... sounds like a joke.

He is applying the standard of criminal law to impeachment. That is not the standard. That is why an impeach president can be removed from office but not sent to prison.

... against the law IINM.

with "impeachable offenses".

American citizen? Looks more to be the case he has no concern about democratic election interference by both foreign and domestic actors, and that means he's unconcerned about how this situation is investigated under the founding document that gives broad flexibility in terms of definitions.

he was just whining about a speedy impeachment.

Thats the heart of Turley's defense

testify voluntarily and by reason of supoena cited to be the oversite of the individuals holding the requirements to perform under that OFFICE, it leaves little choice but to go to the courts. Turley's cited precedent does not eliminate the possibility that a corrupt judge made that particular judgment (not saying that was the case), Why would he believe political nuances are less a reason in protecting the rule of constitutional law at the level of a lower court should be more legitimate here where a much greater "high crime and/or misdeamor" is at stake--a POTUS sworn to uphold said document and the processes that elevate the just actions that come from the individual who becomes and swears his oath to the American people. It's preposterous!

Sorry this isn't very clear - Turley just doesn't sound right to me citing that case that he did not bother to identify!

Trying to keep with the lawyers is daunting and above my IQ lol

letting this bozo blab on and on and on?

In a relatively simplistic way they think will be persuasive to the public. You are seeing the Republican talking points going forward.

... professor !?!?!

"Slow it all down, I wanna come back and dance some more!"

... actually think this is what dems should be doing for now on.

Go to the courts and don't care how long they'll take on these matters.

... Trump is obstructing !

WTF?

The facial contortions he's putting on to try to seem sincere are having the opposite effect. Ech.

Release the %&<%$ report tp congress.

A glowing endorsement.

No he released a personally redacted copy of a report he actually had no legal right to even touch and also lied about it's contents prior to any release.

I just want to know what school(s) to avoid if I want one.

Seriously...between this guy and the minority counsel in the Intelligence hearing, there must be a law school called Hacks-R-Us somewhere. Perhaps online?

A graduate of the University of Chicago and Northwestern’s law school, Mr. Turley joined the staff of George Washington’s law school in 1990, and according to his biography, was the youngest person named to an academic chair in the school’s history. Now 58, he has represented whistle-blowers, judges, members of Congress and accused terrorists and is a prolific writer and tweeter and a frequently cited legal expert. The House and Senate regularly turn to him to testify about constitutional issues.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/jonathan-turley.html

Turley is so obviously a hack now. You shouldn't have to twist yourself into a pretzel in order to explain law. You just shouldn't.

He was a contributor on Keith Olbermann's show. Somewhere along the way, he underwent a transformation.

He has definitely TRANSFORMED!! Slimy reptilian skin and all!

at Wikipedia and it appears that transformation took place during the Obama years. He said that Obama was a danger to the Constitution and that his was an "imperial presidency". He was equally critical of Bush. But Trump???

Always had that Libertarian streak, but at some point slipped on a banana peel and went headlong over into the "dark side..."

I fear this may be the fate of people like Bill Maher....

And yes, I can see Maher going that direction, as he used to identify as a Libertarian. Though he calls himself a liberal now, he still has some regressive moments. I wonder if a lapsed Libertarian is like a lapsed Catholic who can revert to the beliefs of their youth.

That actually makes sense. They just took his money and gave him no actual education whatsoever...

but think it was probably Hacks-R-Us!

which blew away Collins' whole argument so now he is trying to move the goal posts to "Congressional overreach".

but he was about all they could find who was somewhat close to providing their side argument.

and now C L I N T O N ... wait for it .. B E N G H A Z I

😑

✌🏼

he was their "expert" for this panel.

is remarkable. I presume/hope there is a no-smoking ordinance in that room!

Sheesh!

Dude...just imagine if Obama had done HALF the stuff Trump has, or tried to. What would you have done? Then do that now! It's so simple.

Watch out what you wish for!

who he has been referencing so prominently.

Turned it off for this portion of our show.

The President cannot be charged with a crime while in office.
The President cannot be impeached if he has committed no crime.
therefore a President cannot be impeached.

The whole "President cannot be indicted" tome is not law. It is opinion/policy. And generally makes sense for a couple of reasons I won't elaborate here.

