Posted on 12/04/2019 10:08:06 AM PST by jazusamo
Speaking during a House Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday morning, George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley called out Democrats and fellow members of the panel for moving forward with impeachment because "everyone is mad."
“I get it. You're mad. The President's mad. My Republican friends are mad. My Democratic friends are mad. My wife is mad. My kids are mad. Even my dog seems mad and Luna is a golden-doodle and they don't get mad. So, we're all mad. Where has it taken us? Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad or will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration? That is why this is wrong...it's wrong because this is not how you impeach and American president," Turley argued, adding that the evidence Democrats are using is severely lacking, the process is rushed and that a number of witnesses haven't been subpoenaed.
"I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided,” he said.
And by the way, Turley isn't a Republican and voted against President Trump in 2016.
“I'm not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him. My personal and political views of President Trump are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote," he continued. “As I have previously written, such misuses of impeachment would convert our process into a type of no-confidence vote of Parliament. Impeachment has become an impulse buy item in our raging political environment.”
You can watch his entire opening statement below.
Law Professor Jonathan Turley Gives Opening Statement In Impeachment Inquiry
Here we have the Dem “experts” saying that the Constitution is the Law.
Again, rank ignorance.
The Constitution references crimes it does not define them.
Bribery is defined by enacted laws and the Supreme Court opinions.
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled against (McDonald) the broad definition of bribery offered by the Dems.
There is obviously no bribery and no obstruction.
Turley is killing them on points of law and leaving the only reasonable driver for impeachment..........partisan politics.
“Turley is just shredding the other “experts”.
I just clicked on MSN website. They have a picture of Turley with the caption “Trump guilty of bribery and extortion.” That’s the complete opposite of what Turley is saying. Fake news at it’s best.
Turley’s testimony is important.
It gives philosophical cover to the few Democrats that were lukewarm, at best, toward this impeachment.
And his testimony may be decisive.
The Dems do not expect to ever lose control of hovt again. Between immigration, free stuff, and fraud they expect to control the United States indefinitely. This is why they do not care about Turley’s concerns.
However, he was a critic of Obama's abuse of power for DACA, and has been a critic of how Trump has been treated by the left. He's a witness called by the GOP -- he's not a Republican -- but simply because he's been on the right side of these particular questions.
Temper Tantrum - bump for later.....
“I respect Jonathan Turley because he’s an honest liberal.”
A rare breed in today’s climate.
Both my dogs don’t even watch TV anymore.. Poodles are very conservative and sensitive to attacks of any nature. I hope Turley’s doodle holds up OK. I suggest long walks and romps in leaf strewn parks.
Good advice and am glad to hear your dogs are conservatives. :^)
He is a hubert Humphrey,LBJ liberal, there is no room fot them any more.
“The left could care less about the 63 million voters..they hate our guts anyway and want us dead..in their minds we dont exist.”
Oh, they know we exist, and they want us to exist so they can fleece us, but keep us “subdued” at the same time. What they fear most of all is that we are onto them, and we are not going to go along with their program any longer. And now they are scared sh!tless.
bump
He definitely deserves respect, unlike the other rat professors
I just caught a minute of Nicole Wallace on mslsd. Turley proved that Trump is guilty of everything ever.
And then I heard Judge Nappy say Trump is guilty.
I know for sure President Trump will be fine now since those two nutcases are ALWAYS wrong.
While Congress does have oversight duties, the power that accompanies that duty is not unlimited, the idea that Congress can DEMAND anything and have the executive snap to was rejected by the founders so the Executive Officer could have confidentiality in his advisors without worrying about being second guessed in everything. The courts can weigh in to adjudicate what is reasonable in Congress’ request for both documents and witness appearances from the Executive Department. . . and it is not the Justice Department courts that have that say, but the SCOTUS that has that say. It should NOT be adjudicated in the slow deliberate pace of a snail that all other cases take, but should be fast tracked to the SCOTUS to be effective.
He’s along the line of Dershowitz.
Yes, he is. He testified he voted for Clinton and for Obama, and did not vote for Trump, but Hilary. He’s a liberal, just likely a classic Democrat Liberal, not a progressive. He’s an intellectual who follows the law, similar to Alan Dershowitz was before he got compromised by his association with Epstein. He is a great believer in logic and law, unlike the other three professors who are great believers in “Democrat policies” and the Progressive agenda and at least one in the Feminist goals, and I suspect one of LGBQetc . . .
I’m not watching these idiotic hearings, but I’m seeing clips from Jonathan Turley and he’s doing a masterful job of laying out the law and confronting the Democrats on trying to turn the President’s constitutional right to seek intervention from the courts as an “abuse of power.”
Turley to Congress: “If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime & misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing precisely what you’re criticizing the president for doing.”
Absolutely excellent speech goven by Turley.
Schitt knows they can’t win in an impeachment. The purpose is to poison as many voters as they can. He said so on an interview recently...Can’t remember who with.
The looks on the faces of the officials was worth every second of that speech.
One of those experts claims that the Mueller report proves that President Trump committed Obstruction of Justice in at least seven instances during the Mueller investigation, despite it claiming unproved “facts” of events that did not actually occur. . . and he thinks that should be included in the articles of impeachment, despite the fact the Mueller’s 19 rabid Democrat Lawyers couldn’t decide if they were or not, and the DOJ lawyers could not either, so Attorney General Barr settled that they were not Obstruction.
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.