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. Pamela, you cant draw attention away from your grotesque comments about a child. This was beyond acceptable but in keeping with leftists advocating ending the life of babies and decapitating adults like Kathy Grifter

      Too late. Your actions are captured on recordings which are already costing Democrats support from Americans

      👏🏽

      Pamela Karlan Condemned Over ‘Shameful’ Barron Trump Comment

      https://www.mediaite.com/politics/conservatives-shocked-by-pamela-karlans-shameful-barron-trump-joke-i-thought-kids-were-off-limits/

      1. Not sure you actually watched the hearing. Karlan’s comments were not a “grotesque” attack on a child. She may have been trying to be too “cute” with her analogy, but her point was absolutely valid: As much as he seems to think he is, Trump is no monarch. Please stop twisting this to justify your standing up for this corrupt man.

        1. JM12 – I would call Karlan’s attack venomous against Trump with Barron as collateral damage. However, she thought that “clever” sentence out. I was underwhelmed by her supposed apology about the venous attack in which she continued the attack on Trump. She has a severe case of TDS.

          1. Venomous attack..?? Get serious, Paul. You’re embracing that culture of victimhood so common with Trumpers. Karlan hit a dissident note, but that’s about all it was.

            1. Youre that peter guy people keep commenting that you change names weekly because youre a pedophile so no wonder you think attacking children is honkey dorey since you wish to screw them

              cowards are like that: hit and run comments, use fake names and screw little boys

              1. Anonymous, we know who ‘you’ are. Your mental health is very fragile. A really sick guy who mysteriously has carte blanche to write homophobic garbage all over these threads.

                What’s more this ‘freedom’ you have casts deep suspicion on Professor Turley who testified just yesterday that he didn’t vote for Trump.

              2. Anonymous – I have seen no evidence that the poster named “Peter” is a pedophile. The original Peter is gay. If I recall correctly, he has mentioned that he posts under different names, without explaining why. That does not automatically make him a pedophile. Unless there was some comment somewhere that I missed, it is my understanding that questioning his propensities is only based upon the over representation of gay men among pedophiles and hebephiles, their involvement in the Church scandals, as well as the preponderance of unsafe sex in the community.

                That of course does not mean that all gay men are attracted to pubescent teenagers or children, depending on the chronophilia. Men in general are more likely to commit sexual assault than women, but that does not tar all men, either.

                Personally, I wish that people would use a single avatar and stick with it. That makes it easier to carry on a conversation with the same person. Even if it’s not the person’s real name, it helps differentiate who you’re talking to. So I wish Peter would just pick a name. I also wish that people could argue policy. I’ve been guilty, myself, of getting sucked into arguments going nowhere.

                1. Karen, this ‘is’ the original Peter. And I am ‘not’ and never was ‘gay’. Nor have I ever, ever advocated gay life styles on this forum. I never addressed gay marriage or TG’s.

                  That ‘gay’ smear came from Absurd and Estovir. And they keep repeating it simply for the purpose of making it stick. The fact that you pick up and repeat the slander shows how it works.

                  This is all typical of Republicans going back to the 1950’s. Republicans are known for mean, gutter politics. Nothing is too low! I’m just shocked that the moderator here seems to openly encourage it. It makes a mockery of Turley’s claim that he’s a political ‘independent’.

                  My names keeps changing because certain people want me off this blog for good. I never willingly chose to change names.

            2. Simon Fraser – I used to teach Interpersonal Communications and Public Speaking. I watched her body language as she made her statement and that is why I used the word “venomous.” She was like a rattlesnake striking a prey.

        2. Karlan’s nonsensical jab was a form of bullying. Her snide effort to be “cute” – as you put it, was actually a public denigration a child. We now see the internet lampooning the child. Harm has been done.

          1. i thought it was funny once that the SPLC was running an anti-bullying program in schools.

            I thought, well, takes one to know one!

            That was back before the august ‘founder” Morris Dees was fired for harassing SPLC’s own workers, women and people of color, reportedly.

