Choosing the Unpalatable Over The Disastrous: Shoot Article II and Call The Witnesses

Below is my column in the Washington Post on the best course for the House managers in securing witnesses. The column was posted before the Bolton leak, which may now secure the needed four votes of swing Republican senators. However, Article II is as dead as Dillinger. Indeed it was dead on arrival. The two days of White House argument wiped out what little support existed for the charge given the decision to rush this impeachment and then impeach a president for raising executive privileges and immunities. The strongest material of the White House was directed at this exceedingly weak and unwarranted article of impeachment. Democratic senators speak a great deal of the need for bipartisanship . . . for Republicans. It is time for those same senators to show that they are equally expected and capable of putting aside party for principle. It is time for Democratic senators to join in the call to reject Article II.

Here is the column:

Famed economist John Kenneth Galbraith once described politics as “the art of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.” Those words could not more aptly describe the choice now facing the House managers who lost this case before it began. Not because of the Republican majority but because of its own historic blunder in rushing the impeachment forward on an incomplete record.  It now must make a choice between the disastrous in simply staying the course to certain acquittal or the unpalatable in admitting the blunder and offering a compromise.  

            Thus far, the suggestions of a compromise has centered on an unlikely horse trade of a witness like former National Security Adviser John Bolton for Hunter Biden.  However, such a compromise does not address the separate institutional concern of some senators, which likely includes the four swing senators. For them, the threshold issue is not the inclusion of witnesses in the Senate but their omission by the House. 

            This week, a key Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska), indicated that she was not inclined to call witnesses that the House failed to pursue in its rushed vote. 

            The decision is now with the House managers. They can either just grab the face time on national television or they can move to deal with its blunder and try to resuscitate this case.  It might be able to do so but it will have to offer more than a witness swap.

            A better compromise might be found in the two articles themselves.  To put it simply, it may be time to dismiss Article 2. The obstruction of Congress article was dead on arrival but its dismissal could allow the Senate to go on the record in opposition to the House handling of this impeachment. It just might be enough to open a path for witnesses on Article 1 and abuse of power.

            The House destroyed any chance for an obstruction article when made an impeachment by Christmas its overriding priority despite warnings that it would effectively hand over an incomplete case to not just the other house but the opposing party.

The short period set by the house did not allow time for a challenge to the House demand and effectively made the seeking of judicial review a “high crime and misdemeanor.” When Congress demands documents or, presidents often have objections based on the inherent immunities or privileges of their office.  Both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were able to not only seek judicial review but take their appeals all the way to the Supreme Court before facing impeachment.  Nixon soon resigned after losing that case.  

            There are valid presidential claims of privilege to be raised by President Trump in calling his former White House Counsel or National Security Adviser to discuss direct communications with him in the Oval Office. 

            If the House had simply gone to court to enforce a subpoena, it would have forced a review of such privilege questions. Even before the impeachment vote, Bolton indicated his interest in testifying but it would require a subpoena. The House however refused to issue such a subpoena or take other reasonable steps to secure evidence. Magnifying this mistake was the decision of the House to withdraw the subpoena issued for Charles Kupperman, a deputy to Bolton. Like Bolton, Kupperman indicated that he might testify but went to court for review of the subpoena.  Before the House could rule, the House mysteriously pulled the subpoena.  Judge Richard Leon seemed nonplussed in dismissing the case, stating dryly “the House clearly has no intention of pursuing” the witness.   

            It is time of the Democrats to acknowledge the blunder in the rushed vote. Call it a constitutional penalty. In hockey, you lose a player in a powerplay.  In football, you lose downs or yards or possession.  

            The Senate could similarly cry foul and dismiss Article 2 while moving forward on Article 1 with limited witnesses. While there are valid arguments for leaving the House with the incomplete record that it handed over to the Senate, any House failure does not relieve the Senate of its own obligations.  The Senate could allow a limited number of witnesses while stipulating a fixed schedule for testimony, including any litigation over privilege arguments that should have been addressed in the House investigation. 

            The House managers must now decide if they are trying to score political points or win a case. If it is the latter, they need to honestly and decisively deal with their own failure. Neither side will be delighted with such a compromise, but it would allow the Senate to protect its institutional interests while allowing the House to prove the primary allegations in the case.  

            In other words, it may be time to pick the unpalatable over the disastrous for both Houses. It is time to shoot Article 2 and allow witnesses.

Jonathan Turley is the chair of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel in an impeachment trial before the Senate in defense of Judge Thomas Porteous. He also testified with other constitutional experts in both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings.  He also serves as legal analyst for both CBS and BBC.

117 thoughts on “Choosing the Unpalatable Over The Disastrous: Shoot Article II and Call The Witnesses”

  1. Professor Turley,

    The American Hating Commie Nazi Trash, the Democrats & NeoCons, but I repeat myself, should just say: Oops Our Bad & Flee the USA to a non-extraditing country where Bolton is said to be hiding out at now.

