The Fast and Furious Impeachment: A Rush To A Failed Case

Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the insistence of the Democrats to stick to the abbreviated schedule to allow an impeachment vote by Christmas.

Here is the column:

The day after the first House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the panel would move immediately to draft articles of impeachment, with a vote expected within two weeks. The most discussed crime is now obstruction of Congress, based on the Trump administration seeking to block witnesses. Democratic lawmakers in the hearing repeated the words of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in rejecting claims of immunity like a mantra, “Presidents are not kings.”

The executive claim of unchecked authority filled Democratic lawmakers and witnesses with utter disgust. One witness, Harvard professor Noah Feldman, declared that Jackson “held that there is no absolute immunity which would protect a presidential adviser from having to appear before the House of Representatives and testify.” Then another witness, Stanford professor Pamela Karlan, stated, “So kings could do no wrong, because the king’s word was law, and contrary to what President Trump has said, Article Two does not give him the power to do anything he wants.”

That is manifestly true. Indeed, another Jackson ruling went a step even further in denouncing “the proposition that the executive may assert an unreviewable right to withhold materials from the legislature” as an offense to the very foundations of our constitutional system. However, those were the words of a different Jackson, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, about a different president, Barack Obama. He withheld evidence in the “Fast and Furious” investigation of the murder of an agent with a gun supplied to criminal gangs by the federal government. Obama not only withheld witness testimony and evidence but also claimed that a court could not even review his order. While this sounds a tad monarchical, many Democratic lawmakers, including Pelosi and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, overwhelmingly supported Obama in defying Congress. There was no rush to impeach by Republicans or Democrats.

Therefore, you might call this the “Fast and Furious” impeachment. As with the abuse of power allegation, my objection is not actually with the underlying obstruction claim against Trump but with the incomplete record to support it. I am a longtime critic of broad executive privilege claims, and previously testified to the House Judiciary Committee to encourage its challenging of Trump in cases like the one involving former White House counsel Don McGahn. It comes down again to speed. Just a few weeks ago, Pelosi said the House would begin an impeachment inquiry and push for a final vote by the end of December. Democrats insisted they would not subpoena key witnesses, like former national security adviser John Bolton, or litigate other claims over privilege.

The House burned three months without moving on key witnesses. If it sought to compel testimony in the Ukraine matter, it could have asked for an expedited ruling and likely gotten a district court order by now. In the Nixon impeachment, the courts expedited review and rendered a series of rulings. The final ruling by the Supreme Court, in United States versus Richard Nixon, was handed down two months after an order by the trial court. The White House could oppose expediting the cases. But those rulings and the longer period would reinforce an obstruction article. Instead, Democrats set an arbitrary timeline to impeach by Christmas. I am concerned about manufacturing impeachment claims by establishing artificially short periods for production that will practically block judicial review. Some of these conflicts concern communications between the president and his national security advisers, conversations described by the Supreme Court as the apex of executive privilege for presidents.

Even more disturbing is the argument by some that litigating would be a mistake because the conservative majority of the Supreme Court will just side with Trump. However, that would mean the investigation is being curtailed to avoid a ruling in support of Trump. If that were the case, it would mean impeaching a president for maintaining a position that you believe the courts would uphold. In reality, I do believe Congress would prevail in many of these fights. The recent ruling by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson concerned the special counsel investigation and the testimony of McGahn. That case is already before the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. If Democrats add an obstruction article based on the special counsel investigation, the most viable claim is the one involving McGahn. His case can now be expedited, however, not if Democrats are hellbent on moving with a “rocket docket” of impeachment within a couple weeks.

Such added support is particularly important in a case with obvious defenses. The House is about to impeach Trump for blocking witnesses while, at the same time, saying the record is overwhelming based on the testimony of many of those very witnesses. That record is composed of roughly a dozen witnesses, including many officials who are still working in the executive branch. None of those witnesses have been disciplined or fired for opting to testify. In addition, Trump released transcripts of his controversial phone calls, which ordinarily would remain privileged and nonpublic information. Finally, while the obstruction claims against Nixon were made in conjunction with established crimes, the array of crimes alleged against Trump, like bribery, extortion, and obstructing justice, lack key elements of those crimes. This impeachment would be based more on obstructing the investigation and less on the alleged crimes themselves.

