Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the perils of professors who agree to testify as Republican witnesses, particularly in an impeachment. It is not the continuing threats against me and my family. That happened when I testified in the Clinton impeachment. No, it is the response of fellow academics and the degree of flagrantly false stories in the media. As a lawyer, I have worked with accused murderers, polygamists, spies, terrorists, and others. However, nothing produces the unhinged rage as appearing as a Republican witness.
Here is the column:
American journalist H.L. Mencken once observed, “Say what you will about the Ten Commandments, you must always come back to the pleasant fact that there are only ten of them.” Despite an unending respect for Mencken, this is an occasion in which I found him mistaken, after I violated the Eleventh Commandment, “Thou shalt not testify for Republicans.”
Worse yet, I am a recidivist sinner, after testifying as a constitutional expert in both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings. Like all mortal sins, the violation of the Eleventh Commandment comes with not just eternal but immediate damnation. What is most striking about this commandment is that it does not matter if your testimony is made in good faith. For example, under the Ninth Commandment, you are only guilty if you give false evidence against your neighbor. Under the Eleventh Commandment, it does not matter if your testimony is true or false. A law-fearing academic must not give any testimony for Republicans.
In my recent testimony before the House Judiciary Committee regarding President Trump’s impeachment, I opposed the position of my fellow witnesses that the definition of actual crimes is immaterial to their use as the basis for impeachment — and I specifically opposed impeachment articles based on bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations or obstruction of justice. The committee ultimately rejected those articles and adopted the only two articles I felt could be legitimately advanced: abuse of power, obstruction of Congress. Chairman Jerrold Nadler even ended the hearing by quoting my position on abuse of power. Our only disagreement was that I opposed impeachment on this record as incomplete and insufficient for submission to the Senate.
None of that matters under the Eleventh Commandment, however. It is the act of testifying for Republicans that is a sin against the legal academy. Indeed, what followed was a series of false stories attacking not my testimony but me, personally. The falsity of these stories is a warning to any academic who considers straying from the Democratic path.
Turley flipped his testimony from the Clinton impeachment. One of the most bizarre false stories was that I testified differently on my views of impeachment during the Clinton and Trump impeachments. Given the 21-year gap, it might not be strange for views to change. However, my views in the two cases were the same.
In both hearings, I said a president could be impeached for noncriminal conduct, including abuse of public office. Yet stories on CNN and other outlets objected that, in the Clinton case, I warned Congress, “If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct.” Somehow this was portrayed as a “flip-flop” since I was arguing against impeachment in the Trump hearings on this record. It doesn’t matter that the Judiciary Committee did precisely what I suggested in dropping the four criminal theories for the articles or going forward with the two I said would be legitimate. I was not arguing against impeaching on the two articles adopted — only that a completed record was absent.
More importantly, the statement in the Clinton case referred to perjury. Democrats argued back then that a president could commit perjury on some subjects, such as sexual relations, and not face impeachment; they argued that an impeachment crime must be tied to the office, not to personal interests. That was ridiculous and would allow a president to kill a lover but not face impeachment. Indeed, the Democratic position would allow a presidential Harvey Weinstein to abuse countless interns and then pressure them to lie to an independent counsel.
Turley thought Justice Sotomayor wasn’t smart enough. Perhaps the most vile false story can be traced to a tweet sent out by a University of Baltimore law professor asking, “Does anybody else remember @JonathanTurley appearing on MSNBC to explain that Sonia Sotomayor didn’t have the intellect to serve on the Supreme Court?” I certainly didn’t remember that — because I never said anything like that. No matter: Soon, from MSNBC to liberal websites, the story was all the rage, with titles such as “Jonathan Turley thought Sonia Sotomayor wasn’t smart enough to be on the Supreme Court.”
When then-Judge Sotomayor was nominated, I was asked as a legal commentator to review her opinions and give my view of what that body of work suggested about her potential on the Supreme Court. The issue at the time was whether President Obama was appointing an intellectual counterweight to conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. I noted that her opinions were narrow and offered few insights into her potential as an intellectual force on the court. My comments were directed to her opinions, not her intellect. And I was not alone in this conclusion: Adam Liptak in The New York Times noted that her opinions were “narrow” and “reveal no larger vision, seldom appeal to history and consistently avoid quotable language.”
In the interview cited by the Baltimore professor, I gave my view of 30 of Sotomayor’s opinions, which did not contain anything particularly deep or profound in judging her possible impact on the court. However, I immediately stated that this is not unique and that other justices have had similarly short, unremarkable appellate opinions yet proved to be profound on the Supreme Court. I expressly compared Sotomayor to Justice John Paul Stevens, whom I have long praised; I also said that Sotomayor could prove to be a truly great justice but that her opinions did not offer any glimpse into how she might emerge in such a role.