  2. Congratulations, Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats). You have created and harnessed mass hysteria. Russian collusion in the 2016 election and “crimes” by the President are establsihed faux-facts among your rabid legions of incompetent freedom-fearing parasites.

    “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

    – William Casey

    The lesson for conservatives and Republicans is, the next time you hold the Congress, Senate and Presidency, to “grab the bull by the horns” as the Communists have done over the past 3 years and repeal America back to its “original intent,” back to the “manifest tenor” of its fundamental law sans “injurious” “dumbmendments” and back to the thesis of its Founders which is Freedom Through Self-Reliance. The lesson is to rid America of communism and communists before it is too late, if you are afforded one last chance.

    1. You are welcome. You are a terrible excuse for an American and Fox News has done more than Casey ever did in that venture.



    The notion that Senate Republicans were “blindsided” by Bolton’s revelations underscores the corruption of this whole sordid game. They always knew it was obvious Bolton would tell us this — which is exactly why they opposed hearing from him. Their comically transparent “shocked, shocked” pose is meant to cover those tracks.

    It may be true that Senate Republicans didn’t know the White House was in possession of Bolton’s revelations. But if this has landed them in a predicament, it’s because their own ongoing coverup effort blew up in their faces. No honor among Trump and his accomplices, apparently.

    What actually blindsided Senate Republicans was that the details of Bolton’s account leaked before they could carry out their preordained vote to acquit. They were blindsided by this terribly inconvenient timing, which upended their coverup.

    Edited from: “The Latest, Laughable Senate GOP Spin Further Incriminates Trump”

    Today’s Washington Post

    1. “They always knew it was obvious Bolton would tell us this” Why? Proof? Your imagination?

      Bolton could say that President Trump personally baked him a cake, and iced it with the message, “Boy, I would dearly love to withhold aid from Ukraine until they agree to investigate Biden because they worked against me in league with the Democrats in 2016.” Then he could have a singing telegram burst out of the cake and sing the same thing, throwing confetti with the message written on it in microdots, and he could train a parrot to repeat it instead of “hello.”

      It wouldn’t matter. It wouldn’t matter if Bolton tells the truth or lies. What matters is what Trump actually did. He did not predicate aid on any investigation. Ukraine confirmed it had no idea of any strong-arm attempt. And there are legitimate reasons to investigate Biden.

      So if Trump sang in the shower every morning for a year, “how can I dastardly plot to use foreign nations to meddle in 2020”, if he didn’t actually do it, it doesn’t matter.

      Kind of like he can sing, “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran” in the privacy of his own home and not be impeached for abuse of power if you don’t actually bomb Iran without provocation.

      Who cares what Trump thinks, or what Democrats want him to think, or say that he thinks, or claim that he wants to do. What matters are his actions.

      1. Karen, Bolton’s manuscript was submitted to the White House on December 30. One can presume every member of Trump’s legal team was aware of it.

        1. Bolton submitted his manuscript to the National Security Council for review on 12/30, just a few weeks ago. This is the standard review process to ensure that former government officials do not inadvertently release classified information.

          This was weeks after the House voted to impeach, and then sat on the bill and refused to send it to the Senate, unless it allowed the House to illegally control the process.

          So, this was after the House had abandoned its case and any witnesses. Bolton submitting his manuscript on Dec 30 did not affect the House’s decision on witnesses weeks earlier, unless Bolton had a time machine.

          I do not know if the NSC released the manuscript to Trump or his lawyers, and neither do you but, again, this was after the House voted for impeachment.

          Again, Bolton can say, truthfully or not, what he thought the President thought, or wanted, or ruminated about. It does not change the facts of what he did. It does not change that Ukraine did not receive any strong arm.

          Boy, you Democrats sure are stubborn that you want to investigate Donald Trump continuously, but HOW DARE he even suggest that Joe Biden should be investigated, no matter how legitimate or damning the initial evidence. It’s ruthless, and injustice. It doesn’t matter that Ukraine clearly and emphatically said it received no pressure, nor was it aware of any quid pro quo at the time, which renders the allegation moot. You cannot have a one sided strong arm. So the allegation was debunked, but it’s an election year, so the Democrats are abusing their power in order to cheat. No quid pro quo, so let’s find out if Trump wished he could have one, or thought about it, or would really really really like one! It doesn’t matter if he didn’t do it! Did he even think about it? Impeach!

          All you’re missing is a cigar and some aviator glasses.

          It does not matter if an aid sincerely believes that Trump would like to bomb Russia. It doesn’t matter if Trump hangs from the ceiling by a ribbon, like Cirque du Soleil, twirling around, singing how much he would like to bomb Russia. He could do a skit on SNL about his desire to bomb Russia. He could say it in pig Latin. He could never say it, but the gossips down in accounting could fervently declare that he must think that it’d be nice to bomb Russia. If he doesn’t actually bomb Russia, then he shouldn’t be impeached for bombing Russia.

