• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The shifting impeachment positions of Jonathan Turley | TheHill

OscarLevant

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
16,876
Reaction score
7,397
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Jonathan Turley, hypocrite extraordinaire

The shifting impeachment positions of Jonathan Turley | TheHill

In 1998*he testified*before Congress in the Clinton impeachment hearings, taking the position that “If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct." This proposition would surely argue for Trump’s impeachment, but Turley conveniently forgot to mention this in his testimony
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
Jonathan Turley, hypocrite extraordinaire
Click to expand...

They'd be a lot better off having different people for the different hearings, so the hypocrisy isn't so obvious, but there are only so many hacks they can find perhaps.
 
OscarLevant said:
Jonathan Turley, flip-flopper extraordinaire
Click to expand...

Thankfully, the article provides a link to Professor Turley's actual testimony.

It can be found here: Clinton Impeachment Testimony: House Judiciary Committee – JONATHAN TURLEY

Summary: Impeachment was a process by which the public could address serious questions of legitimacy in the Chief Executive and other officers. This public inquiry into “the conduct of public men” allows a free people to respond to questions of illegitimacy rather than leave the system paralyzed or diminished by scandal. The view of the impeachment process in this fashion reinforces the need of the House to submit credible evidence of serious crimes to the Senate.
Click to expand...

and

It is important to restate the specific context for this threshold argument. President Clinton stands accused of a series of knowing criminal acts in office, including perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and abuse of office.
Click to expand...

This is EXACTLY what Professor Turley was stating in his recent testimony. He not only admitted impeachment was a political process, he also compared the current process to that of past impeachments, including President Clinton's. He pointed out that President Clinton had FACTUAL crimes which formed the foundation of that Impeachment effort.

That this current effort has yet to provide any evidence of FACTUAL crimes, just a lot of opinion, presumption, and anger.

The Hill article is IMO clearly misinterpreting then and now, sad to say.
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
Jonathan Turley, hypocrite extraordinaire
Click to expand...
Nope. Different case, different charges. It's not a one-size-fits-all situation. I think you're smarter than this; please don't prove me wrong.
 
Mycroft said:
The difference is that back then, there was an actual crime involved.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and I think that was Turley's point; The "evidence" the Dems want to take to trial provides for a bill of charges that would get a first-year law student an F. I got his message as "what you're accusing him of would be impeachable if you didn't have such meaning **** as evidence". Turley was being the legal scholar not a partisan shill. And that infuriates the left. A team player, Turley's a dem, wandered off the reservation.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Thankfully, the article provides a link to Professor Turley's actual testimony.

It can be found here: Clinton Impeachment Testimony: House Judiciary Committee – JONATHAN TURLEY



and



This is EXACTLY what Professor Turley was stating in his recent testimony. He not only admitted impeachment was a political process, he also compared the current process to that of past impeachments, including President Clinton's. He pointed out that President Clinton had FACTUAL crimes which formed the foundation of that Impeachment effort.

That this current effort has yet to provide any evidence of FACTUAL crimes, just a lot of opinion, presumption, and anger.

The Hill article is IMO clearly misinterpreting then and now, sad to say.
Click to expand...

Yes there's nothing as vague as blatantly and illegally defying Congressional subpoenas in blanket fashion in Plainview to the world, not to mention at least 4 clear-cut cases of obstruction of justice in the Mueller report.

Not to mention He's listed his co-conspirator in a felony for which is long-time lawyer he threw under the bus is sitting in jail for

Clearly he's not applying the same standard to Trump as he did Clinton

I stand by the OP
 
OscarLevant said:
Yes there's nothing as vague as blatantly and illegally defying Congressional subpoenas in blanket fashion in Plainview to the world, not to mention at least 4 clear-cut cases of obstruction of justice in the Mueller report.

Not to mention He's listed his co-conspirator in a felony for which is long-time lawyer he threw under the bus is sitting in jail for

Clearly he's not applying the same standard to Trump as he did Clinton

I stand by the OP
Click to expand...