In my analysis of Justice Sotomayor’s nomination, I returned to these points and specifically objected to those who said her narrow decisions were evidence of a lack of intellectual depth. I wrote, “This is demonstrably absurd. These opinions are little different from those of [Justices] Alito, Souter, or the limited writings of [Justice] Thomas. Clearly, Sotomayor is quite intelligent. This record is little different from records of Republican nominees who enthralled these same critics.” And I repeatedly stressed that she could prove to be a great nominee in finding voice and depth in her opinions on the court.
Some articles objected that, in an “unprompted” comment, I raised Sotomayor’s gender and race. I did so to praise the selection of the first Latina to the court, a nomination that I said was “rightfully” a point of pride. Moreover, the vast majority of news stories also referenced that historic aspect of her nomination. However, that was separate from the analysis of her opinions and the question of her intellectual legacy. What also was omitted is that, before Sotomayor’s nomination, I wrote a column on intellectual leaders on the courts and pushed for the nomination of Diane Wood of the 7th Circuit, a liberal powerhouse.
None of that matters, however, because heresy demands condemnation — whether or not it is based in reality. After all, this is all meant to get people not to seriously consider the flaws in the impeachment, including the proposed articles that ultimately were dropped. So, for any academic tempted to testify for Republicans in an impeachment proceeding, I can only caution that Romans 12:19 may say that “vengeance is mine … sayeth the Lord” — but judgment will be more immediate for anyone who strays from the chosen professorial path.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a witness expert in the House Judiciary Committee hearing during the impeachment inquiry of President Trump.
Get a thick skin. You can’t correct ever false accusation leveled against you everywhere. If someone cares enough they’ll know the facts of the matter and false accusations will be discounted.
Jonathan Turley not in top 20 for citations:
https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2018/08/20-most-cited-constitutional-law-scholars-in-the-us-for-the-period-2013-2017.html
Possibly because he is otherwise very busy, what with his opinion column in The Hill and other newspapers.
And this poll was for the years 2013 to 2017.
Not a poll but a count of citations in the relevant literature.
You know to what I am referring, stop trying to hide behind semantics. I meant to point out that your intent to assert that Professor Turley is less relevant than he might seem as evidenced by your link fails. The proffered proof you offer is from years ago. Contemporaneously, he has gained significantly in terms of his scope and effect (which you are trying to minimize but failing). Much of this was directly the result of his analysis provided to the topic of the President’s impeachment and to a lesser degree several others as well.
Just a suggestion, that is self evident to most individuals but you: You do not achieve additional relevance in the public arena by simply attacking or criticizing prominent individuals. It just makes you look like any other common scold.
Darren Smith, it is a measure of worth in academia, although certainly not the only one.
It was suggested by a commenter to avoid the attempts to rank the entire GW Law school to concentrate just on Professor Turley. So in academic constitutional law the link given is what I found.
It doesn’t give credit to his appearances before Congress, both as defense attorney and as witness. And I mentioned that it doesn’t give credit to his opinion articles.
His reputation is secure nor am I attempting to diminish it.
DBB:
“Darren Smith, it is a measure of worth in academia, although certainly not the only one. ”
******************
You oughta learn the difference between reputation and character. Reputation depends on the opinion of the observer based on anything but personal knowledge. Character is based on the observer’s personal knowledge. Being no respecter of persons, I don’t care one wit about reputation. By the same token, I can’t think of many things more important than character.
mespo727272 — Wm Shockley as co-inventor of the transistor was awarded his third of the 1956 Nobel Prize in Physics. Reputation.
He was impossible to work for so his subsequent attempt to form a technical company failed. Character.
Both matter.
David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-two citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after fifty-seven weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – Is Turley cited more or less often than Weart in the same time period?
The review of citations by other legal scholars was completed in May 2018, so it’s not “from years ago”. If one clicks on the link within the article for the “latest Sisk data”, there is further review of law schools ranked by citations, and listing their top ten”most cited scholars”. GWU ranks 16th but JT is not listed among it’s most cited scholars.
As with his analysis of Sotomayor, impressive big ideas are not the only positive characteristics for either a judge or a legal scholar and while interesting is not the only measure of the man.
David, when you watch the MSM in essence you are watching them citing the work in a circular fashion to be repeated over and over again even when what is said is false. The number of citations can be huge and meaningless at the same time.
Turley is quite significant and you are not.
Allan, I do not watch the MSM nor do citations have anything to do with the MSM. These are citations in the formally peer-reviewed academic literature, such as the Harvard Law Review.