The idea that the President "can't be impeached" doesn't mean there is no crime. It just means Justice won't inconvenience the office holder with an indictment when s/he has other shit to do.

Abuse of power IS a "crime" against the Constitution the President swore to uphold, and because we won't inconvenience him/her with an indictment, impeachment is the only remedy.

and illustrating that by pointing out that they are too partisan to acknowledge crimes committed by a president of their own party. Oooookay.

and the fact that the Senate is GOP-controlled, throws out their argument, because they already declared IN ADVANCE that they are not going to vote to convict.

There's more bribery here than meets the eye.

If we weren't trying to protect the President simply because "s/he's on our team," and were simply objective given the facts, this wouldn't be such a divisive exercise.

It also wouldn't be so damn frequent. Since Nixon we've gone through this every 20 years or so. It'd be great if we didn't elect criminals to the Presidency, but whatever I guess...

And yes, I'm aware that all Clinton did was get top from an intern. I'm sure if it weren't for that, the GOP in Congress at the time would have found something else--and they were looking...

....but this republican counsel has questioned ONLY Turley, and their 45 minutes are almost exhausted.

... he get his job.

He's going to be torn a new one by other lawyers after this crap.

Democratic counsel only asked Turley 1 question... a mistake I think

It means, they don't have anything and can't challenge them.

Last edited Wed Dec 4, 2019, 03:15 PM - Edit history (1)

... mean something from 200 years ago in regards to crime.

I checked his wiki entry to see where he got his edumakation.

Turley just craves attention. He is not, and never has been, respected in law professor world. He is just a clown.

I heard another republican in Schiff's hearings use that word as well! Not the best educated bunch.

The Dems are moving too fast.

There isn't enough evidence.

No mention that Trump is obstructing the evidence.

I am so fucking sick of these ignorant lying ass hats.

... with congress.

He's being disenginous at best by leaving out the full scope of Red Don's OoC

Head turn, nod, and eye expression program overclocking his hard drive. I think he's really studied barr's mannerisms. His voice is softer, and he doesn't have a resting face like constipated Fred Flintstone, but the similarities are striking.

exactly why this impeachment is underway.

AND he cherry-picked out of Neal Katyal's book to slur Hunter Biden.

... its not seeing Burisma is the one who decides if Hunter Biden gave good return for their money.

Professor Turley: I know you would like a passing grade in my class.

Coed: Yes.

Professor Turley: I just need you to do me a favor, though.

Turley's utter bullshit about this impeachment being a "thin" case, compared to how "BIG" the case was against Clinton sounded like penis envy.

that was then twisted around. I'm sure Katyal will probably have something to say about what he meant there whenever he shows up on MSNBC today.

and of course, instead of talking about how it is wrong for the president to have asked a foreign power for dirt on Biden, Repubs want to take a second to throw dirt on both Bidens. *sigh*

He isn’t a good fact witness, though. Everything that rolls out of his mouth is partisan.

!

...”like ugly on moose”

With a glint in his eye, he carried it over the goal line. Repug counsel was visibly pleased.

meaning the Constitutional interpretation of crimes like "bribery".

And she had another version of Samuel Johnson's dictionary definition (1792) to counter the GOP's dictionary definition.

Is a moment of note.

and she replied that she used "the online version" of it.

When he was on Olbermann.

Other 3 profs now tearing up what Turley just said.

Is he saying this process is too quick because they want to drag it out past the election?

Collins and Turley singing together now. Good time to run to the hardware store.

That would suck.

completely blowing away his own earlier argument away. He really is an idiot.

I keep having to mute and un-mute depending on when Collins is talkshrieking! I hate his voice, and him SO MUCH.

And SHE would be an expert on these types of things.

Also, the clarity and good sense that returns once Turley is silenced - stunning contrast .

turley darn well knows bribery can be both a bad practice AND a crime outlined in the Constitution.

Is the kind of argument that makes you wonder where he stands on object permanence.

and Karlan said that what is happening now is like a "doubling down" of what happened with Nixon where Nixon used a domestic local law enforcement to carry out his crimes vs Drumpf using a foreign country, which is worse.

all over them