Impeachment legal case is ‘woefully inadequate,’ 'dangerous,' legal expert Turley testifies

Fox News ^ | December 04 2019 | Brooke Singman

[knighthawk]

An expert legal witness plans to testify Wednesday that the current legal case for impeaching President Trump is “woefully inadequate” and “dangerous,” as the House Judiciary Committee holds its first impeachment inquiry hearing.

According to an opening statement obtained by Fox News, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University Law School, is prepared to tell lawmakers that, while he is not a "supporter" of the president, he is concerned about the “integrity” of the impeachment process based on the case being built against Trump.

“One can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president,” Turley wrote in his opening statement.

[romanesq]

“He’s giving his fellow Trump hating Democrats a way out.”

Turley is giving fellow Dems common sense on impeachment.
They won’t listen and he knows that going in. He’s making a historical record.

Turley is standing up for the US Constitution. So let’s give him credit. He didn’t have to accept the invitation as he knows the attacks from the nihilist Left will follow.

[SunkenCiv]

The best exit would have been no entrance. They're eyeballs deep in this, and their next move will be to plunge in deeper. And their next move after that will be to plunge in deeper still. This is going to go on throughout the 2020 campaign season, through President Trump's reelection, through is second inauguration, and his entire second term -- even if they lose the House, which I suspect is likely. This has never been anything but a Stalin-style show trial. Thanks EQAndyBuzz.

• Democrat 'Expert' Impeachment Witness Gave $1000 Donation to Elizabeth Warren
• Adam Schiff's other impeachment target: Devin Nunes
• Schiff Team Subpoena'd Call Records from Trump Attorneys Along With Devin Nunes, John Solomon
• Impeachment Hearings Live Thread
• MSNBC Meltdown: 'Can't Survive' 'Machine Gun' GOP and 'Four More Years' of Trump (AWWWW!)
• The Cacophonous Fantasyland of Anti-Trump Hysteria
• BREAKING: Dems are encouraging GOP Never-Trumpers to exploit "loophole" in Senate impeachment clause...
• Dems' (The Demon Rats) Impeachment Trickery
• Kamala Harris zings Trump after he mocks her 2020 race exit: 'I'll see you at your trial'
• Goodwin: Dem impeachment report is Adam Schiff's latest dud
• Husband Of Democrat In Impeachment Hearings Took $700K From Firms Tied To Ukrainian...
• Eeyore sez: President Trump is not draining the swamp

[gandalftb]

Professor Karlan is now passionately discussing past British impeachment proceedings. Incredible that anyone would offer such irrelevance to an American Congress.

What hasn’t been explained, regarding Obstruction Of Justice, is that all these subpoenas that have been denied, have to be presented to the Justice branch for litigation.

There cannot be Obstruction unless the subpoenas are found to be justified by the third branch, Justice.

What remains is the impression that this is the best the Dems can do.

To wit: “If you can’t convince them, confuse them.”

It is clear that if the passion and obvious hate were not present, these proceedings would end.

What might be instructive with this debate’s conclusion is the better definition of impeachment for the future.

[cgbg]

This is like going to a Mafia retreat and explaining that the Mafia really should consider honesty and obeying the law.

[fuzzylogic]

Of course...by the standard being held by the D’s any future POTUS could be impeached over anything. All you’d have to do is make a claim of wrong doing, line up a bunch of people that repeat innuendo, hearsay, make assertions, and frame the narrative for a “made up crime”. One that could be possible if you base impeachment on conspiracy theories. No future POTUS could possibly survive. Of course, this guy realizes it and the D’s are too dumb to see it.

Imagine if Biden actually gets voted in as POTUS. We would be demanding impeachment before he’s sworn in. The only difference is that there’s actual FACTS of wrongdoing.

[dpa5923]

I have stated since the beginning of this mess that this will never reach the Senate. I thought the cry would be, “We know he is guilty, but the Republican Senators are just so bias, we will never get justice.” This way, the dems could just talk how bad Trump is but never have to put on any evidence or face getting their collective asses handed to them in an actual trial.

