Posted on 11/22/2019 12:34:12 PM PST by Red Badger
Appearing on Friday’s CBS This Morning, legal analyst and constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley completely shattered the hopes of Democrats and the liberal media that President Trump would be successfully impeached and removed from office. He trashed the proceedings for presenting “the thinnest evidentiary record” and declared the effort was “designed to fail.”
After fellow CBS News legal analyst and anti-Trump Bulwark writer Kim Wehle assured the morning show anchors that Democrats “absolutely” made the case for impeachment, co-host Gayle King turned to Turley and wondered: “Jonathan, do you feel the same?” Turley threw a wet blanket on the discussion: “I’m afraid I don’t.”
Replying to King and fellow co-host Anthony Mason skeptically asking, “why don’t they have a case?,” Turley dismantled the impeachment crusade point by point:
The fact is I think that this is the – well certainly the shortest investigation, it’s certainly the thinnest evidentiary record, and it’s the narrowest impeachment ever to go to the Senate, if they were to go on this record....did they prove something was contemptible or impeachable? Contemptible is not synonymous with impeachable. The President does set policy. They have three conversations, two of them directly, one with Senator Johnson, one with Ambassador Sondland, where Trump denies a quid pro quo....so you have a conflicted record. And the question is what do you need to remove a sitting president?
Mason wondered why Democrats didn’t compel former National Security Advisor John Bolton to testify. Turley confessed he was curious about the same thing as he slammed the rushed and incomplete process pushed by Democrats:
Whether this is intentional or not, it seems designed to fail in the Senate. I don’t think you could prove a removable offense of a president on this record even if the Democrats were in control. This thing is too narrow, it is – it doesn’t have a broad foundation, and it’s an undeveloped record. There are a lot of core witnesses that were not called. And the question is why? They said, “We want a vote by December. We want to vote before Santa.” Why? Why – why would you – why would you be pushing this instead of calling these critical witnesses?
During special live coverage on Wednesday, Turley shot down an argument from Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell that Democrats could charge Trump with “obstruction of justice” because those witnesses did not appear.
Moments later, even King admitted: “I think people’s eyes start to glaze over. ‘Ukraine, where is it?,’ some people would say. ‘What is this? Is it bribery, is it collusion? What is it?’” She then asked Wehle, “What do you think is really at stake here, Kim?” Wehle warned: “What’s at stake here is separation of powers. We don’t have a single person or branch in charge. We’re not a monarchy.”
Turley went on to point out that Republicans would be in control of the Senate trial if the House were to approve articles of impeachment and that things would go very differently: “And so the question is, what is this going to look like in the Senate? And I got to tell you, I think this could be the trial that Trump wants. And they will – the first witness they call may be Hunter Biden.”
Wehle laughably pleaded: “Well, let’s hope it’s as civil as it was in the House, because so far the process has been, I think, very measured and thoughtful and professional, which is good.” Mason couldn’t help but get in a jab at the GOP: “Except for the Republicans storming the basement one day.” Wehle replied: “Yes, that was – that was a little footnote there.”
“Measured,” “thoughtful,” and “professional”?! Those are not the words many people would use to describe the partisan hearings that Democrats just held.
Here is a full transcript of the November 22 discussion:
8:03 AM ET
TONY DOKOUPIL: Jonathan Turley and Kim Wehle are CBS News legal analysts and constitutional scholars, and they join us now to explain where the impeachment inquiry is headed next. So, Kim, let’s start with you. Did the Democrats lay out a case that was strong enough to reach that constitutional bar for impeachment?
KIM WEHLE: Well, if the question is abuse of power, yes, they absolutely did. In that the President, it looks like, asked for an investigation or announcement of investigations into a political rival in exchange for release of military aid. So using the power of the presidency, the ability to have a White House meeting, to release this critical aid that Ukraine needed to stave off Russian aggression, and said, “You know what, you have to help me personally.” So that is the standard that the framers cared about, having somebody in office that would use that power for themselves, not for the beef the American people. And here we know it was contrary to national security.
DOKOUPIL: So as far as you’re concerned, write up the articles of impeachment, let’s vote tomorrow?