Medicine is very different. Very rarely does a Physician get cited never mind “top 20” citations. In medicine we cite names of studies (e.g. the CANTOS Trial) or possibly research conferences (e.g. ASCO, CROI) or perhaps a team of researchers who came together, ran a clinical trial, published a study, and went their own way.
Not sure how the law profession works in this regard but in medicine, no one is top dog. Once a paradigm is elucidated, it becomes obsolete in a matter of years.
Germ theory of desease. Circulation of the blood. Etc. ad nauseum.
Germ theory of disease. Circulation of the blood
Thucydides (c. 500 BC) wrote about the plague of Athens, and Galen wrote about circulation 2000 years ago
Work on your Axis II symptoms, David. You really need to get along with people in real life. You needn’t make an ass of yourself 24/7
7 Swans are Swimming
Tch, tch.
Wrong again:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease
Estovir – the plague of Athens does not conform to any of the modern types of the plague. We have a name and a description, but not a diagnosis.
Paul, the field of medicine would be no where if not for the “descriptions“ of observers over the centuries. Your metric would wipe out the corpus of medicine.
Thucydides was the first person in history to record his observations of the effects of a disease (plague) in Athens that was devastating in the hopes others after him could identify it when it presented again. Epidemiology is born.
….provided us with a very clear and precise description of the disease, which he himself contracted but survived. A huge number of modern aetiologies has been proposed, but none has so far been able to match Thucydides’ clinical picture in all details. Presumably the disease has changed so much during the past 2400 years as not to be recognisable any more or it has totally disappeared.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21560771
His contributions are still studied today and the causative organism of the plague he described is still debated. Regardless of the diagnosis, it was deadly and someone recorded it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Thucydides
Estovir – you and others are making a jump in conclusions that is not there. I cannot figure it out so therefore it must have changed to something I can identify today, Do you believe in Prester John, too? I object to the use of the word plague since it is a poor translation from the Greek. It should be “unknown disease”.
Paul, this might interest you
Thucydides and the First Descriptions of Epidemics
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/6/05-1263_article
Estovir – thanks for the article. It at least tries to get away from the term plague.
Here are 20 top medical researchers alive today.
https://www.topmastersinhealthcare.com/20-most-influential-medical-researchers-alive-today/
Benson mentions a spurious and irrelevant measure.
its no surprise that the ACLU doesnt like Turley. I bet 3/4 of constitutional law scholars align themselves with it whether they belong or not.
and the sycophant students who make up law review know where to plant their brown-noses to get ahead, and its not in Turley’s “Niche”
Thanks. The nation article was enlightening. Brock is apparently a hit man on the left who stole his tactics from the hit men on the right.
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-poisonous-politics-of-david-brock/
Brock actually was a hit man for the right. He switch sides at some point about 20? years ago and then became a hit man for the left.
He has a following, but he is also considered to be one of the slimiest political operatives around.
” One of the most bizarre false stories… ” Professor that is what the left spews and what Trump has had to deal with.
With that in mind you and others might want to read the following:
—-
Trump’s ‘Failures’
The Left, far better than the NeverTrump Right, grasped that Trump is succeeding, and that it has little traction in demanding economic, energy, immigration, trade, and regulatory alternatives.
It is popular on the NeverTrump Right and everyone on the Left to claim that President Trump has “failed” as we head into an election year. But his supposed failures are instructive.
Take the wall. True, Trump certainly in the last three years has not come close to building an envisioned initial phase of 1,000 miles or so of border fencing to stop the easiest access to the United States, much less made Mexico pay for it. Yet even his critics concede he relentlessly tried—and are fearful he will soon succeed.
There are some considerations to keep in mind. In some sense, we have had no wall at all, given that previous chain-link and thrown-up steel barriers were hardly impediments, at least in critical free-passage zones. Trump is addressing this. A recent Economist article lamented the fact that Trump is, in fact, slowly building a wall and replacing previous makeshift barriers in a manner that supposedly will have negative results—as defined by proponents of open borders—and “irrevocably change America’s south-western border.”
To move toward what the Economist believes is an existential redefinition of the border, the president has gone to court to fight constant lawsuits, scraped together almost $10 billion from previous allocations, as well as siphoning and redirecting funds from various agencies, shutting down the government from December 22, 2018 through January 25, and prompted a near crisis with the Mexican government—and yet so far built only 66 miles of replacement walling and about nine miles of new barriers.
Trump’s critics would argue his temperament needlessly caused such gridlock and stasis. His supporters would reply that no other leader would have fought on so many fronts to build a wall on the southern border—a program that is anathema to the entire Left and most of the libertarian Right.
After all that fighting, the money and the momentum are turning in Trump’s favor, as border crossings have dived over the last six months. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection predicts that by the end of 2020 there will be 450 miles of new walling and another 60 miles started. The Left is beginning to worry that its intersectional doctrines cannot address increased job opportunities for entry-level African American workers when deportations of illegal aliens proceed.