            I notice various other people who were his favored staff there have “quit” also recently ie fired too

            https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center

        3. i tell you what. these 3 professors hate trump obviously, but something more important: they hate US.

          they hate the people they imagined like trump: meat eating, “cis gendered,” hetero, old white guys born in the USA

          well Trump brings good for all Americans and we welcome support from all kinds.
          And a lot more people than that voted for trump,

          But we old white guys understand, yes, they hate us the most
          one day coming soon reciprocity will be established, I’m sure

          “The Beginnings” by Rudyard Kipling, 1917:

          It was not part of their blood,
          It came to them very late,
          With long arrears to make good,
          When the Saxon began to hate.

          They were not easily moved,
          They were icy — willing to wait.
          Till every count should be proved,
          Ere the Saxon began to hate.

          Their voices were even and low.
          Their eyes were level and straight.
          There was neither sign nor show.
          When the Saxon began to hate.

          It was not preached to the crowd.
          It was not taught by the state.
          No man spoke it aloud.
          When the Saxon began to hate.

          It was not suddently bred.
          It will not swiftly abate.
          Through the chilled years ahead,
          When Time shall count from the date.
          That the Saxon began to hate.

          1. Kurtz, you’re drinking way too early today. December is gloomy but take it easy.

            1. drinking coffee so far and a little nasty city water that tastes like chlorine

              prolly fluoridated, too, lol

                  1. Prairie Rose – the water here is very hard and most people have a water softener.

              2. Mr K,

                Infowars store:

                Year end sale on nice gravity feed water filters.

                So now you could also use the X2 or X3 survival shield Iodine.

                It’s the good halogen that’ll help boast your IQ & also helps remove the harmful halogens such as chlorine & the toxic waste product Sodium Fluoride which no one needs. ( IE: Calcium Fluoride/ a small amount needed)

          2. Maybe read Lord of the Flies, The Emperor’s New Clothes, or perhaps watch Twilight Zone’s The Monsters are Due on Maple Street. Long before he won the election I was warning my pro-Trump friends that the had no respect for the constitution. From the moment he entered the White House he has pretty much spat upon the dignity of the office. From lying about sending an “armada” to the North Korea, to inviting Russians into the Oval Office AND divulging Isreali classified intel to trying to kidnapping children and not only lying about hush payments to hide past liasons but the fact that he was guilty of them in the first place. This is just a sampling of the number of disgraceful behavior by the “leader of the free world.” I can’t see why any proud American would support this vile excuse for a president.

        4. JM12 – just to make this perfectly clear, you do NOT bring children into political warfare. The name “Barron Trump” should not have left her lips in this context. It focused the mob’s eyes on a 13 year old, and started yet another false accusation that Trump wants to make him an actual baron.

          Leave. Kids. Out. Of. It.

          1. Quit clutching your pearls. It wasn’t an insult nor an attack on Barron Trump, it was word play. And, all too predictably, trump supports rush to play the victim. A particularly cruel irony given his policy of caging children of asylum seekers. No one buys your fake outrage.

            1. Anonymous – the rule has been to leave the children of the Presidents out of it.

              1. But there was literally nothing about the child, other than his name, that was invoked. Word play that simply opened Karlan up to ridiculous attacks. It’s truly ludicrous that it got this much attention.

                1. I don’t think Karlan would have been ridiculed for using Barron’s name had her testimony not been so ridiculous and biased.

                  1. It’s not biased, it’s historically based. The only ridiculous testimony was Mr. Turley’s.

                    1. jules120:

                      “The only ridiculous testimony was Mr. Turley’s.”
                      ****************
                      Here’s betting you neither read nor heard Professor’s Turley’s testimony.

                    2. That is your opinion Jules, but your opinion seems to be contrary to basic principles of law. It is true that the Democrats placed three so-called experts up to speak and spin but some of them were trapped by their prior statements and lies.