Instead of explaining the abbreviated period of investigation, Democrats have falsely claimed that this is actually a longer investigation than the impeachment of Andrew Johnson and the impeachment of Bill Clinton. That is not correct, though in my testimony before the House Judiciary Committee I stressed that, with regard to President Johnson, it depends on how you count the days. In order to claim that this is actually a longer investigation, Democrats use the date of the passage of impeachment resolutions instead of the underlying investigations to measure time.

The record in this case is as short as the timeline. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee quoted me as saying that the record is “wafer thin” and held up two binders to prove there is an extensive record for impeachment. To be clear, I testified that this record was comparatively not actually wafer thin. However, the mere fact that Jackson Lee could hold up the relevant record in two binders is precisely the point. If she were to show the record in the Nixon or Clinton cases, she would have had to drive a semitruck into the committee room. Of course, none of this matters. Pelosi will get a fast impeachment, and there is no shortage of fury. Ultimately, “Fast and Furious” amounts to little more than a rush to a failed impeachment.

Jonathan Turley is the chair of public interest law at George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel in a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a Republican witness in House Judiciary Committee hearing in the Trump impeachment inquiry. Follow him @JonathanTurley.

106 thoughts on “The Fast and Furious Impeachment: A Rush To A Failed Case”

  1. Thank god for Professor Turley. Is there ANY motion that can disqualify Judge Amy Berman Jackson from presiding over many of these Trump related cases? There is an obvious conflict of interest here.

  2. “Even more disturbing is the argument by some that litigating would be a mistake because the conservative majority of the Supreme Court will just side with Trump.”

    This assumption is most worrisome. I wish Professor Turley had provided quotes or footage.

    To assume that people are so partisan as to disregard the rule of law essentially attacks the foundation upon which our nation is built.

    Perhaps it simply reflects the attitudes of those making this assumption–since this is how we would behave, we assume others would do the same.

    To disregard the rule of law means we would descend into anarchy. Moral relativism at its worst.

    I’d rather not descend into anarchy.

    1. Did I hear Pelosi correctly this morning, saying something like the President’s actions by . . . taking these things to court and then bumping them up in court is an obstruction of justice?

      So now the President utilizing his constitutional prerogative to go to the courts is an obstruction of justice? Sounds like Pelosi and company don’t like anyone using the constitution to defend themselves against Legislative branch abuse of power.

      1. Olly, The Democrats hate the Constitution. They feel it gets in their way. They prefer rule by the elite as long as they are the elite.

      2. Those people aren’t really part of Congress, the Legislative branch. Since when has the left not falsely taken the Oath of Office then violated it and that includes Comrade Pelosi seating people after arranging for them not to take the Constitutionally required oath of office. Best thing that bunch deserves is for the military to uphold it’s Oath of Office and move those war mongering moochers out using the Patriot Act provisions for terrorist acts or supporting terrorist acts.

        1. Michael,
          When Pelosi feels compelled to begin a presser reminding people she and her Democrat colleagues swore an oath, she does so knowing the audience is swearing right back at them.

    2. “The Barbarian Dems at the gate.”

      – PC
      ____________________________

      “the people are nothing but a great beast…
      I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

      -Alexander Hamilton
      ________________

      We gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”

      – Ben Franklin
      ____________

      The United States of America were established as and to be a restricted-vote republic with voters generally required to be: Male, European, 21, 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres.
      __________________________________

      “Democracy” was born in Greece with a restricted vote and perpetuated in Rome and America with a restricted vote.

      What happened? Answer: The promise of “free stuff” by communism.

  3. I am so looking forward to one added element to the coming inaugural parade for President Trump’s re-election victory..that of the orange-clad democrazies perp-walking down the avenue toward jail…oh wouldn’t it be loverly, loverly loverly !!!!

  4. Truley is foolish for still thinking rational discourse and scholarly inquiry have any place in the current impeachment circus. Malice is driving this train

    malitiae Latin: mal = evil, itiae = state, condition

    Law professors Noah Feldman and Pamela Karlan are the face of malice.
    Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, AOC, et al…likewise….We see it in their contorted faces, their slurs against Trump, Melania, Barron, Ivanka, Nunes, Gaetz, Americans in general….Theirs is an appetite for malice that knows no satiation

    Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas wrote at length about malice in the human condition. Their words on malice are insightful so as to understand our current culture. To ignore malice is to suggest a defect of intellect, hubris or both.