          I guess the correct word is “shouldn’t” rather than “can’t”, because we’ve already seen how it doesn’t matter if an allegation is not proven, or disproven, or if reasonable people by the millions think Joe Biden should be investigated. The House can impeach Trump for drinking regular instead of decaf because…global warming and the patriarchy of the international non fair trade coffee bean trade.

          1. Karen, show us that Trump’s interest in corruption extended beyond the Bidens and Ukraine. There is no evidence it ever did. To the contrary, Trump wanted to loosen laws that prevented American corporations from paying foreign bribes.

            1. Seth:

              “Karen, show us that Trump’s interest in corruption extended beyond the Bidens and Ukraine.”

              #1 Why must Trump be interested in any one other than the Bidens, if the allegation of criminal activity and corruption warrants an investigation?

              #2 Drain the swamp was a campaign problem

              #3 Of course he’s shown interest in other corruption. Hillary Clinton, remember? Also Russia with the sanctions. The Paris Accord that was a lucrative money grab white allowed China to keep increasing pollution for many years while doing zero to improve the environment. The discovery that aid to Puerto Rico was hidden in warehouses and its existence denied. (Politically motivated, or extremely coincidental incompetence?)

              #4 What does any of your non sequiturs have to do with:
              a) there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to believe the Bidens should be investigated, and therefore brining it up is not an impeachable offense
              b) Ukraine said there was no quid pro quo or strong arming by Trump (but there was by Biden), and the ambassadors confirmed. Therefore the whistleblower was wrong, so why are we proceeding?

  4. What does Bolton matter? The most he can say is what he thought the President wanted, or repeat conversations, either accurately or not.

    It doesn’t matter what the President thought, or wanted, or considered. What mattered is what he did. Ukraine said they knew of no quid pro quo or pressure. The ambassadors called by Democrats confirmed this. You cannot have a one sided strong arm. Therefore, there was no quid pro quo.

    It’s like impeaching a president for blowing up Russia, because he said he’d really like to as he’s so frustrated with them, or maybe his critics believed that he thought about it, but he didn’t actually do it.

    Even God after the Flood decided not to punish humankind for evil thoughts.

    This isn’t justice. It’s not about any crime or abuse of power. Ukraine has been emphatic that there was no wrongdoing. This is weakening our country on the geopolitical scale, and undermining a lawfully elected president, as Democrats play games with their authority.

    Democrats clearly believe there is a significant chance of their losing in 2020. They can’t run against this economy. They can’t run against unemployment. So they’re pushing a false narrative that Trump strong armed Ukraine into getting dirt on his political rival, which took some serious hues to make with a straight face, considering they actually DID abuse the authority of various government agencies to spy on Trump and they DID get false intel from Russian operatives to try to cheat in the 2016 election.

    There is a perfectly reasonable reason to investigate Biden, but Democrats have thrown everything but the kitchen sink at obstructing that investigation. No untoward pressure was put on Ukraine. It has also been determined that Ukraine tried to undermine Trump in 2016, therefore meddling in our election. Democrats are defending the indefensible. Will their voters abandon their conscience and allow this?

  5. Our country is (once again) divided. Never thought I’d see this happen again. I ask myself why? What’s different? The only answer I could come up with is the election of this current president. We’ve had republican, democratic presidents in latter decades. Some we’ve agreed with. Some we’ve not. But this is different. What is most troubling for me is this: Jonathan Turley, President Trump, Fox News, and White Nationalist don’t ask this question: What about the Children. I’ve watched and heard many disturbing things come from President Trump since he took office. He is not Presidential. You might ask, What does Presidential look like? Well, we’ve had 44 presidents before Trump. Just pick one, and you’ll find presidential. Now, this president is tweeting horrible tweets, even threatening others as I see it. Name-calling his opponents is not presidential. It’s embarrassing! I know that people like Jonathan Turley are suppose to be very smart when it comes to the Constitution and law. BUT, are they experts at how average people, who are raising families – day to day are suppose to live under an administration that seems to only be out for their own good ($$$). The Emuloments Clause is what I’m focused on. Needless to say, it was not a part of the Impeachment. I think that should have been first. But we have a president who refuses to his taxes, after for months, during his run for office that he would share those taxes after IRS audits them. If it takes over three years to audit his taxes, there is SOMETHING very wrong. Billionaires have their taxes done all the time…no problems. It is apparent to me that Jonathan Turley has taken the side of Trump. Why, I don’t know. Can’t get inside his head. But, if he cares about the future of this country, I’d suggest he take a deeper dive into his decision. This Impeachment is real because of what this president has done. He was looking out for HIS benefit, not the country’s benefit. We are not stupid people. We can take sides, but at what point do people hold on to the indefensible. If Trump is acquitted (which is fine by me because I am covered in the Blood of Christ.), our country will fall…like the Fall of Rome. (I’m sure Russia would love to see this happen.) Now this Fall won’t hurt people like Jonathan Turley, but it will hurt Average Americans who are just trying to raise families, get children educated, work good middle class jobs (few left), and die in Grace and Peace. Just remember, Alan Dershowitz is arguing that nothing that this president has done, or is doing is Impeachable. Finally, speaking of Hunter Biden argument: How did Hunter Biden get on that Burisma Board? How did that happen? Well it might be this simple: Just like companies like to use the Trump name on their buildings, maybe Burisma thought it a good idea to use the Biden name as a member of their Board. Question, has anybody ever asked Burisma Board members how Hunter Biden got this job? I think no! Right now, we have an unstable president in office, and it’s getting worse. And I’m not doctor, but I have lived with people who suffered from aging (Dementia which comes in stages, and Alzheimer). I just saw President Trump make ugly remarks about the NPR reporter. WHY would he wade in to that story? He can’t help himself. Finally, I waited, during the President’s attorneys presentations, to see how long it would take for President Barack Obama’s name would come up. It didn’t take long? Even asking that President Obama be Impeached! I believe (100%) of my everything, that that was pushed by President Obama. Thank you for reading my thoughts. I know Professor Turley won’t see this.