1. Americans are allowed to fight subpoenas- even those from Congress.
Moreover, the concept of executive privilege does exist.
Congress continues to be free to go to court to force an appearance. In the case of McGahan, they have a the court will hear their case next year.
Why then, Turkey asks, impeach now?

2. The DOJ rejected the obstruction claims of Mueller, and of course Congress never moved on them either.

3. The campaign finance investigation of the SDNY has been closed. Like the obstruction claims, there is no there there.
No hypocicy from Turley.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Thankfully, the article provides a link to Professor Turley's actual testimony.

It can be found here: Clinton Impeachment Testimony: House Judiciary Committee – JONATHAN TURLEY



and



This is EXACTLY what Professor Turley was stating in his recent testimony. He not only admitted impeachment was a political process, he also compared the current process to that of past impeachments, including President Clinton's. He pointed out that President Clinton had FACTUAL crimes which formed the foundation of that Impeachment effort.

That this current effort has yet to provide any evidence of FACTUAL crimes, just a lot of opinion, presumption, and anger.

The Hill article is IMO clearly misinterpreting then and now, sad to say.
Click to expand...

Obstruction of justice is an "actual crime". Ignoring subpoenas and instructing subordinates to do so in order to impede an investigation is therefore a crime. It could also be interpreted as Contempt of Congress, also a criminal offence, albeit a relatively minor one.

Contempt of Congress | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
 
Last edited:
Athanasius68 said:
1. Americans are allowed to fight subpoenas- even those from Congress.
Click to expand...
You are allowed to contest them, of course, but you still have to comply. Once in compliance (meaning, you must appear), you can argue why you think it's not valid.

You are NOT allowed to defy them, for that, you can be jailed and/or fined. If a president does it, it's obstruction and contempt of congress. Congress can either impeach for that reason, or take the prez to court. Given that that process will take too long, which seems to be the Prez's game plan, it will be an article of impeachment.

Moreover, the concept of executive privilege does exist.
Click to expand...
It does not exist to be used to cover up wrongdoing. It can be used for certain things, specific things.

Congress continues to be free to go to court to force an appearance. In the case of McGahan, they have a the court will hear their case next year.
Click to expand...
McGahn was taken to court for defying subpoena related to the Mueller investigation, which, at that juncture, there was plenty of time.
Not so much true now with the impeachment effort.
Why then, Turkey asks, impeach now?
Click to expand...
Who cares what Turkey thinks?
2. The DOJ rejected the obstruction claims of Mueller, and of course Congress never moved on them either.
Click to expand...
In my view, it's obvious the AG is a Trump stooge. He lied about the Mueller report, period. His word is worthless. His wild goose chase by assigning Durham to investigate FISA impropriety has proved fruitless, which was expected, as the IG, after rigorous investigation, found nothing, either. Any other AG worth his or her salt would have accepted the IG report. During his Senate approval hearing, he stated that the believed "there was spying on Trump's campaign", but when asked if he had any evidence whatsoever that would support such a contention, he answered in the negative. In my view, for an AG to use a word like "spying" which has treasonous overtones, without evidence, is evidence of incompetence, which is enough evidence for reasonable persons to reject any opinion offered by him.
3. The campaign finance investigation of the SDNY has been closed. Like the obstruction claims, there is no there there.
No hypocicy from Turley.
Click to expand...


Yes, Cohen is in jail. That doesn't change the fact that Trump was listed as unindicted co-conspirator on a felony for which both Cohen and the president were found guilty.

You've provided no counter argument to Turley's hypocrisy, so that contention stands.
 
Bullseye said:
Exactly, and I think that was Turley's point; The "evidence" the Dems want to take to trial provides for a bill of charges that would get a first-year law student an F. I got his message as "what you're accusing him of would be impeachable if you didn't have such meaning **** as evidence". Turley was being the legal scholar not a partisan shill. And that infuriates the left. A team player, Turley's a dem, wandered off the reservation.
Click to expand...

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...s-jonathan-turley-thehill.html#post1070991245

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...s-jonathan-turley-thehill.html#post1070990931

Fox's lead Judicial Analyst disagreed with Turley.

Law should not be a "team sport" the law is about justice.