                      You say “historically based” which could be true based on the writer of history but the testimony of the three was not completely legally based.

                2. jules120:

                  How’s about I bring your kid into a heated discussion and hold him up as some sort of punching bag? You’ve got no boundaries if you believe making fun of a kid to advance your argument works.

                  1. I think, as another poster said, she was making a play on his name. There was nothing at all about who he is as a person or what he looks like. It was a remark which I’m sure she thought was clever but which was not the time or place for that. I saw a lot of passion overall in her remarks because as a student of history, I’m sure she is furious to see what is happening to our constitution and to see this person, who has no respect for laws or the constitution, stomp all over our country while the GOP shields and defends him.

                    As an aside, I grew up being called Oero based on my maiden name. I honestly just thought it was stupid. However, when the high school boys started calling me Toucan because of my nose, that was an entirely different story.

                  2. Also, you mentioned earlier in the thread that you thought I neither read nor heard his testimony, but I watched it live. I’m not a legal scholar, I have my degree in math, so I can’t claim any kind of professional expertise, but he came out of the gates suggesting that the democrats are making a power play by rushing the process and that they should have waited for the courts to make a ruling on their subpoenas, and that they didn’t have enough information from key people, he seemed to gloss over the fact that the WH has refused to comply with the committees requests for materials or witnesses. Why are the democrats at fault here? Why isn’t he pointing to the executive branch and declaring an abuse of power or obstruction of congress? We all heard Sondland say over and over again that the State Department wouldn’t give him his notes or emails for reference. Does that seem legit?

                    I saw footage of him in another impeachment hearing for Judge Porteous, who was impeached and removed from the bench, and Turley’s defense was that Porteous was a “mooch”…and yet he was found guilty of accepting cash from attorneys and bail bondsmen as well as lying in bankruptcy papers. Does that sound like someone who respects the constitution or does that sound like a creative attorney grasping at straws?

                3. jules120 – Karlan is a woman who has admitted crossing the street so she didn’t have to walk in front of Trump Tower. Her non-apology apology told us all we wanted to know about her. She had rehearsed that line and she loved spitting it out and then sitting back in finality.

                  1. Is there no possibility in your world view that someone could have an intense dislike of someone and still be able to have an unbiased opinion based on historical facts and case law? Have we really reached the point in our country that you’re either Red or Blue and everyone is biased? If that’s the case, can we also say “all GOP reps are so in love with Trump that they would not label any wrong doing as such?” You can’t have it both ways and say “those people hate Trump so much that they’re out to trap him” and not see the other side of that same coin. I personally believe there are a lot of civil servants and politicians who can separate their feelings for a person from what is fair and just.

                    1. jules120 – Tim Pool does not like Trump, will never vote for Trump, however he does think the Progressive Left, which would include the three professors for the Democrats, are off the rails. I don’t always agree with him, but I think he is fair and honest in how he comes to his judgment.

                      I would like to think that civil servants were neutral, but they are not. Just ask Lisa Page and her lover (or ex-lover). Judicial Watch is getting more of their text messages daily. Almost all of the civil servants who testified were upset that Trump was upsetting “their” apple cart. The problem is: it is Trump’s apple cart. I voted for Trump to upset that apple cart and he did. Those civil servants have to realize that the ball belongs to the President, not them.

                      And this whole thing about Trump upsetting National Security by withholding funds for the Javelin missiles for 54 days is hogwash. Barack Obama held up money for Javelin Missiles for 8 years.