It appears I was partial right. This will never get to the Senate, but the dems will say Trump hid the evidence so well and obstructed the process to the point that we can never get justice but we know he did it.

This would almost be funny if it weren’t so damning to our republic.

[SunkenCiv]

The rest of the Jonathan Turley keyword, chrono:

• LAW PROFESSORS ON PARADE, A GUIDE [2019]
• France has turned into one of the worldwide threats to free speech [2019]
• How to respond to the Nike flag sneaker recall: 'Just don't buy it' [2019]
• Employers must be prosecuted to end the flow of illegal immigrants [2019]
• Mueller must testify publicly to answer three critical questions [2019]
• Democrats are running out of stunts to pull from impeachment playbook [2019]
• Lawyer issues warning to Congress on Barr contempt: 'You are heading into a world of hurt' [2019]
• Admission by Nadler threatens Democrats' effort to drag William Barr before federal judge [2019]
• Devastating: Liberal Law Professor Clinically Dismantles Democrats' Contempt Case Against Barr [2019]
• Attorney General William Barr tries to restore confidence in Justice Department [2019]
• The revenge of Rod Rosenstein [2019]
• Jonathan Turley on Trump's emergency declaration: 'Democrats will lose' on merits of case [2019]
• Is the collusion theory dead? (Yes) [2019]
• Yes, Trump has authority to declare national emergency for border wall [2019]
• The Steele Dossier and the perils of political insurance policies [2018]
• No glory in James Comey getting away with his abuse of FBI power [2018]
• Three reasons Mueller may not charge Trump with obstruction [2018]
• Constitutional Law Professor: Here's How the Democratic Crusade Against Kavanaugh [2018]
• 27 Times People Predicted Political Catastrophes For Trump That Didn't Materialize [2018]
• MSNBC legal expert: Cohen flipping puts Trump 'one witness away' from catastrophe [2018]
• Turley: Sessions' Appointing Utah Federal Prosecutor Much Better for Trump than 2nd Special Counsel [2018]
• Looking for Mueller's red meat main course [2017]
• attorney shreds Sally Yates: 'You don't order an entire dept... not to assist sitting president' [2017]
• 25th Amendment attacks on Trump are "HOOEY" say Howard Dean and Jonathan Turley [2017]
• Chief Justice Roberts "Swimming In the Middle" [2017]
• Turley: Trump Tweets on Travel Order "Like a Presidential Version of Death by Cop" [2017]
• Ninth Circuit Rejects Motion For Immediate Reinstatement Of Executive Order [2017]
• Do new Clinton emails meet standard for special prosecutor? [2016]
• Turley: Hillary Clinton's Private Email Account "Extraordinary, Dangerous" [2015]
• Turley Joins Republican Challenge To Obama's Lawlessness [2014]
• Liberal Lawyer to Represent House of Representatives Against Obama [2014]
• Liberal Law Prof: Obama Exec Amnesty 'Dangerous' & 'Unprecedented Threat' to Constitutional System [2014]
• GOP hires legal scholar to oversee Obama lawsuit [2014]
• Stopping Obama's 'uber Presidency' [2014]
• Jonathan Turley to Congress: You face self-destruction if you don't rein in Obama [2014]
• Op-Ed Get ready for an even bigger threat to Obamacare [2014]
• Jonathan Turly Weighs In On Supreme Court Ruling & Executive Orders Special Report [2014]
• The president's power grab - Obama is not a dictator, but there is a danger in his aggregation of... [2014]
• M.D. Harmon: Obama cultivating a fourth branch of government [2014]
• Liberal Prof.: Obama Has Brought Us To 'Constitutional Tipping Point' [2014]
• Jonathan Turley: We are now at a constitutional tipping point in our system [2014]
• 'The Imperial Presidency' [constitutional law experts testify before House Judiciary Committee] [2014]
