Congress, Constitutional Law, Politics, Testimony

TURLEY TESTIFIES AT TRUMP IMPEACHMENT HEARING

This morning I will be testifying at the House Judiciary Committee in the opening hearing into the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump. My testimony is available below.

It has been roughly 20 years since I testified at the same hearing in the impeachment of President William J. Clinton and roughly 10 years since I was lead counsel at the last Senate impeachment trial (with my co-lead counsel Daniel Schwartz).

The hearing will be held at 10:00 am in 1100 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515. It is open to the public.

I have the pleasure of appearing with three esteemed academics:

Noah Feldman, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law and Director, Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law at Harvard Law School

Pamela S. Karlan, Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School

Michael Gerhardt, Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence at The University of North Carolina School of Law

Here is my testimony:

Turley.Testimony.Final_-2Download

716 thoughts on “TURLEY TESTIFIES AT TRUMP IMPEACHMENT HEARING”

  1. TURLEY ‘HALF RIGHT’: WA PO EDITORIAL

    Mr. Turley incorrectly played down the gravity of the allegations against Mr. Trump and the strength of the existing record. The public already knows that, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky sought military aid and a White House meeting, Mr. Trump asked for “a favor”: investigations based on false premises that would have helped Mr. Trump politically. Only after Mr. Zelensky assured Mr. Trump that investigations would proceed did Mr. Trump indicate a White House meeting would be possible. All of this is in black and white in the rough transcript of a July 25 call the White House released. Then there is the recent testimony of Trump administration officials indicating that Mr. Trump held up military aid, not just a White House meeting, to press for his desired investigations.

    Three prominent law professors testified Wednesday that conditioning official acts, in this case a White House meeting and, very likely, the release of military aid, on the receipt of something of value, in this case flimsy investigations the president wanted, is an example of the sort of bribery the Constitution specifies as grounds for impeaching the president. Mr. Turley’s protests that such behavior might not meet the technical definition of criminal bribery missed the point: Even if Mr. Turley were right, the House is prosecuting the president under a constitutional standard, not a federal statute.

    Yet this damning tale still lacks the accounts of several critical witnesses. Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney could demystify why Mr. Trump halted the military aid. Former national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo could describe what they heard from the president. The problem is that Mr. Trump’s lawless embargo of the House’s impeachment proceedings has prevented these key witnesses from testifying and the courts might take time before deciding on the House’s appeals.

    We do not blame the Democrats for feeling frustrated. And they may rightly think they already have all the evidence they need. But if they could strengthen the case, they should do so. Because the stakes are so high, extra time may be justified if it results in testimony from administration witnesses. This also might convince more Americans that the impeachment process has been conducted thoroughly.

    Edited from: “Johnathan Turley Is Half Right”

    This evening’s Washington Post

    1. https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/interview/618506.html

      Read the article. Ukraine gave the US Embassy and FBI evidence of unlawful acts.
      The US vice president had the Ukraine equivalent to AG fired and the cases dropped.
      Big surprise the FBI and Embassy staff are the witnesses against the president when he wants to reopen the cases.

      The source linked to is a Ukrainian member of parliament not the Post.

      High crimes and treason perhaps?

      Not by the present administration.

      The president is the highest law enforcement officer in the nation.
      It would be a crime for him not to investigate criminal acts.
      At least that’s what this old country boy thinks.

      Thank you Mr Turley for your service today.

      Oh they keep saying “the debunked story”. It was not debunked simply put on hold.

    2. Saying, “Could you do me a favor?” is not evidence of a quid pro quo or an abuse of power.

      1. Yeah, he has to say: “Please bribe me by investigating the Bidens. I will only release the aid money once I have received the bribe”. Only then can be impeached!! /s

        1. I read the transcript. It is a conversational phrase. There was no indication anything was withheld in regards to ‘the favor’. Nothing was withheld in any case.

          1. And if that one sentence was the entire case, it wouldn’t be sufficient. But it isn’t the whole case. The sentence is actually part of a clearly-established months-long effort to arm-twist the Ukrainians into announcing an investigation into Biden. Witness after witness has confirmed this. The transcript is interesting because it shows Trump being explicit and direct about it. But it’s not even close to the whole case.

            1. The sentence is actually part of a clearly-established months-long effort to arm-twist the Ukrainians into announcing an investigation into Biden.

              Which the Ukrainian President knew nothing about, somehow. Again, tell your controller to give you better talking points.