But, it's true that not all experts in law agree.
 
OscarLevant said:
You are allowed to contest them, of course, but you still have to comply. Once in compliance (meaning, you must appear), you can argue why you think it's not valid.

You are NOT allowed to defy them, for that, you can be jailed and/or fined. If a president does it, it's obstruction and contempt of congress. Congress can either impeach for that reason, or take the prez to court. Given that that process will take too long, which seems to be the Prez's game plan, it will be an article of impeachment.
Click to expand...

Since we have the concept of executive privilege and separation of powers, it would seem Trump is rejecting the claim that his advisors have to appear when summoned.
I would suspect the same reaction of Speaker Pelosi if Trump summoned her aids to the White House to find out what she is up to.


It does not exist to be used to cover up wrongdoing. It can be used for certain things, specific things.
Click to expand...

Congress is free to go to court to adjudicate the issue.


McGahn was taken to court for defying subpoena related to the Mueller investigation, which, at that juncture, there was plenty of time.
Not so much true now with the impeachment effort.
Click to expand...

Trump will be president until at the earliest Jan 2021. Surely, you do not claim the wheels of justice are that slow?



In my view, it's obvious the AG is a Trump stooge. He lied about the Mueller report, period. His word is worthless. His wild goose chase by assigning Durham to investigate FISA impropriety has proved fruitless, which was expected, as the IG, after rigorous investigation, found nothing, either. Any other AG worth his or her salt would have accepted the IG report. During his Senate approval hearing, he stated that the believed "there was spying on Trump's campaign", but when asked if he had any evidence whatsoever that would support such a contention, he answered in the negative. In my view, for an AG to use a word like "spying" which has treasonous overtones, without evidence, is evidence of incompetence, which is enough evidence for reasonable persons to reject any opinion offered by him.
Click to expand...

Ok



Yes, Cohen is in jail. That doesn't change the fact that Trump was listed as unindicted co-conspirator on a felony for which both Cohen and the president were found guilty.
Click to expand...

Trump wasn't found guilty of anything. At the time, many people thought Cohen was pleading guilty to a 'non-crime.' It would seem those people were on solid ground.

You've provided no counter argument to Turley's hypocrisy, so that contention stands.
Click to expand...

Turley stated that in Clinton and Nixon there was clear evidence of a crime. They had the information. Here, he is saying, all Congress has is a bunch of 2nd hand statements about something. He was clear that Congress needs to gather more information in order to make the decision.
Click to expand...
 
OscarLevant said:
You are allowed to contest them, of course, but you still have to comply. Once in compliance (meaning, you must appear), you can argue why you think it's not valid.

You are NOT allowed to defy them, for that, you can be jailed and/or fined. If a president does it, it's obstruction and contempt of congress. Congress can either impeach for that reason, or take the prez to court. Given that that process will take too long, which seems to be the Prez's game plan, it will be an article of impeachment.


It does not exist to be used to cover up wrongdoing. It can be used for certain things, specific things.


McGahn was taken to court for defying subpoena related to the Mueller investigation, which, at that juncture, there was plenty of time.
Not so much true now with the impeachment effort.

Who cares what Turkey thinks?

In my view, it's obvious the AG is a Trump stooge. He lied about the Mueller report, period. His word is worthless. His wild goose chase by assigning Durham to investigate FISA impropriety has proved fruitless, which was expected, as the IG, after rigorous investigation, found nothing, either. Any other AG worth his or her salt would have accepted the IG report. During his Senate approval hearing, he stated that the believed "there was spying on Trump's campaign", but when asked if he had any evidence whatsoever that would support such a contention, he answered in the negative. In my view, for an AG to use a word like "spying" which has treasonous overtones, without evidence, is evidence of incompetence, which is enough evidence for reasonable persons to reject any opinion offered by him.



Yes, Cohen is in jail. That doesn't change the fact that Trump was listed as unindicted co-conspirator on a felony for which both Cohen and the president were found guilty.

You've provided no counter argument to Turley's hypocrisy, so that contention stands.
Click to expand...

Where did Mueller’s team or any legal agency list Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator?
 