    1. “The only answer I could come up with is the election of this current president.”

      Hmmm, really. You wracked your brain, and came up with it’s Trump’s fault? Not the universities exhibiting bigotry against conservatives for year? Not the rhetoric for 20 years that if you disagree with a Democratic policy on literally anything, then you’re Hitler, evil, want the poor to die, etc? The Saul Alinsky approach of demonizing your opponent, rendering them inhuman and not to be debated with on any facts had absolutely nothing to do with it?

      As a conservative, this has been the culmination of years of harassment, bigotry, intolerance, and false allegations.

      For instance, I explained the many problems I had under Obamacare for years, while Obama was in office. Democrats told me I wanted poor people to die, to not get care, kids to die, and pretty much every vile name in the book.

      Only, it now turns out that I was right, so now, instead of taking responsibility for what they did, Democrats now want single payor. But if you don’t agree, you are a Nazi, fascist, want the poor to die, don’t care about the poor, don’t care about kids, blah blah blah. Obviously, it’s total lies they spread because their argument falls under the facts. So attack the messenger.

      Trump responds in kind, and I guess Democrats can dish it, but they can’t take it.

      Actors, singers, and comedians fantasize about blowing up the White House and assassinating President Trump, and they made a meme posing with his bloody, severed head in effigy. They made up false allegations against innocent teenagers waiting for their bus to pick them up, where they were harassed by the racist, anti-semitic Black Israelites and a habitual liar with a drum in their faces. A Disney exec posted a meme fantasizing about murdering them by feeding them MAGA hat first, screaming, into a wood chipper. It was complete with a gruesome scene from Fargo. Disney Exec!!! But this was OK because the teens were wearing Republican MAGA hats, and as Catholic students, they had attended a right to life rally hoping to protect unborn babies from being killed. Instead of accepting that teenagers can have different views, they felt entitled to lie about them, threaten them, and an actress offered a bribe of fellatio to anyone who would assault them.

      But…it’s Trump’s fault. Why not say Jodie Foster makes you guys do it? Whose fault was it prior to 2016?

      Democrat politicians have become increasingly hateful, intolerant, and aggressive, and it’s filtered down into too many Democrat voters. Moderates must be becoming either rare, or too terrorized to speak up for fear of being attacked like they see Republicans suffer.

      There is no national trend of Republicans harassing Democrats on college campuses, in their jobs, on the street, in the media like there is for Democrats against Republicans. There was no national trend of Democrats being too afraid to wear a Hope and Change, or I’m with Her, or Feel the Bern shirts. Actually, they feel confident wearing shirts emblazoned with murderous regimes like Mao and Hugo Chavez, and expect to make it to the end of the day…because the general trend is for Republicans to ignore it or just roll their eyes. This is a massive, measurable trend among the Democratic Party. Look in the mirror.

      Don’t like divisiveness? Then be tolerant of other political beliefs. Don’t weaponize diagnosis of mental illness or dementia for political purposes. We Republicans allow your invited speakers on campus, allow you to walk down the street in the political clothing of your choosing, and we’re not interfering with your Constitutional rights of free speech. Republicans aren’t, en masse, looking up small businesses in the phone book to drive out of business because they are run by conservatives. But there are activists across the country harassing conservative and religious businesses. One guy demanded a Christian baker to make a satanic cake. When he declined, he demanded he make a transgender celebration cake, that’s pink on the inside but blue on the outside. He believed in the scientific definition of sex, and didn’t care to get involved in celebrating a mental disorder, so he has been repeatedly sued.

    2. Woodrow Wilson once said, “If you want your memo read, put it on one page”. I once knew a woman who managed a temp agency who told me that any resume she received on more than one page went into the circular file unread.

      Your 650 words is over the limit, tootsie.

        1. I was offering an advisory to Babar Martin. I’ve given up on you.

          1. Wait. I’m so confused.

            He’s talking to her about her and you’re talking to him about you because you, apparently, believe that he is talking to you about you when that is actually not the case under any interpretation because, as we all know, he is talking to you and everyone else about, it bears repeating, her.