    That cause of sin which is malice

    Man like any other being has naturally an appetite for the good; and so if his appetite incline away to evil, this is due to corruption or disorder in some one of the principles of man: for it is thus that sin occurs in the actions of natural things. Now the principles of human acts are the intellect, and the appetite, both rational (i.e. the will) and sensitive. Therefore even as sin occurs in human acts, sometimes through a defect of the intellect, as when anyone sins through ignorance, and sometimes through a defect in the sensitive appetite, as when anyone sins through passion, so too does it occur through a defect consisting in a disorder of the will. Now the will is out of order when it loves more the lesser good. Again, the consequence of loving a thing less is that one chooses to suffer some hurt in its regard, in order to obtain a good that one loves more: as when a man, even knowingly, suffers the loss of a limb, that he may save his life which he loves more. Accordingly when an inordinate will loves some temporal good, e.g. riches or pleasure, more than the order of reason or Divine law, or Divine charity, or some such thing, it follows that it is willing to suffer the loss of some spiritual good, so that it may obtain possession of some temporal good. Now evil is merely the privation of some good; and so a man wishes knowingly a spiritual evil, which is evil simply, whereby he is deprived of a spiritual good, in order to possess a temporal good: wherefore he is said to sin through certain malice or on purpose, because he chooses evil knowingly.

    St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, First Part of the Second Part, Question 78

    http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2078.htm

    1. This is Estovir: a strange blend of rightwing politics cloaked with Catholic ‘teachings’. To create the impression that good Catholics are inherently rightwing loyalists by nature. This could be ‘true’, in fact, for Spain and South America. But here in the United States we’re accustomed to being about 100 years ahead of such arrangements.

    2. This is Estovir: a strange blend of rightwing politics cloaked with Catholic ‘teachings’. To create the impression that good Catholics are inherently rightwing loyalists by nature. This could be ‘true’, in fact, for Spain and South America. But here in the United States we’re accustomed to being about 100 years ahead of such arrangements.

      1. Once again Peter Shill has changed his name this time to Phillip Skene from Tim Murphy repeating the exact same material under both names. What a putz.

        1. Extrapyramidal effects are commonly seen in mental health patients when taking first generation antipsychotic medications, e.g. Haldol. Tourette’s Syndrome might be what ails the paranoid troll.

          “One wonders”….

          😉

  5. Self-immolation. One day after the IG releases a report that identifies facts and evidence proving Democrats conspired with the IC/FBI/DOJ to spy on the opposition party candidate leading up to the 2016 election and continuing after his inauguration, Democrats announce articles of impeachment.

    Not only will President Trump prevail in the Senate, the Republican party will have this schiff-show, the IG findings, Durhams report and the off-the-cliff platform of the Democrat party as ammunition leading to November 2020. Not only will Trump get reelected in a landslide, the Democrats will lose the House and more seats in the Senate. At this point, the only thing that will save the Democrats from themselves are the 31 Democrats in districts that Trump won.

    Dandy Don would be singing right about now. Turn out the lights…

  6. We all know that this process has never been about the truth. The Democrats started to smear and undermine this President, his administration, and his supporters prior to his election. With 95% of the Press parroting their lies and smears, they re-gained the house after the first 2 years. That ensured they would continue this vile approach to politics and their attempt to divide the nation. It also ensured what we have today – a fake impeachment used as a vehicle to smear the President, regardless of the Constitution. The Dems use the Press to disseminate unrelated facts and anonymously provided information, then the Press and the Dems quote the fake information to support “legal” claims – exactly what happened with their use of the lying Steele dossier. I am sick of them getting away with it. It’s time for Republicans to play the dirty, tricks of the Democrats (but of course, they won’t because they have ethics)

  7. Reading some of the comments makes me realize once again that this is an issue where there can be no compromise: the Dems want impeachment and justice be damned; the Repubs want justice and emotion to be ignored.

    The Dems will get impeachment – and much joy to them in the election for their little victory.

    Trump will be acquitted in the Senate, and the Dems will howl about injustice.

    The Dems have chosen their path, so be it. They have reaffirmed that they are an amoral party trying to overthrow an election that they lost.