                    2. ” Is there no possibility in your world view that someone can have an intense diike of someone and still be able to have an unbiased opinion based on historic facts and case law?”.
                      Jules120, anything is possible. In the case of at least two of the law processors who testified this week —- Feldman and Kaplan— there is a long-term history of calling Trump’s presidency “illegitimate” and/ or calling for his impeachment.
                      These opinions about Trump preceded this week’s testimony and the Ukraine issue by YEARS.
                      So how “unbiased” are they going to appear on this “new” issue, as if they only “objectively” and “recently” 🙄😏come to the conclusion🤔 that Trump has committed an impeachable offense?
                      ( The quotation marks and the Emojis are mine).
                      Let’s take the flip side of of the coin. Is it possible that a lawyer who has expressed extremely strong support for Trump will give an unbiased opinion?
                      Or even the appearance that they are unbiased?
                      Let’s say that someone like Andrew McCarthy is appointed as a Special Counsel to investigate all elements of the entire Ukraine issue.
                      ( I don’t think his biases are as strong as, say, a self-described “snarky, Butch” law professor, but I’ll use him as an example).
                      On the other side of your coin, do you think he’d be viewed as “unbiased” in your world or in the world of the never- Trumpers?
                      Because if the argument is that even those with a long term history of antipathy forward Trump, you can get an unbiased opinion, then………..
                      let’s give that same benefit of the doubt to someone with a history of support and favorable opinion of Trump.

      2. Good catch, Betty.

        Kathy Griffin should have been our first clue that the Left will sacrifice any and all Americans for their dangerous ideologies. If “gymnasium showers” like Auschwitz existed in America, they would have sent us long ago

        1. Ah, yes, because it was “the Left” standing with their tiki torches, shouting “Jews will nor replace us” at Charolettsville. Yep.

          1. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar are in Congress. Richard Spencer is not.

  2. Kudos to the Professor for putting aside his dislike for Trump and tearing apart the impeachment crowd. His testimony yesterday was brutal.

  5. History will remember you as just another sycophant and stooge that enabled the abuses of this president. Congratulations.

      1. Shoot the messenger rather than deal with the facts seems to be your idea of debate. Weak allies do not make NATO strong but they can cause the United States to engage in war created by those weak allies while the United States foots the bill in lives and wealth.

        Time for you to deal with the facts instead of playing the part of a fool.

      1. Anonymous the Stupid read the article. That is something you seldom do. The rest of the Headline is “Adversity Has Made the Alliance Stronger”

        You are as stupid as your name suggests.

        “These worries are unwarranted: NATO at 70 is actually in remarkably good shape. Yes, European allies have been laggards on defense spending, and some members—Hungary, Poland, and Turkey in particular—have tarnished democratic credentials. But NATO has demonstrated an impressive….”

        1. “NATO Is Thriving in Spite of Trump”

          “…in Spite of Trump”

          What’s up with this “Anonymous the Stupid” sh*t? It doesn’t say anything good about this guy “Allan.”

          1. “…in Spite of Trump”

            Read the article dummy. Is NATO thriving because of France? No. Germany? No. Etc. NATO is thriving because of Trump. How was NATO doing before Trump? Not that great. Trump has reinvigorated NATO but fools that can only look at headlines and cannot read don’t know any better and demonstrate themselves to be dummies.

          1. Anonymous the Stupid, firstly I am calling you by a name you deserve. Secondly I have debated many without rancor even when they disagree with my views. You on the other hand have quoted articles you haven’t read making a fool of yourself, your have lied, you have been rude and most of all you have been outrageously Stupid. I am doing you a service in trying to make you look in a mirror so in the future you can rise in the ranks from Stupid to dumb.

  8. Schiff should be prosecuted. Since when did American citizens lose their rights? This is most definitely an abuse of power.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/schiffs-surveillance-state-11575506091?shareToken=st91ac311e5782498fb2413ab05aaa1468

    Schiff’s Surveillance State

    The Democrat demands, and then discloses, the call logs of his opponents.

    The Editorial BoardDec. 4, 2019 7:34 pm ET

    Adam Schiff and Devin Nunes in Washington, D.C., Nov. 21. Photo: Alex Brandon/Associated Press
    The impeachment press is playing this as if the calls are a new part of the scandal, but the real outrage here is Mr. Schiff’s snooping on political opponents. The Democrat’s motive appears to be an attempt to portray Mr. Nunes, a presidential defender and Mr. Schiff’s leading antagonist in Congress, as part of a conspiracy to commit impeachable offenses.