It's not like Carrot Caligula did anything serious like lying about a blow job. If bribery were impeachable, the founding fathers would have included that in the Constitution.
















































wait
 
Athanasius68 said:
Since we have the concept of executive privilege and separation of powers, it would seem Trump is rejecting the claim that his advisors have to appear when summoned.
I would suspect the same reaction of Speaker Pelosi if Trump summoned her aids to the White House to find out what she is up to.
Click to expand...
The Constitution has vested no powers of subpoena ( summons are given in civil suits ) in the Executive branch. Executive priviledge has very strict, narrow, applications.
Only the judiciary and attorneys ( as officers of the court ) and Congress can issue subpoenas. Subpoenas are directed to potential witnesses and experts who give advice on matter in judicial proceedings, or matters before Congress. WH attorney's can issue subpoenas, however...

No one can subpoena anyone willy nilly "to find out what someone is up to" merely because of curiosity, which seems to be what you are implying.

Your comment is appears predicated on a false assumption that the current Congress is doing this.

Congress is free to go to court to adjudicate the issue.
Click to expand...
Congress does not need a court's permission to issue a subpoena. A failure to honor a subpoena can result in a fine, or become an article of impeachment ( as Obstruction and Contempt Of Congress ) or Congress can choose to sue for compliance, and bring it court, if Congress so chooses.

Trump will be president until at the earliest Jan 2021. Surely, you do not claim the wheels of justice are that slow?
Click to expand...

They are that slow.

You are not aware of the scope of the thing. Firstly, That's just over one year. Not a lot of time.

It appears that Trump is going to defy everything. Say Congress gets a forced court compliance on one matter, that could take a few months then Trump appeals, so a few more months, and then Congress takes it To Scotus, that's on one matter, which can easily take several months, from start to finish, then Trump defies a subpoena on another matter (another staff member directed by Trump to not testify, for example ), and on and on, and yes, Trump can drag everything out, thus running the clock bringing eveything close to the election where they can argue "let the voters decide". This is his current strategy.

Congress knows this, which is why it would rather just list his blanket defiances as Obstruction and Contempt of Congress in articles of impeachment.
Trump wasn't found guilty of anything.
Click to expand...
that's a technical point. Trump was listed as unindicted co-conspirator in the same felony Cohen was convicted on as Cohen was convicted on an effort directed by Trump. One can presume guilt with 100% certainty, therefore.
At the time, many people thought Cohen was pleading guilty to a 'non-crime.' It would seem those people were on solid ground.
Click to expand...
Cohen plead guilty to a felony. There is no such thing as a felony non-crime. I suppose that characterization might apply to victimless crimes, such as prostitution, or drug use. But Felony FEC violations are not victimless crimes, they are crimes against the United States; they are crimes against democracy, which goes to the heart of our republic.


"Many people"?. FYI, words such as "people are saying", or "Everyone knows", etc, are called 'weasel words'.

Use of such is a clear indication of a weak or inept argument. I suggest you avoid using them, in future discourse, if you are serious about offering stronger arguments.

Turley stated that in Clinton and Nixon there was clear evidence of a crime. They had the information. Here, he is saying, all Congress has is a bunch of 2nd hand statements about something. He was clear that Congress needs to gather more information in order to make the decision.
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

Turley has been exposed for flip flopping on how he views "evidence" with regard to different impeachments, specifically that of Clinton and Trump.

Moreover, Judge Napolitano, who knows Turley very well, explained why Turley was wrong.

Additionally, a document declaring that the Mueller report gave clear cut prosecutable cases of Obstruction Of Justice was signed by over 1000 attorneys, judges, and prosecutors. I should think that they would also confirm the findings of the Intel and Judiciary committees of congress, as well.

One last point. Trump committed Obstruction of Congress and Contempt of Congress when he, in blanket fashion, directed his staff to defy all subpoenas and administrative subpoenas by Congress. He did this in plain view.

That is an unescapable fact, a fact which Turley egregiously failed to mention.
 
Last edited:
Helix said:
It's not like Carrot Caligula did anything serious like lying about a blow job. If bribery were impeachable, the founding fathers would have included that in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Bribery is in the constitution under impeachable offenses.
 