    1. monumentcolorado (hoping you mean “Garden of the Gods”):

      “They have reaffirmed that they are an amoral party trying to overthrow an election that they lost.”
      *****************
      Naw, they’re an anti-democratic, theopoliticratic, den of vipers willing to cross any boundary to achieve ultimate power over the “little people.” It’s a “holy” mission, you know, to save the environment, black people, the planet, the beasts and the children (never unborn variety) or some other cause of the moment. We get these parties every thirty years or so and we have to slap them down electorally. When that doesn’t work, we need to be a little more firm in dealing with them. BTW, this country isn’t divided; the ruling class and their minions are divided. We have Trump to thank for that. Divide and conquer, you know.

  8. Like every other defender of the President, Turley maligns the process and makes no attempt to claim actual evidence. The President is attempting to influence the 2020 election, how long should that be allowed to go on? I do agree the process is being rushed, I’d prefer it wait until Trump’s financial data is released. Then several other counts could be included,
    https://democracyguardian.com/the-case-for-taking-more-time-on-impeachment-d50a4ff7be75

    1. You can’t impeach a President on illegal acts before he is President. So his tax returns would be irrelevant if he was found to be guilty (which I doubt as he has a big tax firm doing his taxes).

      1. And besides his tax returns were vetted on site by not only the tax attorneys and CPAs but a team of IRS agents and that was started back in the obama days.

        now the interesting tax return would be one’s like poke ‘n’ haunt us who carefully released only one segment and none of it from the days when she bilked, stole, embezzled money from two universities and to this day has not paid back one cent of the reportedly $400,000 a year salary she stole.

          1. they were vetted by the army of cpas and lawyers who run complex business enterprises

            they are under review by the IRS which is in the business of collecting taxes

            there is apparently no big hassle from IRS just various petty beefs which perhaps continue simmering, who knows.

            you guys never tire of making a mountain out of a molehill. of course trump’s assorted tax returns are a pretty complicated molehill and when you have an ant sized brain they may indeed seem like a mountain so yeah

            1. “they were vetted by the army of cpas and lawyers who run complex business enterprises” facts not in evidence or some such thing. It seems like it was closer to the vest than you state. If you believe tRump he is under constant auditing by the IRS so who knows. But still, vetting is more than just paying the proper taxes. Like why all the sweetheart deals with oligarchs for real estate, etc.?

              1. YNOT is just envious because from what I hear he is always in the mens room. Maybe he mops the floor which would make him more respectful than one would otherwise think. Maybe not.

      1. Seig us no heils comrade occasio=nally Castro. along with the horse face and the very old very stale nothing comments. not like you are a real representative since you refused to comply with the requirement to take the oath of office. just another fake.

      2. Opinion is subjective. Truth is fact. If 99% of the world thinks that ONE person is a divisive, moronic, corrupt demagogue, then the demagogue’s followers might want to take a glance in the mirror and ask if they have abandoned objective thought.

    2. “I do agree the process is being rushed, I’d prefer it wait until Trump’s financial data is released. Then several other counts could be included”
      ******************
      Yeah, who needs a crime to investigate! Let’s just investigate. He’s guilty of something. right? You are the defender of civil liberties, right enigma? If the government did this to you you’d be screaming every defense imaginable (of course it would always sound like “racism”) and demanding a legal team comparable to OJ’s. But alas, it isn’t your oxen being gored so let ’em come for the Donalds.

      1. He’s not simply “guilty of something” and surely if we investigate long and hard enoug we’ll find it. He’s guilty of multiple things that have been firmly established, and there’s circumstantial evidence he’s guilty of much more that we’d already know if he weren’t obstructing the investigations.
        I think you’d have to agree that he’s gone to great lengths to keep his finances from being examined including threatening the Special Counsel that was a red line and suing half the universe. He’s been accused under oath of tax fraud and insurance fraud. He’s accepted millions from Russians in shady real estate deals. His protection of Russian and Saudi Arabian interests exceeds those of American ones.
        I don’t require further investigations for their own sake. It’s because Republican elected officials have chosed to put Party over Country, even when it puts another country above their own.

          1. If Trump were black, Enigma Smegma would be crying racism.
            When Obama is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, Enigma cries racism.

            Yawn

            To think thousands of black slaves suffered cruel lives under Democrats, in the hopes they could be free to be educated, independent and discard the yoke of slavery. Then there is Enigma who wants wears that yoke proudly serve his Democrat masters

            ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

              1. YNOT, your logic demonstrates your continued ignorance. I’m smart not due to ignorance. You are ignorant and dumb. I don’t think you will recognize what made your statement so dumb.