    “It is, I think, deeply concerning, that at a time when the President of the United States was using the power of his office to dig up dirt on a political rival, that there may be evidence that there were members of Congress complicit in that activity,” Mr. Schiff told the press on Tuesday. Complicit in what? Doing his job of Congressional oversight? Talking to Mr. Trump’s lawyer to get a complete view of the Ukrainian tale? Apparently Mr. Schiff now wants to impeach Members of Congress too.

    This is unprecedented and looks like an abuse of government surveillance authority for partisan gain. Democrats were caught using the Steele dossier to coax the FBI into snooping on the 2016 Trump campaign. Now we have elected members of Congress using secret subpoenas to obtain, and then release to the public, the call records of political opponents.

    Our sources says Mr. Schiff issued a subpoena in September to AT&T, demanding call logs for five numbers—including Mr. Giuliani’s. Subsequent subpoenas to AT&T and Verizon demanded more details. Republicans were told of the subpoenas, yet under rules of committee secrecy couldn’t raise public objections.

    Readers may recall that only a few years ago Democrats were in high dudgeon over the executive branch’s collection of metadata against terrorists. They claimed the National Security Agency was “spying” on Americans, and in 2015 Congress barred NSA from collecting bulk domestic metadata. Federal investigators must offer legitimate reasons to obtain metadata from telecom companies, and they are subject to restrictions on divulging it.

    Yet here the companies appear to have handed over metadata based on little more than Mr. Schiff’s say-so—and in AT&T’s case in response to a request that was made before the House began a formal impeachment inquiry.

    AT&T released a statement Wednesday saying it is “required by law to provide information to government and law enforcement agencies.” But AT&T can question the validity of subpoenas in court—and had grounds to do so given the highly political nature of these requests. Then again, maybe it felt it had no choice. We’ll leave it to legal experts to decide whether a powerful Congressman’s demands of a highly regulated company are extortion.

    ***

    Mr. Schiff’s metadata disclosures hardly bear on his impeachment case. Mr. Giuliani had broadcast to the world that he wanted Ukraine to investigate Hunter and Joe Biden, but he is also Mr. Trump’s personal attorney. Does Mr. Schiff have a legal opinion saying he could ignore attorney-client privilege? Mr. Schiff published a select log of Mr. Giuliani’s calls, but he presumably has a record of everyone Mr. Giuliani spoke to for months. Imagine the political outrage if Republicans had snooped on Bill Clinton’s attorneys.

    Mr. Schiff’s accusations against Mr. Nunes are even more suspect. The Democrat doesn’t know the content of Mr. Nunes’s conversations, and the Republican says he believes his spring talks with Mr. Giuliani related to the Mueller report. Mr. Nunes can speak to whomever he likes, and Mr. Schiff has no authority to investigate fellow Members. Since Mr. Schiff is going to release the call logs of Republicans, can we see the logs of his calls with the impeachment press—and, by the way, with any whistleblowers?

    The press corps might also notice that Mr. Schiff’s targets include one of their own—Mr. Solomon, who was until recently a columnist at The Hill and whose reporting called attention to Ukraine’s involvement in the 2016 election. How is Mr. Solomon’s reporting trail relevant to impeachment? The media usually condemn government officials who use surveillance to track and intimidate the media, but here they are cheering Mr. Schiff on.

    Mr. Schiff’s extraordinary and secret plunge into metadata, followed by its gratuitous public disclosure, is one more example of the partisan score-settling that motivates this impeachment exercise. In the cause of impeaching Donald Trump, anything goes.

