The Case For Impeachment All Living Presidents


Below is my column in The Hill Newspaper on the new standard on impeachment emerging from the House hearings. Democrats continue to state an insistence on a vote by Christmas — the shortest period of investigation of an impeachment in history. If impeachment is to be reduced to such an impulse buy item, there are many other choices for voters.

Here is the column:

Every year, shoppers wait for the next big thing in holiday gifts. The “must have” this year, at least for 43 percent of them, is the impeachment of President Trump. Like frenzied shoppers, Democrats are rushing to obtain impeachment before Christmas, despite pursuing an impeachment that seems designed to fail with an incomplete and conflicted record. It also is the narrowest impeachment in history that conspicuously omits thus far the crimes that Democratic leaders in Congress insisted for years would be proven by the Russia investigation but ultimately were not.

For an academic or legal commentator, it has become perilous to even raise obvious flaws in this impeachment from historical or constitutional perspectives. It is like trying to explain to panicked shoppers on Christmas Eve that the new “Tickle Me Elmo” is an overpriced and poorly designed toy. Whether it lasts does not matter. It is all about the sheer joy of opening and playing with it for a short time before it breaks.

It really does not matter that Democrats are moving forward with an undeveloped record. They have yet to subpoena John Bolton, the former national security adviser mentioned by every public witness. They have yet to subpoena Rudy Giuliani, Mike Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo, or others with potentially first hand knowledge of a quid pro quo. In the past, they simply dismissed the need for such key witnesses. They have also dismissed the problem of removing a sitting president on the basis of military aid being briefly withheld but eventually released. They have brushed off the fact that two of the three direct conversations with Trump contained express denials of a quid pro quo, including one in August, before the whistleblower complaint was sent to Congress. There may be an impeachable case to be made with Bolton, who teased about an undisclosed back story, but it will not be sustainable on this record.

More importantly, there is growing exasperation over any questions about the criminal allegations raised in the House Intelligence Committee hearings. Chairman Adam Schiff and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have accused Trump of bribery, and Schiff repeatedly raised the elements of that crime in the hearings. Yet when some of us pointed out that his interpretation seems strikingly like the “boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute” rejected unanimously by the Supreme Court in Robert McDonnell versus United States, he and others dismissed such legal definitions because “this is impeachment.” Why claim bribery at all if the definition and elements of that crime do not really matter?

Writing for the Washington Post this week, former prosecutor Randall Eliason has the answer. He argues that the actual elements of the crime are less important because “impeachable offenses are not governed by the strict terms” of the federal criminal code. Eliason has also argued that Trump saying he could pardon border agents for shooting undocumented immigrants could qualify as bribery. He said Donald Trump Jr. attending the 2016 meeting with Russians to hear alleged evidence of criminality by Hillary Clinton could constitute a vaguely defined conspiracy.

Apparently, the Clinton campaign hiring a former British spy to gather such information from Russian intelligence and other foreign sources was just politics. Now there seems to be a clear case for bribery, even if there is a problem on the elements or definition of that crime. Why? Because as Eliason concludes, the Constitution “specifically names bribery as a basis for impeachment” and that is “reason enough alone to choose that term” for the conduct of Trump. Why not call it “treason” as others have?

The fact is that past impeachments have always looked to the federal criminal code to judge the gravity of such criminal allegations. This is not bribery, but it sounds better than “quid pro quo” or some nebulous “abuse of power.” Opponents of Trump seek to use the term “bribery” precisely because it is a serious crime, but they do not want to deal with the actual legal definitions of that crime. In other words, stay away from my “Tickle Me Elmo.” It may not last long, but my kid thinks it is actually Elmo.

I have had enough. It is no fun to constantly state the obvious when no one wants to hear it. While I have objected to the conduct of Trump in Ukrainian matters as highly inappropriate, that is not enough when others demand impeachment as a way of upholding the ideals of the presidency and the aspirations of a nation. I have, therefore, decided to get into the holiday spirit and join the rush. For years, there has been an academic debate over the ability to retroactively impeach our officials. I do not think it is constitutional, but this is not the season for such technicalities.

President Obama made unjustified and extreme claims in withholding witnesses and documents when Congress investigated such matters as the “Fast and Furious” scandal. Democrats backed Obama but now claim Trump can be impeached for obstruction for going to court to challenge such demands. Seeking judicial review now appears to be impeachable, and there is a line of presidents who should have been removed for asking courts to resolve conflicts with the legislative branch.

