Posted on 01/09/2021 2:30:01 PM PST by Onthebrink
Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley on Saturday issued a warning about Democrats' long-term damage to the Constitution should they continue to press forward with their plans to impeach President Donald Trump (yet again) as his administration comes to a close.
"In seeking his removal for 'incitement,' Democrats would gut not only the impeachment standard but free speech, all in a mad rush to remove Trump just days before the end of his term," Turley wrote in an opinion piece for The Hill.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
He doesn’t agree with the President’s words therefore “justified criticism”.
Now I realize, it’s something are more concerning that has Pelosi, Cocaine-China Mitch and The Swamp in a tizzy.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of the United States is being kept ignorant of what DJT actually said. And, as always, what is presented is their “interpretation” of his comments.
What indeed?
I’m leaning toward a giant six hour infomercial next week either on the emergency broadcast system or the trump just purchases himself out right on a major network that they can’t stop the covers at all
To be honest he covered a good amount of it really quickly wednesday at least enough to make people realize that he won the election fair and square. Some of it was actually pretty funny like getting the ballot back before he mail it out
We’ve had at least 70 or 80 hours of testimony by Rudy Giuliani 10 hours in our fine legal team including the White House it’s the one over the dominion servers stuff
The cat is not going back in the bag and the Democrats are in a very unique and non-tenable position where they have to try to defend the absolutely indefensible
Democrats should be afraid to impeach Trump again. They’re going too far & there could be very bad consequences.
Thus far your opinion speaks the most truth.
If the Democrats and the RINO’s impeach President Trump, then President Pence can issue a general pardon to Donald Trump to forestall the Democrats’ vicious vindictiveness.
“You go ahead and keep looking for that silver bullet that will never come.”
Who told you I’m looking. I’m not looking. I’m watching, and praying.
With God anything is possible and since I know President Trump from back in his NYC days, I do know that if something occurs and an opening presents itself, he will strike with righteous anger.
I know this. You best too.
FRiends, please pray for God’s divine mercy on our country and His will. Thanks.
“I feel it too. They are acting extremely crazed, even for them. The “moderate” Republicans chiming in increases that feeling. We will know soon.”
Good to have company. I pray God’s divine mercy will reveal more.
“ Congress is a failed and corrupt institution”
- Ye have sat here too long for any good you have been doing...in the name of God, go! -
The man who pulled the lanyard to fire the first shot on Fort Sumter expected to win a great victory, too.
“It may be something dramatic...but at the least it is that he may run again.”
Definitely. That aspect is clear from the language of the dopey House impeachment bill and now Cocaine-China Mitch is clear they will continue impeachment in the Senate when he is out of office. If they can.
We’re talking pure treachery here.
I’m reminded of this Trumpism:
“Move slowly, carefully — and then strike like the fastest animal on the planet!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 20, 2013”
I am praying too.
Rasmussen has President Trump’s approval going up after Wednesday.
Rasmussen has President Trump’s approval going up after Wednesday.
________________________________________________
After the antics of the hysterical and dangerous political Left, I can see why.
They did try to impeach Reagan.
Dershowitz said the same thing
"In seeking his removal for 'incitement,' Democrats would gut not only the impeachment standard but free speech, all in a mad rush to remove Trump just days before the end of his term," Turley wrote in an opinion piece for The Hill.
Although the law professor took issue with Trump's speech before supporters, as well as Republicans objections to certifying the electoral votes in Joe Biden's favor, Turley said the president's speech doesn't "meet the definition of incitement under the U.S. criminal code." In fact, Trump's speech is deemed "protected speech" under the First Amendment, the professor noted.
Turley also pinpointed one thing Democrats fail to recognize: the President Trump never called for violence. He simply urged his supporters to march towards the Capitol, something that's common place in Washington, D.C.
"Despite widespread, justified condemnation of his words, Trump never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers 'to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.'"
The concern Turley has with Democrats' impeachment push: the precedent it could set for future generations.
There was no call for lawless action by Trump. Instead, there was a call for a protest at the Capitol. Moreover, violence was not imminent; the vast majority of the tens of thousands of protesters present were not violent before the march, and most did not riot inside the Capitol. Like many violent protests we have witnessed over the last four years, including Trump’s 2017 inauguration, the criminal conduct was carried out by a smaller group of instigators. Capitol police knew of the planned march but declined an offer of National Guard personnel because they did not view violence as likely.
Thus, Congress is about to seek the impeachment of a president for a speech that is protected under the First Amendment. It would create precedent for the impeachment of any president who can be blamed for the violent acts of others after the use of reckless or inflammatory language.
...
... Democrats are now arguing something even more extreme as the basis for impeachment. Under their theory, any president could be removed for rhetoric deemed to have the “natural tendency” to encourage others to act in a riotous fashion. Even a call for supporters to protest peacefully would not be a defense. This standard would allow for a type of vicarious impeachment — attributing conduct of third parties to a president for the purposes of removal.
The professor noted that various Democrats, including Reps. Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and then-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) have all made remarks in the past that contradict their current position. In fact, things they said in the past, like Pressley saying "there needs to be unrest in the streets," could be construed as meaning violence should take place.
He ends his piece by warning about the long-term structural damage this second impeachment push could have on our nation.
The damage caused by this week’s rioting was enormous, but it will pale in comparison to the damage from a new precedent of a “snap impeachment” for speech protected under the First Amendment. It is the very danger that the Framers sought to avoid in crafting the impeachment standard. In a process meant to require deliberative, not impulsive, judgments, the very reference to a “snap impeachment” is a contradiction in constitutional terms. In this new system, guilt is not to be doubted and innocence is not to be deliberated. It would do to the Constitution what the rioters did to the Capitol: Leave it in tatters.
The ball's in your court, Democrats. How will you proceed?
What Constitution?
The one that says Obama can’t be President?
For your information when Pelousi and the other rats tried to impeach President Trump in 2019 Jonathan Turley and Professor Derschowitz spoke to the rats in his behalf.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.