Generational Dynamics World View

[David Horn]

(12-04-2019, 01:15 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Are you watching the hearings on tv right now?  Jonathan Turley just specifically tore apart any so-called evidence that Windman might have given, or any of his feelings, assumptions, or fantasies.

Turley's argument goes to criminal standards -- uniquely his interpretation, and decidedly different from his opinions when it was Clinton in the box*.  His idea that the bribery statute, and the court cases around it, have a bearing on the impeachment clause in the Constitution is simply bizarre.  The Constitution can oily be modified as it allows within the document -- the Congress deciding on the nature and extent of the inferior courts and the number on the SCOTUS being the prime examples.  I see no similar language regarding impeachment.  More to the point, the activity is not the same as a criminal trial, because it deals in the political sphere.  Being POTUS, or any of the other impeachment-eligible government officials, is a privilege that can be removed.  Note that no one goes to prison or forfeits any wealth, unless a follow-on criminal persecution and conviction is secured.

I actually like Turley, though I rarely agree with his interpretations.  In this case, he's being highly partisan, though the others were as well.  I think it's good that the public got a quick tutoring on constitutional law, but I doubt it took with most of them.

* During the Clinton impeachment proceedings, Turley argued that he had no right to limit access to an evidence of his guilt, and, among other things, his personal Secret Service detail should be forced to testify.