Obama also pledged during his campaign to deal with the infamous CIA terrorist torture program but, soon after entering office, assured agency employees that no one would be prosecuted, a legal question that was supposed to be left to the Justice Department. The Obama administration then pressured other countries, with threatened loss of support, to drop investigations against those responsible for the torture program.

President Bush suspended military aid to 35 countries simultaneously to pressure them to guarantee United States immunity in potential cases at the International Criminal Court. He implemented a terrorist torture program and gave false information to Congress to justify a war that killed tens of thousands and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. He refused to comply with subpoenas from Congress and had the audacity to go to the courts, like Trump has been doing in the impeachment inquiry.

President Clinton committed perjury, as a federal court later found, but Democrats in Congress insisted that some “crimes do not raise to the level of impeachable offenses.” Now, however, even poorly defined noncrimes are fair game for the same Democrats who voted against the Clinton impeachment. Besides, Clinton committed a host of other violations like Trump, such as pardoning his half brother and a Democratic donor who was not only a fugitive but entirely unrepentant over his crimes.

Once we are untethered from constitutional language, there is no reason we cannot retroactively include posthumous impeachments. The range of such impeachable actions go back to George Washington, who refused material evidence to Congress on a costly failed military campaign and later refused to show Congress the Jay Treaty with Great Britain. While he eventually relented under pressure, he should have been impeached and removed within a few short weeks, or at least before Christmas.

Some of these retroactive impeachments might appeal to the 57 percent of Americans who do not support the current impeachment, including the 45 percent expressly opposed to it. So let us simply give everyone in the country a happy holiday and impeach them all. Anyway, who needs “Tickle Me Elmo” when you have the “Endlessly Impeachable Potus”?

Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) is the chair of public interest law at George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel in a Senate impeachment trial in defense of Judge Thomas Porteous. He has testified with other constitutional experts in the Clinton impeachment.

112 thoughts on “The Case For Impeachment All Living Presidents”

  1. “For an academic or legal commentator, it has become perilous to even raise obvious flaws in this impeachment from historical or constitutional perspectives.”

  2. Based on the Leftists criteria for justifying an investigation into various forms of bribery, quid pro quo, abuse of power, fixing elections, trading U.S. tax payer money for political favors, it’s time to initiate a thorough, widespread, no holds barred inquisition into Hunter, Joe, Hilary and the most vile, disgusting, filthy, traitorous, duplicitous, psychopath (and convicted perjurer) in American history, slick.

    1. Most real lefty’s would love to see Hillary Clinton behind bars.

      She cheated Sanders and gave us Trump.

      It’s also been the real left defending Trump against the bogus Russian collusion and Ukraine BS.

      Arron Mate
      Glenn Greenwald
      Matt Taibbi
      Jimmy Dore
      Ray McGovern
      Robert Perry

      Lots of left leaning people are against the criminals in the DNC especially the Clintons

      1. Emma, nothing’s more ridiculous than Trumpers trying to define ‘real liberals’.

  3. Ive been saying this for years. It is striking she is still alive but privilege has its place apparently

    Media Propaganda About Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Health Is Irresponsible

    The media has for decades been constructing a pretense that an elderly four-time cancer patient who falls asleep on the job and can barely walk is peppy, alert, and capable

    If she were not a far-left political actor, Ginsburg’s health record would not be lipsticked

    1. The disparate treatment of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s health, and Trump’s, is one of the most clear examples of media bias. Actually, it’s moved beyond bias to propaganda and PR for the Democrats.

      1. A single round of chemotherapy costs $100K since it always involves multiple drugs. Standard chemo tx (treatment) involves 4-6 cycles sometimes 8. Rarely does one tx modality work. Almost always cancer requires multiple modalities of tx meaning radiation, pharmacological, and surgical. Then there are the multiple drugs required to ameliorate the host of side effects from the chemo, radiation, surgical txs plus the cancer itself. Now multiply all these times her age, hospital admissions, history of 4 types of cancers, etc

        She was just taken to a John Hopkins affiliate hospital in DC “Sibley” due to high fevers and chills, which means she is immunocompromised. Less than 24 hours after admission, in secret, she was taken to John Hopkins in Baltimore, 1 hour away from Sibley, meaning Sibley wasnt “good enough” to push IV fluids and antibiotics. You think you would get that option?