WEHLE: We’re gonna see it. As far as let’s vote tomorrow, no, the process is a Senate trial. And we’ll have to see what’s in the articles to then test the evidence against those – those claims.
GAYLE KING: Jonathan, do you feel the same?
JONATHAN TURLEY: I’m afraid I don’t.
KING: Why?
TURLEY: The fact is I think that this is the – well certainly the shortest investigation, it’s certainly the thinnest evidentiary record, and it’s the narrowest impeachment ever to go to the Senate, if they were to go on this record. What they did is they did show a quid pro quo. Kim and I agree with that. I think they had powerful witnesses. The witnesses were really marvelous –
ANTHONY MASON: So why don’t they have a case?
TURLEY: Well, because the question is did they prove something was contemptible or impeachable? Contemptible is not synonymous with impeachable. The President does set policy. They have three conversations, two of them directly, one with Senator Johnson, one with Ambassador Sondland, where Trump denies a quid pro quo. Now I think you can toss the Sondland one out, because that’s September 9th, he knew about the whistleblower. But the Senator Johnson one was August 31st, so you have a conflicted record. And the question is what do you need to remove a sitting president?
WEHLE: Except we do have the call transcript, right?
MASON: Why haven’t the Democrats – the Democrats subpoenaed John Bolton, which would take them into the White House, but they haven’t pushed to get him into the hearings. Why not?
TURLEY: I don’t know. Whether this is intentional or not, it seems designed to fail in the Senate. I don’t think you could prove a removable offense of a president on this record even if the Democrats were in control. This thing is too narrow, it is – it doesn’t have a broad foundation, and it’s an undeveloped record. There are a lot of core witnesses that were not called. And the question is why? They said, “We want a vote by December. We want to vote before Santa.” Why? Why – why would you – why would you be pushing this instead of calling these critical witnesses?
KING: I wonder, Kim, what –
MASON: One quick thing.
KING: Okay.
MASON: Mr. Bolton just tweeted, he said, “For the back story, stay tuned.”
KING: What does that mean?
DOKOUPIL: That’s intriguing.
KING: What does that mean?
WEHLE: A book maybe?
KING: No, I – but this is the thing, I wonder what the American people are thinking. We’ve had 17 witnesses, you point out, many of them stellar. Stellar reputations and unpartisan [sic]. 3,000 pages of sworn depositions. I think people’s eyes start to glaze over. “Ukraine, where is it?,” some people would say. “What is this? Is it bribery, is it collusion? What is it?” What do you think is really at stake here, Kim?
WEHLE: What’s at stake here is separation of powers. We don’t have a single person or branch in charge. We’re not a monarchy. The idea is every branch gets their papers graded by the other two branches.
KING: What does it say about the Office of the President?
WEHLE: The Office of the Presidency, if wrongdoing in the office, abuse of power is not checked, then we enlarge the office. The belt and suspenders of the power of the presidency gets enlarged. That gets passed on to the next president, to the next president, to future generations. And it won’t always be this particular president or even this particular political party.
MASON: Jonathan, Reince Priebus said earlier today, when this gets – if this gets to the Senate, when it gets to the senate, the rules are changing.
TURLEY: They are. And you know, the Senate, the Republicans will be in charge of the rules. I was Adam Schiff’s opposing counsel last time we did this, in the last impeachment. And Adam benefited greatly because the Democrats were the ones who wrote those rules. Now it’s going to be the opposite. Even the Chief Justice in that proceeding does not get the final word. If he makes a ruling on evidence, the majority of the Senate can overturn him. And so the question is, what is this going to look like in the Senate? And I got to tell you, I think this could be the trial that Trump wants. And they will – the first witness they call may be Hunter Biden.
WEHLE: Well, let’s hope it’s as civil as it was in the House, because so far the process has been, I think, very measured and thoughtful and professional, which is good.
KING: Well, we will all still be watching.
MASON: Except for the Republicans storming the basement one day.
WEHLE: Yes, that was – that was a little footnote there.
DOKOUPIL: Extracurricular.
KING: Oh, there’s that. Thank you, Kim Wehle and Jonathan Turley. Always good to have you both here.