          2. The ‘phrase’ is also but a small part of the overall case. And in the context of the whole case, it’s damning.

            I get that you don’t like that.

          3. I guess you missed the part where the president sent his personal attorney to crawl around Ukraine in the specific attempt to dig up dirt on Biden, something Guilliani keeps admitting to. The transcript is just the beginning, yet is also enough evidence of a quid pro quo on it’s own. That word “though” clearly connects the two objects, the aid and the investigation. Yet, given the subjectivity of interpretation, that’s whats opened the rest of the investigation, which has only brought forth more incriminating evidence.

            How could you possibly say nothing was “withheld in regards to the favor?” Every fact witness in the proceedings have said exactly that. Mulvaney got up in front of the press and admitted precisely that, and said “get over it.”

            And, to prove that you don’t believe your own nonsense, you offer a third made up argument, that “nothing was withheld in any case.” which is demonstrably false.

            So which is it prairie rose? “Nothing was withheld” (yes, obviously it was, no one disputes thats but you), “nothing was withheld in regards to the favor” (Mick Mulvaney directly contradicted that himself) or “It is a conversational phrase” (and entirely subjective reading of the transcript, that guess what, the majority of the country disagrees with.)

      2. PR,
        The actual quote is: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.

        Us, not me. Regardless, you are correct that there is no evidence of a QPQ, abuse of power, bribery or anything else. The problem is the Democrats have allowed their party to be dragged away from the 1st world western justice system tradition of requiring facts and evidence for prosecution. We are now in 3rd world territory where emotions, feelings and imaginations are deemed sufficient to undo a 1st world elected president.

        What JT did yesterday was to expose in striking detail which political party is honoring their constitutional oath of office. Sitting to his right were three lawfare experts. The greatest tell of just how weak their constitutional opinions were, especially in comparison to JT, was their demeanor. JT knew he was on constitutionally solid ground and was very calm. The other 3 were emotional and trying to appeal to the party (and their base) of feelings.

        Great work yesterday Professor Jonathan Turley!

          1. JT’s citation of Sir Thomas More was perfect. I recall when Mespo cited that on this blog some time ago and it’s precisely where we are with the Democrat party today. They often express their despair that President Trump is destroying America. If that were the case, you’d expect the candidates running against him to lay out the facts for the voters and let them decide. Of course they can’t; Trump has left them no room to campaign on issues that have traditionally been of concern to voters. No, what the Democrats are actually in despair about is Trump is destroying their hold on power. JT called them on it yesterday and that was a beautiful thing to watch.

        2. There’s plenty of evidence of it Olly. The facts are largely not in dispute. The problem is that it’s hard to definitively prove intent. The central question is was Trump asking for an announcement of investigations into Burisma and Crowdstrike because he thought they were in the national interest and wanted to see Ukraine take steps to fight corruption….or was he asking because they would look bad for Biden and the DNC?

          We know that what he did was not in fact in our best interest regardless of his intent, and all of his actions point to corrupt intent. But Republicans would like to set the bar for Impeachment at having the president on tape saying, “You need to announce these investigations for me so I can win reelection, and I’m not releasing the aid or giving you an official visit unless you announce the investigations,” or something to that effect. Which is obviously unreasonable. Meanwhile none of them even seem to agree that there should be an investigation, which is obviously not acting in good faith, since the charges are very serious and credible.

          You want me to believe it’s just a coincidence the only 2 investigations ever mentioned happen to benefit him personally? Or that the aid just happened to get released right after the White House found out about the whistleblower complaint? And why were they so keen on making the announcements public and even writing the specific language, when publicly announcing investigations before they start is generally bad practice? And why did Giuliani and Sondland need to be involved in this while the people who had been working with Ukraine and were experts in that region got cut out of the process? There are just too many things that smell like BS here, and that don’t add up for the explanation to be innocent.

          1. Frank Lee,

            You might not have been aware but there is a filter on this website that screens for certain words. I made a minor edit to the offending word in the last sentence of your comment so that it would post (since you spent some time writing the comment I elected to make the edit on your behalf). If you avoid this word in its true form, the filter will leave it alone.

          2. There’s plenty of evidence of it Olly. The facts are largely not in dispute. The problem is that it’s hard to definitively prove intent.

