the question to the fourth professor at the table, Jonathan Turley, who teaches at George Washington University and whose presence had been requested by the Republicans on the panel. His answer, judging from his other comments in the day-long hearings, would have been something along the lines of “I don’t know,” or “Not on the evidence in the report,” or “Not yet.” Eisen hardly addressed him at all, other than to ask him to confirm that Eisen was accurately quoting a line from a Wall Street Journal piece that Turley had written, to the point that the Ukraine matter certainly looked like something that needed to be seriously investigated, and that impeachment did not necessarily require an offense under the criminal code. When Turley tried to add a caveat, Eisen cut him off. Not that Turley was silenced: the Republican counsel let him speak uninterrupted and at length. Everyone got to speak. They just didn’t speak much to one another."
