Turley To Debate Toobin On Impeachment in Dallas On Monday

maxresdefaultturley-captureThe National Constitution Center and the Old Parkland Debate Series has announced that a debate will be held on November 12th between George Washington Professor Jonathan Turley and CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin on impeachment.  The debate will occur a week after the 2018 midterm elections and many have called for the impeachment of both President Donald Trump and Judge Brett Kavanaugh following a Democratic takeover of the United States House of Representatives.  The debate question is: Resolved, the framers designed impeachment as a political, rather than a legal process.  Toobin will argue that the Framers intended impeachment to be a political judgment while Turley will argue that the Framers intended more of a legal judgment. Turley was the last lead counsel in an impeachment trial in the Senate and Toobin previously worked for Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh.

The debate will be held Monday, November 12th from 5 to 6 pm and will be moderated by Michael Gerhardt, scholar-in-residence at the National Constitution Center.

To register for this event, email Tanaya Tauber at ttauber@constitutioncenter.org.

66 thoughts on “Turley To Debate Toobin On Impeachment in Dallas On Monday”

  1. PC Shulte,..
    – My response to your last comment was posted as entered by “anonymous”…. believe me, if I were trying to steal anyone’s identity, it would not be any of the “anonymouses'” identities.😉


    Ask Mitch McConnell if President Trump has committed any crimes and misdemeanors of high office. If Mitch says yes, the president will be impeached every time the opposition party takes the House and Senate. There is no evidence of any crime of high office by President Trump, while there is a mountain of evidence of abuse of power, corruption, conspiracy, etc. by Obama, his administration, his “holdover” DOJ, Hillary, et al.

    Article 2, Section 4

    The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

    Article 1, Section 3

    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

    1. Thank you for the extra information and the reminder to always use The Constitution the true center of our great Republic.

      Will the Socialist Progressive aka a bunch of other names take JT up on his be careful what you ask for summation? Of course. There whole goal is destroy our system of government and replace with a Socialist Autocracy then work to wipe out every trace and memory of the USA.

      It won’t cause a civil war but the question is at what point will our military uphold their oath of of office? A point of much discussion when I was in the service. Answer? Upon orders or when it’s obvious are senior chain of command has joined the dark side.

      How many divisions does the left have? None. How? Locate, apprehend, and take before a military tribunal all involved. Using the rules for apprehending terrorists in the Patriot Act. Reform a government by appointment and pick up where we left off. Minus

      That is the blunt answer and the soldiers answer.

      Shooting? What for?

      Shut down the stock market? Why? It will be over in the length of a weekend.

      1. As we speak and as a result of Obama’s policies, Portugal has ceded control of the Azores to China which will use facilities there to launch American-submarine-detecting satellites. Obama endeavored to facilitate the effort by China to subsume America through its communist “globalization.” Has anyone noticed that China is communist and the liberals, progressives, socialists and democrats don’t even bat an eye?

  3. Jonathan Turley wrote: “The National Constitution Center and the Old Parkland Debate Series has announced that a debate will be held on November 12th…”

    And today:


    “The National Constitution Center announced it will award the annual Liberty Medal to President George W. Bush and former first lady Mrs. Laura Bush for their commitment to veterans.”

    1. George W. Bush started an immoral war. Now he’s getting the Liberty Medal because nothing matters

      by Will Bunch

      Posted: November 8, 2018 – 12:34 PM



      In announcing in July that the Bushes would be receiving the same Liberty Medal that’s been draped around actual freedom fighters like Nelson Mandela, Malala Yousafzai, and Rep. John Lewis, the Constitution Center cited the couple’s work with returning soldiers through George W. Bush’s Military Service Initiative, which helps them cope with “the invisible wounds” of a disastrous war of choice that was launched by the 43rd president; his No. 2, Dick Cheney; and their posse.

      Helping our veterans is a very good thing, and, yeah, it’s a better way for the ex-president to spend his retirement years than devoting every waking moment to lucrative speeches on the hedge-fund-billionaire rubber-chicken circuit. But let’s be honest: W.’s post-presidential good deeds are a kind of a mandatory community-service sentence after an administration that was essentially a criminal enterprise that caused America’s standing in the world to plummet (not for the last time, unfortunately).