            Next thing you, know Seth Warner will metamorphose into a new covert identity and purport that he’s not Anonymous, Mr. Shill, Seth Warner or anyone else; perhaps he’ll take a number; the number of the incredible vanishing man – I’m guessing zero – Mr. Zero. I LIKE it!

            Now I’m even confuseder.

    3. I ask myself why?

      I just placed a call to the CDC to alert them of your presenting symptoms. It might be attributable to Coronavirus via Hunan but more likely Sheitzinurpants via TDS

      Wait till you get my bill

  6. Should Americans engage Democrats, American-haters, trolls who live in a Left-wing bubble (e.g. Seth/ Warner Peter Shill /Enoch Poor /John Burgoyne, et al)? the Dumb Ox imparts his scholastic response

    Summa Theologiae > Second Part of the Second Part > Question 10. Unbelief in general

    Article 9. Whether it is lawful to communicate with unbelievers?

    ….. it seems that one ought to distinguish according to the various conditions of persons, circumstances and time. For some are firm in the faith; and so it is to be hoped that their communicating with unbelievers will lead to the conversion of the latter rather than to the aversion of the faithful from the faith. These are not to be forbidden to communicate with unbelievers who have not received the faith, such as pagans or Jews, especially if there be some urgent necessity for so doing. But in the case of simple people and those who are weak in the faith, whose perversion is to be feared as a probable result, they should be forbidden to communicate with unbelievers, and especially to be on very familiar terms with them, or to communicate with them without necessity.

    Peter, I am so sorry but I can no longer play in the sandbox with you.


    1. Estovir, one these days Proffessor Turley should write a column regarding your mental state. He might use the title, “The Little Man Who Couldn’t”. It will be about all-too-common nerds suffering debilitating inferiority complexes.

  7. I think we are looking at this impeachment from the wrong point of view.

    The issue at the root of this debate, and it is a debate not a trial, is, who is empowered with the authority to make the decisions of our government, and how are those decisions to be made.

    This is an important question and a question which first came to light when the states united in a common cause against a common enemy by their signing the Declaration of Independence and forming their Confederacy.

    Notice I said they formed a Confederacy, but they didn’t form a government, because government is the assembly with protocols to make collective decisions, how those decisions are made, and what constitutes a Majority Consensus for those decisions.

    The Articles of Confederation were written during the States first year of Independence and were completed at the beginning of their second year of Independence on November 15, 1777. And if you actually read the Articles of Confederation they named their Confederacy, “The United States of America”, and they formed the united States, in congress assembled, as the decision making authority of their Union.

    They specified everything that was necessary for the States to make collective decisions as the united States, in congress assembled; the rights of assembly, the distribution of Suffrage to reach Majority Consensus, and what constituted a majority consensus for every category of decisions to be made by the united States, in congress assembled.

    The Constitution did nothing to change this authority of the united States, in congress assembled, to make all the collective decisions of their Union, the Constitution only balanced the decision making process by addressing the disparity that existed between the States by adding a republican form of Government to the decision making assembly creating the Bicameral Legislature.

    This, however, made a lot of people uncomfortable, just the ideas of equality and equilibrium in decision making causes some among us to become violently ill. So there has been a constant effort to circumvent the equality and equilibrium of the Constitution and shift the decision making powers to individuals, calling it leadership.

    So this is what we are debating in the Senate today, this concept of leadership versus distributed power and collective decision making.

    The only problem with both sides of the argument that is currently being debated is that they have all forgotten that the Constitution already establishes distributed power and collective decision making, and that all arguments of individual decision making through leadership have no Constitutional basis.

    What bothers me in this situation is that the person who should be making all involved aware of these facts is Chief Justice Roberts, but he seems to be as delusional as everyone else involved, not even knowing the extent of his own authority both as the Chief Justice and as the Person of Authority Presiding over this impeachment proceeding.

    We have a real problem in this country, and we won’t even begin to solve it until we open the Constitution and actually begin to apply its principles as established to assemble the united States, in congress assembled, to make all the collective decisions of our government.

  8. Trump’s Former Chief Of Staff Believes John Bolton

    One of Trump’s former top aides told a Sarasota audience Monday evening that if the reporting on what Bolton wrote is accurate, he believes Bolton.

    “If John Bolton says that in the book, I believe John Bolton,” said retired Gen. John Kelly, who served as Trump’s chief of staff for 18 months.

    Kelly spoke Monday at the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall as part of the Ringling College Library Association Town Hall lecture series. The general worked with Bolton during his time as chief of staff, which ended in early 2019. Kelly said Bolton is an honest person.

    “Every single time I was with him … he always gave the president the unvarnished truth,” Kelly said of Bolton, who has become a figure of intense interest in the impeachment inquiry.

