12-07-2019, 12:29 PM
(12-06-2019, 04:49 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 06-Dec-2019 World View: Jonathan Turley on impeachment
(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.
If a thief or arsonist is put on trial, then we do not reasonably expect that a trial of his peers will include thieves or arsonists. In any event, the presumption of innocence practically requires that those trying the accused have the same legal status as the accused during the trial -- innocent.
Quote: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.
Nixon resigned, making the further process of impeachment moot. The impeachment of Bill Clinton was about deeds comparatively harmless. Bill Clinton's fornication may have been disgusting, but it is not in league with money laundering, bank fraud, blackmailing a foreign power, or who knows what else.
Quote: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.
People go to prison for perjury when the perjury involves some other offense or personal statements (whether deliberate or in reckless disregard of the truth) that lead to a miscarriage of justice. Multitudes of people have made false or misleading statements on behalf of the President and have been convicted thereof. As the mandatory disclaimer says, "prior results are no guarantee of future results"...
Quote: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, and that there was no basis for an
impeachment -- or what he called a "shoddy impeachment" based on
"anger."
No evidence, perhaps. There is written order by Adolf Hitler to initiate the Holocaust. Such is not necessary. Subordinates who do horrible deeds on behalf of the Big Boss demonstrate the culpability of the gangster. (The German Nazi Party is the most horrible crime syndicate in human history). Some speculation is appropriate. Nobody does perjury for there mere fun of it.
Quote: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 circumstances, there would indeed be an abuse of power --
but it would be the Democrats committing abuse of power.
The impeachment of Richard Nixon is about very different deeds. Trump associates have not been caught in a third-rate burglary, and they have not broken into the medically-confidential files of a dissident.
Quote:So even though Turley is a left-wing liberal Democrat Never-Trumper,
he still ran rings around the Democrats.
In my opinion he is setting up a strawman argument.
Quote: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.
Trump may not have done the deed himself, but he can create the climate in which his subordinates act. His administrative chaos is not itself impeachable any more than Herbert Hoover's catastrophic handling of an economic meltdown was impeachable or military reverses in Korea under Harry Truman were impeachable. Impeachment is not the equivalent of a parliamentary vote of no confidence; it is rightly over serious misconduct. Professor Karlan established that there were criminal deeds that the Founding Fathers could have never imagined because the technologies of later time that made such crimes (for example crimes involving communication devices and motor vehicles) did not then exist.
Quote: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."
A triviality manifesting itself as a joke. Jerry Seinfeld could just as easily have made that joke. In any event, I can name a pet dog "Prince" or "Queen", and that does not make the dog nobility. I can name a cat "Tiger", but that does not make the cat a tiger even if the cat has stripes. Besides, "Barron" is the wrong spelling for the title of nobility. The idea to prohibit titles of nobility was to keep some public figure from granting those in return for doing some political work. Even the British "K" (as in "Knighthood") is too much here.
So what? Our economic elites can live much like sultans if they have the means.
Quote: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.
...as if testosterone were a fount of wisdom and humanity. I associate testosterone more with bar-room brawls than with commercial, intellectual, or creative achievement. Yes, women like Magda Goebbels, Chiang Ching (Mao's widow), Elena Ceausescu, Imelda Marcos, and Sajida (Mrs. Saddam) Hussein can be consummately vicious. That's before I start naming some black-widow types and real-life harpies such as the late and unlamented Aileen Wuornos. But note well: women can be as chilly rationalists as men. Fools beware!
Quote: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.
Well, some people who would have gassed Adam Schiff if they had a chance seem to have been members of the testosterone-rich, estrogen-poor cliques associated with the bad-boys clubs of Blackshirts and Brownshirts. Even if Stalin was in a cause (Bolshevism) that asserted the equality of women, Stalin's henchmen were all male. Beer Hall Putsch in Munich in 1923? All male. SA and SS taking over the streets in Germany? Clearly a (bad boy's) club.
I would prefer that there were principled figures within the Republican Party as a default for those conservatives who insist upon a sane foreign policy. Well, there still is the Democratic Party, and Obama foreign policy is far closer to that of Reagan and the elder Bush than is the reckless, glory-seeking foreign policy of Donald Trump. History can take strange twists as a tale.
Quote: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.
She is a chilly rationalist, but she might be praying for Donald Trump on behalf of the United States as a whole. That is consistent with devout Catholicism. Electoral disaster in November?
[/url]
Quote:[url=https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3650]Quinnipiac, Nov. 21-25, 1355 RV (1-month change)
Approve 40 (+2)
Disapprove 54 (-4)
Strongly approve 32 (+4)
Strongly disapprove 50 (-3)
Appears to be reversion to the mean after an outlier. Q polls since September:
9/25: 40/55 (strongly 29/48)
9/30: 41/53 (35/48)
10/8: 40/54 (29/47)
10/14: 41/54 (31/48)
10/23: 38/58 (28/53)
11/26: 40/54 (32/50)
The margin of error for nationwide and statewide approval polls is 4%. Much lower than for Obama eight years ago. Demographic change (older and more politically-conservative people dying off or going senile while younger people replace them in the electorate) does not favor either Trump or the GOP. Say what you want about Obama, but he was closer to 50% and was a more adept politician than Trump is. Trump can win re-election with much less than a plurality of the vote should Democrats simply run up vote totals in California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Washington, (and possibly Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia)... but I see Republicans having a tough time of it. This time it involves a politically-crippled President.
Quote: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)
Donald Trump has had every chance to bring civility and dialogue into the political arena. He has instead acted as if a majority of Americans lost all relevance in American politics after his Party got the trifecta of the Presidency, House, and Senate in 2016. Well, we Democrats are still here, and we can be the consequence of a catastrophic failure by a President with neither political acumen, moral compass, nor respect for objective truth.
We Americans have a choice between fascism and freedom, and even if we must sacrifice prosperity and comfort to thwart fascism then such is a fair deal. Mercifully that is not the choice that we have. It will be up to Americans to choose politicians who have reason and a moral compass. Yes, we are in an economic pickle -- ironically one that many dreamed of, one in which we can have material objects quite dear a few years ago that are now very cheap. So it is no longer easy to profit off scarcity except in real estate or if one has cornered the market, as Big Pharma has done in medicine. The factory that gave intellectual mediocrities and sub-mediocrities a middle-class standard of living in places like Rochester, Buffalo, Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, and St. Louis has folded and gone to the Third World... but even if it were to return to America it would pay starvation wages by American standards. The parts of America that got the manufacturing sector to move South due to low wages and weak unions is itself losing its factory jobs.
Do you want my prediction of what household interiors will look like around 2030? They will look austere by current standards, mostly because people will have no taste for clutter. Utility will make many of the old status symbols irrelevant, and miniaturization and the Internet will make it easy for people to stream intellectual property cheaply and easily. The stuff that people paid dearly for in the 1980's is often trash not so much due to its breakdown as for its obsolescence or irrelevance. Mass-manufacturing has come to the end of the line as a means for making easy money for makers, sellers, and shareholders.
But not only is Donald Trump morally lacking; he is clueless about the economic trends that he promises to revive. The latter is not impeachable.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