      It’s a pretty safe bet that no one on the Constitution Center’s panel that selected the Bushes for the now-tarnished Liberty Medal consulted with the Iraq-born novelist Sinan Antoon, who wrote in the New York Times in March that “Fifteen Years Ago, America Destroyed My Country” and noted that estimates of as many as one million dead mean the war “is often spoken of in the United States as a ‘blunder,’ or even a ‘colossal mistake,’ ” but, he writes, “It was a crime.”

      We do know this: To make their splendid little war happen, Bush and his minions lied again and again — about “ticking time bombs” that had been unplugged years earlier, about weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, and about ties between Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda that never were. The Iraq war has destabilized the Middle East to this day and paved the way for the rise of a new anti-American group called ISIS that remains a murderous scourge. And it made the world safe for oil, right at the moment when the planet’s survival depends on moving away from fossil fuels.

      The Iraq war alone should be disqualifying, but there’s so much more to this sordid story. Team Bush also manipulated the post-9/11 mood to bring back waterboarding and other forms of torture that are clearly illegal, thanks to a 1988 treaty enacted and praised by conservative icon Ronald Reagan. Detainees who were mostly innocent — rounded up by bounty hunters seeking easy cash — were both abused and held for years without charges at the Guantanamo prison camp, in a stunning betrayal of American values, while others were whisked to CIA black sites around the world or tortured at notorious prisons like Afghanistan’s Bagram or Iraq’s Abu Ghraib.

      1. Maureen Dowd wrote:

        “After a screening of “Vice” Thursday, I asked McKay which of our two right-wing Dementors was worse, Cheney or Trump.

        ““Here’s the question,” he said. “Would you rather have a professional assassin after you or a frothing maniac with a meat cleaver? I’d rather have a maniac with a meat cleaver after me, so I think Cheney is way worse. And also, if you look at the body count, more than 600,000 people died in Iraq. It’s not even close, right?””

        Who’s the Real American Psycho?

        By Maureen Dowd

        Nov. 10, 2018


        When McKay was home with the flu three years ago, he grabbed a book and began reading up on Cheney. He ended up writing and directing “Vice,” a film that uses real-life imagery, witty cinematic asides and cultural touchstones to explore the irreparable damage Cheney did to the planet, and how his blunders and plunders led to many of our current crises.

        With an echo of his Batman growl, Christian Bale brilliantly shape-shifts into another American psycho, the lumbering, scheming vice president who easily manipulates the naïve and insecure W., deliciously played by Sam Rockwell. While W. strives to impress his father, Cheney strives to impress his wife, Lynne, commandingly portrayed by Amy Adams.

        Before we had Trump’s swarm of bloodsucking lobbyists gutting government regulations from within, we had Cheney’s. Before Trump brazenly used the White House to boost his brand, we had Cheney wallowing in emoluments: He let his energy industry pals shape energy policy; he pushed to invade Iraq, giving no-bid contracts to his former employer, Halliburton, and helping his Big Oil cronies reap the spoils in Iraq.

        The movie opens at Christmas, but it’s no sugary Hallmark fable. It’s a harrowing cautionary tale showing that democracy can be sabotaged even more diabolically by a trusted insider, respected by most of the press, than by a clownish outsider, disdained by most of the press.

        After a screening of “Vice” Thursday, I asked McKay which of our two right-wing Dementors was worse, Cheney or Trump.

        “Here’s the question,” he said. “Would you rather have a professional assassin after you or a frothing maniac with a meat cleaver? I’d rather have a maniac with a meat cleaver after me, so I think Cheney is way worse. And also, if you look at the body count, more than 600,000 people died in Iraq. It’s not even close, right?” -Maureen Dowd

        1. The Israelis orchestrated the bin Laden (the “patsy”), “Saudi” “attack” on the WTC which was actually a controlled demolition as the buildings fell precisely in their own “footprints” and Bldg. 7 was not on fire or otherwise materially damaged, according to the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

          Ergo, Bush was manipulated into war making Bush not a villain but a dupe.

          It’s the “Intel,” stupid!

          It’s the “deep state” – the “shadow government.”

