SPYGATE: Liberal Law Professor Jonathan Turley: Obama Spying on Trump Should be ‘Investigated’..

Politistick ^ | 03/04/2017 | Matthew K. Burke

[ForYourChildren]

Highly respected liberal law professor and constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley at George Washington University, seemingly one of the few intellectually honest liberals left in America — someone who objectively has criticized both Democrats and Republicans when he thought they were out of bounds — was asked to respond to the stunning charges from President Trump on Saturday that Obama illegally wiretapped Trump Tower during the presidential campaign against Democrat Hillary Clinton and that he was considering legal action.

After CNN anchor Fredricka Whitfield and her guests sounded like Obama’s legal defense team all Saturday morning, Professor Turley provided an alternative to CNN’s shameful coverage of the accusation and its ramifications, characterizing the alleged spying by Obama as “disturbing” and that everyone in should have be interested in having the scandal investigate.

{..snip..}

[scooby321]

Hire Johnathon Turley

[Founding Father]

Rudy to the rescue.

[GOPJ]

...if Sessions has his calls and e-mails illegally intercepted then he clearly can't be an objective prosecutor. A prosecutor in a case against a car thief has to step down from the case if the same thief stole the prosecutor's car six months earlier.

Good point.

[GOPJ]

Yes, it’s odd for a person to be both a ‘good man’ AND a democrat... but Turley’s both...

[AlphaOneAlpha]

Don’t trust whatever Turley says. He was a big Obama ass-kisser when Obama was a candidate and eventually the President. He disappeared being on FOX while Obama was president. Now, all of a sudden, I see him back on FOX again and weighing in as supportive of Trump.
He goes where the $ is.

[TheTimeOfMan]

Umm sorry. There is NO legal requirement to use an independent, or ‘special’ prosecutor in this situation. Unless you could point me to an authority that states otherwise?

[Alberta's Child]

Look up the rules of professional conduct for a practicing attorney for the Federal bar.

Specifically, look up Rule 1.7 regarding conflicts of interest related to current clients ... keeping in mind that for Jeff Sessions, his "current client" is the United States of America, not Donald Trump.

This is why the stories about Trump wanting Sessions not to recuse himself were probably true ... because Trump probably has no idea about how these ethics rules apply to a situation that he is always seeing (understandably) in political terms.

[Toespi]

He seems to be, at least honest in his interpretation of the law. I haven’t heard much liberal spew from him and am always perplexed when I see liberal next to his name and more so when he self identifies as a liberal.

[Just mythoughts]

Remember how the lib-tares roasted Nixon over him ordering then Attorney General Mitchell to do this or that? Well, by Sessions recusing himself from overseeing this ‘investigation’, he can freely communicate with President Trump.

And by dumping the burden of investigating to Congress, President and Attorney General can continue working on other matters... But they both will stay informed!!!

[Toespi]

That is just not accurate. I have see Turley on Fox rather frequently. I have also seen him very opposed to many of Obamas unconstitutional overreaches. Obamacare, Little sisters of the Poor, Rosen wiretapping, are several that come to mind.

[GOPJ]

It's weird alright. Turley’s definitely a liberal, but one with integrity. Strange combination for a liberal.

[sport]

At one point in time, Liberal simply meant free thinker. It is just one more term such as gender for sex, gay for homosexual that the Communists were allowed to corrupt.

[Mariner]

That website is polluted.

It attempts to inject all sorts of junk.

[TheTimeOfMan]

I would submit that this is a grey area at this level and one that has been consistently ignored by Democratic administrations. And if they want to play with knives in the gutter - that is where we need to play also.

[ForYourChildren]

“That website is polluted.

“It attempts to inject all sorts of junk.”

---

It doesn’t do that to me.

[Abundy]

First, Sessions certainly should NOT recuse himself from overseeing the investigation into whether Obama and or his team abused our secret intelligence services in order to snoop on a political opponent.

Second, Sessions needs to hire an outside deputy and give that person charge of this case, almost like a special counsel. The problem is that the DOJ and the US Attorneys offices are filled to the brim with liberals sympathetic to Obama and the Clintons. The deputy must not be a liberal and should be someone able to be zealous.

The new deputy brought in should hire a special team of lawyers to assist him or her. That team should NOT be “bipartisan.”

One lesson from the Vince Foster investigation is that Starr was uninvolved, supervising the case from 35,000 feet, and the one lawyer with integrity ended up resigning because lib lawyers on Starr’s team appeared to be undermining the investigation.

If Sessions hires a disengaged deputy to handle this matter and/or they use a bipartisan team of lawyers, the investigation will be sabotaged. Count on it.

I volunteer.

[Alberta's Child]

The difference is that Democrat administration ignored it so they could be complicit in wrongdoing. In this case, the intent is to investigate and prosecute the wrongdoing ... which means there is a much different risk if an attorney ignores these kinds of ethical constraints.

The worst-case scenario would be for someone who is prosecuted by Sessions to file a complaint against Sessions for ethical misconduct over a conflict of interest. Even if the charge doesn't stick, it could be sufficient for a criminal charge against that defendant to be dismissed, or a conviction overturned. Is that really a risk you would ever want to take ... just so the AG can be a "fighter" in your mind? Please.

[Mariner]

that junk is now part of your machine...

[ForYourChildren]

“that junk is now part of your machine...”

I don’t get that junk.

[TheTimeOfMan]

If there is a clear conflict of interest - I agree. But does the mere fact that Sessions was nominated by Trump constitute such a conflict? In reality yes. Legally? I don’t think so. But I have to concede that even if that is true it could be grounds for an appeal - with all of its attendant uncertainty.

So - ok I agree with you.