Again, the point is that after three years of mockery insisting Trump has not build his wall, he nonetheless has attempted almost every imaginable method to do it. And now the invective over the last few months has begun to alter. If Trump between 2017-19 was mocked as an obsessive Ahab pathetically and in vain chasing his Great White Wall, he now is being redefined as a dangerous xenophobe, whose American version of the Maginot Line may soon become dangerously reified.
The same ambiguity is true of many of Trump’s other “failures.”
The Right Direction on Trade and China
On trade, for much of Trump’s tenure, U.S. trade deficits increased and gyrated, in a pattern not much different from the latter years of the Obama administration. So far, Trump has been widely pilloried as a reckless protectionist, a mercantile Quixote jousting at Chinese windmills, without any idea of sophisticated trade theory and hopeless naïve in his effort to confront the Chinese colossus by 19th-century tariff policies and Napoleonic Continentalism.
But again, recently it appears things may be changing, if only incrementally. The September trade deficit was $52 billion, and in October, $47 billion, the lowest in 17 months. That’s still far too high, but moving in the right direction without prompting the supposedly inevitable recession.
So, the recent reduction cannot all be attributed to recessionary pressures that in the past have ossified trade in general. Rather the trade deficit decline occurs at a time when the United States has maintained historic low unemployment, a record high stock market, and steady increases in workers’ wages, all during an era of low interest and low inflation.
One can make the argument that trade deficits don’t matter, or that Trump’s “trade war” with China was nihilistic. But one cannot deny that, unlike during the last four administrations, the United States finally has begun questioning all of the conventional-wisdom assumptions of the prior 30-year trade relationship with China—so often characterized by Chinese patent infringement, trademark violations, technology appropriation, dumping, and currency manipulation.
We currently are in the midst of a high-risk, radical recalibration with China, of which trade deficits are central, but not all that is at stake.
The United States is dealing with a number of Chinese-related crises: in Hong Kong, the reeducation-camps, the Orwellian nature of the Chinese government, and the growing imperialism of the Silk Road network abroad. Under Trump, there is at least the chance that China will be forced to curb its predatory trade practices.
In contrast, the prior bipartisan orthodoxy that concessions would win Chinese favor, enrich its population, and soon lead to liberalization of 1.4 billion affluent consumers was unhinged—to the degree it was sincere and not just a hackneyed circumlocution for corporate outsourcing production to China.
What “America First” Looks Like
U.S. energy production continues to rise, given even more federal lands have been opened up to leasing. Frackers and horizontal drillers no longer feel that they are enemies of the people, but are recognized as saviors who provide America with flexibility in foreign policy and inexpensive energy for the middle classes. In 2017, the United States became the largest producer of oil in the world. Gas prices in real dollars remain low.
Abroad, most of the traditional talking points of conservatives have been reified. The U.S. embassy to Israel is now in Jerusalem. The Golan Heights are not going back to the murderous Assad regime. Hundreds of millions of dollars less in U.S. aid not being rerouted through the United Nations to a corrupt Palestinian authority. The Iran nuclear deal is toast. Iran is not growing its tentacles over Syria and Iraq, but is broke and reeling.
The only irony is that those who used to demand such action blast Trump as a failure for actually turning their parlor talk into reality.
Was Reagan a failure in 1983 and early 1984, as he sought to liberate the economy and break inflation—as the economy went into a tailspin? Or was he savior by election time 1984 as the economy was growing over 7 percent per year?
For better or worse, we are now fundamentally recalibrating the United States—not just redressing the prior Obama transformation, but the policies of past Republican administrations as well. And no one quite knows where it will end, given that almost all our experts who swore in January 2017 that the economy would tank were wrong. They were wrong again with their prediction of a late summer 2019 recession. And they may well be wrong again that confronting China would ensure a global trade cataclysm. Never underestimate how greatly the hatred of Donald Trump can warp the mind of a Ph.D.
Fear of Trump’s Success Underneath It All
So we are watching a great experiment, as all of our past de facto assumptions about regulations, immigration, identity politics, trade, workers’ wages, manufacturing, the Middle East, China, Russia, and overseas interventions are all at once under sometimes chaotic reexamination.
We won’t know to what degree Trump won his battles against a now hard-leftist Democratic Party, the NeverTrump Right, the media, the academic and cultural elite, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and the Washington deep state until he finishes his first term. In 2020 the people will decide whether such risks were worth taking. But the idea that Trump has “failed,” when the economy is booming, the United States is energy independent, the border is becoming a border again, China is on notice that the past 30 years of appeasement are over, the military is far stronger, and U.S. foreign policy is being radically recalibrated is absolutely absurd.