    Opinion: House Republicans Refute Schiff’s Impeachment Report
    0:00 / 1:31

    Opinion: House Republicans Refute Schiff’s Impeachment Report
    On Dec. 3, 2019, Rep. Adam Schiff released the House Intelligence Committee report detailing allegations against President Trump and his involvement with Ukraine. House Republicans disputed the report, calling into question the assertions and processes involved. Image: Michael Brochstein/ZUMA Wire

      1. YN ON:

        Because, my dear master of idiocy, impeachment have to be first won in the court of public opinion or it’s DOA. Like this one. Nobody cares about it.

              1. Anonymous – don’t forget that 538 was the one that thought that Hillary had over a 90% chance of winning on election day.

    2. William Barr of the U.S.D.O.J. is the man in power that should be “impeached” disbarred or jailed, after witnessing why he moved into the top placement of law enforcement in this country. The media industry has been playing us for fools with the full assistance of many members of both parties. Many of them are “Harvard” Constitutional Scholars of Law.

  10. This Post analysis is spot on.

    OPINION
    No wonder Jonathan Turley’s dog is mad
    The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday entered into democracy’s most sacred ritual, that solemn moment when the people’s representatives assemble to hear testimony about Jonathan Turley’s dog.
    For reasons not entirely clear, Republicans decided that Turley, the television pundit and George Washington University law professor, would be the best person in the land to make the legal case against impeachment. But at Wednesday’s kick-off hearing, in which three legal scholars argued that President Trump’s actions met the constitutional definition of high crimes and misdemeanors, Turley countered with a case less constitutional than canine.
    “I get it: You are mad,” he testified. “The president is mad. My Democratic friends are mad. My Republican friends are mad. My wife is mad. My kids are mad. Even my dog seems mad — and Luna is a goldendoodle and they don’t get mad. So we’re all mad.”
    Damn right we are! But nowhere in the Constitution does it state that a president shall not be impeached if people — or their dogs — are mad.
    Turley’s reasons for opposing impeachment were primarily emotional and political: The process needs more “saturation” and “maturation.” He pointed out that Democrats are prevailing in court rulings and advised them to slow down. “You’re going to leave half the country behind,” he said.
    That’s a reasonable argument — but not a constitutional one.
    It reveals much about the strength of the Republicans’ case that they chose Turley to defend them. As he noted, he didn’t vote for Trump. He testified that Trump’s call “was anything but perfect” and his targeting of the Bidens “highly inappropriate.” He acknowledged that the quid pro quo, “if proven, can be an impeachable offense.” Quoting from “A Man For All Seasons,” he spoke of the need to “give the devil the benefit of the law.”
    Do Republicans realize who the devil is in Turley’s scenario?
    The opening impeachment hearing was at times high-minded — Louis XIV, Charles II, the Treaty of Dover and Viscount Mordaunt all got mentions — but was unlikely to change minds or even to attract much interest. It served, rather, to present the legal and constitutional underpinnings for what will follow.
    “President Trump’s conduct,” said Harvard’s Noah Feldman, “clearly constitutes an impeachable high crimes and misdemeanor.”
    “If what we’re talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable,” added the University of North Carolina’s Michael Gerhardt.
    “If we are to keep faith with the Constitution,” Stanford’s Pamela Karlan contributed, “President Trump must be held to account.”
    Republicans interrupted the chorus of condemnation with a series of complaints (Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia protested the temperature in the room, the comfort of the seats and the “cute little stickers for our staff”) and procedural delays:
    “I reserve the right to object.”
    “Parliamentary inquiry.”
    “Parliamentary inquiry.”
    “I have a motion under Clause 2, Rule 11.”
    “Recorded vote.”
    “Parliamentary inquiry.”
    “Privileged motion.”
    “Motion to postpone to a date certain.”
    “Recorded vote.”
    “Move to subpoena.”
    “Recorded vote.”
    And they went to the their lone witness, Turley, again and again. He did not disappoint. He said the Democrats had a “wafer thin” case record and the “shortest proceedings” and were treating impeachment like “impulse-buy Nike sneakers.” He alleged that Democrats hadn’t proven bribery, extortion, obstruction or abuse of power. Momentarily forgetting about Luna, he claimed, “I don’t have a dog in this fight.”
    But Turley’s position was curiously at odds with his previous defenses of congressional power.
    “President Trump will not be our last president,” he argued, saying impeachment would create “a dangerous precedent.”
    Funny. He made almost exactly the opposite case against President Barack Obama in a 2013 hearing. “This will not be our last president,” he argued then, saying 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.”
    Now we have a president soliciting campaign help from a foreign country while withholding military aid, then ignoring duly issued subpoenas — and Turley says Congress would be the entity committing an “abuse of power” if it holds Trump to account. Trump shared that quote on Twitter.
    Back in 1998, arguing for President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, Turley said there was “no objective basis” to claim that the Framers intended a “restrictive definition of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ ” Now Turley argues that the Framers intended a restrictive definition, applying “bribery” only to “money” transactions.
    Back in 1998, Turley argued that “impeachment performs the very constitutional function that is sought in a censure.” Now, he instructs lawmakers that “you can’t impeach a president like this.”
    No doubt Turley, a clever lawyer, can rationalize the inconsistencies. But his position came across as more provocation than principle.
    No wonder Luna the goldendoodle is so mad.
    Dana Milbank is an op-ed columnist. He sketches the foolish, the fallacious and the felonious in politics.
    Democracy Dies in Darkness
    © 1996-2019 The Washington Post