    Edited from: “Former Trump Chief Of Staff John Kelly Tells Sarasota Crowd ‘I Believe John Bolton'”

    The Sara ssd ota Herald Tribune, 1/28/20

    1. Gosh I am so surprised the former General elevates Bolton over Trump.

      CIA Honcho Brennan tweets out December eidtorial from Bill Webster anti Trump message

      Webster had the dubious distinction of being head of both FBI and CIA!
      And the leaker Vindman bro is an army guy too

      Hey the Deep State gang’s all here

      have fun with this Democrats, you take the soup from them today, they will own you tomorrow

      when the Army CIA and FBI all decide the next Democrat president stinks, you will be in no place to object

      bureaucracy rules America– not democracy; if– if they can succeed in the coup against the President

      See the difference between now and Nixon, is the FBI and CIA backed Nixon. Hell the FBI and CIA veterans were doing the dirty tricks for him! Then it was the Congressional Republicans who crumbled. Nixon measured that and quit. Even though Nixon had won a landslide – unlike Trump who had a more tepid electoral victory. And unlike Nixon Trump barely did anything wrong! at best a trifle. And now, Republicans back the POTUS, even if the stay behind teams of bureaucrats do not. And election not even a year out is the proper way to resolve that not an impeachment.

      But an impeachment is what the bureaucratic wranglers want, so Pelosi has delivered it. She knew better and was reluctant but it wasnt worth the trouble! now the Deep State and mass media work their magic.

      Remember this: the outcome of Watergate was a defanged FBI and CIA. The Church committee hearings, and end to COINTELPRO and other domestic mischief. The outcome of this? Will be an FBI and CIA bureaucracy that can run stuff like that using tools of internet surveillance that the old spooks only dreamed of, and an emasculated Presidency, subject to no-confidence impeachments served up by a facile Congress.

      Praetorianism, you will own it, and it will eat you as the Revolution always devours its own.

      If I were a Democrat I would be scared schiessless not of Trump but of the spooks like Brennan that have engineered this coup attempt that has gone on for the entire term. If they can pull on this on Trump then they can squash you like a bug and nobody will even notice.

      1. No, Kurtz, we’re scared of Trump. Trump’s daily tweets remind us he is totally unstable.

        1. this is trolling. you don’t get it. he wants you scared and off balance because he thinks that will get you confused and doing stupid stuff that won’t work

          probably you guys should be focusing on the campaign. if i were working for Dems at the national level, I would say this is a big waste of energy.

          Some prominent Democrats say exactly that

          you guys are selling yourselves to the military and intell schemers. you will owe them for this. be ready to pay one day with the liberties that you imagine trump threatens instead. very short sighted but then again you didn’t see it where hillary was concerned either.

          her ties to CIA probably go all the way back to Mena airstrip days when the Contras were shipping their coke into Arkansas for domestic distribution and husband Bill was giving them cover. Oh, yes, another conspiracy theory, except it is factual

      2. It is always someone else’s fault when will they come for you, Kurtz? Remember he replaced Sessions with Barr so there is always someone sleazier.

        1. Tony – I would say that Barr is more effective as Attorney General than Sessions. The Democrats didn’t even lay a glove on him in his confirmation hearings.

  9. The facts and evidence does not matter, nor do witnesses. Trump’s lawyers from day one are in a exercise to keep the cult stupid and uninformed, not that they need help in those categories. The lobotomies of their own choosing are in full effect. The republicans are more than happy to grant Trump absolute immunity in any thing he will do, any day, any time. But, as Trump has already made them walk out deep in his swamp, sooner or later they will be up to their chins in muck and bile and when it get so deep, another Trump crime will be exposed. And there will be more to come, sooner or later.

    1. oh well fish i guess you have it all figured out. you’re smart, trumpers are stupid, etc. thanks for your input.

      1. You like to believe you do. Your belief that tRump is playing 3 dimensional chess is absurd, he is a bully backed up by a bunch of cowards.

  10. This is not an impeachment trial.

    This is a communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat) campaign event.

    To wit,

    “…if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.”

    “If we don’t impeach him, he will say he has been vindicated.”

    “We must impeach him.”

    – Rep. Al Green

  11. Article 1 is a meandering tract of incoherent inference and innuendo; probative of nothing, with the particular exception of the radical, extremist communists’ (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats) ability to reformulate the facts and weaponize the truth.

    It is not a crime to investigate, at any and all times and dates, the perpetration of corruption by civil officers of the United States.

    It is not a crime to enlist the aid of foreign security apparatuses in an investigation of international corruption.

    It is not a crime to efficiently commingle issues when interacting with an individual foreign nation before proceeding on to the next nation.

    Fate, destiny and coincidence do not constitute a crime.

  12. If the witnesses are produced and they exonerate Trump doesn’t that prove that article 2 is legitimate?

    If exculpatory witnesses are now produced that pretty much conclusively proves that the House was correct in indicting for gratuitous obstruction by the White House. The alternative is to establish an untenable precedent.

    What Prof. Turley is suggesting is that every time Congress wants to exercise its oversight in determining how the President is executing the laws that Congress has passed it needs to go thru a long process of impeachment inquiry, subpoena and then lengthy battle in the courts.

    In other words, to toss out article 2 would give the president license to stonewall Congress on every issue.