        I dont know anyone who has ever had so many medical interventions to keep someone alive while Americans in Flyover States lack Flu Shots

        1. Estovir – not sure if Arizona is considered a flyover state, however my flu shot was delayed because the new pharmacist was not certified to give shots. When a certified pharmacist was on duty, I was numero dos.

          1. My in-laws live in Dixie and they live in an ocean of poverty, ignorance and hopelessness. I often have to direct their “next steps” in medical decisions or offer counsel from afar because their local access to physicians and hence opinions based on respectable evidenced based data poor. Their concerns are not shared by Pelosi, Schiff, MSM, et al, which is a tragedy of epic proportions. They represent a large swath of Americans.

            It is good that you got a flu shot as everyone should. RBG cant afford to get the flu but if she did, politically motivated powers would swarm around her to keep her alive. If you were in her situation, however, you’d be left for dead in your mancave but at least you’d have a smile on your face since I was never able to persuade you to let go of that gawd dahyum keyboard


            1. Estovir – my wife, who seems convinced of my survival, just bought me a massaging gaming chair and one of those emergency buttons to hang around my neck which is hooked into my smart home alarm system. My GP is 4 minutes away as is an emergency room that specializes in strokes (sadly it is not on my current insurance, but if I am having at stroke that is where I am going). I am surrounded by medical complexes and food places as well as a major hospital.

        2. If Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was on an individual Obamacare plan, then her cancer treatment hospitals would not have accepted her insurance.

          If she wasn’t a wealthy woman, she would not be able to pay out of pocket for treatment at a reputable hospital. She would be stuck getting county level care.

          If she was on Obamacare, she would probably be dead already. She supports removing the high standard of care that she, herself, enjoyed, from millions of people. She is either in denial about this, or remarkably cold.

          She is an icon, and a keen mind. She crossed the chasm of the political divide to become close friends with Antonin Scalia. I will be sorry for her loss. I do not share her politics, which I find harmful to individual people, on the scale of millions of people.

  4. Leftists are in deep doo-doo. They can’t go forward. They got nothing. They can’t retreat. The pubs won’t allow it.
    If Trump decides to take them to court, he can call the entire litany of boobs who got nothin and thoroughly humiliate everyone responsible for this charade.
    They are cooked even if he doesn’t. They are done. “The train it won’t stop going; no way to slow down.”

  5. Turley keeps trying to slap lipstick on the orange pig, but it’s not working. He tries to criticize Democrats for an “incomplete & conflicted record”. How are Democrats supposed to get a complete record when Trump won’t release documents, procures the lack of cooperation of key witnesses and lies all of the time? How many witnesses were requested to appear before Congress, but didn’t show up on orders from Trump, and what does he have to hide? Democrats are trying to expedite the process, only to be hamstrung repeatedly by Trump, so what are they supposed to do? Ignore his crimes? That would be violating their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Spend a year in court trying to get documents that Trump won’t release even after ordered to do so by multiple courts? How many courts have compelled the release of various records, only to have Team Trump appeal the order to delay the process? How on earth is this not obstruction of justice, and how on earth could any reasonable person believe that Trump isn’t guilty as hell, which is why he won’t cooperate?

    How could any reasonable person doubt that Trump withheld aid in order to coerce Ukraine to announce that the Bidens were being investigated? Turley repeats the Fox News talking point that since the aid was eventually released and since other presidents have withheld aid, there was no quid pro quo. Context matters: the aid was released only after the whistleblower complaint was announced publicly. How many current and former government employees have testified to these facts? Turley has already stated that if Trump did this, that would be impeachable, but now he’s retreating. Why? How many other Presidents tried to get a foreign government to gin up a fake investigation of their opponent solely for personal political purposes? The reasons set forth by Turley for other Presidents delaying aid do not include help with a political campaign. Why did Trump wait more than 3 1/2 years and only start trying to smear Biden after polls showed him losing to Biden in a head-to-head election? How many other Presidents cheated to get into the White House with help from a foreign government? Name one. The situations are nowhere near comparable.

    As to Ukraine, all Senators were briefed by the intelligence community on the Russian disinformation campaign to try to pin interference with the 2016 election on Ukraine instead of on Russia. They were shown facts and given proof that it was Russia, not Ukraine. Does that stop them from continuing to repeat the lie that Ukraine is guilty of interfering with the 2016 election? How is this not lying and violating their oath to protect and defend the Constitution?