    1. RCL,
      There was considerably more to Jonathan Turley’s testimony than the humerous reference to his dog’s anger.
      Whoever wrote this for the WaPo seemed to be fixated primarily upon that very brief comment Turley made at the onset of his testimony. It’s odd that a major part of this writer’s “analysis” is stuck on that one comment, and as such, there’s no reason to take the writer seriously or give the author any credit for professionalism.
      But thanks for posting that amateurish editorial written by a humorless hack.

    2. RCL:

      “This Post analysis is spot on.”
      *******************
      I guess this flippant drivel will do when you can’t think for yourself or can’t muster counter-arguments..

      1. I hear that:

        mespo727272 says: December 5, 2019 at 8:56 AM
        In what must be depressing news bordering on suicidal for the Dims, more people searched for “Peloton” (the luxury fitness cycle) than “impeachment.” Happy spinning, my Dim brothers and sisters.

    3. How convenient to quote Turley out of context, again. Getting the whole story out of WaPo is impossible. They’ve been doing it for years–deceiving, that is. Nice try. The Leftist Media is the reason Trump is our President. People at long last see right through their carefully constructed bull.

      Keep it up, Leftists! Trump relies on you to stimulate his base and others tired of biased reporting/commenting.

  11. If Biden wins the election he will send Hunter over to Ukraine and demand s prosecution of Trump for interfering in the 2024 election.

    1. Sleepy Joe Biden has another problem

      2020 presidential candidate, Mike Bloomberg. When Joe Biden gets hit over the head with $54 Billion Dollars….It’s going to hurt

  13. Congrats JT.
    You were the real star.
    Impeachment without rules is
    Abuse of Power.
    The 3 on your right were seen as the
    Soul of Liberalism.

  14. Adam Schiff & Jerry Nadler wants to question a 13 year old boy under oath who goes by the name of Barron Trump. Why? Because Prof. Pamela Karlan fingered the teenager.

    Pamela Karlan describes herself as an example of a “snarky, bisexual, Jewish woman”. Her partner is writer Viola Canales.

    Guess who the butch is?

      1. Again YNOT people are looking for the facts you base your comments on. You are faceless and thus a fool.

      2. LIAR and coward, are you related to tRump or just a rethuglican?
        ****************
        No just an unlicensed fool. And I love a good primal scream. Or wail of pain. Either or both. LOL

        Fool. Then ’tis like the breath of an unfeed lawyer- you gave me
        nothing for’t. Can you make no use of nothing, nuncle?

        Lear. Why, no, boy. Nothing can be made out of nothing.