          It’s the CIA (not the affirmative action, 19th amendment figurehead).

        2. Natacha – Nobody has figured out the body count in Iraq. How did Maureen Dowd get to 600,000?

          1. PC Schulte,..
            – According to a popularly cited “estimate” — which I’ve seen cited in previous threads here–about 1,500,000 Iraqis died because of sanctions imposed by the West.
            So by playing “the numbers game”, the West is responsible for twice the number of Iraqi deaths from Gulf War II, before that war even started.
            And most of these deaths took place before Bush-Cheney were in office.
            All kinds of “conclusions” can be drawn from playing these “numbers games”.
            The most common way to play it is to draw a conclusion first, then find some numbers out there that “fit in with” the conclusion.

          2. PCS, these figures are difficult, subjective and arbitrary. I’m still stuck on the cost of “Crazy Abe’s” unconstitutional Civil War which suffers the ubiquitous 620K figure. If that is accurate of KIA’s to any degree, the ultimate number must have risen to at least 1 million from disability and disease alone.

            All those dead over a labor/wage dispute.

            “The war resulted in at least 1,030,000 casualties (3 percent of the population), including about 620,000 soldier deaths—two-thirds by disease, and 50,000 civilians.[11] Binghamton University historian J. David Hacker believes the number of soldier deaths was approximately 750,000, 20 percent higher than traditionally estimated, and possibly as high as 850,000.[21][216] The war accounted for more American deaths than in all other U.S. wars combined.[217]’

            – Wiki

            Fun fact:

            “Crazy Abe” was obligated by the Naturalization Act of 1802 to compassionately repatriate those pitiful, long-suffering Africans in order that they, at least, obtain true freedom, a sense of nationhood and self esteem.

            1. George – I am currently reading My Dear Hamilton, which is a historical novelization of the marriage of Elizabeth and Alexander Hamilton. One of the things that Elizabeth complains about, as does Alexander, is the way the wounded and sick are placed together, making it easier for the wounded to end up sick and then dead.

              Korea was one of the first wars to get the wounded to the aid stations immediately so they could be seen by doctors. Thousands of lives were saved because of helicopters and immediate action. Today, aid station are as near the battles as they can get them, fully equipped for surgery.

              However, we do not know what the Iraqis had and we do know a lot surrendered without a fight. It was the Republican Guard that was the problem and they were only 150,000 strong.

          3. Google it, Paul and you’ll have the answer to your question.

            And I’m not Natacha. So stop playing your silly guessing games.

            1. Natacha – you will always be Natacha to me. Why fight it? If you won’t identify yourself, I can name you whatever I want.

        3. I get it. Your advertising for a war movie based on fiction. Weak plot though.

      2. Both asked permission of congress under the War Powers Act.

        Both times it was granted.

        So with all your well written stuff taken to mind are you gong to take responsibility for not only approving those two conflicts AND responsibility for refusing to honor the War Powers act – your act when it was iyour wars and conflicts? The vast majority of them since 1909 for sure.

        Or just conveniently ignore the death of the better part of a million Americans most drafted under your anti Constitutional draft laws and still operating. sss.gov read it and weep when your turn comes

  4. I think the closer question to Toobin and the audience is:

    If impeachment becomes accepted as another tool of partisan competition as Jeffrey has argued for, is he prepared, and are you prepared to have it used against a President you voted for and want to see serve out a full 4-year term, and be able to run for a 2nd term? Are you prepared to see a good, competent President removed by impeachment by those who see things differently and have the Senate votes to do it? Because, once political impeachment succeeds, it will establish a pattern that will be repeated. The genie won’t be able to be put back in the bottle. The question is whether you’re so disgusted with one specific President to permanently destabilize the 4-year Presidential term. Are you prepared to unleash that disorder on posterity? Be careful what you wish for.

    1. I am more prepared to see President Trump use it yet another ambush for those interested in self inflicted wounds. Followed by their medical treatment of Ridiculous Cream. If they have the fortitude to stick it out through a few demonstrations of impotence i.e. veto over rides Pelosi will be driven out of chairMANship and office without finishing the two years Relegated to a money raiser to the still in debt still bankrupt Socialist party.

  5. We hear all this rant on TV news shows about Poles and their impact. We do not really have that many Polish people in America to make an impact. We call em Pollacks back where I used to vote. If you don’t vote it does not mean that you cannot itchBay whether publically or just to others on the subway on the way to work. My daddy didn’t vote and I don’t vote. My daddy was in jail at Yale. He was one to five on the scale. I am 210 on the scale and getting fatter. But my blather here is about like Tobbin on TV.

  6. I have always thought of impeachment and conviction as a mix of political and criminal. The House is the prosecutor and the Senate is the jury of his peers.

    The Clinton impeachment and trial is a perfect example of this.

    1. The sentence if convicted is removal from office and then what? 45 States go to war with five States? NY CA TX and FL.

      Heres’ the opposite side of the coin. The small population states go to war with the large population states. The prize is control of the Senate. 26 least population plus one is all it takes. I’m . reinstating selection by State governments or a mix of both.

      As it is The Senators don’t represent the states but are Representatives At Large. of the Districts of (insert state name.)

      Factor in the fact that a state, any state can’t wake up in the morning and breathe without a federal edict controlling the act of waking up and breathing.

      So who represents and is chosen by State Governments? Maybe we should add a third house to the Legislative Branch.

      1. Michael Aarethun – I would like to go back to the original idea of having one Representative for every 50,000 people in the state. It would be impossible to lobby everybody or buy an election, they would just be too many.

      2. Right! Another house to be controlled by the War Party of which the Dems are the left arm and the Repubs the right. Instead we need more parties like in the EU. In my congressional district the Libertarians got 1%, the Independent candidate got less than 1. I’d rather see control of the political process taken away from the war mongers. Hah hah, fat chance!

        1. Libertarians get all the support they deserve. Bar the Mennonites, Amish, and Witnesses who keep out of public life entirely, theoretical and functional pacifists are parasites on a society run by more serious people.

        2. 95% of the wars, declared or not and the conflicts of all kinds since 1909 had not a Democrat but Progressive Socialist disguised as a Democrat in the White House the death count is even more out of whack as a result.

          US Service personnel and civlians and foreigners. One decent attempt to curtail was the War Powers Act honored twice by the GOP President and disregarded twice by the Socialists who enacted it. Twice the left voted with the GOP within six months joined the other side. In case you are wondering why wars are not declared anymore. The term traitor and revocation of citizenship does not come into effect unless there is a declared war.

          The Republicans you speak of were and the few remaining are Republicans in name ony better known as the cave to the left on command right wing of the Sociaist Progressive Party. That is the significance of 1909. Woodrow Wilson was the first elected Progressive. There hasn’t been a single Democrat since.

      1. We just witnessed that same idea of Olly’s being accomplished by political parties one in particular.

        When Obama signed the congressional approved extension to the Patriot Act it retained ‘suspicion of’ in place of ‘due process.’

        How about money is free speech. Which did away with five ‘rights’ in favor of one new one?

        I’m referring to the real division of parties which had the RINO’s as the right wing of the left and decides the center using a foreign ideology. instead of the true center which in a Representative Constitutional Republlc IS the Constitution.

        What about our democracy? Never heard of one it doesn’t exist. It was considered 9 times back when the Constitution was written and required a 100% vote of all States – but rejected nine times. But it’s good points were incorporated into our Representative Republic res publica, of, for, and by the citizens as democratic principles.

        Unfortunately none of them survived to be included in the present day version of the Democratic Party……including their right wing or what’s left of the RINOs

        So now we have the emerging Constitutional Republic Party and of course the Socialist Autocracy Party. But take heart if you enjoyed the initials. You have the Constitutional Centrist Coalition as the moderate center. The self governing independent citizens

        Not a bad way to evolve.

    2. PC Schulte,…
      I agree that it isn’t purely “one or the other”.
      A more interesting question to me is if Maxine Waters’ quest to impeach Trump, then Putin😄, is realistic.

      1. If Marxine’s quest to impeach President Trum,p the Putin is realistic? Ahh yes one could say that. Best I could sort it out.

          1. Michael A.
            – Even after being corrected, I’m not sure if Mad Max has it clear in her own mind who she wants to impeach after Trump.

            1. Tom Nash – the House impeaches, but is there a time limit on when the Senate has to hear it? Could they just hold off until after 2021?

              1. PC Schulte, – My guess would be that the Senate could delay the trial as long as they pleased, assuming that there was a majority of Senators that wanted to do that.
                Your question also made me wonderif the Senate could just flat out refuse to have their trial, refuse to even consider the House articles;time to check the Constitution….I think it requires a Senate hearing and decision on the House articles, but I don’t think it mandates a time frame.

                1. Based on precedents with legislation, each 2-year Congress is a discrete decisionmaking body. If a bill is not passed by the end of a Congress, it has to start the process all over in the next. Using that same pattern, a House vote passing Articles of Impeachment and a trial in the Senate would have to be completed within the same Congress, i.e. shoehorned into a single 2-year Congressional Session.

                  1. I posted the answer before you made this post. Section VIII of the Senate Rules of Impeachment. Marxine is going to look real foolish when the The President sends her a Low IQ Christmas Card.

              2. You are correct Paul.If the same holds the majority it could be, under Senate Rules at five minuted after noon January 21 , 2025

                There is no such stipulation in the Consitution. The Senate Rules may be changed but only by the Senate.

                Senate impeachment rules


                “VIII. Upon the presentation of articles of impeachment 107
                and the organization of the Senate as hereinbefore provided,
                a writ of summons shall issue to the person impeached,
                reciting said articles, and notifying him to appear
                before the Senate upon a day and at a place to be fixed
                by the Senate and named in such writ…..”

  7. Why are you debating this schmuck? He hasn’t been a working lawyer in nearly 30 years and his scholarly chops have always been non-existent.

  8. When it comes to impeachment, the House is like the little kids table at Thanksgiving. They get the feeling they have joined the adults in the room, but they are kept away from ruining a perfectly good meal.

  9. A more clear dichotomy is whether Mr Trump’s entry into the Presidency was political or legal. It was clearly “legal” because he lost the popular vote by a large margin. impeachment by the House, would be more based on popular “voting” than was his entry into the Presidency. The Senate portion would then be more “legal” as it is farther removed from equitable public participation.

    1. Popularity Polls mean nothing at the federal level. Even the independent centrists like myself as a group polled more valid votes than the DNC and more than the GOP. at 40%.

    2. Sam:
      That popular votey thing again. Let’s blow up the Electoral College! Then we can rename the country “The United States of New York and Califorrnia.” And what models those two are for the rest of the states. Grow up Sam. Your collectivist delusion ain’t happening.

      1. Chris P. Bacon doesn’t acknowledge what everyone has no excuse but to understand: the electoral college protects normal states from vote fraud and administrative incompetence in places like California and Florida. If you dispose of the electoral college, you’ll have to nationalize the administration of federal elections, which will leave us more vulnerable to corruption and incompetence than the current (distributed) system of administration. There are lots of improvements you could make with federal elections in general and presidential elections in particular, but the national administration which would be necessary with unmediated popular voting is not one of them.

        1. Assign each state and abiding possession (one held > 50 years) a quantum of electoral votes equal to the citizen population therein. Abolish the office of elector

        2. Rank-order your territorial units by electoral votes and calculate the median value.

        3. Divide the number of electoral votes in each state by the median value. The quotient will be an integer and a decimal. If the integer is 1 or 0, the electoral votes are awarded by a state-wide popular contest. If the quotient is higher, the state is divided into electoral constituencies. Each constituency would contain a quantum of electoral votes equal to its citizen population, votes awarded according to the popular ballot in the constituency (About a dozen states would be partitioned this way.

        4. The minimum number of constituencies into which a state would be partitioned would be two. The maximum number would be the value of the aforementioned quotient. A federal law would state guidelines for constituency delineation; such a law would take effect immediately in the first instance, but any amendments to it would take effect only 5 years after enactment. By the same token, the state’s initial set of delinations would take effect immediately, but subsequent adjustments (whether discretionary or compelled by census data or altered guidelines) would take effect only after five years.

        5. Ideally, national party conventions would concern themselves with intramural matters, adopting party platforms, and showcasing presidential candidates who adhere to the party. Nominating candidates would require circulating petitions among local elected officials and balloting by state legislatures, and would produce a multiplicity of Democratic and Republican candidates.