        1. Enigma has been after Trump since he became President with all sorts of accusations many of which have been solidly shown to be false. Never has Enigma been able to provide evidence of guilt without being successfully shot down or proven by him.

          Trump is a racist according to Enigma because ~20 years before he was born Enigma created a story of racism quoting facts that didn’t exist and were disproven. His own source of proof the NYTimes or Washington Post contradicted what Enigma said.

          Enigma should remember that if Trumps accountants and lawyers lied to the government on his behalf they could go to jail.

          I await proof from Enigma that can be used in court.

          1. I await proof from Enigma that can be used in court.

            That’s not going to happen. This is a social justice, Jim Crow south-style lynching of a president. All we need is an accusation and the mob will handle the rest.

              1. Enigma grew up in Minneapolis in a family that was up north prior to the Great Migration. And by time he was of an age to read a newspaper, the annual number of lynchings in the United States was 0.

        2. enigma:

          “He’s not simply “guilty of something” and surely if we investigate long and hard enoug we’ll find it. He’s guilty of multiple things that have been firmly established, and there’s circumstantial evidence he’s guilty of much more that we’d already know if he weren’t obstructing the investigations.
          I think you’d have to agree that he’s gone to great lengths to keep his finances from being examined including threatening the Special Counsel that was a red line and suing half the universe. He’s been accused under oath of tax fraud and insurance fraud. He’s accepted millions from Russians in shady real estate deals. His protection of Russian and Saudi Arabian interests exceeds those of American ones.”
          ***********************

          This is why people spend their time and money going to law school to disabuse “he must be guilty of something” types like you from making much-headed decisions over other people’s lives.

          1.Your statement “He’s guilty of multiple things that have been firmly established,” is utter unadulterated bull$hit. If you think otherwise,understand that no one not convicted of a crime is “guilty.” And if you want to argue otherwise, state the specific statute and the admissible evidence you claim “firmly established” it. I ‘m willing to wait because there is none. Otherwise, he’d have already been indicted.

          2. “…there’s circumstantial evidence he’s guilty of much more that we’d already know if he weren’t obstructing the investigations.” First, it is NOT obstruction under oodles of SCOTUS precedent for seeking the court’s interpretation on the validity of subpoenas issued by Congress or anybody else for that matter. Quit lying otherwise. So this assertion just gets tossed higher on your bull$hit mountain. Second, circumstantial evidence doesn’t mean what you think it does. It is not hearsay, presumptions or facts not gleaned from personal knowledge. it is admissible facts from which other facts can be logically inferred resulting in a conviction. Dead body and smoking gun on the floor .. and even that’s not enough to convict the other person in the room. To convict someone with circumstantial evidence, you must disprove EVERY OTHER exculpatory scenario and then prove criminal intent. That’s as high a burden as it gets when you remember you have to do so “beyond any reasonable doubt.” Trump’s call to Ukraine evidenced no extortion on its face; the alleged victim says he’s no victim; Trump denies it and there are multiple perfectly innocent scenarios that no prosecutor can disprove. Circumstantial evidence seems to be just a big word you throw around to impress folks. It doesn’t impress those of us who tried to prove something using only it.

          3. “I think you’d have to agree that he’s gone to great lengths to keep his finances from being examined including threatening the Special Counsel that was a red line and suing half the universe.” Sure I would. Tax records are private under federal law and no one can be compelled to release them without a court order. IRC section 6103 provides that returns and return information shall be confidential and forbids any federal official or employee (and certain other persons) to disclose any return or return information obtained in connection with their official service. Insisting on your rights is evidence of nothing illegal. It’s not even probable cause that a crime has been committed. it might be in totalitarian regimes but we’re not there yet despite the best efforts of the Dims.

          4. “He’s been accused under oath of tax fraud and insurance fraud. He’s accepted millions from Russians in shady real estate deals.” That accusation came from a convicted liar and felon, Michael Cohen, who was trying to cut a deal at the time. The IRS has audited Trump and found nothing askew. In fact, DOJ has no interest in the case and except for a few Woke DA’s in the SDNY office, who repeatedly said they hate Trump, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing.

          You might be a bright guy on some topics, but law isn’t one of them. Why don’t you leave your libel at the curb and accept that you don’t know everything. There are people who do, and this historically bad sportsmanship does you and the other Dims no credit.

          You lost the election. You’re losing the country. Either change or deal with it.

          1. The attitude of “he must be guilty of something” …

            here is an “urban youth” relaxing on the porch sipping a beverage out of a brown paper bag, disturbing nobody.

            perhaps a biased cop sees a young hoodlum with braids and baggy pants loafing. he thinks surely inside the paper bag there is a 40 oz of malt liquor. or perhaps in a smaller bag some “grape drank” in either event a premise for a reasonable Terry stop and frisk which may produce more evidence such as a ziplock in the pants pocket with some rock in it if you needed even more to lock em up.

            but all the cop needed to see was the baggy pants. see baggy pants is a style which comes from jail where they arent allowed to wear belts. so “urban youths” who wear baggy pants are showing a liking for jail culture. this is what the cop’s bias may suspect.

            I don’t think such things of course!

            i am saying this to illustrate a similar attitude, one of existing bias, which leads to intrusive searches which are fishing expeditions.

            but in the case of Donald, what you have is a rich WASP hetero cisgender Republican, which is the consummate profile of evil in the mind of Democrat activist, so he MUST Be guilty! he’s blonde which makes him even worse of course and his name is German to boot. MUST be a bad guy, yes?

            Just like that baggy pants wearing urban youth sipping a lawful beverage on his day off on the porch.

    3. His tax returns and other financial shenanigans can be dealt with by NYS or the JD after he leaves office. Best way to get him in that jump suit to match his makeup.

    4. Still have nothing to offer except unacceptable sources but then when you look in the mirror, describe yourself what do we expect but a version of Comrade Pelosi.

    5. WOW!!! I followed your link. The first line tends to discredit the article. Being written by a hater doesn’t make me want to finish it. In fairness to your claim I did choke it down. No substance sir. There is no proof of a crime being committed. Charge the defendant with not providing evidences he did not commit the crime that didn’t happen?

      You want this guy to be a higher authority than Mr Turley? What are his credentials?

      He describes himself:
      “Writer, poet, wannabe philosopher. I write about politics, race and social justice. Sometimes I change it up and discuss relationships and romance. It depends.”

      So in your opinion a poet overrules a lawyer in matters of law? Really?

      1. In the case of Trump, it isn’t that there is no evidence of crimes, there’s no evidence you’re willing to accept. To believe that Trump is not a criminal, you have to accept that all those that have already gone to jail on his behalf or are awaiting sentencing. Acted independently to do things that usually benefitted only Trump and not themselves (possibly true with Flynn). He’s surrounded himself with a rogues gallery of criminals, some of whom like Wilbur Ross (money laundering and fraud) the media hasn’t had time to get to yet. Yet, somehow some of you believe it’s unfortunate coincidence. His, cough, cough, “Charity” has been shut down for fraud. His company is under investigation for campaign fraud which only beneffited Trump. His present private attorney is under investigation and he’s doing all that people will let him to protect the interests of Russia and Saudi Arabia.
        As far as me overruling a lawyer, sadly, lawyers these days will take any position their client wants them to. Or in this case, what keeps him getting paid gigs on Fox News.

        1. People with close ties to the Clintons also ended up in jail or with convictions/ plea deals.
          In those cases, the Enigma Standard could also apply.

          1. In the case of Bill Clinton, there was evidence of crimes. As for the people around him. Any administration due to the sheer size is going to have problematic people. The same crimes today would/should have provided a different outcome. Clinton endangered several women. Trump endangers the world. The people around Trump are commiting some of their crimes with Trump’s consent, often under his direction.

            1. Trump endangers the world.

              Trump has a more confrontational approach to trade negotiations. That doesn’t endanger the world.

              1. Tell that to the Kurds, Ukranians, Venezuelains, refugees from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Immigrant children. His sexual assault victims. European nations dependent on NATO for security. Afghan women, Pakistanis, Shithole Countries, Puerto Rican hurricane victims, Native Americans along the route of the XL pipeline.
                Note: Trump/William Barr may actually be due credit for their new strategy to stop the kidnappings/murder of indigenous people last month. So far they have a press release, they lie so much they can’t be given credit in advance and they’ve only commited $1.5 million to the effort but I’d love to give them credit if any is actually due.

                    1. The issue of Ivanka’s clothing does not seem to be as critical as standing by while over a half million Rwanands are slaughtered.
                      But I guess it’s a matter of “perspective”.

                1. Tell that to the Kurds, Ukranians, Venezuelains, refugees from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

                  Why? There are no refugees to speak of from El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras. There are people there who would like better living conditions and there is sorosphere rent-a-crowd. Trump isn’t responsible for any dimension of the misery in Venezuela; neither were any of his predecessors, while we’re at it. Trump isn’t responsible for any injury to Ukraine. Nor is there anything nefarious about moving around a tripwire force in Syrian Kurdistan.

                  Immigrant children.

                  Immigrant children aren’t facing any problems. The juvenile human shields of turnstile jumpers and sorosphere rent-a-crowd are, primarily because their parents and ‘parents’ elected to gum up the works by filing phony requests for asylum.

                  His sexual assault victims. \

                  Which, in the real world, are known as ‘straw plaintiffs for lawfare grifters.

                  European nations dependent on NATO for security.

                  NATO was assembled in 1949 to counter the Soviet threat, which evaporated 28 years ago.

                  Afghan women, Pakistanis,

                  You’re blaming Trump for social customs in Afghanistan and Pakistan? I gather there is nothing he can’t do.

                  Shithole Countries,

                  See above.

                  Puerto Rican hurricane victims,

                  You fancy Trump is in charge of the territorial and local government there?

                  Native Americans along the route of the XL pipeline

                  ??

                  Note: Trump/William Barr may actually be due credit for their new strategy to stop the kidnappings/murder of indigenous people last month. So far they have a press release, they lie so much they can’t be given credit in advance and they’ve only commited $1.5 million to the effort but I’d love to give them credit if any is actually due.

                  Are you going to start ranting about Bolivian Nazis next?

                2. withdrawing FREE STUFF from assorted groups of foreigners who aren’t entitled to the American taxpayer’s largess is not ENDANGERING people. seriously.

                    1. He’s eligible for Medicare in 15 months. He’s been prepaying for his free stuff for 40-odd years.

            2. The McDougals and Webb Hubbell are a couple of examples of Clinton associates who went down.
              I don’t know that any of the crimes of either Clinton or Trump associates “endangered the world”.

              1. No single Trump crime endangered the whole world although his actions in Ukraine arguably endangered a continent. He’s “criming” all over the world, all for his own self interest. No one is safe.

                1. I didn’t know that Trump was convicted of a crime related to the Ukraine, but I’ll check to see if I missed that conviction.

                2. No one is safe.

                  You’re a funny guy. The only group of people not safe from President Trump are those complicit in this failed coup; this would include those running for reelection in 2020 and those running with their tails between their legs from Durham and Barr.

                  Merry Christmas!

                  1. The people safest from Trump are Putin and MBS, So your hopes have transferred from the IG report to the Barr/Durham report. It will be seen for exactly what it is.

                    Merry Christmas to you as well.

                    1. So your hopes have transferred from the IG report to the Barr/Durham report.

                      Nope. The IG report was more damning than expected. I expect Durham’s to be far more consequential. Barr will oversee it all. The Senate will clear the President. I’ve never been more confident entering an election year than right now.

                    2. Amazing. On an open mike Obama is telling Putin to go along with him because after he wins the election he deal with Putin’s desires.

                      Trump on the other hand has been quite tough on the Russians and a number of Russian soldiers were killed in action because Trump stood firm.

                      Could it be that Enigma is a secret Russian asset?

                3. enigma – oddly enough, Obama endangered that same continent his entire time in office. Obama send blankets, Trump was willing to send Javelins.

                  1. I approve of Obama’s nonlethal aid and consider that was less provocative than Javelins. Oh, I’m sure McCain who was out handing out cookies to the Maidan rebels wanted stuff like Javelins and even more. Probably lots of enthusiasts for any amount of “help” for Ukraine and trying to draw them further towards NATO. Which is kind of stupid and provocative in my simple way of thinking. So yeah I think Obama was ok on that.

                    I think Trump probably figured the Javelins would not make that big of a difference either and it would give him some cover against the false accusation of coddling Russia.

                    But no rest from the wicked, and they keep up the slanders anyways. So it was pointless except perhaps to deter an outright invasion, to some degree, which was probably not coming beyond the “Donbass” anyways, just a sop to the war mongers and arms merchants.

                    Yeah I think on this point Obama was ok.

                    What we can see is the “Russia is the scary enemy” crowd runs in both parties and emerges from time to time as counterpoint to the adversaries in either party.

                    1. Kurtz, If Obama was a better President maybe Russia wouldn’t have invaded and we wouldn’t even have needed to consider Javalins. Though his ideas of reducing American involvement had merit his ability to carry it out lacked what was needed.

                4. If one believes that Ukraine should have been armed by the US because not doing so “endangered the whole world” then one should be shocked by Obama who sent no arms while Trump permitted those arms voted by Congress to flow. We have to look at Obama in a new light for he permitted Russia to take over the Crimea and a large portion of Ukraine against international law.

                  Enigma doesn’t deal with the truth. He creates lies and makes up stories.

                  Never forget he is the one to call the President a racist for something that may or may not have occurred ~20 years before Trump was born. That demonstrates the mental incomoetence of the person we are dealing with.

                  1. Enigma’s full of garbage

                    But the Crimean secession was indeed genuinely popular among the population. And I have to say the Russians had a point when they said “if Kosovo can secede then so can Crimea.”

                    Obama was wise to let that slide in my book

                    1. Kurtz, Obama’s policy may have been the cause.

                      I don’t argue as much with one side or the other regarding intervention. I argue more with how that intervention or non intervention is carried out.

                5. actually it’s the war pigs which endanger the world by provoking Russia on its borders which runs an increased hazard of nuclear war just to satisfy socalled “strategists” that anemic Russia is being “contained” as an excuse for more meddling in Europe

                  the war pigs are thick as thieves in the deep state and you aid and abet them Enigma

        2. lawyers generally take positions for money. that’s always been the case., it’s not a “These days” wah wah wah, beech and moan thing.

      1. Turley intentionally misrepresented one of the other witnesses when discussing the definition of a crime. She said Trump commited “bad acts” in furtherance of his own personal gain. Turley went on and on about how “bad acts” can’t be the standard without addressing the “personal gain” aspect. A very lawyerly lie.

            1. you’re lying when you say he lied. pathetic.

              identify precisely what you’re talking about here because it’s bogus

              you have access to videos and transcripts, put up or shut up

              1. I’ve referred to his specific mischaracterization of “bad acts” twice. You won’t believe it anyway so you look it up. You seem to be rather testy. Get up on the wrong side of impeachment today?

            2. Again Enigma is throwing out accusations but he is never able to prove his case. Turley didn’t lie at all. He had his own opinion though some of the others did lie and their lies seemed intentional.

  9. Ask any American voter whether Dem or Con, to look at Adam Schiff’s photo and tell us that you would buy a used car from him.
    It is offensive to snakes to call Schiff a snake in the grass.

  10. The country is going to need to re-examine the various powers of the Presidency. The founders never anticipated a lifelong experienced crook and conman in the position

  11. Just look at the Mueller report’s detail about McGahn’s admissions that Trump ordered him – numerous times – to falsify the record about Trump’s orders to fire Comey. This is clearly obstruction of justice. All that McGahn needs to be asked is whether the Mueller report’s statements about his testimony are factually correct. This is an impeachable offense with sufficient evidence for a finding of guilty.

    Regarding the Ukraine affair: I posit that any rational jury would find that there is sufficient evidence – both direct and circumstantial – for a finding of guilty here, as well.

    1. He said. He said. Where is the proof or evidence Trump lied and McGahn is telling the truth. Plus even if true, Trump had every legal right to fire Mueller. That does not stop the investigation as a new Special Counsel would be appointed by Rosenstein. If it stopped the investigation, then maybe it could be construed as obstruction of justice. No 1, it never happened and No. 2 He said. He said.

  12. The ‘investigation’ was always pantomime. This whole business has been emotions-driven from the beginning, the principal emotion being malice.

    1. absurd x

      Malice is indeed appropriate – the GOP clown show is more proof that the GOP & its owners have nothing but contempt for democracy. In their authoritarian mindset, democracy is for sissies.

      1. bill mcwilliams:

        Funny, each and every GOP legislator and the POTUS were duly elected in fair elections. Not one has opposed elections as the method for their re-election. None have advocated an armed take-over. All have taken their greivances to court. So in what conceivable way –excepting your owned skewed thought processes –have the GOP shown “nothing but contempt for democracy. In their authoritarian mindset, democracy is for sissies.” Democracy isn’t for sissies; that’s the domain of unlettered, hate-inspired, false criticism.

        PS: I spelled “grievances” wrong to give you something to say to this!

        1. Just a reminder that the person you’re talking to has among his avocations trading in a farrago of 9/11 Twoofer rubbish.

Leave a Reply