"We don’t need Professor Turley’s hand-wringing performance to scare us away from defending our democracy through the exercise of our political power to hold an oligarchic authoritarian accountable. Exercising our accountability muscle will make a stronger, not weaker in the future. It will make us more familiar with the source of our political authority and power and will protect us against further abuses in the future, not make us vulnerable to them, as Professor Turley suggests.
President Trump needs to be impeached for his shocking and multi-dimensional misconduct. But the people need him held accountable for another reason: We need him held accountable to reconnect with the underlying authority on which our democracy is based and to start cleansing our society of the noxious false relativism infecting our public debate, such as we witnessed yesterday in Professor Turley’s performance." - Hank Edson, 'Professor Turley Is Dead Wrong On Impeachment, And Here's Why', smirkingchimp.com (link at bottom)
"The Republicans are arguing that if a president stands in the middle of Fifth Avenue, fires a gun and misses someone, just leave him alone. He didn't do anything wrong. That's an insane argument!"
Chris Mathews last night, MSNBC, 'Hardball'
As I watched the next phase of the impeachment inquiry unfold yesterday, with the House Judiciary Committee hearings featuring four constitutional scholars, the Reeptard minority didn't waste time wasting time . Almost before Chairman Jerry Nadler could get the first words out of his mouth, e.g.
“Never before has a president engaged in a course of conduct that included all the acts that most concerned the framers,”
The bankrupt Reeps resorted to procedural objections and high-temperature harangues in an effort to protect Traitor Trump. It was as if the imbeciles knew in advance their case would be skewered by the 3 real constitutional scholars the Dems had selected as witnesses. (Noah Feldman of Harvard, Pamela Karlan of Stanford, Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina.)
So what does an imbecile do confronted by such intellectual firepower? And when they only have in their corner a William Barr crony and pal like Jonathan Turley? Well, they must resort to chaos and impotent huff and puff to try to impede or distract.
Thus the hapless Reepos lodged a series of rapid-fire interruptions and parliamentary "inquiries" as the hearing began, interrupting the first witnesses and leading Nadler to resort repeatedly to his gavel. At one point I actually thought Nadler would use his gavel on one of their heads. Aside from the typical Reepo clown show, the other farce was the interminable grandstanding. Thus, one beheld Georgia congressman Doug Collins, the top Republican on the committee, accusing Democrats of moving to impeach Trump, “because you just don’t like the guy”.
Uh, no, lunkhead, it's because they don't want our nation ruled by some halfwit, half mad wannabe King. Especially a two bit former Queens lowlife, grifter, real estate chiseler and former reality show mutt who fancies himself a latter day monarch. The cornpone Collins then burped out perhaps the most presumptuous bark of all:
“The American people is [sic] really gonna look at this and say, ‘Huh? What are we doing?’” .
Nope. That take would apply for the lower half of the IQ curve, in the parlance of Harvard prof Harvey Mansfield - referring to those who voted Trump in 2016. The rest of the people, I am confident, have enough brain cells to see what the House is doing is impeaching a thug who thinks he can rule the nation like he ran his scam real estate properties and fraudulent fronts like "Trump University".
The cornpone congress critter then yapped sarcastically:
“We’ve got law professors here. What a start to a party!"”But not a "party" for the Reeptardos who the three actual scholars beat down mercilessly - especially in one exchange when Stanford Professor Pamela Karlan directly challenged the Georgian dolt when he claimed the scholars "didn't do their homework".
Looking back on the nine hours of testimony and questioning it's a pity that professor Karlan never had George Washington University "scholar" Jonathan Turley as a student. She might have spared him from the display of rank sophistry he exhibited in his assorted turns to speak during the hearing yesterday.
The three professors called by Dems were on the mark in presenting coherent, well -argued cases that Trump's abuses of power offered the textbook case for impeachable offenses as defined in the Constitution.
Meanwhile, CBS legal analyst and GWU prof Turley tried to use language parsing and hair splitting to argue there was an insufficient threshold to impeach. (This is the same turkey who - some 20 years earlier- said that Bill Clinton had to be impeached for a sexual peccadillo. Oh wait! I forgot, he lied about having a sex act! My bad! But hey, he didn't try to barter away the upcoming 2000 election for a "favor, though"!)
According to Turley there was no real bribery by Trump, i.e. that met the standard for impeachment, nor any obstruction. Evidently Turley believed for the latter to genuinely happen the Dems would have to produce "real" evidence - given that what existed didn't count. (Hours of witness testimony, including first hand listening in to the call, the call transcript itself- released I might add, after the whistle got blown, Mulvaney's own admission of quid pro quo etc.) Bottom line, this existence of actual evidence isn't rocket science or quantum physics, for Pete's sake. Any brainless zombot ought to be able to figure it out, without a constitutional law degree.
So in other words, we have more than ample 'there, there' - the proverbial smoking gun if you will- without going further as Turley demands. As Michael Gerhardt, the University of North Carolina law professor made clear:
“If what we’re talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable,”
As for bribery, Prof. Karlan also had to correct Turley on his truncated take by using a 1792 definition from dictionary by Samuel Johnson. My primary complaint with Turley has to do with his use of sophisticated language manipulation, or what one blogger (P.M. Carpenter) called "fussiness". In this case, one found abundant "Turleyisms" popping up comparable to the "Posnerisms" exposed by serious JFK assassination researchers from Gerald Posner's book, 'Case Closed".
Twelve of the most serious “Posnerisms” are documented here:
Update - Addendum: To show how marginal Turley's arguments are, 500 constitutional scholars have since signed a letter attesting to their agreement with the arguments made by the three Democratic witnesses, Profs. Karlan, Gerhardt and Feldman.
"In his opening statement emphasizing the importance of legal standards, George Washington University constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley claimed that impeaching, “a president on this record would expose every future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment” and warned, “I hope you will consider what you will do when the wind blows again perhaps for a Democratic president.”
In making this argument, Turley might just as well have argued that the founding patriots should not have declared independence because once they were in power, the people might declare their independence from them. The founding patriots, after all, were not asserting a codified legal standard in declaring their independence, they were asserting their political power. The source of the people’s political power sufficient to overthrow codified law, the Declaration itself announced, was not the written codes authored by human beings, but the “self-evident” truths describing natural law.
Faced with Turley’s argument, our founding patriots might well have said, “If we, as governors of the people, deserve it, let the people declare their independence from us.” Indeed, Thomas Jefferson famously welcomed such exercise of the people’s authority under natural law to assert their political power when he said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” But Jefferson and the other founding patriots were also wise enough to allow for a process that would avoid the need for such bloodshed in the assertion of the people’s authority and power under natural law to remove an illegitimate government. They gave us impeachment."