    Turley tries to make the case that the Democrats pinned their hopes on “crimes not proven” by Mueller. Trump refused to cooperate with that investigation, too, and now it appears that he lied in his responses to written interrogatories drafted by Rudy Giuliani. Neither Trump nor any of the Russians with whom he was associated or with whom his campaign colluded testified, so the Democrats were deprived of a full record that would likely tie Trump directly to the Russians, but how many of his campaign staff were convicted or pleaded guilty? Why wouldn’t Trump testify? So that Fox News hosts, Levin and Limbaugh could call Democrats losers and proclaim Trump innocent with their phony-baloney mantra: “no obstruction….no collusion”? There are at least 10 instances of obstruction of justice outlined in the Mueller Report, not to mention the current obstruction of justice with the impeachment investigation.

    Sorry, Turley, but no amount of lipstick is going to help this ugly orange pig.

    1. Perhaps a generous dose of free Obongocare for parasites is just what Dr. Nutchacha ordered.

      1. Estovir: may I infer from the fact that you can offer no substantive reply to the facts and arguments I advance that you have none, and, like your orange hero, you must resort to grade-school level ad hominem insults? Just like the Republicans at the impeachment hearings–attack the witness when the facts cannot be disputed.

        1. The terms ‘fact’ and ‘argument’ do not mean what you think they mean.

          1. She is more than competent, you should take notes. I imagine even you know what “facts” mean but facts don’t interest RWNJs.

        2. Natacha, have we ever known Estovir to make real arguments? And when was the last time Absurd made a real argument? For some reason they think Trump’s righteousness is so overwhelmingly clear that no arguments are necessary.

          1. John:

            Saying something patently false, with gusto, does not make it true.

            You have been provided with arguments and supporting factual links, which you just ignore. You are also ignoring the very point of Professor Turley’s article.

            1. Karen, you aren’t telling us what ‘false points’ Natacha made. You’re no different than Estovir and Absurd in that you fail to make any specific rebuttal.

              1. John, do I need to say again that there was no evidence of an impeachable offense? Do you even read Professor Turley’s articles before commenting? I know Natacha doesn’t, nor does she read the Mueller report, as she still claims Trump colluded with the Russians to win in 2016.

                How many times do I, and others, have to list our points before they count?


                1. John:

                  Why are Democrats abusing their authority to try to prevent an investigation into alleged criminal wrongdoing by Joe Biden, their Presidential candidate? Are they trying to prevent voters from being informed? What did Obama know, and when did he know it?

              2. John, you said, “For some reason they think Trump’s righteousness is so overwhelmingly clear that no arguments are necessary.”

                This is a falsehood. Many of us have made well-researched, sincere points to you. We’ve supplied facts and links to sources for your review.

                If you disagree, you just ignore it. Then you produce a bigoted statement such as the above.

        3. Natacha:

          “Orange hero” is a grade school level ad hominem, and non substantive. Ironic.

        4. Natasha- Bravo!!! Your argument is sound, well-written and totally accurate. My question why does Trump want to help Putin? Why is he beholden to Putin over American security. And American interests. I very much think you are on the right track.

    2. whew that was even more boring than your usual comments. at least you lead and ended with a cute metaphor

    3. Natacha said, “How could any reasonable person doubt that Trump withheld aid in order to coerce Ukraine to announce that the Bidens were being investigated?“

      Actually, how could any reasonable person deduce there was a quid pro quo if Ukraine knew nothing about it?

      Answer: no reasonable person could believe there was a one-sided quid pro quo. Those making this argument are illogical.

  6. “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.”

    – Rep. Al Green

    Translation: Communists (i.e. liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats) must abuse power and corrupt and weaponize the impeachment process to stave off defeat by Constitutionalists (i.e.Americans) in 2020.

    “The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.”

    – Leon Trotsky, Marxist

  7. “We don’t need no evidence, ya’ll,
    We don’t need no actual crimes,
    Or dark intentions in the White House,
    Hey, impeach ‘im cause we want it so!”

  8. Trump withheld Ukrainian Aid in order to extort President Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden, a personal threat to his re-election. Compare to the thousands of young Americans who died needlessly in Viet Nam because President Johnson feared he would not be re-elected if he withdrew American forces from that stupid conflict . . .