Impeachment was never about Trump’s failures, but about fears of his perceived successes.
The Left, far better than the NeverTrump Right, grasped that Trump is succeeding, and that it has little traction in demanding economic, energy, immigration, trade, and regulatory alternatives. Its lunatic multi-trillion-dollar proposals ensure that it cannot attack Trump on the deficit where he is weakest.
As a result, the Left rightly concluded that its only hope to save the progressive agenda is to destroy Trump before the people can vote on his agenda, which they rightly fear is succeeding.
I don’t view JT’s testimony as “for” the Republicans. I viewed his testimony as for the Constitution. I viewed the other three fake professors as witnesses for the Democrats. Just like the three female Justices, they all walk in lock-step to the tune of the liberals no matter the issue, no matter the facts.
Ukraine Was No Misunderstanding
It Consumed The Administration
Yesterday The New York Times ran this extensive feature story revealing that behind the scenes Trump’s decision to hold military aid to Ukraine was far more divisive than previously reported. It turns out that a number of officials at The Pentagon, Office of Budget Management and NSA were demanding answers for the hold-up. At one point, White House staffer Rober Blair prophetically warned Trump that Congress would ‘go ballistic’ if they discovered aid had been suspended. Blair is one of those witnesses that Trump wants to keep gagged.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/us/politics/trump-ukraine-military-aid.html
James Howard Kunstler just wrote:
“Relations with Other Lands
The RussiaGate hysteria worked effectively the past three years to obstruct the chance for repairing relations between our countries. That and the earlier idiotic 2014 intervention in Ukraine under Mr. Obama, which prompted Russia’s annexation of Crimea and fighting in the Donbass. All of that was unnecessary and was carried off just because we were determined to cram Ukraine into NATO — or, at least, not let it join the Russia-centric Customs Union. In the process, we left Ukraine badly damaged. Can we please stop creating more damage? They have always been Russia’s stepchild and always will be. Can we get our American mind right on that?
I suspect Mr. Trump would still like to rectify the situation, especially our relations with Russia. We have some outstanding interests in common, starting with a wish to discourage Islamic maniacs from blowing things up and cutting people’s heads off. How about we try cooperating to manage that problem? Russia is not our economic rival. Vast as its land-mass is, Russia’s economy is not much bigger than the economy of Texas. They possess a very potent nuclear arsenal, with new hypersonic delivery systems that were probably developed to temper our paranoid narratives about them since 2016. War is not an option.
There’s a fair chance in 2020 that Mr. Trump may find an opening to reduce tensions between the US and Russia, even if he is being repeatedly impeached and the S & P index falls by half. Ukraine itself may be a hopeless basket case, its destiny: to become a quasi-medieval agricultural backwater. Anyway, it’s really none of our business, any more than the occupation of Afghanistan was, or the intervention in Iraq was, or Vietnam before that. For starters, though, can we just agree that going to war with Russia is not a good idea and stop militating for it? Liberals used to blame the Military-Industrial Complex for thumping the war drum. Now they’re doing it.”
https://kunstler.com/cluster _ _ _ _-nation/forecast-2020-whirling-and-swirlin/
replace the underscores with the f word if you want to read the link. JHK has it nailed.
You keep believing everything the New York Times prints as it keeps you stupid.
Trump’s decision to hold military aid to Ukraine was far more divisive than previously reported.
__________________________________________________________
How about Trump’s decision to supply the aid in the first place?
Obama refused to provide that same aid, so why is delaying it 2 months such a big deal?
Sucks to be on defense all the time, doesn’t it. Again, I suggest you and Alan Dershowitz get together for coffee and decide how much longer you’re going to be Democrats. Maybe invite David Mamet to join you. You keep getting condemned for being “for” the Republicans. Might as well join them if you’re going to get slammed for it all the time anyway.
Is there any rational person who believes that the legislate branch could have gotten away with NOT impeaching Bill “Slick Willy” Clinton? Would it have been possible for representatives in Washington D.C. to ignore the acts of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky in the White House and just hope the problem went away?
The only people even suggesting that President Trump did anything remotely wrong are his mortal political enemies and, of course, what else would those radical extremist communists say?
Professor Turley imperils the communists; their essence; their wherewithal.
Being a republican and conservative poses a mortal threat to the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats).
Supporting republicans is treason to the communists.
The communists are deathly afraid of losing abortion, generational welfare, affirmative action privilege and their voluminous, nay infinite, other benefits and entitlements.
The communists believe the Constitution says that they are super citizens entitled to any and all demands they can make.
The communists cannot grasp that the American Founders gave them the one and only thing they could: Freedom through self-reliance.
