GOP's legal scholar suggests Democrats are abusing power with rushed impeachment

Covering for the *Crintons and Bidens will leave a mark.

they are screaming and projecting
because THEY are quite guilty of sedition,
and should hang.

The DEMs have deliberately NOT taken refused demands to appear, to court. They assume the conclusion that refusal to appear is not justified, and use that conclusion to support the only action they can take unilaterally, impeachment.

If they take a case to court (which is the “next step” when a person refuses to appear), there is a risk they might lose. That would affect the narrative that the refusal is (illegal) obstruction of Congress.

Congress is mock-worthy. A circus. Of course it abuses its power. This is an age old fact.

GOPs Legal Scholar....Really?

The man routinely and proudly admits to being a liberal. The man admitted, for all the world to see, that he voted for soetero and clinton. Yet, because he’s the only adult in the room with regards to the witnesses called, all of a sudden he’s the - GOPs Legal Scholar. Obviously if you don’t tow the Dem Party line and actually know what the f*ck you’re talking about, instead of just parroting Dem talking points and talking about your feelings, you’re a GOP Legal Scholar. I’m thinking Turley probably isn’t your man.

Jonathan Turley is not a GOP witness by a long shot. While he is a self-confessed Democrat, he is an example of what a Democrat was once upon a time: a principled, honest political opponent.

Sadly, he and Alan Dershowitz are two of an dying breed. Keep that in mind whenever any other Democrat opens their mouths.

regarding “a principled, honest political opponent”

at this point, with the information at hand, I am unable to accept as rational and patriotic any supporter of Obama or Clinton. Their “principles” and “honesty” will not fit my definition. I cannot give them any due. The best I can say is that Turley represents a special kind of useful idiot.

He is not a Republican. In fact, you to the Obama years he was something of a rock start to Democrats.

What Turley has called his “socially liberal agenda”[12] has led liberal and progressive thinkers to consider him a champion for their causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law,[14][23] civil rights,[11][24] and the illegality of torture.[25][26][27] Politico has referred to Turley as a “liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian.”[28]

Turley has nevertheless exhibited his disagreement with rigid ideological stances in contradiction to the established law with other stated and published opinions.[14][28]

In numerous appearances on Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show, he called for criminal prosecution of Bush administration officials for war crimes, including torture.[29]

In USA Today in October 2004, he famously argued for the legalization of polygamy,[30] provoking responses from writers such as Stanley Kurtz.[31][32]

Commenting on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which, he contends, does away with habeas corpus, Turley says, “It’s something that no one thought—certainly I didn’t think—was possible in the United States. And I am not too sure how we got to this point. But people clearly don’t realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us.”[27]

He is a critic of special treatment for the church in law, asking why there are laws that “expressly exempt faith-based actions that result in harm.”[33]

Turley disagrees with the theory that dealing with bullies is just a part of growing up, claiming that they are “no more a natural part of learning than is parental abuse a natural part of growing up” and believes that “litigation could succeed in forcing schools to take bullying more seriously”.[34]

He has written extensively about the injustice of the death penalty, noting, “Human error remains a principal cause of botched executions. ... eventually society will be forced to deal directly with a fundamental moral question: Has death itself become the intolerable element of the death penalty?”[35]

He worries that the Supreme Court is injecting itself into partisan politics.[36] He has frequently expressed the view that recent nominees to the court hold extreme views.[37][38]

However, Turley has said, “It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right.”[12] Moreover, Turley testified in favor of the Clinton impeachment.[39]

In another commentary, Turley defended Judge Henry E. Hudson’s ruling declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional for violating the Commerce Clause of the Constitution: “It’s very thoughtful—not a screed. I don’t see any evidence this is motivated by Judge Hudson’s personal beliefs. ... Anybody who’s dismissing this opinion as a political screed has obviously not read the opinion.”[28]

Turley described U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in an op-ed as President Barack Obama’s sin-eater, writing:

For Obama, there has been no better sin eater than Holder. When the president promised CIA employees early in his first term that they would not be investigated for torture, it was the attorney general who shielded officials from prosecution. When the Obama administration decided it would expand secret and warrantless surveillance, it was Holder who justified it. When the president wanted the authority to kill any American he deemed a threat without charge or trial, it was Holder who went public to announce the “kill list” policy. Last week, the Justice Department confirmed that it was Holder who personally approved the equally abusive search of Fox News correspondent James Rosen’s e-mail and phone records in another story involving leaked classified information. In the 2010 application for a secret warrant, the Obama administration named Rosen as “an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator” to the leaking of classified materials. The Justice Department even investigated Rosen’s parents’ telephone number, and Holder was there to justify every attack on the news media.[40]

In a December 2013 congressional hearing, responding to a question from Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) about the danger posed by President Barack Obama’s apparent unilateral modification of laws passed by Congress, Turley said:

The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in every single branch. This Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration. There is [sic] two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress. One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction.[41]

On November 21, 2014, Turley agreed to represent House Speaker John Boehner and the Republican Party in a suit filed against the Obama administration alleging unconstitutional implementation of the Affordable Care Act, specifically the individual mandate.[42]

On October 11, 2016, Libertarian Party candidate for President, Gary Johnson, announced that if elected Turley would be one of his two top choices for the Supreme Court seat that remained open following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.[43]

In a 2017 column for The Hill, Turley was critical of military intervention in the Middle East and questioned its constitutionality. He also mentioned that he supported the Supreme Court nomination of Neil Gorsuch.[44]

Well, do we want it to drag on though? Let them rush.

Latest stupid thing I heard (Larry Tribe said it in June, idiots are saying it on twitter now) is that the House can impeach but somehow not refer it to the Senate so they can let Trump stew while they investigate more BS for possible additional articles. Is that kosher or is Tribe on crack as usual?

It”s not really impeachment unless the whole House votes on articles to send to the Senate. The House can have a permanent committee investigating impeachment if they really want, but that’s investigation, not impeachment.

Not possible. If there is an impeachment vote, Yertle will take it up right away.

Now, I do think it’s a conservative fantasy that a senate trial would somehow hamstring BookerT&theMSGs, Dinobernie, Klobucharrred, and ComanChe.

This would only hamstring RESPONSIBLE senators. These four morons will go on campaigning until the vote, show up, and vote “GUILTY!”