Jonathan Turley, the constitutional scholar at George Washington University whom House Republicans had chosen to testify in the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearings, smacked down the White House’s legal argument in the Senate trial on Tuesday.
I wish he had been so forthcoming during the House hearings. I suppose having been a witness for the Republicans, has made this new statement more dramatic. Still, he could have been more effective at saving our democracy had he stood up clear and unequivocally during the hearing last month.
“House Republicans had appointed Turley as their witness in the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearing in December…”
Satan: “I’m sorry Mr. Turley, but the best I can do at this late date is a PARTIAL refund of your soul – and you’ll still need to pay both a processing fee and a return-shipping charge.”
(“PS: ETTD.”)
And in 3, 2, 1 . . . Jonathan Turley is labeled a “crazy liberal” by the GOP and Trump White House.
And I thought it was physically impossible to give yourself a blow job.
Also, there’s the part where he did, in fact, commit a crime:
I don’t know why so many people-lawyer pundits, pundit pundits, politicians, and press-are having so much trouble talking about this. It’s almost as if they think authoritatively refuting one of the Republican taking points would be unfair or rude, notwithstanding Schiff having walked witnesses through each element.
No wonder they chose Dershowitz rather than Turley to speak to this issue at the Senate “trial.”
Methinks Turley must recently have had a Dershowitz experience and was disinvited from some oh so important Beltway dinner party.
That depends on what the definition of “was” was
“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.”
If the White House had allowed potential witnesses to respond to subpoenas and provided all documents requested, Turley might have a point. It didn’t and therefore, he doesn’t.
He’s still a hack and an academic fraud …
“It is an argument that is as politically unwise as it is constitutionally shortsighted.”
Unless this is your end-game and you have declared nothing off limits to acquire, keep and maintain your power, intend to do just that in the upcoming election and feel confident that you will indeed win in November by doing anything, ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING, it takes to rig or cheat or otherwise skew the election so that you will win…AND have determined that you will make a case for staying in office and keeping your power EVEN IF YOU DO LOSE.
Constitutional lawyer reconsiders choice to abet destruction of Constitution
Not to mention the IG report that explained in pretty clear detail that withholding the aid violated the relevant statutes and was therefore illegal. I’m not sure where that fits in with criminal statutes, but it certainly buggers the imagination that a POTUS would be immune from impeachment for simply ignoring any statutes that dictate the manner in which his power shall be exercised and the laws faithfully obeyed.
“I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger,” Turley said to the House.
Now he has flipped.
Just like Dershowitz, who was not wrong during the Clinton impeachment, but is “much more correct right now” during the Trump impeachment.
“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.”
Really? Seems the GOP has reached precisely the opposite conclusion: that if they fight this out on the evidence, they and Trump are FUCKED.
No givsey-backsies, Turley. You’re a douchenozzle, even if you now recognize your mistake and are somehow trying to atone.
Too late.
“Paucity of Evidence” = “Trump refused to allow anyone to testify to the House Commitees”.
You know, Obstruction of Congress.
Jonathan Turley playing Humpty Dumpty during the House Impeachment Inquiry and The Public as Alice:
“When I use a word,’ Turley said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said The Public, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Turley, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.” ( end scene )
Looks like Turley now realizes that he earlier willingly made †Я☭mp his master. Regrets. Bygones.
Agree, but in past discussions, the lawyers said otherwise: boils down to legal hair-splitting on the definition of bribery.