“It’s the ‘free stuff,’ stupid!”
Freedom is a heavy burden that the great unwashed communists do not want to bear.
“Free Stuff” is much more to their liking.
Sotomayer is a “SUPER CITIZEN” – one who enjoys “Generational Welfare” and “Affirmative Action Privilege” as prescribed by the Communist Manifesto. In her case, she is a triple beneficiary as a female, Latina and border-crashing foreigner.
Given freedom under a merit system in the land of the free, Sotomayor would not have even been given the time of day, much less a position on the supreme court. She must pinch herself constantly wondering why Americans gave their land and their treasure away for nothing. Where’s Sam Houston when you need him?
Turley Discovers What He Should Have Known
EVERYONE GETS BURNED BY TRUMP!
One would be challenged to name a single appointee or defender whose reputation hasn’t been tarnished by Donald Trump. That’s the nature of this presidency. Trump has no loyalty to anyone outside his family. Even Rudy Giuliani alluded to this when he half-joked on TV that has has ‘insurance’ Trump won’t turn on him.
Trump is the most deliberately polarizing president this nation has ever seen. His daily tweets alone provide an e-trail documenting Trump’s unhinged state of mind. Trump even bashed McConnell and Ryan very in his presidency. That should have served as a warning to anyone with common sense.
Therefore it’s almost laughable that Professor Turley should come along at this late stage to complain that he’s been burned for defending Trump. Of course you were burned! The only question is why you didn’t guess that would be the outcome.
Evidently you didn’t understand that it’s the lying press and phony academics roasting him, for the sin of giving solid perspective and insight into the constitutional issue of impeachment.
Kurtz, when you have to keep constantly blaming the press for the faults of a president it gets very, very old. Again, we have Trump’s Twitter feed to show us, in his own words, how unhinged he really is.
Except the corrupt media is a persistent and enduring feature of liberal democracy itself. I’m not the first to notice this. Yellow journalism, broadsheet scandals, libel and sedition have been with this Republic and plaguing it from day one. The irresponsible press consistently uses editorializing, advertising control, and journalistic slanting to skew “the truth” if not bury it entirely.
The “free press” which is actually not free at all, but rather, generally owned and firmly controlled by plutocrats who remain in the shadow, acts consistently to frame things in the terms which its masters command.
Now perhaps the First amendment and its jurisprudence has evolved in a good way, and this is a necessary evil.
Or perhaps, it’s evolved so that the monstrosity called the mass media can act irresponsibly and without impunity, under the ambit of excessive and socially harmful decisions like NYT V Sullivan. Maybe the lying press needs a haircut. I suspect it does. One that’s very close to the bone if you ask me.
….name a single appointee or defender whose reputation hasn’t been tarnished by Donald Trump.
The United States of America 330+ million residents (minus the < 60 million doom and gloom unAmerican elitists).
Counting Our Blessings: The Best Decade Ever?
The U.S. election—in which the more educated and affluent strongly supported Hillary Clinton—resulted in Clinton’s defeat by Trump.
The winning candidate had no experience in government and little respect for most of those who had. He opposed the conventional wisdom of established politicians and experts on religious freedom, on abortion, on Iran, Israel, on pursuing America’s national interest as other nations pursued theirs, controlling the country’s borders, appointing judges who would interpret the law rather than legislate from the bench, challenging China’s unfair trade practices, and restoring vitality to the country’s neglected heartland.
Academic economist and New York Times opinion columnist Paul Krugman warned in 2016 that if Trump was elected, there would be a global recession from which markets would never recover. He was extreme but far from alone in his predictions of gloom and doom.
In the three years since, the results have been much different. The stock market has reached new highs, unemployment is at historic lows—with Black and Hispanic unemployment at their lowest levelsever recorded—and real wages are rising. Far from Trump’s election producing a recession from which markets would never recover, the United States is in its longest-ever period of economic expansion.
That’s why we have reason to be optimists about the new decade. So argues Lord Michael Dobbs, writer, politician, speaker, and author of “House of Cards,” the creator of Francis Urquhart in the British television series and Frank Underwood in the American. It’s a story of cynical betrayal and broken trust. He’s no naïve and wide-eyed idealist. But what he says in reviewing this past decade in Britain, “when people triumphed over Parliament and the liberal elite,” is no less true of the American experience in recent years:
“The consensus around the liberal elite, who never truly trusted the people, has been broken. The people once again hold sway and have given Boris [and Trump] an instruction to do things differently. The message has gone out—never take us for fools again.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/counting-our-blessings-the-best-decade-ever_3187557.html
Estovir, this part caught my attention:
“Academic economist and New York Times opinion columnist Paul Krugman warned in 2016 that if Trump was elected, there would be a global recession from which markets would never recover. He was extreme but far from alone in his predictions of gloom and doom”.