            If by it, you’re referring to facts that President Trump is destroying America, then no, there is no undisputed evidence. If by it, you’re referring to facts involving the alleged QPQ with Ukraine, then there are facts that are not in dispute. Those facts however, do not support articles of impeachment. What is in dispute is at the heart of the Democrats efforts to impeach President Trump…intent.

            Let’s revisit alleged violations of the law and intent by looking at the Clinton email controversy. In that case, the facts and evidence clearly proved the law was violated. But the FBI took the extraordinary step of not referring that violation for prosecution because they could not prove intent.

            In President Trump’s case, there are no facts or evidence proving any law was violated. But Democrats and their supporters want to prosecute (impeach) on what they perceive as an impeachable intent. They infer intent. They assume intent. They feel intent. They know intent. They want intent. What they don’t have is proof of intent. If they had it, we wouldn’t have a wholly partisan effort to impeach. We wouldn’t have had the Schiff parody and we wouldn’t have had a parade of non-fact witnesses testifying what they feel, assume, presume the President did wrong.

            And why did Giuliani and Sondland need to be involved in this while the people who had been working with Ukraine and were experts in that region got cut out of the process? There are just too many things that smell like BS here, and that don’t add up for the explanation to be innocent.

            I’m confident the answers to your questions will be forthcoming once the IG, Durham reports drop and Barr does his job.

          3. “We know that what he did was not in fact in our best interest regardless of his intent, and all of his actions point to corrupt intent. ”

            Frank Lee, that is a presumption. I don’t think many people would like us to give taxpayer’s money to a corrupt government that doesn’t spend the money on what it is intended for. I hope all our presidents tell other nations that when we give money we expect something in return. If not we are fools.

            If you can prove your case in a legal fashion, let’s hear.

        3. Thank you, Olly. My memory failed for the exact quote. I should have looked it up to make sure it was exact, as I usually do. Serves me right. 🙂 Good post, by the way.

          1. Thank you PR. It’s because you are normally precise that I looked it up to make sure I wasn’t remembering incorrectly. 😉

  3. So according to Jonathan Turley Clinton should have been impeached immediately but the impeachment process moving forward against Trump is going way too fast and should be slowed down so progress can be stalled in the courts for an indefinite amount of time. I have one word for Turley…..hypocrit!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Susan Michaels:

      “So according to Jonathan Turley Clinton should have been impeached immediately but the impeachment process moving forward against Trump is going way too fast and should be slowed down so progress can be stalled in the courts for an indefinite amount of time. I have one word for Turley…..hypocrit!!!!!!!!!!”
      *************
      Is English your second language? Turley said you ought to at least wait until you prove the elements of the crime you are charging. I know that’s hard to fathom but read slowly, running your finger along the bottom of the sentence. Oh and I have one word for you .. illiterate!

    2. Susan,

      I’m not sure how many people knew at the time Clinton & his crew profited from selling the Commie Chinese US secret Military Tech, such as MEV re-entry tech for ICBM Nukes that are now aimed at the US.

      For his Seditious Treason & Espionage Clinton & his crew could still be pickup & held even without charges.

    3. Susan: Mespo keeps a copy of Ann Coulter’s “How To Talk To Liberals If You Must” next to his computer. The snappy little put-down directed to you if from page 77 of that book. And ‘no’, Mespo is not that creative. Coulter’s book was intended for nasty, little nerds like him.

    4. If you had read the statement you’d have seen where Monica Lewinsky has admitted that she was told to lie. That’s called witness tampering. Yes, Clinton should have been removed from office – he WAS impeached – because he was/is corrupt.

  4. Mr. Turley, you testified at the Clinton impeachment hearings that he needed to be impeached, though no actual crime, unless one counts Biblical adultery was committed. Yet today you said impeachment is not warranted unless a crime has been committed. I find that your testimony in both cases is at odds. Please know, back in 1998 I was a Republican and wanted to see Clinton impeached and convicted. But your arguments today and then could not be anymore contradictory or shallow. The thing is that I follow your blog because I tend to respect your opinions even when I disagree with them, but today I cannot do that.

    1. padresteve:

      Well, padre, you’ve succeeded in getting every sentence of your comment wrong. No mean feat. Turley never said you had to have a crime to impeach. In fact, he said just the opposite. He said nothing contradictory or at odds with prior writings even on this humble blog. I’ve been here since 2008.

      Here’s betting you never read Turley’s written testimony or more likely you’re incapable of reading anything of that length with comprehension.

      In honor of your achievement, daddy, here’s a song:

      1. Trump is in the process of breaking laws of much more severe consequences. Trump has not yet lied to a grand jury because he refuses to testify. He will destroy the country, and Mr. Turley and people like you will be his willing helps.

        1. daddysteve:

          Please detail ever law Trump “is in the process of breaking.” Tell us what grand jury is empaneled and by whom and who has issued the witness subpoena he refuses to comply with. Bet you can’t!

          1. Try the Emoluments Clause to start, and go from there. That’s in the Constitution. I refuse to engage you any more because it is not worth my time.

            1. daddysteve:

              “Try the Emoluments Clause to start, and go from there. That’s in the Constitution. I refuse to engage you any more because it is not worth my time.”
              ***************
              You refuse to engage with me because you’re a mental midget. There is no crime called the “Emoluments Clause.” It’s a legal blog, ya know. We need a US Code cite.

              Now tell me what grand jury and what subpoena.

              Oh and here’s another apropos song for a blind daddy like you:

              1. I refuse to engage people are complete asses. I refused to call you names in my reply because that is unseemly and reflects badly on me. Just because you’re a lawyer doesn’t make your opinion, even legal opinion, respectable. Your bio on your blog talks about how non-partisan you are. You are a budding Hans Frank. He was a lawyer too, but I am a historian committed to the truth.

                1. padresteve:

                  “You are a budding Hans Frank. He was a lawyer too, but I am a historian committed to the truth. ”

                  ***************
                  Oh, you’re back proving you’re a prevaricator. My bio says nothing of the kind since it’s not on the blog. Prevarication #2. Keep digging padre! We’re staring with popcorn. And, if you don’t mind me saying, you’re a particularly bad liar.

                  BTW an din your quest for “the truth,” what grand jury, subpoena and issuing authority were you referring to when you said Trump defied it? Historian, eh? Kindly detail every impeachment based on hearsay and evidence not from personal experience?

                2. padresteve – so, if you are a historian, what is your area of expertise?

    2. padresteve – the crime of perjury was committed. Clinton lied under oath to a grand jury.

      1. The only reason Trump hasn’t been changed with perjury is because he refuses to testify under oath. You are simply a willing accomplice to a man who is breaking the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, undermining the law, and seeking to establish an authoritarian regime. I could go on, but as I said before I wanted Clinton impeached and convicted for far less than Trump. Toodles.

        1. “I could go on, but as I said before I wanted Clinton impeached and convicted for far less than Trump. Toodles”
          ****************
          Please go on. You’re a riot of absurdities! Tell us when he refused to testify, daddy. Hit & Run noted. Ohand hustle up, Anna Lewis is waiting.

            1. “Toodles. I won’t deal with your crap.”
              ****************
              When a guy runs from a challenge we have an English word for it that rhymes with “Howard.”

              Tell Heir George “hi” for me!

              1. You call me a coward. I have been to war and been shot at, as a non-combatant. I served this country for 38 years. Just be done.

                1. “I served this country for 38 years. Just be done.”
                  ***************
                  Well maybe that’s why you came back. You still refuse to state facts in support of your slanderous accusations against the POTUS and Commander-in-Chief. Art. 133 Conduct unbecoming, ring a bell?

                  Oh, thanks for your service.

                3. padresteve – when you were “serving the country” you were not armed, were you?

                  1. Paul:
                    That’s why he’s a padre with a keen misunderstanding of history, law and likely religion. And Oky1’s comment is pure gold. Never heard of fragging a chaplain but he’s a candidate with that lying mouth. Clinton committed no crime? Pleeeease …

                    1. mespo – It is amazing the number of people who do not know the crime for which Clinton was impeached. As for fragging chaplins, I guess there can always be a first time?

                  2. No I wasn’t. Let me give you some background. I was a Republican for 32 years. Before I could vote I worked for the Ford Campaign In 1976. After my tour in Iraq from 2007-2008 working as Chaplain for our Marine and Army advisors in Al Anbar province, from Fallujah and Ramadi to the Syrian Border and everywhere in between I saw the lies of the Bush Administration. I served in combat, and though unarmed as a non-combatant came under fire a number of times. (Unlike medical personnel, American military Chaplains are not even allowed a pistol for self defense.) I saw the massive destruction of Iraq, I dealt with wounded Marines and Iraqi civilians. As a historian of WWII, the Holocaust, and the Nuremberg War Crimes trials I do believe that the majority leaders who planned and executed the war would have been convicted of three of the four charges faced by the Nazis in the Dock.

                    You may mock me, or disagree with me, but I am done.

                    1. padresteve – I am making a point, not mocking you. However, your area of historical expertise means nothing in this discussion.

                    2. Just let it go. history has everything to do with this. I will not answer any more of your comments.

                    3. padresteve – how are we going to have a dialogue if you cannot answer the hard questions?

                    4. padresteve:

                      “I saw the lies of the Bush Administration.”
                      **************************

                      You’ve been leaving for days now. I didn’t like Bush either or the phony run-up to war but even a jarhead knows you don’t blame the whole group for the actions of a few. Think Chaplain Chris Antal here. And I dislike your outright lying even more. Correct the record and save your soul, padre.

                    5. Your whole intent had been to mock me and drive me from here. You are just a bully with a bachelor of general studies and a law degree, and you are a hack. You have done nothing since my first post to attack and belittle me. When I say I’m done you continue. What the hell is wrong with you? Don’t answer. Let’s end this now. I have left Turkey’s site because of you and others like you. I have no need to deal with your infantile abuse.

        2. If you’re a historian, I’m Barrack Obama. In order to charge someone with perjury, there has to be evidence that they lied under oath. Your lack of logic makes me think you’re probably about 15 years old.

        3. padresteve – one, on the perjury charge that would be a thought crime. two, on the emoluments, the courts have thrown two suits out claiming he is benefiting from the Emolument Clause. three, the Executive Branch by its very nature is authoritarian.

          I wanted Clinton convicted, however I did not get my wish. The Democrats block voted for Clinton and then went outside and took a group selfie with him. This time I want Trump impeached because it will put 30 House seats at risk in the 2020 election.

  5. “There needs to be repercussions for your lies. Hopefully you and Turley end up paying for your lies with years in a coma”

    This guy keeps changing identities but it is clear what type of person he and the people he associates with. They are vindictive pieces of garbage that do not belong in a civilized society.

  6. “I also am a graduate of Northwestern Law School and have tried hundreds of cases over more than 50 years.”

    Peter, that doesn’t say much for Northwestern Law School. What you said and the way you said it doesn’t speak well for you or them so one has to consider that what you claim isn’t true.

  7. Professor Turley, having favorably accomplished the honorable, noble and formidable task of articulating and defending Article 2, Section 4, please now review (1) the absolute immutable right of Americans to private property, per the 5th Amendment, without deprivation in any form or fashion and in exclusion of any form or fashion of interference by Congress and/or local governance, (2) the severe Article 1, Section 8 restriction on Congress to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for Individual welfare, the purpose of redistribution of wealth or for charity, and (3) the severe restrictions on Congress, as enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, to regulate ONLY the “value” of “money,” and “…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;…” solely for the purpose of precluding bias or favor by one Nation, state or Indian Tribe over another Nation, state or Indian Tribe; no other regulation of individuals or the private property of individuals by Congress being constitutional.

    Please establish for America that individuals were provided maximal freedom while government was severely limited and restricted by the Constitution, the People being the “Sovereign” and government being the “Subject” of the “Sovereign,” and that the entire American welfare state is unconstitutional, including, but not limited to, affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services,
    forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
    ____________________

    “Thank you, Professor Turley.”

    – The American Founders, June 21, 1788

  8. Here’s another bright Professor Turley (with a more right-wing perspective) giving us some idea of the huge dilemma for swing-district Dims. I still say no House vote on impeachment:

    1. Getting dumber with every post. Karen and Alan, there is a new sheriff in town, time to up your game.

  9. This was a good exchange on what logically follows from the current terms being used for impeachable offenses.

    1. Thank you, Rep. Buck and Professor Turley.

      “Crazy Abe” Lincoln unconstitutionally denied constitutional secession, invaded a foreign sovereign nation, prosecuted war undeclared by Congress, suspended Habeas Corpus, issued a “proclamation,” confiscated private property, committed election fraud and vote tampering and “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, the direct and mortal enemy of the U.S. Constitution, should have been impeached and convicted for egregious, usurpation, abuse of power, dereliction, negligence and treason.

      Every act of the eminently anti-American and unconstitutional “Crazy Abe” Lincoln and his corrupt and illegitimate successors was and is unconstitutional and must be fully abrogated and expunged in order to bring America back into alignment with its Constitution.