        6. Ordinal balloting would be the order of the day. This would require that any postal ballots arriving after the election day be returned to sender, because tabulating ordinal ballots requires several rounds of counting.

  10. I really think and feel strongly, that this President should be evaluated by a panel of mental health experts.
    The way he is acting and behaving, if, there is a difference between those two things, is not normal.
    There are a few screws loose….and he appears to not be able to do the job, or understand the many aspects and dimensions that it entails.

    An evaluation is needed. Having underlings, cover and do the work for him, is unacceptable.

      1. No one who has actually worked for him has ever called him ‘addled’. Think up more plausible bullsh!t.

  11. That would be a good one to watch. Since I cannot where I will be at the time able to get TV is this going to be U-toobed?

    I see this as an objectivist and constitutional centrist as a good way to cause an actual movement of Democrat sitting Congresionals primarily the Young Turk Representatives to become Independent Constitutional Democrata and get their bacon to take home from the right.

    Only takes just a very few to tip the balance and this wasting time on fluff going nowhere nothing will only serve to help create that method of walking. Just a few and Benita P. is history. For that matter so is Schumer.

    None of this machts nixt was considered important by the vast majority of voters on both sides Medical, The Econonomy, Immigration and National Defense far outweighed

    Then there is the question for Jan 3rd can an open socialist for the first time, who campaigned anti constitutionalist even be administered the oath of office Under Pelosi herself in the same position as a socialist progressive won’t think twice of taking that next step.

    Doesn’t mean that when she loses power due to the IDCs bolting it won’t be brought up again. Think of Adam Clayton Powell.

    What does the GOP have to do besides shed RINOs? Become the Constitutional Republic Party and live up to the name. Then support a Constitutional Centrist Coalition of the IDC’s Libertarians and other small groups and most importantly the Independent Constitutional Centrists who did 40% of the vote with their similar efforts in 2016.

    I see this impeachment nonsense and the rest of it as happily counter productive and easily back firing on what’s left of the DNC.

    I see the DNC however becoming over the next decades primarily Hispanic due to their moving into majority as an ethnic group over Europeans descendents. Pew put that at 2050 at the latest. 2030 at the earliest.

    But his impeachment stuff is mainly due to internal fighting for control of the remnants of the DNC….and nothing more

    I love the smell of self inflicted immolation by the socialists in the morning or any time of day. Let them go ahead and have fun in the debate.

  12. Be prepared to defend one’s self/families for different kinds of battles but relax everyone the Donald is this close to appointing his 3rd Supreme.

    How, well it will be interesting, but if I had to bet now I’d be betting on the Donald.

    And no impeachment of the supreme or the Donald.

  13. I believe Mr. Toobin’s position is fatally flawed from the beginning. If the Framers intended a president to be removed from office for political reasons why did they prescribe a judicial officer (Chief Justice) to preside over the Senate trial, have a procedure for calling witnesses and the admission of evidence and testimony and instead make the matter rather easy to achieve otherwise?

    If it was to be merely a political decision the requirement would have been little more than a simple vote. The framers intentionally made the conviction of a president after impeachment a formidable endeavor by mandating a supermajority for conviction, not just a simple vote out of convenience.

    1. Toobin’s a document swiping buffoon. Nobody takes him seriously except leftists who agree with his chirping. BTW, Political decisions aren’t tried they’re executed – sometimes literally.

      1. Ahh you meant the debate? Why not? Point Counter point rebuttal counter rebuttal. ten minutes each for 40 and 20 for ads. How long does it take to make the point? 240 years and 700 plus tries at ditching electoral. All failed. None made it past Congress.

  14. How can one waste their free extra time more effectively this time of night……….


    Where’s my blocker on this new browser of mine?

    Prof Turley, why don’t you debate a real lawyer & not a known faker? imo

    And please repeat for us again why you think Rod Rosenstien & Mueller are such great lawful great guys.

    I think a lot of people can’t wait to hear you’re positions.

    1. Don’t hit the little button at the bottom for notification of more comments and presto… Just don’t go to those conversations.

Comments are closed.