• Turley on Expansion of Presidential Powers: "We Have Become a Nation of Enablers" (MUST SEE video) [2014]
• Gay Community Update: Libs Not Happy, Happy, Happy with Phil Robertson [2013]
• Obama Is The Danger Constitution Was Designed To Avoid [2013]
• Turley: Obama's "Become The Very Danger The Constitution Was Designed To Avoid" [2013]
• Pro-Obama Turley: Obama's "Become The Very Danger The Constitution Was Designed To Avoid" (video) [2013]
• Lib law prof: Obama's unconstitutional power grabs are creating a "very dangerous & unstable system" [2013]
• How Nixon Won Watergate [2013]
• Obama Administration Declares It Will Not Deport Young Illegal Immigrants (Turley:BO is Imperial) [2012]
• Response To The Absurd Polygamy Constitutional Challenge Based On One Supreme Court Precedent [2011]
• A Gay-Wedding Crasher [Homosexual Rights=Rights of Polygamists!] [2011]
• "Sister Wives" clan to challenge constitutionality of Utah's polygamy law (It's come to this) [2011]
• "'Sister Wives' Family to Challenge Utah Bigamy Law" - ABC News - polygamy - mormon [2011]
• Teen faces prison after sex doll prank goes awry (Prosecutors gone wild, kid faces 8 years prison) [2011]
• England Reaffirms Ban on Radio Host Michael Savage [2011]
• Jonathan Turley's snarky remarks about Palin's "death panels" warnings don't look so clever now [2010]
• Jonathan Turley says Obamacare will take federalism "off life-support" (Vanity) [2010]
• Constitutional Lawyer: ObamaCare Treats People Like Pollution [2010]
• Retired Major General Joins Litigation Over Obama's Birth Status [2009]
• Liberal Jonathan Turley: Sotomayor Lacks Intellectual Depth [2009]
• Free World is Barring Free Speech [2009]
• House Panel to Ask for NSA Spying Probe [2008]
• CNN Searches for Capitol's 'Jail' in Report on Libs' Desire to Arrest Rove [2008]
• Strange Bedfellows: ABC Analyst Suggests Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional [2008]
• Gun Control Zealots Await Democrat Victory [2007]
• Jonathan Turley Reads Constitution, Is Shocked to Find 2nd Amendment [2007]
• Feds say eavesdropping program did not taint Va. jihad conviction [2006]
• "Troubling" analysis [Commenting On Jonathan Turley Hit Piece] [2006]
• JONATHAN TURLEY ON BILL O'REILLY - 12192005 [2005]
• Turley: "There Will Be No One to the Right of Sam Alito on This Court" (Hear, hear!) [2005]
• Roberts the Elder: John Roberts has an understated personality, but his record will be all torpedo [2005]
• Role models for Roberts [2005]
• Durbin, Again [2005]
• Durbin offered proof of column (Turley's) [2005]
• Jonathan Turley and The LA Times Make Sensational Charge Against Court Nominee -(Durbin again!) [2005]
• A planted story gone bad [2005]
• To Improve the Supreme Court, Let's Expand It [2005]
• So What's the Story on Bob Novak? - (why isn't he facing the same fate as Judith Miller?) [2005]
• Fair Hearing for Janice Rogers Brown [2005]
• ESTRICH'S VICIOUS ATTACK - (Susan Estrich unhinged!) [2005]
• And it's all legal.....(unbelievable perks available to members of Congress!) [2004]
• Constitutional Attorney Sees Polygamy As Next Stage Of Sexual Revolution [2004]
• Stop Doubting [Clarence] Thomas [2004]
• Meet My Wives [2004]
• NYC DISCRIMINATES AGAINST JEWS, CATHOLICS, AND SALVATION ARMY [2004]
• Hearing on Controversial Dem Memos Could Be Soon [2004]
• U.S. soldiers lack best protective gear (Why dont our Soldiers have enough Flak Jackets?) [2003]
• Did Ashcroft go too far in Greenpeace indictment? [2003]
• Hollywood often plays role of propagandist [2003]
• Ashcroft's Power Grows In Terrorist Witch Hunt (Maaatlock!!!!!!) [2003]
• 'Educating' Congress at the hands of lobbyists [2003]

[shelterguy]

Turley is reasonable even if he is a liberal.

