12-06-2019, 04:49 PM
** 06-Dec-2019 World View: Jonathan Turley on impeachment
When he testified, Jonathan Turley went out of his way to make several
things clear: He was a liberal Democrat, he didn't like Trump, he
didn't vote for Trump, he voted for Hillary Clinton, and he voted for
Obama.
So at that panel of so-called "scholars," it was four Never-Trumpers
against zero who were on Trump's side. This is the Democrat's idea of
"fair and balanced," as we see all the time if we watch cnn or msnbc.
However, Turley also said that he had opposed the Clinton impeachment,
because impeachment would be too divisive -- which he said is what
happened.
Turley said that Nixon and Clinton had been guilty of crimes, with
Clinton having clearly committed the crime of perjury, which is a
felony for which people go to jail for all the time.
Under Republican questioning, Turley said the same thing that I said,
that there was absolutely no evidence that Trump had done anything
wrong. He agreed that the so-called evidence against Trump was
hearsay and speculation, nad that there was no basis for an
impeachment -- or what he called a "shoddy impeachment" based on
"anger."
He particularly singled out the Democrats' accusing Trump of abuse of
power for refusing to respond to Democrats' subpoenas and for going to
court to challenge them. Turley said that Trump had a perfect right
to go to court to challenge them. Nixon had been charged with abuse
of power after he'd gone to court to protect his tapes, but then
defied the court after he lost. That was the act that had resulted in
the abuse of power charge. But Trump had a perfect right to challenge
the subpoenas in court, and had not received any adverse ruling.
Under those cirumstances, there would indeed be an abuse of power --
but it would be the Democrats committing abuse of power.
So even though Turley is a left-wing liberal Democrat Never-Trumper,
he still ran rings around the Democrats.
The three other "scholars" looked like complete idiots. They went
into inane constitution arguments about what constitutes grounds for
impeachment. But under Republican questioning, they acknowledged the
same thing that I've been saying and that Turley said -- Trump has not
done anything wrong.
The worst and most disgusting of the so-called "scholars" was Stanford
law professor Pamela Karlan, who triumphantly attacked Trump via his
13-year-old son by saying, "The Constitution says there can be no
titles of nobility, so while the president can name his son Barron, he
can’t make him a baron."
This is the kind of hysterical, angry hormonal woman who is dictating
this impeachment -- all anger, all hysteria, no actual evidence. In
fact, the entire Democratic party is being run by hysterical, angry
hormonal women like Karlan, AOC, the Squad, and Hillary.
And just so I won't be called a sexist, Adam Schiff is also an angry,
hysterical hormonal man. The Democratic party is gender-neutral on
hormonal, angry, hysterical leaders, but is not worth anything more.
Ironically, I would not include Nancy Pelosi in the category. I even
think it's possible that she's telling the truth when she says that
she's praying for Trump. Unlike the angry, hysterical, hormonal
people that she's taking orders from, she's old enough to know that
the party is headed for an electoral disaster in November.
Returning now to Jonathan Turley, he says:
That's the way the Democrats are these days -- all hormones, all
anger, all rage, no evidence, and no substance of any kind except
lies, fabricated charges, criminal activities, abuse of power, and, of
course, threats and violence.
---- Sources:
-- Turley: Democrats offering passion over proof in Trump impeachment
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/47...mpeachment
(TheHill, 6-Dec-2019)
(12-05-2019, 12:39 PM)David Horn Wrote: > 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.
When he testified, Jonathan Turley went out of his way to make several
things clear: He was a liberal Democrat, he didn't like Trump, he
didn't vote for Trump, he voted for Hillary Clinton, and he voted for
Obama.
So at that panel of so-called "scholars," it was four Never-Trumpers
against zero who were on Trump's side. This is the Democrat's idea of
"fair and balanced," as we see all the time if we watch cnn or msnbc.
However, Turley also said that he had opposed the Clinton impeachment,
because impeachment would be too divisive -- which he said is what
happened.
Turley said that Nixon and Clinton had been guilty of crimes, with
Clinton having clearly committed the crime of perjury, which is a
felony for which people go to jail for all the time.
Under Republican questioning, Turley said the same thing that I said,
that there was absolutely no evidence that Trump had done anything
wrong. He agreed that the so-called evidence against Trump was
hearsay and speculation, nad that there was no basis for an
impeachment -- or what he called a "shoddy impeachment" based on
"anger."
He particularly singled out the Democrats' accusing Trump of abuse of
power for refusing to respond to Democrats' subpoenas and for going to
court to challenge them. Turley said that Trump had a perfect right
to go to court to challenge them. Nixon had been charged with abuse
of power after he'd gone to court to protect his tapes, but then
defied the court after he lost. That was the act that had resulted in
the abuse of power charge. But Trump had a perfect right to challenge
the subpoenas in court, and had not received any adverse ruling.
Under those cirumstances, there would indeed be an abuse of power --
but it would be the Democrats committing abuse of power.
So even though Turley is a left-wing liberal Democrat Never-Trumper,
he still ran rings around the Democrats.
The three other "scholars" looked like complete idiots. They went
into inane constitution arguments about what constitutes grounds for
impeachment. But under Republican questioning, they acknowledged the
same thing that I've been saying and that Turley said -- Trump has not
done anything wrong.
The worst and most disgusting of the so-called "scholars" was Stanford
law professor Pamela Karlan, who triumphantly attacked Trump via his
13-year-old son by saying, "The Constitution says there can be no
titles of nobility, so while the president can name his son Barron, he
can’t make him a baron."
This is the kind of hysterical, angry hormonal woman who is dictating
this impeachment -- all anger, all hysteria, no actual evidence. In
fact, the entire Democratic party is being run by hysterical, angry
hormonal women like Karlan, AOC, the Squad, and Hillary.
And just so I won't be called a sexist, Adam Schiff is also an angry,
hysterical hormonal man. The Democratic party is gender-neutral on
hormonal, angry, hysterical leaders, but is not worth anything more.
Ironically, I would not include Nancy Pelosi in the category. I even
think it's possible that she's telling the truth when she says that
she's praying for Trump. Unlike the angry, hysterical, hormonal
people that she's taking orders from, she's old enough to know that
the party is headed for an electoral disaster in November.
Returning now to Jonathan Turley, he says:
Quote: "My call for greater civility and dialogue may have
been the least successful argument I made to the committee. Before
I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with
threatening messages and demands that I be fired from George
Washington University for arguing that, while a case for
impeachment can be made, it has not been made on this
record."
That's the way the Democrats are these days -- all hormones, all
anger, all rage, no evidence, and no substance of any kind except
lies, fabricated charges, criminal activities, abuse of power, and, of
course, threats and violence.
---- Sources:
-- Turley: Democrats offering passion over proof in Trump impeachment
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/47...mpeachment
(TheHill, 6-Dec-2019)