      1. Amendments ratified at gunpoint and under the duress of brutal (Sherman’s March to the Sea as total war) post-war military occupation are illegitimate and unconstitutional.

  10. The Dems are truly grotesque.

    Mothers with little children, especially Latinas, will walk away from any DNC Candidate.

    Impeachment witness apologizes for mentioning Barron Trump during hearing

    Stanford Law professor Pamela Karlan said she was “wrong” to have talked about Barron Trump during a House impeachment hearing.

    “I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president’s son. It was wrong of me to do that,” Karlan said Wednesday during the impeachment hearing. “I wish the president would apologize, obviously, for the things that he’s done that’s wrong, but I do regret having said that.”

    Earlier in the hearing, the law professor used the 13-year-old Barron Trump to take a shot at the president. “The Constitution doesn’t allow titles of nobility,” Karlan said in front of the House Judiciary Committee. “So, while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron.”

    First lady Melania Trump responded on Twitter, calling for her child to be kept out of partisan politics. “A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it,” Melania Trump said.

    A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it.

    — Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) December 4, 2019

    Barron Trump’s brother, Don Trump Jr., also took aim at the law professor, saying the comments were “grotesque” and “vile.” Rep. Matt Gaetz told Karlan during the hearing that her “little joke” made her look less credible as a witness.

    Wash Examiner

  11. Turley’s testimony was predictably rock-solid. In every, single, respect.

    1. Rock solid, like paper mache:

      Today from Turley:
      “President Trump will not be our last president,” he argued, saying impeachment would create “a dangerous precedent.”

      In 2013:
      “This will not be our last president, it would be very dangerous to the balance of powers not to hold Obama accountable for assuming powers very similar to the “the right of the king to essentially stand above the law.”

      Hmmm…..

      1. It isn’t apples to apples. The argument for Trump’s impeachment is overly broad and weak. The manner in which impeachment is being sought, in Trump’s case, would create a dangerous precedent.

        Obama did edge toward imperial power with inappropriate executive orders, for instance. Legislation comes from the Legislative branch, not executive orders, no matter how noble the goal.

  13. the descent of the trolls on the blog brought to mind a similar “good vs evil” clash on a battle field somewhere like Middle Earth ala JRR Tolkien. And then it hit me….

    1. Paul, are you talking to The Shill? If so. What’s your problem? No idea what your comment references.

      1. Simon Fraser – someone just identified themselves as “Peter” but it is not Peter from LA, I think.

  18. This is weighty matter that, as much as many on both sides feel is ironclad, cut-and-dry — isn’t. We have to ponder perhaps the most holy of documents written, consider our wise forefathers, and ultimately come to a conclusion on an extraordinary matter. After careful consideration… I often find myself daydreaming that I’m James Madison at such times.

    My careful, considerate, principled, and consistent conclusions lead me here:

    While there’s a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable. Serious misconduct or a violation of public trust is enough. Madison saw impeachment as “defending the community against the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief magistrate.” And the founders emphasized that impeachments were about what happened in the political arena: involving “political crimes and misdemeanors” and resulting in “political punishments.

    If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct.

    In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker; it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

    The allegations against President Trump go to the very heart of the legitimacy of his office and the integrity of the political system. As an individual, a president may seek spiritual redemption in the company of friends and family. Constitutional redemption, however, is found only in the company of representatives of all three branches in the well of the Senate. It is there that legitimacy, once recklessly lost, can be regained by a president.

    These are my principles. They are consistent. They are deeply held. And they are not transactional or subject to the whims of who solicits my opinions.

  19. TURLEY’S TESTIMONY DESCRIBED BY NEW YORK TIMES

    Are House Democrats making a mistake by moving swiftly to impeach President Trump when some facts remain hidden about whether he abused his power in the Ukraine affair?

    That was the argument put forward on Wednesday by Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who was the only Republican-selected witness of four legal scholars who testified at the House Judiciary Committee’s opening impeachment hearing.

    Mr. Turley’s point crystallized the constitutional dilemma facing Congress as it pushes forward on impeachment rather than pausing to go after additional evidence the White House has withheld. A president willing to dig in and stonewall subpoenas for documents and testimony can use the courts to run out the clock, undermining the House’s ability to use its impeachment power in practice.