Trump will still be in office for more than a year. Therefore to quote the brilliant Yogi Berra, ‘It ain’t over till it’s over”.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/paul-krugman-always-wrong-never-in-doubt/
“Paul Krugman, Always Wrong, Never in Doubt”.
Was Dick Cheney wrong when he said ‘Deficits Don’t Matter”..??
This administration thinks Cheney was right. Trump’s tax cut was passed in the spirit of ‘Deficits Don’t Matter”.
never in history has there been a nation which had deficits or national debt like the US
then again never in history has there been an economy or geopolitical situation like the one now.
The massive deficits actually started about 10 years ago.
It’s “nothing new” to the Trump Administration.
In the short term, deficits probably don’t matter that much.
I don’t know when Cheney made that statement, or what the deficits we’re at that point.
But when massive deficits become a standard feature, year after year, it’s not a healthy situation.
If Cheney meant that $One Trillion deficits year after year did not matter, I’d say he was wrong.
And he doesn’t even have a Nobel Prize to cover his ass like that charlatan Krugman.
Trump will still be in office for more than a year.
We finally agree on something Shill.
Ah, you caught me there, Olly! Perhaps I should listen to Yogi Berra: “It ain’t over till it’s over”.
It could become the most ironic of tragedies: ‘New informations surfaces that gets Trump removed from office precisely as a monster recession hits’.
the monster recession which we recovered from slowly, starting at end of 2006 or so, with the subprime debacle, was in part caused by the Community Reinvestment act, which aggressively pushed banks to lend to unworthy credit risks, in the name of racial equality, that grand excuse for so much mischief. .
that cause has received scant attention in the intervening years. some attention and debate however.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/jim-osullivan-is-top-economic-forecaster-for-seventh-year-in-a-row-2018-01-11
There are actually a few economic forecasters who have solid track records.
Those few that are worth paying attention to are low-profile, relatively unknown individuals.
It’s odd that a huge amount of media coverage focuses on people like Paul Krugman or David Stockman; two people who are consistently and spectacularly wrong .
If you’re looking for accurate economic predictions, you don’t seek out the opinions of political hacks masquerading as economists.
Similarly, if you’re looking for legal opinions on impeachment, you don’t seek out political hacks masquerading as constitutional scholars, like the 3 the House Democrats called to testify.
whatever insights Krugman has had, and he’s had some, but prediction was never his forte
of course you seize upon the man’s weakest point as your own.
https://evonomics.com/paul-krugman-trade-theory-nobel-gruen/
Olly and Mr. Kurtz,
You might be interested in this article.
Krugman’s “new trade theory” which describes the salutary effects of social networking and economies of scale in particular industries, is valid and its how he got his Nobel prize.
but he also writes tons of other garbage which has nothing to do with that. typical socalled expert who’s always pontificating outside his wheelhouse
as your article observed
Phillip/ Peter/ etc. finally chose the name of an American officer for his latest user name.
Thanks to one of the regulars — one who castigates those who post anonymously, but does so himself (or herself) when it suits.
Yes, Anonymous, that hasn’t escaped my attention. For some odd reason formerly fearless commenters are now posting as ‘Anonymous’. Yet ‘I’ am maliciously attacked for using predictable names that clue readers to my true identity.
I don’t see anything here that indicates that Phillip/Peter/ Acland/ Burgoyne/ etc. is “being maliciously attacked for using predictable names”.
Given that he feels that he was maliciously attacked, I will keep it in mind to be very careful in any future comments with a delicate flower like him.
Yet ‘I’ am maliciously attacked for using predictable names that clue readers to my true identity.
Hint: It isn’t your various names that give you away.
Olly, I didn’t realize that by noting that Phillip/Peter/etc.finally chose an American officer’s name, that he would perceive it as a “malicious attack”.
I can see that I need to exercise far more caution in any future comments involving him/them.
I welcome your return to stimulate debate Peter and feel free to use whatever names you like.
Yet ‘I’ am maliciously attacked for using predictable names that clue readers to my true identity.
Peter, no one would ever guess you and names of alpha male military officers go hand in glove. No way Jose. You choose those masculine figures because you wish to be them. Why else did you savage my profile name of Estovir when I joined this blog earlier this year, knowing “being a man” is something you wish to be.
Your true identity is known only to Darren, if that, assuming you use your true email address and an IP from your home or work location to post on here.
So cut the bull-chips and go with your authentic name. Just be you, or ewe, which ever you prefer. Choose any of the following worthy names and do it with pride: chest out, t!ts up, heels erect and azz out. Work it bubba.
