JONATHAN TURLEY ON BILL O'REILLY - 12192005

[7thson]

Did anyone catch Bill O'Reilly last night? He put on two legal "experts" to discuss the warrentless wiretaps ordered by President Bush. One of the experts was Turley. Turley stated President Bush committed an illegal act that could be an impeachable offense. I am not worried about that. I do want to comment though about his statement and 50 USC Section 1802. How come nobody in the media has brought this up yet? I remember Turley always being hard on Clinton during the Impeachment and now he seems to always down on President Bush. What is his problem? Have this Constitutional experts not know the US Code? Someone help me out here.

[mathluv]

I did see that. I was not surprised, because bor will always do what he can to bash the President.

Even the Judge came out against the President on this. I have seen copies of the relevant law on FR. Why can't they read it?

[BluH2o]

Don't get between Turley and a television camera ... some of his law students (in the Clinton years) tried to arrange meetings with him to discuss law school issues (outside the classroom) and couldn't get the time of day. It seems Turley was always busy primping in front of some camera ... the Clinton's, especially during the impeachment period, kept him very busy.

[Ninian Dryhope]

The same clowns would be the first ones to bash the President if we were attacked again with thousands of Americans killed, claiming that he had not done all that was possible to protect us.

The President just has to keep on doing what he thinks is the right thing to do and shrug off the many, carping critics. Carping critics come with the Big Job. If the President does his job, history will see him right.

"If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how - the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what's said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference."
ABRAHAM LINCOLN

[G.Mason]

"Turley stated President Bush committed an illegal act that could be an impeachable offense."

Didn't see it. Exactly what did Turley state?

I saw a few moments of Turley, on C-Span yesterday, giving the raspberry to both John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

He seems to be getting a bit vociferous lately. Perhaps he is tired of being a professor and is grooming himself for a federal courts appointment.

[mathluv]

Good quote, and so true.

[7thson]

Basically stated what I wrote. What President Bush did was illegal and could be an impeachable offense, though he doubted President Bush would be impeached over this.

Just visited Turley's website. For someone so highly acclaimed and knowledgable in the law, his website is third-rate - at best. The Contact link does not allow the user to send him any email, only brings up Turley's bio. Must be nice to spout off and not listen to any feedback.

[ConservativeGreek]

Turley said, the President has admitted to a federal crime in his view of Presidential powers. He believes the statute requires a warrant eventually. The law professor and Bill disagreed.

I do not believe the word impeachment was said by Turley. Only Bill talked about it not being an impeachable offense.

[7thson]

Yes, Turley did say it was an impeachable offense.

[G.Mason]

Thanks for that info.

I heard Fox's "Judge Andrew Napolitano" saying something to the effect that GWB violated the law on this also. Of course Fox & Co. seem to be in the business of book writing and selling, so I really have a hard time defining their objectives. ;)

[Wristpin]

Maybe I didn't pay attention, but I thought he said "broke the law and committed a federal crime".

I agree with the omission of pertinent sections of Section 1802....Then Brit Hume headlines with "eavesdropping on American citizens."

How do they know they were collecting on American citizens?

Seems like they want this drama to grow........

[ConservativeGreek]

Thought only Bill spoke about impeachment.

I must have missed it. Only heard "federal crime."

[MarkT]

I suggest that all pundits be certified as having taken and passed with flying colours a law school course entitled, "Conflict of Laws." The President took an oath of office and his office has wide obligations and corresponding powers when pursuing the defense of the country (not a personal enemies' list). I do not believe Congress can trump the President's effort to provide for the defense of this country - if there is an obvious conflict, then the Court is going to cut a wide berth in favor of the President, especially in light of 9/11 and the Congressional authorizations that grew out of that.

[ConservativeGreek]

if there is an obvious conflict, then the Court is going to cut a wide berth in favor of the President,

Yes, and impeachment is not on the table.

This conflict may be resolved by the Supremes or adjustments to the Federal Code by Congress.
Two different Attorneys General came to the same conclusion, that this was needed, warranted and legal.
They may have to defend that in Court.

[RhoTheta]

50USC1802 states:

(a)(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that--

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at--

(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or

(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

It would appear that the President can authorize these taps, if the subject(s) of the taps are "foreign powers" as designated by 50C1801.

Sec. 1801. Definitions

As used in this subchapter:

(a) ``Foreign power'' means--

(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;

(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;

(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;

Is the problem that the targets of the wiretaps don't fall under the specified sections of 50C1801, but under section 1801(a)(4 thru 6) or 1801(b or c) which more have to do with terrorists, than with spies in a foreign embassy on American soil?

It would seem that Jimmah Carter put these sections in play in 1978, but didn't anticipate al Queida cells and sympathizers at that time.

[Just mythoughts]

Some think "civil liberties" stand supreme above all else in the realm of the Constitution, even the Bill of Rights are placed secondary to "civil rights". There is no civil right to belong to or fund terrorists activities.

[Peach]

The media are either not up to speed on the law and loathe to do a lick of research, or they are just ginning up ratings because they thrive on controversy.

All the media would need to do is read this link/article below, research the law themselves and come to understand the president did not break the law. But that wouldn't help their ratings even a tad.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20621

[Stentor]

Don't get between Turley and a television cameraTurley has no separate reality.

He is actually Ernie Kovacs escaped character Percy Dovetonsils.

[jennyjenny]

I watched it. There was also another professor on, (sorry, name has slipped my mind) who disagreed with Turley about it even being illegal.Turley did say that while he felt it may be an impeachable offense, impeachment would not happen. I believe he agreed with the other guest that the public would not see this as an impeachable offense, so it wouldn't happen.

I never have been too impressed with Turley. Too much of a whiner.

[sirchtruth]

Well, since we all know what this is about,
leftwing TREASONIST hate mongers that will
do ANYTHING to try and bring Bush down, and
cause the US failure to win the WOT
this is just another attempt of an irrelevant
bunch of whiny loser that will fail and cause
more damage to thier abilities to gain power.