Just heard on Fox that the court is expected to rule on Bolton’s subpoena on the 10th. Lot’s happening on the 9th, 10th and 11th. POPCORN
Bolton would be dead to conservatives and Republicans were he to work with the Democrats. The DIMS already hate him so if he comes off anti-Trump, his book and he will relegated to the appropriate dustbin of history. He would be lucky to sell 100 copies.
However, after the impeachment is over and he release a "bombshell” tell all book critical of the inner workings of the Trump Administration, he will be on every talk show from now until election day.
Trump is not worried about Bolton so I am am thinking Bolton will have very little to offer with regards to Ukraine. He hates Ruddy and that is where his venom will be directed if he were to testify.
I am beginning to wonder if there is not some link between the Biden’s and Ukraine's involvement in the Steele Dossier?
In the summer people lose interest in politics and will be uninterested for the two and a half months leading up to the Republican Convention. That is why the DIMS are crying it is so unfair they hold their convention in July. Nobody will really be paying attention.
After 24 August it will be election 24/7 until November. Legislative work will grind to a halt
The DIMS have 5 Months to accomplish something and distance themselves from the Clown Show, hoping voters have short memories. But if impeachment goes into March or April, the clown show is all anyone will remember about this Congress.
Even expediting a cases before the Supreme Court it could be March or April before they get a judgment.
They may have a more nefarious reason. I think they need to prevent Trump from replacing RBG in 2020 claiming a President under the cloud of impeachment cannot nominate a Justice to replace her.
Where is that written in the Constitution? I must have missed it, somewhere.............must be under the 'Penumbra Clause'..............
As George Will once pointed out, Americans don’t pay any attention to elections until after the World Series.............
Here is my conspiracy theory:
It is widely expected that there might be a near-term opening on the Supreme Court due to the death of a sitting Justice.
If the Senate is tied up with an Impeachment, they can hardly be in a position to divert attention from that for confirmation hearings, now can they? I mean, is it even FAIR for an impeached President to nominate anyone? Is this what the Founders would have wanted?
This will be the MSM/Democrat argument.
And by the time the trial is over, well isn't it too late to do confirmation hearings?
This sham has little to do with Trump, and a lot to do with Ginsberg.
So, that's my theory.
Same place it was written that Obama could not replace Scalia it is the Majority leader in the Senate. McConnell has been great on judges but I would not bet the farm on him.
One thing I’ll say for these traitors... their wagon may be full of $hit, but they’ve got a never ending supply of media mules to pull it.
The President isn't the governor of the people, and is not elected by the people. The President presides over the federation of sovereign states, and it's the states that elect the President via the Electoral College. The states have the Constitutional power to choose how to select the Electors to the Electoral College.
Buttressing this, the impeachment trial was to be held in the Senate, which was made up of Senators appointed by the state legislatures. This means that the states, via the Electoral College, chose the President; and the states, via the Senate, could remove a President.
All this changed with the 17th amendment that made the Senate popularly elected by the people. No longer did the state legislature itself have the power of choosing their representation in the Senate. This means that the power to remove a President was effectively handed to the people, and by extension, to the political parties that fund the campaigns of Senators.
It's the party control of Senators today that makes impeachment destined to fail, but it wasn't designed to fail by the Framers.
-PJ
He will subpoena Schiff. He will subpoena the Bidens. He will subpoena Ciaramella.
____________________________________________________
Can they ignore the subpoenas? Refuse to appear out of contempt for POTUS and the GOP?
Seriously asking.
Dems are running the campaign on the taxpayer dime. Trash Trump constantly from a stately setting with media talking heads repeating it all day long.
I got the impression Bolton was waiting to use the subpoena as cover for testifying. Is that your take? If he flips and helps the rats I will have never been so wrong about someone.
Bolton is a bit of an enigma to me. Trump says he has nothing. The democrats know he is not a huge smoking gun or they would wait it out. I think a lot comes down to having his panties in a bunch and a forthcoming book.
I noted this on another thread but it’s worth repeating how drastic the opinion difference is between your typical pundit and true Constitutional experts.
Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz are libs but they do know the Constitution. And its funny how these leftist hosts, pundits and never-Trumpers on these shows seem to not comprehend why they don’t see the same ‘proof’ of Trump’s guilt that the pundits do.
They want the headlines ad nauseam but they definitely don’t want to be held to account by the voters.
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.