[lastchance]

This speech from that great movie also is applicable to this sham.

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”

Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”

[Cvengr]

It’s more than a witch hunt hit job.

Even when they know they will fail, they succeed in their goal to show the American people the type of governing system which allowed them into office needs to be overhauled.

They will next use this to propose rewriting the Constitution to get rid of human rights.

[cymbeline]

“We know he is guilty, but the Republican Senators are just so bias, we will never get justice.”

I agree. You’ve restated my view (or I restated yours).

It will be interesting what the Democrat’s attack strategy will be after the impeachment thing blows over.

[Ancesthntr]

“He’s giving his fellow Trump hating Democrats a way out.”

---

I am of two minds about this.

One part of me wants this to be over ASAP, as there is always a non-zero risk of Trump being convicted (one never knows what the Deep State has on people, look at Roberts and the Obamacare decision). The Deep State hates Trump with a passion, and getting rid of him at just about any cost is their over-riding goal right now.

OTOH, part of me wants this to go to a Senate trial, so that Trump’s attorneys can question EVERYONE, and bring out ALL of the dirt.

Hanging over all of this is the cheapening of the process, and the harm that this will do to our reputation as a stable country with the rest of the world. Also, what Trump is going through is not just for him, but also it is a warning for every other person who is wealthy and may be inclined to run for POTUS without being a member of “The Club.”

[Ancesthntr]

No, he’s not being a douche, he’s being intellectually honest - the way that liberals used to be before most of them either died off or turned into Leftists.

One can disagree (as he does) with policies or a particular person, but understand and respect the laws and the process involved (and that it may not work to your political or personal advantage in any given situation). That’s what Turley has demonstrated here. It is OK for him to be politically naive, misguided, etc., so long as he is honest and doesn’t try to overturn our system in order to get his way.

[lastchance]

You have given an excellent summation. Thanks.

[Moonman62]

Even if the Senate were to remove him, he’d run and win in 2020.

[Ancesthntr]

“No future POTUS could possibly survive. Of course, this guy realizes it and the D’s are too dumb to see it.”

---

Agreed that no one (but Trump) could possibly withstand this. However, the Dems are not that stupid - looking at it as they do, once Trump is gone (now or on 1/20/2025), they will control government, probably including the Presidency. The next time that they win the Presidency, that’s the last election - they’ll rig the system so tightly that there will be no way that any Republican will ever have a chance. As a result, they simply don’t CARE what they do to the process, because they don’t think that they’ll ever be subject to it.

This is what Leftists do, acquire power at all costs, because that is all that they care about. They don’t care about any system, nor about any moral principles.

[Ancesthntr]

“Even if the Senate were to remove him, he’d run and win in 2020.”

---

If he was removed for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” that might preclude him from holding any elective office. I’m simply not absolutely sure about that - but with a kangaroo grand jury (the House) throwing charges about willy-nilly, I’m sure that there will be a charge that is definitely a felony - and if he’s convicted on that (which is unlikely, but still possible), then I believe that he’d be ineligible.

[shelterguy]

I was talking about a different doosh.

[Hoosier-Daddy]

Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi are trying to disenfranchise 63M US Citizens. This must not stand. What they are doing is incredibly dangerous, akin to playing with Pandora’s Box.

[Simon Foxx]

Agreed that no one (but Trump) could possibly withstand this. However, the Dems are not that stupid - looking at it as they do, once Trump is gone (now or on 1/20/2025), they will control government, probably including the Presidency. The next time that they win the Presidency, that’s the last election - they’ll rig the system so tightly that there will be no way that any Republican will ever have a chance. As a result, they simply don’t CARE what they do to the process, because they don’t think that they’ll ever be subject to it.

This is what Leftists do, acquire power at all costs, because that is all that they care about. They don’t care about any system, nor about any moral principles.
____________________________________________________________

I suspect (fear) that you are right. But let us reelect the president, give him both houses of Congress again - and fight, FIGHT til our last breath!