    1. Actually, he asked the President to look into the closure of an investigation in light of Joseph Biden’s public bragging that he’d threatened the Ukrainian government.

      Here we have a Biden family scandal, and the response of partisan Democrats is to impeach Trump. Half of all partisan Democrats are malevolent and half are stupid.


        I believe Donald Trump is a menace to Democracy and the free world. But I also believe Mike Pence is a deluded Evangelical. Indeed I fear the latter might only offer a different type of craziness than Trump’s daily antics. For this reason I see no urgent rush to remove Donald Trump from office.

        Yet Trump’s demands that President Zelensky acknowledge Hillary’s server and that whole crackpot conspiracy is certainly good cause for impeachment.

        When a U.S. President pursues conspiracy theories, that have been debunked, that president forfeits all credibility. What’s more, Trump was trying to pressure Zelensky to confirm a narrative beneficial to Putin which is inexcusable. It raises again the question of Trump’s real relationship with Putin.

        Furthermore Trump’s use of his personal lawyer to bypass State Department channels is quite disturbing in itself. Again and again with Trump we see a pattern of ignoring career professionals. Trump’s capricious decision to abandon the Kurds was made with no input from the Pentagon. That decision, and Trump’s demands on Zelensky, were ‘both’ beneficial to Putin.

        So this idea that Trump has done nothing worthy of impeachment is merely cynical spin. Yet again I must state my profound concerns regarding Pence. Trading Trump for Pence could be a pivot from one crazy to another.

        1. I absolutely agree with this comment. It states clearly that Trump is beholden to Putin and puts Russian interests above American Security. Why? The answer is FOLLOW THE MONEY! We should demand to see his tax returns and all his financial foreign deals and loans. It should be a prerequisite to running for the presidency. For all candidates. There is a reason Trump is terrified that we see his financial situation. One can assume he is thoroughly ashamed of his poor management skills and is probably on the edge of bankruptcy.

          1. Anonymous at 2:15,
            I don’t know why you need to see Trump’s tax returns. You already seem to know what’s in them.

        2. i applaud donald trump for using some initiative to try and get around the saboteurs and foot draggers of Foggy Bottom. they should be glad they don’t get fired for insubordination. that would be a better outcome than all this defensive nonsense. obviously, however many he fired years ago, was not enough! i remember the poor souls complaining about it at the time

          1. Kurtz, until Trump came along, professional experience was considered a virtue in most every sector. But Since Trump got the Whie Houe we keep hearing (from Trumpers) that professional experience is like a disease!

            The idea seems to be that political stooges, with no relevant experience, are infinitely more valuable than career professionals. And this describes the Trump era; a period where facts and science mean nothing to Republicans.

            1. The idea seems to be that political stooges, with no relevant experience, are infinitely more valuable than career professionals. JB

              Hunter Biden had tons of experience (doing dope.)

          1. Well let’s go with that: Carter was ‘not’ a resounding success as President.

              1. Camp David was fine. But in November of 1980 few Americans wanted 4 more years of Jimmy Carter.

                1. There. See? Trump must be a resounding success because he is supported by millions for a second term.
                  It is reassuring to see that saving lives means zippo to you. Insulting “evangelicals” makes perfect sense when saving lives doesn’t can’t compare to being popular.

            1. Carter was a very nice man who was a terrible President. Were he in office today, he would never send a mean Tweet. Never allow a pointed insult to leave his lips. He was a southern gentleman farmer.

              He probably would be assaulted by Antifa for being a Southern White man.

              I doubt he would have had the fortitude to resist.

              We have a President who is impolite. Sends mean Tweets with the regularity of a metronome. When someone slings a mud ball at him, he throws it right back. He often gets in his own way.

              He has also improved our economy. Minorities have the lowest unemployment ever recorded. Democrats are busily trying to ruin all that, and put them back on the government dole, where they belong. When they are dependent upon welfare, they tend to vote dutifully Democrat, wanting government to take care of them. This relegates them to intergenerational poverty.

              Trump is trying to stem the tide of illegal immigration, which will one day cause our economy and benefits structure to collapse.

              Trump has a trade agreement on Pelosi’s desk, for many months now, that would add an additional 200,000 jobs.

              Trump took us out of the Paris Accord, which would surprise many that it allowed China to continue increasing its rate of pollution. It was simply a money grab of American funds, while doing nothing to improve the environment.

              Trump avoided taking in an avalanche of refugees from regions infamous for terrorism, misogyny, and the killing of gay people. Europe has committed suicide accepting too many. This has resulted in Sweden being unofficially deemed the “rape capital fo the world.” Belgium is now a hotbed of terrorism. Jews have been fleeing France because Muslim antisemitic migrants openly assault them.

              Strange, how that works. Import people whose values are far worse than the KKK, and there is a commensurate increase in crimes against Jews, women, and gay men. Plus now FGM “vacations” for little girls is now a thing in Europe and the US.

              Wouldn’t it be better to use a merit based system, that would pluck out those applicants who want to be American, assimilate, and share our values? You can find them all over the world, from all religions. One of the people I most admire is Ayan Hirsi Ali, who hails from Somalia, a region highly supportive of terrorism. She has Western values, and would have been put to death if she openly spoke so in her native country. There are so many people who could come here from all around the world, an asset to our country. But saying so is labeled xenophobic and racist by the Left, who would have us accept a vast, undifferentiated cross section of people who are highly likely to hurt you. Or want to hurt you. How many people would it take, to come from regions antithetical to American values, until their vote completely changed the country until it more aligned with the ones they left?

              Who’s running against Trump? Socialists who would usher in an economic catastrophe. Their wealth tax alone would decimate all our 401Ks and IRAs. Since it financially punishes the wealthy for investing, their money would be gone from the market, causing a crash. There would be no more venture capital available for entrepreneurs. There is not enough money in our country to pay for all the freebees they have promised to buy votes from the uninformed.

              Boy, that’s a tough call. On the one hand, a President who is often rude to people who are rude to him, but creates the environment for people to prosper. On the other, people who would cause everyone to be impoverished, and starve. But they promise that they’d only be mean to Republicans…and anyone else who disagrees with their policies.

              Dennis Prager really is right. People don’t long to be free; they long to be taken care of. That’s how Stalin and Hitler and all the rest rose. They promised that if the people ceded their individual rights to an all powerful government, they would be cared for. No one thrives under government care. Ask anyone in the projects.

              Being free is hard. Being responsible is hard. It takes work. What if the government was like your Dad, and you didn’t have to do anything? Didn’t have to work. Make any tough decisions. It was all taken care of…kind of like a benevolent master. Those who don’t want to lose everything they worked for will be forced. Socialism is a form of slavery. The
              Socialist government owns your labor and the product of your work. The government can punish you for what you say. It can tell you where to work. But don’t worry. Everyone in a position of authority will be benign, and care for you like blood. We promise. Everyone will be equal in condition, and no one will have to do anything that upsets them. Are we as a species ever going to be smart enough not to fall for such a trick?

    2. Rick Crampton – do you really think Donald Trump fears Joe Biden or do you think Joe Biden and his son were involved in corruption in Ukraine? Remember, this is the same Joe Biden that was the laughingstock of the last debate.

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-eight citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after fifty-two weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – when you deliver my citations, you may talk.

    2. Let’s see.

      Nixon’s first opponent was handed the election that Nixon won through the efforts of the Chicago mob et al.

      JFK’s successor, LBJ, killed JFK (in concert with the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, DNI, the Mob, Texas Oilmen et al.).

      Clinton, well, we don’t need to go through all those again, do we, Monica?

      The Bush dynasty was as corrupt as they come – the Bay of Pigs invasion was code-named “Zapata” after Bush’s Zapata Oil and two of the ships involved were Named “Houston” and “Barbara.” The failure of JFK to support the CIA invasion led to JFK’s assassination.

      And Obongo will never be eligible for the office of the president because he will never be a “natrual born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution.

      Now you say the duly elected President Donald J. Trump did what, exactly, investigated corruption in Ukraine (the Biden corrugation being incidental) before committing to providing military and financial support?

      Who’d a thunk it?

  9. it is precisely what the bureaucratic “Deep State” would love to see, if there was never again a POTUS BOSS who could fire any of them or direct foreign policy according to his own agenda instead of theirs

  10. Hold on, Professor Turley. You make no mention of Pat Cipollone’s letter to House Democratic leaders, which basically removed all WH cooperation with the inquiry, and we are supposed to believe that this is “analysis” or commentary”? This piece reads like something ghostwritten by Cipollone himself.

  11. It’s extremely urgent to impeach him as soon as possible, so he can’t continue to subvert our democracy. In fact, it’s so urgent that the democrats plan to take it up right after they get back from their 10 day vacation!

  12. Dear Dr. Turley – I have been very irritated by previous postings of yours that tried to find multiple ways to explain the inexplicable contortions of the Democrats to impeach the President. Finally, you have assured me that, at least at some point, you were willing to concede what we all knew. When the country’s success, peoples’ lives, and the ability of civil society to exist is at risk due to politicians of the losing party attempting to stage a bloodless coup for 3 years, you finally admitted the absurdity of their behavior. Hopefully it’s not because you poll-tested it as the Democrats do before making decisions … but regardless you are finally right.

  13. I just don’t understand how Demos can think lying to a federal grand jury is not impeachable(Clinton), but asking for an investigation by a foreign government is worth of conviction (Trump).

    IMHO, if Demos continue down their impeachment track, the trial in the Senate will show everyone, Repos and Demos, what a bunch of scum bags they all are, no offense to scum bags. Trump will come out the winner simply because he is the only non politician in this big disgusting thing we all call politics.

  14. “.(Bush)..implemented a terrorist torture program…” JT

    Did you see your child drop from the North Tower on That Day? Was your wife trapped on the 90th floor surrounded by curling, swirling, sweeping flames licking the styrofoam insulation off the red-iron girders buckling, bending and breaking a mile high in the beautiful blue sunlit sky that day amidst a cacophony of shrieking pleas for help?

  15. Everybody exceeds the speed limit. No one should get a ticket. Highway patrolmen should be fired if any are issued. Safety on the road is our highest priority.

      1. Mr. Schulte: Not sure if you grasped the point of my comment. It was that, if all politicians are criminals but no one is to be held accountable, and those who point out their criminality are to be punished instead, then any hand wringing about criminality only pays lip service to the rule of law.

        1. Mr O’Heem – Not sure if you grasped the point of my comment. When you paint with too broad a brush you get paint on things you shouldn’t. You need to narrow your focus a lot. 😉

          You said that everyone drives over the speed limit, however, that is literally not true. I have met adults who have never driven in their life. And then were have all those toddlers, etc.

          1. Mr. Schulte: Sometimes points are made by overstatement. Sometimes sarcasm is lost on the (fill in the blank).

            1. Mr O’Heem – I am sure both POTUS and Adam Schiff appreciate your comments on overstatement. However, overstatement isn’t always satire.

              1. Mr. Schulte: If my comments were made with too broad a brush, then your earlier comment ” Impeach them all!!!” was equally broad. If comments made on this blog are meant to be taken literally, then your earlier comment “Release the Kraken!!!” would indicate that you think such creatures exist and that at least one of them should be un-tethered for some unspecified purpose.

                I am quite sure that Mr. POTUS and Mr. Schiff do not care about my comments.

                1. Mr. O’Heem – here is Alfred Lord Tennyson’s poem on the Kraken

                  Below the thunders of the upper deep;
                  Far far beneath in the abysmal sea,
                  His ancient, dreamless, uninvaded sleep
                  The Kraken sleepeth: faintest sunlights flee
                  About his shadowy sides; above him swell
                  Huge sponges of millennial growth and height;
                  And far away into the sickly light,
                  From many a wondrous grot and secret cell
                  Unnumber’d and enormous polypi
                  Winnow with giant arms the slumbering green.
                  There hath he lain for ages, and will lie
                  Battening upon huge seaworms in his sleep,
                  Until the latter fire shall heat the deep;
                  Then once by man and angels to be seen,
                  In roaring he shall rise and on the surface die

  16. And luvin it. Thanks, Jon.

    Jonathan Livingston Swalwelll said they are in a hurry because they don’t want to give the Russian agent, Trump, another shot at fixing an election. They don’t want him to cheat throughout the primaries, because that would make it harder to remove him as a candidate.
    Jonathan, what does their behavior tell you about these dems?

    “He (Bush)…gave false information to Congress to justify a war that killed tens of thousands and cost hundreds of billions of dollars.” JT
    You know that misrepresents what happened. I’m afraid as far as you’ve come to separate yourself from dishonest leftists, you have yet to be cured. Raised by Ivy League Elite Intellectuals, in love with liberalism, they always insisted that true liberals believed in truth, honesty, open mindedness, fairness, intellectual integrity. The ravages of time?

Comments are closed.