Anne Fetamine
Traila Trash
Anita Mann
Lucy Stoole
Sharon Needles
Madame Laqueer
Jiggly Princess
Get back to us with your choice.
😉
others on here might have some suggestions as well
Estovir, a ‘real man’ like ‘you’..???
Estovir, we, as readers here, have no idea what kind of man ‘you’ are. You could be a 90 lbs weakling or 300 lbs tub of lard. And you could also be openly gay. ..We dont know..!
So you’re assuming way too much if you imagine we naturally fancy you as a masculine role model.
…if you imagine we naturally fancy you
We? Your 2 only friends on here are not here anymore.
Don’t get so defensive pumpkin. Since you did not pick a name from the list I provided, ask your contacts on Grindr, those who have blocked you, what name they would choose for you. Get back to us by tomorrow
Try to keep it clean. Think of the children!
Estovir, like I was saying, you could easily be a 90 pound weakling or 300 pound tub of lard. And you could easily be gay. But the internet allows any wimp to act as tough as he wants when taunting strangers 3,000 miles away.
Peter, I don’t think the name change to Eunuch Poor gives you any additional credibility.
Allan, go easy on the neurotic kid. He comes here to get his ego boosted with canned comments, only to be deflowered. We don’t a dead American Revolutionary War general like Enoch Poor committing suicide in the 21st Century dressed in drag.
Peter, you do realize I care for HIV positive gay men and women in clinic right? We have a PrEP/Truvada campaign on apps like Grindr in order to increase utilization of PrEP.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/prep-use-jumps-35-percent-among-gay-bi-men-risk-n980516
Allan, go easy on the neurotic kid.
I think you’ve confounded PH with YNOT and FishWings. If PH’s remarks about himself are not fictional, he’s eligible for Medicare in about four years. The shmuck from Gainesville passed that milestone almost 10 years ago (or some prankster appropriating is appropriating the identity of a 74 year old building contractor from Gainesville).
I think you’ve confounded PH with YNOT and FishWings.
Could be. The blog is strictly for fun. I don’t keep track of the comments like most of you do. I am presently on holiday vacation hence my return. I started visiting it earlier this year when I was stuck in lab at the medical school, waiting for experiments to run, waiting on peers, waiting on conferences, etc. I discovered this blog and it broke my monotony in the lab. Around August I switched to teaching and clinic, and posted less and less.
Incidentally, TIA, I find your English utilization one of the most well developed. English is my 2nd language. I wish I could express myself the way you do. However, I stand by what I told you earlier: please get out and interface with people, no matter your current station in life. Many would benefit from your wisdom face to face.
Salut!
Estovir, you are more than likely a janitor or orderly at that clinic.
Alan, why did you feel the need to jump in at this point?? Were you afraid Estovir was beginning to faulter?
“Alan, why did you feel the need to jump in at this point?? Were you afraid Estovir was beginning to faulter?”
Eunuch Poor do you really think anyone needs help dealing with you? You can’t even stay with one name and you certainly have trouble keeping up with the debate.
Praying for a recession’s a bad look.
I absolutely agree. It goes hand in glove hoping your president does an impeachable offense and the alphabet soup of agencies get away with abusing the rights of our citizens.
“…and the alphabet soup of agencies get away with abusing the rights of our citizens.”
They’ve been doing it for a very long time. It didn’t start with Trump.
It didn’t start with Trump.
Of course not.
Jonathan Turley wants to be a judge, IMHO. He’s been blinded by that goal.
You endorse groupthink with a straight face.
Have you made the case that administration officials are being unlawful in ignoring congressional subpeonas?
well david b king if you had heard his remarks or read the prepared one, you would have had that issue fully briefed. do your own homework, lately
Have you made the case that administration officials are being unlawful in ignoring congressional subpeonas?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Has anybody made the case that refusing to comply with lawful subpoenas is not obstruction?
Has anyone made the case that trolls that use the tired paradigm of the 1960s, reverse psychology, is efficacious? Cite some studies that support your claim. Include p values and hazard ratios.
Memo to David Brock: the recycled names used by your trolls are hurting your team. Send us some worthy trolls
Are you replying to me?????
I like Trump. I like what Trump is doing.
What I despise is the typical Trump supporter. They are the scum of the earth.
Trump deserves a lot better than a bunch of lying, dishonest, greedy, short-sighted followers.
Here is one example of Trump at his finest:
https://www.axios.com/trump-impeachment-2008-pelosi-george-w-bush-iraq-1710362a-5e82-496c-aeaf-08c0c6eed751.html
Oh, and who the heck is David Brock?
https://images.app.goo.gl/8R63mY88QjfdQp2T9
You may know him as Mr. Pompadour.
https://images.app.goo.gl/dedywiwhy9QnVDvM7
They’re on their way, Estovir.