    Calling “the abbreviated period of this investigation” both problematic and puzzling, Mr. Turley said Congress had assembled “a facially incomplete and inadequate record in order to impeach a president.” The evidence has gaps because of “unsubpoenaed witnesses with material evidence,” he argued, and it is wrong to move forward without hearing from them.
    Democrats have conceded that they would like to obtain more documents and hear more testimony from Mr. Trump’s key aides, but they have also argued that the evidence they have is sufficient to impeach him — and said it is absurd for the White House to contend their case has holes when it is thwarting their access to more information.

    Notably, Mr. Turley — who conceded he had not voted for Mr. Trump — did not assert the president did nothing wrong, as hard-core supporters of the president have done. He said that a now famous call in which Mr. Trump pressured Ukraine’s president to announce investigations that could benefit him politically “was anything but perfect,” and that Congress had a legitimate reason to scrutinize it.

    But, he argued, it is premature to rush forward with impeachment while Congress has yet to obtain potentially knowable facts about what Mr. Trump said to his aides about withholding a White House meeting and $391 million in military aid that Ukraine desperately needed to shore up its defenses against Russian aggression.

    In his longer written statement, Mr. Turley named three men who interacted directly with the president and might know more about what Mr. Trump said behind closed doors about Ukraine: Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, John R. Bolton; his personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani; and his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney.

    Mr. Bolton is known to have opposed what Mr. Giuliani was doing for Mr. Trump with Ukraine, met directly with Mr. Trump to discuss the frozen aid to Ukraine in August and has coyly indicated that he knows something important that Congress does not yet know.

    “There remain core witnesses and documents that have not been sought through the courts,” Mr. Turley wrote, adding that the House “is moving forward based on conjecture, assuming what the evidence would show if there existed the time or inclination to establish it.”

    But Mr. Turley made only a passing reference in his written statement to the problem that has bedeviled impeachment investigators: The White House has directed top aides to Mr. Trump not to cooperate with the House, while asserting that they are immune from being subpoenaed to testify about their discussions with the president.

    That means that for the witnesses Mr. Turley identified as having potentially material additional information, the Justice Department would very likely be able to keep the subpoena tied up in court until long after the 2020 election.

    But Mr. Turley said that Mr. Trump was “allowed” to go to court and that it would be an abuse of power for Congress to treat that as an impeachable act of obstruction. He pointed to lower-court rulings against the president in subpoena cases like Mr. McGahn’s as “an example of what can happen if you actually subpoena witnesses and go to court” — even though those lower-court rulings took months to achieve and were immediately appealed.

    Republicans on Wednesday ran in part with Mr. Turley’s theme. Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the committee, emphasized that the facts of what Mr. Trump did are disputed, unlike those during the Nixon and Clinton impeachment proceedings.

    “There are no set facts here,” Mr. Collins said, adding: “This is not an impeachment. This is simply a railroad job.”

    Edited from: “Trump Blocked Key Impeachment Witness. Should Congress Wait?”

    Today’s New York Times

    1. Peter, despite all of your fake avatar names, you stick out amongst the rest. I thought you looked familiar in the film “Clash of Titans“. Youre the thin shim with braids and makeup who goes apoplectic when the Kraken roars

      Turley could have ended the entire circus if he had simply removed from his briefcase the head of Medusa, and flashed it at Nadler. Then again the “insulted” Stanford Law perfursor Pamela “snarky, bisexual, Jewish women” Karlan, looks a great deal like Medusa so perhaps Rep. Doug Collins could have thrown his sword to Turley and lobbed off her head. Its not like Turley was amongst skilled warriors!

      😅

    2. Simon Fraser – according to Nancy Pelosi, she does not want to litigate the issues.

  20. Mr. Turley’s unhinged and manufactured testimony was humiliating for him. This fellow should be drummed out of the legal profession for his abysmal showing. To recap, Turley testified that the democrats are impeaching Trump bc they are angry bc Trump extorted a foreign country to fraudulently frame his opponent and fix the presidential election in Trump’s favor. And the Impeachment Inquiry was unfair to the president bc the evidence did not include testimony from Trump, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton bc Trump barred them from testifying.

    Either Turley is a Russian asset like Trump, or he’s owned by Trump, or he’s hopelessly incompetent. I called out Turley’s incompetence in 2017 when I first started paying attention to his cagey malfeasance. Today’s testimony by Turley is testimony to his utter misunderstanding constitutional equities. I have a hard time believing that this clown is a constitutional professor. It doesn’t add up.

Comments are closed.