  13. What has received much too little press has been that the Obama administration lied on several occasions before the FISA court, permitting the Obama administration to unlawfully spy on US citizens, This disturbs me far more than Trump’s bullying of a corrupt foreign government.

  14. Two grave concerns:
    1. The absolutely terrifying precedent of allowing witnesses that were not originally called in the House, which would allow the House to continue to shirk its duties in the future, and
    2. How could ANYONE believe ANY of the witnesses who have been mentioned? They ALL have obvious and severely serious emotionally negative issues with the President, AND all have little fear of being caught in any lie, having been conditioned so by the leftist media & democrat party. Struck’s was only the first of an ongoing onslaught of “insurance policies.”

  15. “The House managers must now decide if they are trying to score political points or win a case.”

    It was never about winning a case. It was always about scoring political points. I am waiting for the defense to play the video of Al “we have to impeach him or he’ll be re-elected” Green.

  16. Trump personally directed that law be disobeyed
    I don’t believe that is not correct. I recall that the the ICiG testified that he made the decision himself.

  17. I listened to much of the defense against Article 2 (I forget the lawyer) and it mostly sounded quite reasonable regarding why Trump wasn’t guilty of obstruction but taking advantage of his legal rights of appeal. Then I remembered him directing the IG for Intelligence not to turn over the whistle-blower complaint to Congress. The law prescribes that the complaint must be submitted to Congress within a specific time period and Trump personally directed that law be disobeyed so that Congress would be unaware. How is that not obstruction?
    The lawyer made a good case as to why close advisers to the President are entitled to privileged conversations (even though the President never once claimed Executive Privilege) but neglected to discuss why those in the Executive Branch who have never spoken with the President are covered by Trump’s blanket refusal to comply with anything. Turley may say that Article 2 is dead and it may well be given that Republican Senators have to suddenly develop a moral center to even hear witnesses. One of their excuses is, “if we already know we’re going to acquit him, why waste time on witnesses?” And, “We can’t hear witnesses on obstruction because the President is going to obstruct their testimony.”
    It was nice though to hear real legal arguments as opposed to the propaganda that filled much of the rest of the day. Pam Bondi (who took a $25,000 illegal campaign contribution from Trump to drop the investigation by the State of Florida of Trump University) showed great chutzpah in lecturing Senators about corruption. A couple of Trump’s lawyers have participated in the obstruction. Quite the motley crew overall.

    1. “What’s Witnesses Got To Do Wiffit?”

      – Tina Turner

      The prosecution introduced irrefutable evidence and multiple unimpeachable witnesses against Orenthal James Simpson then Johnnie Lee Cochran Jr. stacked the racist jury and accomplished the impossible; the complete exoneration of a proven, de facto double murderer.

      “Witnesses,” as a factor in the verdict, were entirely moot.

      “If it don’ts fits, you muss acquit!”

      – Johnnie Lee Cochran Jr.


      It’s Merit That Matters!

      Thank God for “Affirmative Action Privilege,” Generational Welfare, Education Assistance, Grade Inflation, Mass Appropriation of European Culture, Caucasian Guilt Complex, “Unconstitutional Reconstruction Amendments By Brute Dictatorial Force,” Etc., Etc., Etc.

      “Reparation” – Don’t Leave Home Wiffout It.

    2. No. The activist, or “whistleblower” complain went through proper channels. It was submitted to the DOI, and its policy is that if it regards the funding or conduct of an intelligence operation, it is to be reported to Congress. It was nothing of the sort, so it was referred to the DOJ.

      Why should Trump cooperate with Democrats trying to engage in a coup against a lawfully elected president, blatantly abusing their authority?

      As was remarked today during testimony, the President makes foreign policy. Democrats claim that he disobeyed and ignored national policy with Ukraine. That’s constitutionally unsound, as it’s the President who IS the Executive Branch, and it is the President who sets foreign policy. The President is answerable to the people and elected every 4 years. Yet the Democrats claim that it’s unelected staffers who set foreign policy and the President is answerable to them, punished for deviating. They are trying to control the Executive Branch, while blathering on about how this is about the Constitution, the Constitution they ignore.

      Add it to the pile of Democrat attacks on the Constitution, one amendment at a time.

      As I’ve stated previously, if the President actually did engage in some egregious crime or abuse of power, there would be bipartisan support for his removal. But he didn’t, so there isn’t.

      This is the behavior of a banana republic.

      God help us if Republicans become convinced that if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em, and start behaving the same as Democrats. Then you’d have Democrats wearing political clothing assaulted, their invited speakers threatened and canceled, people’s jobs threatened for their Democrat beliefs, Democrats too afraid to voice a political opinion on Facebook, severe bias against Democrats in jobs, the public school system, and universities (if they ever retake universities from the grip of the Democrat madrassas), and interminable spying, moles, leaks, investigations, and impeachments of all future Democrat presidents.

      If you promote this, then it would be just for the other side to behave in kind. Is that what you want? How long before they become convinced that this is just how it’s going to be in politics? Maybe they’ll get exhausted with the double set of rules that seem to apply.

      1. The whistleblower complaint was assesed to be credible and urgent and the law says it has to be referred to the Congress. For the first time in the history of the law, that didn’t happen. It went first to the White House lawyers when their boss was the subject of the complaint (no conflict there) and then Trump got his personal lawyer Barr to give him cover. They went to great lengths to obstruct Congress which is the second Article.
        I was amused when you said if Trump abused power there would be bipartisan support for his removal. Have you seen Congress lately? Republicans aren’t alone in demonstrating partisanship but as new polling says 75% of the public want witnesses, they are alone in trying to figure out how to protect the President on a completely partisan basis.
        The banana republic is already here, all the employees in the Executive branch have to sign non-disclosure agreements. They have had to turn in their phones for inspection while they try to root out moles. ANyone who disagrees with Individual #1 is subject to tweets and harrassment (and death threats) from the base. Save the step of asking for examples and find out for yourself. Your glorious leader lies to the public all day long and you seem to think that’s fine.

        1. “The whistleblower complaint was assesed to be credible and urgent and the law says it has to be referred to the Congress.” Actually, the DOI correctly read the law that it pertains to the funding and operation of intelligence operations. It was read verbatim today on the Senate floor.

          “For the first time in the history of the law, that didn’t happen. It went first to the White House lawyers when their boss was the subject of the complaint”. No. It didn’t. It first went to the DOI, which correctly understood the law explicitly stated that it would go to Congress if it involved an intelligence operation. It literally says it in the law. So the process was to refer it to the DOJ.

          Is this the new false allegation, now? To claim that this was obstruction? The law and the process are clear, and were followed.

          ICWPA definition of “urgent concern” a prerequisite to report directly to Congress, and referred to by Adam Schiff:

          “A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters[;]”

          It requires the concern to involve an intelligence activity. Donald Trump was one world leader, speaking to another world leader. He was not pretending to be a CIA agent engaged in an intelligence op. Requiring to to involve an intelligence operation is why the subsequent next step, should it be fulfilled, is to forward to the House Intelligence Committee.

          Democrats are claiming this was obstruction, when it really was a bunch of lawyers applying the regulation as written. But, it didn’t say what the Democrats wished it said, so…obstruction!!!

        2. I have never seen this level of harassment. Have they abandoned quid pro quo now and moved on the next false allegation? That was just like when it was verified there was no collusion, the entire thing was made up in a Democrat oppo research document and paid for by Hillary Clinton, so then they tried to say that Trump obstructed an investigation into a crime he knew he hadn’t committed. Oh, that didn’t work? Quid pro quo Ukraine! Oh, it was Joe Biden who did that? Oh, Ukraine said it never happened with Trump? Oh, well impeach him because one department correctly applied the rules and sent it to another department instead of Congress!

          1. It wasn’t verified there was no collision, there were 10 instances where Trump was identified as having blocked the investigation. You hear what you want to hear.

            1. “As I discuss in today’s column, the report does clear the President of the original allegations of collusion with little ambiguity or reservation. Ultimately, he was also cleared of obstruction through the decision of both Barr and Rosenstein.”
              – Jonathan Turley


              At some point, enigma, you will have to deal with the truth that over the past few years, Democrats heaped one false accusation after another in order to overturn the 2016 election, beginning with the false charge that Trump, with a Jewish family, was an anti-semite, and including when Hillary Clinton paid a disgraced former British spy to collect fabricated information from Russian intelligence, which is own sub source said was not true, and tried to use it as an October surprise. Then it was used as the basis of a FISA report to spy upon candidate Trump, and President Trump. An email from the CIA was doctored in order to spy on Carter Page who, it turns out, was actually working with the CIA. The list goes on and is extensive.

              You either have to completely suspend your judgement and conscience, or deal with the documented long history of lying about Trump, forgetting about it, and moving on to the next lie. HIs occasional real missteps are overshadowed by this.

              See how the Ukraine quid pro quo fell apart, too?

              1. So two Trump appointees get together and decide the Mueller report which listed ten potential cases of obstruction were exonerated because he also refused to refer the charges to Congress. If that’s all it took, John Mitchell could have absolved Richard Nixon. No, that doesn’t let Trump off the hook. It means, as does every other action he’s taken since taking over for the previous pawn, that the office of the Attorney General has ceased to be the people’s attorney but the personal flunky of the President.

          2. That was just like when it was verified there was no collusion, the entire thing was made up in a Democrat oppo research
            A good bit of it was made up by Donald Trump
            trump’s appeal to Russia on National TV to find Hillary’s emails to help trump win didn’t come from the Democrats.
            Nor did the information that the Trump campaign was negotiating a deal with Russian agents to get their hands on Hillary’s emails. That information came from a foreign diplomat who heard it in a bar when the trump campaign member bragged about it.

            The Inspector General has determined that the above information was sufficient to open an investigation on Russian interference and collusion with the trump campaign.

Comments are closed.