        Fool. [to Kent] Prithee tell him, so much the rent of his land
        comes to. He will not believe a fool.

        Lear. A bitter fool!

        Fool. Dost thou know the difference, my boy, between a bitter
        fool and a sweet fool?

        Lear. No, lad; teach me.

        Fool. That lord that counsell’d thee
        To give away thy land,
        Come place him here by me-
        Do thou for him stand.
        The sweet and bitter fool
        Will presently appear;
        The one in motley here,
        The other found out there.

        Lear. Dost thou call me fool, boy?

        Fool. All thy other titles thou hast given away; that thou wast
        born with.

      3. Tony – what part is the lie? It was clear that Karlan has TDS, you could see the venom dripping from her mouth both in her statement about Barron and her non-apology apology.

    1. This is what Democrats offer: hatred, insults, death threats, and mocking children under the guise of Stanford Law Faculty nobility titles

      Democrats are done but we thank you for removing doubts from those former DNC supporters like me

    2. Luwana take that back? Or you gonna stick with your default response to JT testimony that did not suit your pre-conceived notions? The mob wanted all witnesses to be ivory tower rubber stampers and can’t handle one speaking independent of the mob group think. Lefties know that JT outshined the other three and now mob wants to attack JT. The three dem witnesses not only helped hasten the collapse of the scam impeachment hearings, but also helped expose to American people the krap excuses for professors that have infiltrated our universities.

      1. Al zheimer – with a first name like Luwana, my guess is that Luwana Buckner is female.

    5. If you were speaking of Prof Turley then you’re wrong.

      He gave this new Commie Dem party/Nadler/Schiff way more courtesy & legal room for their uncivil & illegal behaviour then should have been given.

      But I understand I think, he was likely attempting to get the Trump haters to come to the senses.

      1. No Oky1, he gave objective responses – was not trying to curry favor with anybody.

    6. Turley did a great job of interpreting the law despite his dislike of Trump.

      Objectivity is not your strong suit.

  16. How did u flip your morals 180 degrees? 20 years ago u argued that impeachment would influence future presidents. Then today u argue ? Trump gets pass? Not quite sure why. But his craziness will destroy future presidents authority as as a sane person with backlog of USA
    Trump
    Is clearly bat shot crazy. Why are u supporting his dementia and thinks he is is emperor?

  17. Jon, you did a really great job of pointing out why the current circus is just that. Unfortunately, Democrats already have their minds made up. They’re going through with the impeachment. Why? So they can have sound bites to use in the election. They know that Donald Trump is likely to win against any of their candidates but they’re hoping they can defeat him by stating that he was impeached (just like Bill Clinton, who actually committed a crime.) The other three “experts” are partisans who were only there to rubber-stamp the proceedings. Democrats will impeach him and it’ll die in the Senate. The only hope is that there are enough Democrats with an actual conscience in the House to vote against impeachment. I seriously doubt there are. This is the problem with political parties. They don’t give a hoot about anything but political power. The only thing that will save this country would be to abolish all political parties. Otherwise, this country isn’t long for this world.

    1. Semcgowan, Pelosi and other Democratic House leaders are probably going to go through with impeachment to mollify the ‘Impeachment Hawk” wing of their party.
      They are too far invested in this to do otherwise. So barring any earthshaking new development, they’ll figure out some Articles of Impeachment and the Senate will call BS on them.
      I don’t see any political mileage of this for the Democrats, but I think the calculation on the part of the Democratic Party leadership is that failure to placate their “Impeach the Mother F*****” wing of their party will be in open revolt if they back out now.

  18. “Turley is on my list of contributors to the idiocy of pugger reasoning.”

    — From an obscure blog. “Pugger” is an intentionally insulting abbreviation for Republicants, I mean Republicans.

  19. About 13:08 in the video: Pamela Karlan tone deaf failed apology.

    Lou Dobbs: She’s educated, but no one said she wasn’t ignorant. 🙂

Comments are closed.