[
QUOTE=OscarLevant;1070995978]The Constitution has vested no powers of subpoena ( summons are given in civil suits ) in the Executive branch. Executive priviledge has very strict, narrow, applications.
Only the judiciary and attorneys ( as officers of the court ) and Congress can issue subpoenas. Subpoenas are directed to potential witnesses and experts who give advice on matter in judicial proceedings, or matters before Congress. WH attorney's can issue subpoenas, however...

No one can subpoena anyone willy nilly "to find out what someone is up to" merely because of curiosity, which seems to be what you are implying.
Click to expand...

Congress is not issuing subpoenas to those who might have first hand information on the issue at hand.




Congress does not need a court's permission to issue a subpoena. A failure to honor a subpoena can result in a fine, or become an article of impeachment ( as Obstruction and Contempt Of Congress ) or Congress can choose to sue for compliance, and bring it court, if Congress so chooses.
Click to expand...

No. But neither do people lose rights because a subpoena has been issued. Executive privilege exists. If the Congress disagrees with the interpretation of it by the president, they are free to go to court.
Or they can simply cite as evidence people defending their rights as "obstruction." In turn, Congress can be condemned for abusing its power (as Turley had suggested).





Y
ou are not aware of the scope of the thing. Firstly, That's just over one year. Not a lot of time.
Click to expand...

The courts would no doubt expedite the adjudication.

It appears that Trump is going to defy everything. Say Congress gets a forced court compliance on one matter, that could take a few months then Trump appeals, so a few more months, and then Congress takes it To Scotus, that's on one matter, which can easily take several months, from start to finish, then Trump defies a subpoena on another matter (another staff member directed by Trump to not testify, for example ), and on and on, and yes, Trump can drag everything out, thus running the clock bringing eveything close to the election where they can argue "let the voters decide". This is his current strategy.
Click to expand...

The political timetable for the Democrats really isn't much of an argument.

Congress knows this, which is why it would rather just list his blanket defiances as Obstruction and Contempt of Congress in articles of impeachment.
Click to expand...

Sure. And the correct response to this is Congress isn't taking its job seriously, they are abusing their authority, and the voters should turn them out.

that's a technical point. Trump was listed as unindicted co-conspirator in the same felony Cohen was convicted on as Cohen was convicted on an effort directed by Trump. One can presume guilt with 100% certainty, therefore.
Click to expand...

Cohen didn't contest the charge. The true legal problem he had faced was over taxes. He struck a deal.
Regardless, with the respects to campaign finance law, what is legal for Trump (spending as much as he wishes on his campaign) is not legal for Cohen (spending as much as he wishes on Trumps campaign).
The presumption of Trump guilt is extremely overrated.

C
ohen plead guilty to a felony. There is no such thing as a felony non-crime. I suppose that characterization might apply to victimless crimes, such as prostitution, or drug use. But Felony FEC violations are not victimless crimes, they are crimes against the United States; they are crimes against democracy, which goes to the heart of our republic.
Click to expand...

The FEC and DOJ have sparred for years over election law-- who enforces it and when. When the government can't agree on this stuff, it becomes difficult to argue a law has been broken.
As as the case with Mr. Edwards.

"





Turley has been exposed for flip flopping on how he views "evidence" with regard to different impeachments, specifically that of Clinton and Trump.
Click to expand...

There was evidence of actual crimes by Clinton and Nixon. With Trump, the Dems continue to be unable to name anything.


Additionally, a document declaring that the Mueller report gave clear cut prosecutable cases of Obstruction Of Justice was signed by over 1000 attorneys, judges, and prosecutors. I should think that they would also confirm the findings of the Intel and Judiciary committees of congress, as well.
Click to expand...

Those prosecutors would lose if they tried to prosecute Mueller's claim.

One last point. Trump committed Obstruction of Congress and Contempt of Congress when he, in blanket fashion, directed his staff to defy all subpoenas and administrative subpoenas by Congress. He did this in plain view.
Click to expand...

Or he exercised executive privilege.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom