The simple and reasonable answer to the question posed by this article is no, forge ahead with impeachment. There is ample evidence that the President abused the power of his office, sought to obtain dirt on a political opponent by from a foreign country and obstructed the investigation. While this is not a legal proceeding, using the logic of court room protocol of 'assuming the worst' when a defendant refuses to divulge facts is very appropriate in this case. We cannot as a nation be so stupid that we wait to determine this President's fate with the outcome of an election he is actively and illegally attempting to impact.
11
Nice try NYT -
Spin, spin, spin Prof. Turley's testimony all you want.
The rhetoric you sell, will not be bought.
And you know it.
But, hey - good job keeping "on point" as directed and required by your superiors - the Democratic party.
As I said in other posts, I didn't vote for Trump and don't think he is a very good representative of America. However, I think it is a mistake for the Democrats to not allow testimonies from their witnesses. Although it is not a legal trial, it does not seem that both sides had equal chances to present their points of view. Based on this, I expect an impeachment vote in the House to be along party lines where Democrats have the majority then when it goes to the Senate where Republicans have the majority they will also vote along party lines.
This means that 2020 elections will depend on how fair the Democrats and Republicans are perceived in the proceedings which will impact how well the citizens expect the politicians to be fair and valid representatives of the people - not the party.
1
The NYT hurts our democracy by always leaning over backward to make sure the republican case, no matter how destructive, is heard. That is not fair and balanced, it plays right into their hands, always trumpeting Trump's ridiculous statements and the press secretary's outright lies. Your article gave all the space to Turley's absurd argument that key witnesses were missing, as though stonewalling is an acceptable response by the Trump administration and that the holes it leaves are the most important. Stop giving voice to Trump and his cronies first.
4
Professor Turley was not there as a witness FOR the president. He clearly stated he voted AGAINST him. Rather than ignoring Prof. Turley, the democrats should have used his points to undermine the republican 'argument.'
If Prof. Turley thought more evidence was necessary, what remedy would he recommend to overcome the administration's obstruction and obtain the testimony of Mulvaney, Perry, OMB officials, Bolton, Pompeo, and others? How would would he expedite the court process? How would he deflate the republicans' reliance on rumors and Russian propaganda, without further legitimizing the disinformation?
Prof. Turley also made a good point when he criticized the democrats for not pursuing subpoenas. Had they started the process earlier, many of these witnesses would be sitting before them, having failed in the courts in their efforts to stonewall.
5
What the House really needs to do is (a) suspend (not stop) the impeachment process and (b) censure the president. The latter is obvious and only requires the majority of the House to pass (which is the same as the articles of impeachment) but can be seen as a bit less burdensome for all Democrats and maybe even some "call not perfect" (see Turley) Republicans to support. The advantage is that the Senate (to my knowledge) cannot take any action to overturn a House censure resolution.
The reason to suspend the impeachment process is because the Senate has the final word and that vote will not result in Trump being removed from office. Trump will say he has been exonerated and his bad behavior will continue and may even accelerate.
Instead, the House should suspend stating that going forward given the likely outcome in the Senate is even worse for the Constitution than proceeding with a House vote on impeachment. The House should say that the impeachment process will resume if the past behavior continues. Maybe this stops Trump from further actions; if not, maybe eventually even Republicans will have enough. The other positive is the suits about who has to testify (and Trump finances) can go forward and, if decided that staff has to testify, the House's position is stronger (and Turley's argument goes away). If decided that staff does not have to testify, the House is in no worse position, especially considering how things will play out in the Senate.
1
The Constitutional lawyers gave one an impressive tutorial Constitutional law, and their individual analysis of each issue was impressive.
The only problem here is that the lawyers’ discourse on the several impeachment issues is totally out of Don Trump’s cognitive universe to understand even the most rudimentary facts of each issue.
Sorry, Don..,tweets will not work here!
1
The Constitution does not state that a letter or some form of communication is necessary for impeachment. Relying on one phone call that will determine the future of the country is insane.
Rather, we should be considering the absolute refusal by Trump to recognize the inherent rights and prerogatives of Congress to effectively conduct checks and balances on the Executive Branch. Since we know his total lack of respect for the two other branches of government, we need only consider this:
In 2019, Trump has categorically refused to turn over ALL documents lawfully requested by the House; furthermore, Trump has ordered his staff not to cooperate with congressional requests to testify, even if subpoenaed.
Conclusion: Failure to comply with formal checks and balances repeatedly demanded by Congress is, in itself, grounds for impeachment as obstruction of justice.
5
If Republicans want a fuller investigation, they should come and testify to Congress, bringing all the requested documents with them.
Their unprecedented and indefensible claim not to be subject to Congressional oversight, subpoenas and directives is nonsense. They would never condone such obstruction on the part of Democrats; why do they suppose Democrats should allow it now?
6
Yes, Trump is corrupt. Yes, he did it and should be impeached and removed. BUT...since the senate will not convict based on current evidence, it seems appropriate to get the courts to force Muvaney, Pompeo, Giuliani AND Trump to testify first. Dems need to strengthen their case so there is absolutely no doubt among even republicans
2
Yes, if there are other witnesses that are important to this inquiry/investigation, then they should call them. Realize some have been called, but did not come before the committee. It's worth calling others for full transparency. I'm not convinced from the witnesses called so far - yes, they were credible and professional, as I'd hope all would be, but they only had opinions and impressions in the end. Yes, I watched all the testimonies. They started out with condemnation, then admitted that their testimonies were opinion. Not good enough for impeachment.
4
Turley's argument that impeachment should await the testimony of key administration witnesses that administration itself has prohibited from testifying is nonsensical. Suppose, after a year, the courts said the Administration witnesses don't have to testify. Or, as noted in this article, they raise a new defense to testifying that has to then be litigated anew. The House would be in the same position it is now, except months and even years would have been squandered for nothing. There is clearly enough evidence -- if not the best possible evidence -- to establish Trump's obstruction and abuse of power. Allowing the Administration to run out the clock before the 2020 election would be plain stupid.
5
This is a conspiracy. By the very definition all the evidence will be hearsay. Except for the actions no of the parties. They have already admitted guilt by trying to hide the transcripts, stonewalling, insults and so on. How can Devin Nunez continue on the committee? He’s down and dirty. Just b/c no one surprised that he’s a coconspirator doesn’t make it ok.
I am curious to know if during the time that the WH withheld the money Congresses approved for Ukraine any lives were lost as a direct result.
I understand Congress has to speak about the laws the President may have broken, in technical terms, but I believe this is where the general population gets bored, especially the followers.
We need to speak in simpler terms, such as why these offenses affect us, and the Ukrainians in particular. All lives matter.
I can’t help but think a quick impeachment is exactly what Trump wants. Trump has less political cover if the democrats wait for the courts to compel Bolton, Giuliani and Mulvaney to testify and hand over documents. While I believe the Democrats have cause to impeach Trump for ignoring subpoenas, doing so at this moment without attempting to go to the courts will allow Trump to put this Ukraine Affair to rest.
Trump thrives and is at his best when he can point to the other sides actions to distract from his own faults. I think democrats need to be paragons of law and order to counter Trump’s talent for distraction and obfuscation. And going through the court process would be the best way of showing that. Plus keeping trump tied up in this scandal will make it harder for him and his cronies to commit new crimes.
2
What I don’t understand is how impeachment by the House and the inevitable acquittal by the Senate stops Trump from going on to then continue to abuse the power of his office to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election? Trump doesn’t care about the Constitution, or any rebuke by Congress. He cares only that he will still be President afterwards, and still able to run for re-election. It’s not like after this is all over he’s going to say, “Gee, I’m sorry! I’ll play fair now.”
2
What most troubles me about the Republican committee members is that while they profess that the process is incomplete and that the evidence is so far unconvincing, none of them seems to have much, if any, concern with what is already known. They seem to be taking the position that the absence of a smoking gun is akin to innocence. If they at least acknowledged serious concerns about Trump’s behaviors but argued that they would prefer a more thorough investigation and that White House staff should testify they would be more credible.
1
Part of Turley's argument, which is well worth reading in its entirety, is that this particularly impeachment process has been very rushed, 10 weeks as I recall. Coming on the heels of the failed attempt to find an impeachable offense in context to the Mueller report, I think this situation looks artificially contrived. Congress should, I think, at least hear from Bolton, or make a much better attempt to do so. Trump will argue that, after this attempt fails in the Senate, Democrats will probably find another impeachment pretext. I'd hold off. Do a more thorough job in gaining access to other witnesses. That's the least Schiff and others can do if they are serious.
3
If a president can stonewall congress by using the courts in a process that takes years to conclude, then congress effectively has no executive branch oversight powers, as the president can simply use the courts to run out the clock during his term in office. This can’t be what the founders had in mind.
If the president has exculpatory evidence, we can rest assured he would have presented it the day after the speaker announced the formal impeachment inquiry. Does anyone, Republican or Democrat, think Trump wouldn’t waive executive privilege if it would save his presidency?
Congress has no reason to wait.
10
Jonathan Turley was the *Republicans* star witness. When a lawyer agrees to work for a client, he or she will attempt to put the client's actions in the best possible light, preferably without outright lying.
I find it quite amusing that the best Turley could do for his clients was to say that the House needs to continue the investigation. While he expressed the opinion that the facts of the case weren't sufficiently proven, he had no arguments to cast doubt on the facts as they were presented. The defense he presented was feeble at best, but evidently that was all he had.
3
@Andy Beckenbach -
That's because Prof. Turley was not trying to 'defend' the republicans' position. The fact that the republicans presented him as their best constitutional advocate tells us they are on extremely weak footing.
Unfortunately, the democrats did not take advantage of Prof. Turley to make their case stroger.
3
The consensus among both Democrats and Republicans is that if the House is going to impeach, then it should be done ASAP. The Democrats argue that Trump needs to be impeached before he can do more harm. Unfortunately, impeachment without removal from office will do nothing to stop Trump from behaving even worse. On the other hand, Republican demands to do it quickly should raise red flags. Their atrocious behavior so far is only a preview of how they will use a Senate trial to twist the truth, spew their conspiracy theories, and call witnesses whose testimony, though irrelevant to the case at hand, will call attention to Hunter Biden's ethical lapse and other diversions that they wish to highlight. Better to subpoena Guliani, Bolton, Mulvaney, and Pompeo, and either get them to testify to build an indisputable case or let the courts run out the clock before next November. Otherwise a Senate trial will only provide a propaganda opportunity for Trump and his enablers.
2
Let's be careful to distinguish authority from expertise. All four bore considerable authority, but none were experts.
I keep thinking the notion of proving Trump’s guiltiness is being approached from the wrong angle, as if this were a domestic issue. I assume that a lot happens in the diplomatic arena which is nuanced and postured. Heads of state and diplomats don't necessarily come out and say precisely what they want, but depend on the intelligence (mental and institutional) of the other parties to understand what's really being said. The president is in effect our top international diplomat and at times will be blunt at times and at other times nuance, especially if it’s illegal. Career diplomats are skilled at this and are consulted or untilized to better understand the meaning of what happened or to get messages across “diplomatically”.
Trump didn’t need, and certainly is smart enough to know, that bluntness for such a request was not recommended. Holding up the money that congress appropriated would be enough to get the message across. If this were a domestic issue it would be one thing, but as it is an international, diplomatic issue wouldn't the standards for concluding there was bribery for personal gain be very different? The underlying message is loud and clear. In a domestic court of law, maybe the case has holes, but in the court of international diplomacy wouldn’t it be crystal clear? When Vito Corleone says, “I’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse.” it would sound so promising so long as you weren’t knowledgeable about the family’s diplomatic history.
2
I question the editorship when the top left "above the fold" headline reads "Witness for G.O.P. Questions if Democrats Are Moving Too Fast". That was not the hearing I saw. The one I saw would be headlined "Three top legal scholars say constitutional framework warrants impeachment, fourth dissents". The Times is being pressured too much to provide purported "balance". But that effort at "balance" is resulting in reporting on events in a way that distorts what occurred. This is only one example.
6
@deborah a
The Dems should re-call Dr. Fiona Hill to address the "endangerment to national security" that Trump represents. In other words, Trump's relationship with Russia.
This will create sound bites of treason that even FOX will have to play. I am not impressed with the Dems and their strategies. With Turley, with Dr. Hill, they have missed golden opportunities to strengthen their case.
Turley was insincere. There is more than enough evifence of Trump's Ukraine violations, but moreover, the Dems shouldn't just rely on the Ukraine aspect. That is only one play in Trump's favoring of a foreign adversary. "Endangering National Security" as an article of impeachment means treason....you don't have to use the word, but eventually people would.
There is no possible way that Republicans can thwart this approach, they themselves easily being shown to be enablers. That's the Republicans weak underbelly, strike it repeatedly and every chance you get.
Get with it Dems. You must get much, much tougher. The nation is at stake.
4
Mr. Savage mentions, as if in passing, the presence of four legal scholars. But he chose to write a lengthy article about the opinions of only one of them, Mr. Turley, strangely omitting those of the other three scholars. Mr. Savage starts with a question, but decides to ignore the resounding "NO" the other three witnesses gave so passionately, clearly and convincingly. As though Mr. Turley's thoughts and words (neither following a logical path) are the only ones that matter. Is this in name of journalistic fairness? Because representing, dwelling and explaining only one fourth of a whole and ignoring the rest is anything but fair.
4
No doubt Trump already has foreign entities digging up dirt on Adam Schiff.
3
This isn't difficult.
Any evidence or testimony that is being willfully withheld by the accused should be considered an admission of guilt, in any trial. If was exonerating, why would they withhold it?
Turley is simply another republican liar.
3
Impeach, Acquit, Elect (anyone but Trump, the would be dictator).
Mr. Collins, a railroad job? I suggest you are projecting what you wished all the testimony adds up to, not the reality of its overall effect.
Republicans have bought into the argument about having to defend Trump, no matter what, because of his base. Nixon had very strong Republican support through his long, drawn out impeachment. Until he didn’t. And after Nixon resigned, no one suggested any voter retribution for supporting his removal from office.
And that’s where we are today. It’s time for Republican Senators to look at how they want history to record their Senate career.
3
Nixon didn’t have the power of Fox News behind him. When Nixon was facing impeachment There was only a handful a news outlets and all of them were subject to the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine. With the fairness doctrine long dead Fox and other outlets can ignore truth and butcher facts to serve whatever political agenda they wish. They can report lies and take cover behind the excuse “Well it’s just my opinion so it doesn’t need to be true”. With this kind of power it’s foolish to think republicans in congress will ever abandon Trump.
1
@Kyle R You’re right about the influence of Fox News. The Senators have a choice—short game or history and their reputations.
3
Professor Turley may be correct in stating that our system of checks and balances allows the executive branch the right to use the judicial branch to potentially protect itself from congressional overreach. But the constitution does not say that that the “House of Representatives has the conditional power to impeach if the courts allow it ”. To suggest that the House is committing an abuse of power by not waiting for the courts is absurd. The House has the SOLE power to impeach and if it can do it without certain testimony that’s locked up in the courts then it should proceed. And thankfully, that’s where we are today.
8
As I understand it, the founders intended impeachment to be an emergency tool for the people’s representatives in Congress to remove an unfit President before he further betrays the nation’s interests in violation of the Constitution.
If the subject of an impeachment inquiry may thwart that inquiry by blocking key evidence and delaying the process with court challenges, as Trump is doing, then the constitutional remedy of impeachment is useless.
Turley’s logic makes no sense. Unwittingly or not, he’s just another tool in Putin’s/the GOP’s disinformation campaign.
6
Sure, impeach now, but stall the handover to the Senate, which is guaranteed to acquit. Leave ‘Impeachment’ hanging over the elections rather than hand the win to the same foul cast of characters. A quick, and you better believe it will be quick, failure to convict is a victory; a pending trial is a threat. Two different images.
6
If Democrats want to fight a battle on principles alone they may as well pack up their things and move on. Republicans seem to have lost their principles, therefore, Democrats will lose, and ironically, look like “bad guys” to the American public. There is no fathomable way that ALL house republicans can be so blind as to overlook the egregious nature of acts perpetrated by this potus and his band of sycophants. And yet, that is precisely what is about to unfold.
I watched/listened to Wednesday’s testimony and I think the Democrats missed a rare opportunity to add to their case for impeachment. Instead of ignoring Professor Turley, Dems should have parlayed his willingness to look at the “appearance of a crime” to their advantage. With a series of carefully crafted questions, which had only yes/no answers, Democrats could have really strengthened their case with the American public. I personally think this potus is as guilty as sin but still, I found myself questioning the Dems strategy in handling, and ignoring, Mr. Turley.
It-just-looked-partisan.
That optic was likely magnified ten-fold by anyone sitting on the fence.
How I long for a return to the days of Olympia Snowe, William Cohen, Margaret Chase Smith et al, when the first and foremost tenet of republicanism was Country.
These next few weeks will set the tone of politics in our nation for decades to come.
Tread carefully my fellow citizens and be sure that you know fully what you wish for.
Peace
7
Innocent presidents shouldn't block key witness testimony and obstruct congressional investigations. I mean, that's a pretty dumb strategy for staying off the Johnson/Nixon/Clinton list.
5
I think it’s fairly important to keep saying that all this is actually pretty simple.
1. Trump leaned on a foreign President to smear his political opponent. And for leverage, he used taxpayers’ money that had been apportioned by Congress. This probably broke the law and certainly weakened Ukraine, against our national interests.
2. Generally speaking, Trump’s using his office to enrich himself and his family. He has been perfectly willing to let this warp our foreign policy.
3. His Cabinet members, close associates, and staff have repeatedly been nabbed in corrupt acts. Several are currently in jail, or about to go to jail after convictions, or about to go on trial, or about to be indicted. Including his major tool in Ukraine, Rudy Giuliani.
4. He’s using the courts the same way he’s always used the courts: to try and delay, confuse, bully, whatever, until whoever sued him or indicted him or just plain got in his way surrenders.
5. Republicans are not speaking up for one of three very simple reasons: a) they’re afraid to; b) they figure judges and tax cuts for the wealthy and chops to essential regulations matter more than trashing the Cinstitution; c) they’re far-right evangelicals who think Gawd put the guy in place to smite the ungawdly. Oh, or becuse they’re amped on lib’rul hate.
We hear a lot from Trumpists about the Founding Fathers. Well, the FFs woulda taken about two looks at Trump, backhanded his tail out of office, and smacked US for being stupid.
7
What irks me is why this president is being enabled to bring his methods of working the legal system throughout his business career to the office of president. It is as if he’s “president in title only.” Has no one told him he’s no longer citizen Trump?
That Americans have to watch this self-indulgent passion-play of one man’s ego and Republican greed to hold on to power, is unforgivable and puts our democracy in peril. Especially, since everyone in the room knows the allegations are all true. This entire moment in time appears to be Trump’s quest to be king for a day. Whether or not it’s a total failure is an afterthought. What’s more shameful are the politicians who have given away all sense of rightness by engaging in a twisted relationship where each party, the president and the Republicans, are using each other as a means to an end. Our country deserves much better than this sideshow. There are major issues to be tackled rather than sucking all the air out of the room so trump can fulfill a gilded fantasy.
5
Wait? No. The outcome won't change. House impeachment must come now to make clear to Donald Trump he must not attempt to interfere in the 2020 election.
1
As was repeatedly emphasized in the hearing, there is a time constraint: the election. Trump is apparently trying to "win" re-election by cheating. That cannot wait for months or years to resolve. I don't know how many mounds of evidence would satisfy Professor Turley, who thought impeaching Clinton for lying about an affair was fully justified. The Democrats' impeachment actions have been very methodical, and not at all angry.
One thing I don't understand: The Constitutional Article I, Section 8 clause providing, "for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place" has been interpreted by courts as prohibiting lawsuits against members of Congress actions taken as part of their normal activities. Thus, John Bolton should be barred from pursuing litigation against Congress in response to a subpoena. Yet, I haven't seen any legal scholars making this point. Maybe I'm missing something.
2
There’s no point in waiting any longer before articles are drawn and a vote taken. The mere act of obstructing Congress and its investigation is grounds enough for impeachment. There is ample evidence of this obstruction direct from the president himself just as there was during the Russia investigation as delineated in the Mueller Report. The act of obstructing Congress may even be a stronger article of impeachment than any quid pro quo with Ukraine. Allowing the process to proceed of securing testimony from those having direct contact with Trump, even if successful, would only serve to dilute or even eliminate any obstruction article. Let’s get it done!
3
Bolten could of course settle this whole situation of quid pro quo. But is refusing. He is protecting himself because of course he needs the Repubs to continue his career; protecting the president should give him great rewards in the future. On the other hand, as mentioned here in the article itself, the fact the Trump is not allowing top officials, who would know the truth, to answer subpoenas is a sure sign of guilt. So we don't need "pure" and straight facts here, we can use the obvious hiding of truth as a sure sign of corruption and lying. Juries decide by all the facts available, and that includes ones coming from our intuition and understanding of logic and human behavior. For example we all know the Senate will "acquit" Trump if impeached. And we know that acquittal will have nothing to do with reality. Nothing.
3
Congress should not wait to act, the danger the situation creates demands urgency. There is a disillusion been exhibited by defenders of the heinous act that somehow the witnesses will come around if a court orders them, No a court is simply a delay tactics and as such Congress needs to fulfill their mandated obligation if the republic is to be safe from a president who is as corrupt as he is in lack of any virtue. For those that want him to get a third chance you will definitely regret your decision. This is not about anger people, its about future and precedents the republic is bigger than an individual.
4
Clearly, history will not judge this president well! His actions, deeds and words have been reprehensible! Even though he might not be convicted by the partisan senate, if he’s not impeached, in 20 or 30 or 100 years, historians will question why he wasn’t removed. At least, those with sound judgment tried! The fault will be on Republicans in the senate!
4
Proceeding with impeachment seems straightforward when laws have been broken by Trump.
No need to garner fifteen witness’ testimonies to crimes when three should suffice.
Trump committed crimes, he is accountable for those actions and should be impeached.
Time for the GOP to step up and end the charade.
5
Paraphrasing WS, to wait or not to wait that is the question, is not the relevant point. Although Jonathan Turley made the point that waiting would be crucial to further solidify the facts gathered thus far, he did not acknowledge that waiting for Supreme Court decisions is fraught by two issues, one that such decision will likely be beyond the elections and that the conservative court may decide for the president. I don't think that any Democrat believes that further facts would persuade Republicans in Congress to change their views. Consequently it behooves the Democrats to maximize their political advantage and impeach the president, and formally accuse him of high crimes and misdemeanors. Although the Senate will clear him, this does not mean that Trump is innocent - as many may believe and the Republicans will claim as well. This point must repeatedly be emphasized in order to have an impact on the undecided voters.
5
It's a very convenient tactic to seek delay to let the courts play out a drama, that is essence a large part of the problem with the way Trump has conducted himself, through word and deed.
As a king.
As above the law, his oath to the Constitution, and We the People.
To play this game is to invite the very behavior that should be objectionable to all. This is not about a "claimed" constitutional right, but one spelled out clearly as the obligation of Congress.
His arguments were just more table pounding, he never once disputed the facts, or whether the acts we all see before us are impeachable, just that the process must be played out to his (and the GOP whims) satisfaction.
Not his purview as a constitutional scholar, and he knows it. Because it isn't in the Constitution.
And honestly when he started parroting GOP talking points about "un-doing" elections, shame on you Mr. Turly. You ought to know better.
2
I am a life long Independent voter, and in this instance I totally agree with Congress. Tyrant Trump and his goons are obstructing justice. They intend to run the clock on the Inquiry. Democrats have no choice but to move ahead with impeachment.
5
If Republicans and the White House are blocking witnesses from speaking, then the Republicans and White House can say very little, if anything, in respect to no one speaking for the President.
I mean, how much time does Trump need to get some money together to pay off his pro-Trump witnesses?
2
Turley's argument is bogus; if the witnesses Trump has prevented from testifying could exonerate him, he would have let them testify.
6
If you're caught on camera attacking someone, drag them around the corner to finish the attack -- do you then need the details of what more occurred around the corner? Trump is corrupt on enough fronts, with overwhelming evidence, and he's obviously willing to and perhaps continuing to ask his master/good friend Vlad for help cheating in the 2020 election. With that clear and present danger, the democrats can't wait. Plus, the investigations are ongoing. After he's impeached the committees can re-issue subpoenas and let them meander through the courts.
51
It is interesting to me that in the corresponding hearing in 1998's impeachment of President Clinton (who had been duly elected by both popular and Electoral College vote), Prof. Turley made the argument that impeachment was necessary in that case because the failure to do so would shift the boundaries of what was acceptable Presidential behavior. None of the committee members asked about this apparent change of heart.
79
@Gary Schnakenberg
The Democrats were afraid of talking to him for some reason and the Republicans weren't going to bring up anything contradictory. It's a shame.
2
Waiting allows Trump to gain the advantage he sought with his Ukraine gambit. While he aimed at Biden, the way that the Ukraine scandal has unfolded has also potentially skewed the outcome of the canvassing process by the Democratic Party. The democrats will end up with either a damaged Biden or an prejudiced alternative to Biden because the Ukraine scandal has damaged him. We ought not tolerate this unconstitutional activity to benefit a Republican Party that lacks a conscience. The remedy is impeachment and removal or, failing that, impeachment with removal prevented by a complicit Republican-controlled Senate.
4
Mulvaney already confessed on live TV.
What’s the point of gathering these testimonies at this point? There is already more than enough evidence, and it’s not like GOP members are going to be convinced by any additional statements.
They’d simply counter with more excuses as Trump and his enablers claim the Dems are trying to drag out impeachment to undermine the 2020 election.
And it would work, sadly.
Glad this show is getting on the road. Those who would not testify deserve nothing but scorn.
6
Interestingly, Bribery is no longer a charge. So what charges are they even going to make. They know how scant the evidence is and so does the times, so they make excuses about why they can't get evidence and that being the excuse as to why they must rush instead of get it right for the sake of the American people. This show is sad. I don't know how anyone can support impeachment. Also, Schiff spied on Devin Nunes? What they heck?! The Democrats have sunk to new lows.
1
I found myself wondering why the Dems didn’t ask —and repeatedly— something like this of Turley:
“You oppose impeachment now because there are information gaps that the testimonies of misters bolton, mulvaney and giuliani could fill in. In the interest if getting at the truth, and for the sake of expediting this process, would you suggest to the president, here and now, that he permit these officials to testify? Wouldn’t this be the best thing for the country? And after all, if the president has nothing to hide he should be eager to bring all the facts to light...”
Any insight into why the Dems didn’t take up this line of questioning?
4
@h leznoff
They didn't bring up this line of questioning because they haven't strategized this well at all.
In front of them, they should have directions of what to say IF the Repubs or witnesses say this or that: they must first envision the Republican defense and be prepared to blow it out of the water. Republicans should be laughed at, publicly humiliated. "When they go low, we go high" does not work under these circumstances.
There are many instances of Dems being unprepared for hostile actions and responses. The Dems must show that the Ukraine scandal is just one more example of the influence Putin has over Trump and apparently all of these Republican creatures.
2
How is is not obstruction of justice when the short fingered bigoted vulgarian DEFIES all congressional subpoenas?
Do we need to wait for a court to decide that?
Isn’t that agains the laws of the constitution?
How can we get the witnesses to testify in these hearings if the bigot stops them?
3
Court fatigue is a classic from the Trump playbook. He has used this tactic in business and now he is using it as President. How anyone thinks DJT is worthy of the US presidency is beyond me. Aside from stuffing his own pockets, he has done NOTHNG.
Also, just pointing out that Melania's tweet about the Professor's joke about Baron's name is rich coming from a woman who wore a "I don't care" coat to the border where kids are being kept in cages like animals.
5
One remembers when Republicans railed against courts trying to rule from the bench. The GOP has become the Grand Ad Hoc party, grabbing at daily arguments without regard for the party's history and consistency, ignoring principles and democracy. Crush the will of the people; the thing that matters is imposing daily will of trump's fascist party. Recognize that Mr. Turley's routine demands better preparation to crush Trump. Sophist lawyering appeals to the party the court favors, not much to the defeated will of the people.
2
My guess that hearing from additional witnesses is not likely to convince anyone to change their mind. The partisan split is evident and solid.
However, by not challenging the President's refusal to allow Bolton, Mulvaney, McGahn, et. al. the Democrats are leaving a devastating precedent on the table. It implicitly gives license to this, and future Presidents, to deny the authority of Congress.
In addition, by limiting the scope of the investigation and hurrying the process, they are are leaving evidence of additional crimes by Trump and various associates (Rudy, Nunes, et.al.), again implicitly giving permission for future bad acts.
The Dem's are going to lose this fight by being weak. They will lose the battle for public opinion, and the structures within our Constitution that prevent authoritarianism will be crippled.
2
Pretty clear that there is already plenty of evidence of the Presidents guilt. Trump would never block testimony from someone who could provide exonerating evidence - so all these blocked witnesses could provide is additional evidence of guilt, added to the mountain already collected. There is no reason to wait out the court process of forcing these testimonies before proceeding with impeachment. The issue of congressional oversight can continue to be dealt with outside of the impeachment process.
3
Trump has already demonstrated that he will deflect, delay, and attack the process. Given the speed in which he has prevented other Congressional subpoenas for other items relating to him to be released (taxes, emoluments ... neither has reached the Supreme Court), he'd run out the clock on the next election and halfway through a potential second term. That is not satisfactory. He has prevented a bunch of folks from testifying. However, the GOP is complicit --- all in. Regardless of the outcome, there will be pardons to a large number of individuals to prevent criminal prosecution after the fact given the number of individuals incriminated aleady.
3
Let me see if I have this straight. Trump has barred Republicans from testifying and then Republicans scream at Democrats because they have not been allowed to testify. Kind of mobius "logic," isn't it?
3
I've just read Sullivan and Savage's commentary, "Who Is Johathan Turley."
It is disturbing to hear that Democrats consulted him in constructing their case. He is on the libertarian fringe; bricks from his kiln will not hold weight.
1
Lol
What happened to the GOP talking point that “Trump wants to be impeached”? We heard that for WEEKS! The media even covered it as if it was ever a credible statement.
The entire world has seen Trump’s true colors. World leaders openly mock him on camera. They don’t even try to hide it anymore. Just look at what China is doing with the trade war. They aren’t even offering concessions anymore because they know Trump doesn’t have any power to bargain.
I take no pleasure in this. The United States is in a devastatingly weak position right now under such a weak executive and it is causing real tangible damage to millions of people here in the US, and globally.
This impeachment should have happened as soon as Trump was implicated in felonious payments to cover up his affair with Mrs. Clifford. Every single deal he has tried to make with other world leaders has resulted in embarrassment to the United States and this insane experiment needs to come to an end.
6
Turley is part of "The Trick" too.
That trick being to stall the process and also to hope and angle for the Supreme Court to rule that the President has the rights to thwart subpoenas and exalt his staff and others to do the same. The Unitary Executive to turn this country into a monarchy or dictatorship.
That's what Bolton is doing. Wonder how they got Turley to say what he did. I utterly doubt his sincerity as we have every reason to doubt all of these Russian Republicans.
3
The loophole of instruction is ‘The Trumpian playbook.’ He has not provided any of the requested materials or people, thinking back to Clinton’s impeachment and they provided a lot...and still ran the government. In an ideal world the Supreme Court would rule that the president has not special hidey-hole and must to comply. If he doesn’t he’s impeached for obstruction, and add the previous charges as well. It’s more than enough, there’s tons of evidence and the American people will understand. even Nixon provided materials although there was a court action about the tapes. Of course the courts have been stacked but that’s another story about conservative unconstitutional power-grabs.
3
I'm a lifelong Democrat and make no excuses for Trump. That said, it seems clear to me that with the benefit of hindsight, it will be clear that chasing impeachment will become the Democrat's biggest mistake. President Zelensky of Ukraine maintains that he felt no pressure, didn't see any issue with what Trump said about "do me a favor." The Democrats would also have a whole lot more credibility if they had not been chomping at the bit to impeach at the very start of Trump's term. They's so bandied about the I word, it has cheapened what is a very, very serious and severe thing to do to a sitting president. Then, where is the beef? For Nixon it was obstruction of justice. For Clinton it was perjury. This go round I've read about extortion, bribery, obstruction... You can't test out various crimes, is what it seems like. No question Trump's overt effort to pressure a foreign government to smear a competitor is a treacherous thing -- an abuse of power. But such things are very subjective. In hindsight it will have been a thousand times better had the Democrats heeded Nancy Pelosi's wise advice to stick to bread and butter issues in the election. Impeachment has all but drown out the Democratic race. Biden has been a casualty of it, too. I hate for Trump to get re-elected because the electorate either doesn't know the Democratic candidates, or is so disgusted with the show. Last, the Democrats are stacking the deck with overtly partisan "impeachment experts."
3
How much longer are we going to allow this buffoon and his enablers to subvert our democracy?
7
Check out Turley's "moocher" defense of Judge Porteus of New Orleans who accepted bribes from lawyers who had clients in front of his court. Turley characterized his misdeeds as "not paying for enough of his own lunches". The Senate voted overwhelmingly to impeach Porteus. Interestingly, Turley's opposing counsel was Adam Schiff.
7
"...do us a favor, though..."
the comma is crucial...
2
Sadly, only one letter writer here raised the point that Charlie Savage’s piece is NOT a news story but rather, an opinion piece. From the opening paragraph, when he presents Turley’s opinion, to the closing sentence, where he quotes rep. Collins, saying it was a “railroad job” , mr. savage is clearly biased toward the republican position. But more disturbing is the print copy version of the headline— “tension as scholars debate if case was made to impeach”. This is totally misleading and inaccurate! Did Mr Savage watch the proceedings all day? I think not! The only “tension” was in viewers, as we wanted to burst into the proceedings when the republicans were speaking lies after lies after lies. Too bad all the reps/questioners couldn’t be under oath. So, having that word “tension” in the print headline implies that the issue isn’t factually clear! The NYT has got to stop this! Persisting in clearly biased “reporting “ only leads your loyal readers to conclude you want trump to win. Et tu Brutus?
3
Another bad headline choice. I don’t understand why the Times is highlighting Turley. It appears to be taking sides on the news page. This process is no faster than other impeachment processes. Report the facts not opinion. Besides Turley is biased and represented House GOP before.
3
Clearly. Bolton and those like him will not act for the good of our country and testify.
He and his ilk make me sick.
I can't wait to vote these nefarious charlatans out of office.
I hope their conduct in covering for the worst president in American history dogs them for the rest of their lives.
3
Subpoena Bolton!
1
Why the headline?
Why focus on the one negative GOP scholar?
He was outnumbered by 3 other impeachment/constitutional scholars
Why, why do the president's work for him?
What's become of you, NYT?
4
Omg, FINALLY!
Jonathon Turley made an utter fool of himself, yesterday. I don;t know how these idiots can shoe their faces after such public self-humiliation. They all need a big drink of shut-up juice, to avoid further involvement in the crimes of the "administration." I believe that it really will make no difference what the Republicans do, at this point. They will lose their jobs, anyway. The public is disgusted with their thorough corruption.
5
So you think he's clean?
Stinks to high heaven. No amount of navel gazing or counting the angels on a pin can save this unethical, callous stupid man.
2
“ Trump Blocked Key Impeachment Witnesses. Should Congress Wait?”
Really? This is your headline.
Trump obstructs justice by blocking witnesses and sends republicans to stall and obstruct justice with him.
4
The solution is clear. (1) Call the Republican's bluff. Tell them to tell the President that he must allow witnesses to appear before the Judiciary and he must supply all subpoenaed documents. Else, shut up about calling witnesses. (2) Call Bolton, Pompeo, Giuliano, and McGahn and request all relevant administration documents during the impeachment trial and let the Chief Justice rule on the President's claim of absolute immunity.
Republicans ought to be careful of what they wish for. They just may get it.
4
White House witnesses as well as Trump can be subpoenaed in the Senate trial, which mortifies Trump "the case settler" because the only way he can be Trump is to runaway and settle when the bluster and insults run out. He can imagine an impeached Trump debating before tens of millions. Which ich means one thing: resign. He can. insult from the sidelines at Fox and not suffer defeat in the elections. Afterall, he just ran away from the tough NATO allies. How will he face Putin and Kim Jong. Bring on the trial and he will flee town for Mara Largo, home base for crooks and liars.
2
No need to allow Trump to delay further.
It’s perfectly logical, proper, and fair to infer that testimony and evidence withheld is adverse to Trump. Just like any gang boss who destroys evidence and eliminates witnesses.
The case against Trump is strengthened by his obstruction.
4
The bribe is clear despite what Doug Collins and other Republicans refuse to recognize, that the cabal in the White House is a criminal enterprise dolling out favors. Trump or his underlings awarded a contract for a world summit at Doral, they awarded Puerto Rico relief contract to a company with three employees who happened to be a neighbor of Ryan Zinke, and Trump appears to have pressured contracting officers to let North Dakota-based Fisher Sand and Gravel build a wall along the Mexican boarder even though Army Corps of Engineers told him or his surrogates that Fisher’s bids did not meet standards.
Trump cut his teeth with the Mob, and like any Mob boss, he'll let underlings perform his dirty work including trying to bribe an ally at war with Russia to boost his political ambitions. Americans must recognize that allowing foreign governments to participate in American elections will hobble our liberty. The current impeachment investigation is sadly reminiscent of RICO laws to convict high ranking mobsters. World leaders laughed at Trump in Britain and we'll never be the shining light on the hill unless we unmask the criminal enterprise in the White House.
4
Obstruct, delay, confuse, conflate unrelated issues.
Trump should have been in jail years ago for fraud and multiple
financial crimes... never mind now with these recent obstruction crimes.
6
The historical genesis of impeachment and the accounts by the scholars of how it has played out in our republic form of government was at the same time informative and incomplete.
Mr. Turley and Mr. Gearhardt of course had testified in the course of the Clinton impeachment. Clinton's act was a lie to Congress about a sexual interaction and Mr. Turley asserted that act was impeachable.
Trump's act is a hold, an illegal hold, on a Congressional appropriation. The why on the act is to induce a foreign government's President to announce that an investigation will be commenced on a former US Vice President and his son for official actions on policy by a Western consortium and for the son's employment by a a company operating in the foreign country.
The President casts them as needed for a corruption clean up initiative, however, there is no there there, it is debunked.
The overall zeitgeist is beyond the scope of the scholars and does not appear in their testimony. The foreign country has recently had territory, Crimea, annexed by a another foreign power and that same power is conducting a hot war against them.
The funds withheld are critical not only to the foreign government's survival but to the stability of Eastern Europe and in turn the critical NATO alliance. After all Europe almost committed mass genocide in the 20th Century.
Mr. Turely please, you are the guy with a hammer who sees a nail.
3
Blocking the evidence and testimony is itself impeachable, obstruction of justice being a charge in impeachments of johnson, Nixon, and Clinton. Precedent dictates its viability.
5
If the Dems had sought legal help from the courts in getting these Trump minions to testify, it would have taken months and months. There is no time for that. If the courts would have ordered them to testify, they would have claimed executive privilege and nothing would have been learned. It all would have been a huge waste of time. Turley also said that the Dems presented “no direct evidence” that Trump committed an impeachable offense. This all goes back to Trump ordering none of his people to testify. The House requested 71 different items that the White House refused to provide. This only points to Trump’s guilt.
4
Just wondering how long it will take Trump to ask for foreign assistance in interfering with the impeachment proceedings.
3
Time for an impeachment: for his Ukraine bribery/extortion, for refusing to let present and past Administration employees co-operate with subpoenas, and for good measure, the numerous counts of obstruction of justice that Mueller found.
Time to bring this home.
3
I say continue to chug along. The courts will take until the next election to sort this out. Lay out the evidence, expose the GOP for undermining the constitution and working for self interest, and expose the corruption of President Trump to the American people. Let's hope it inspires the populace to drain the real swamp, the one the Trump and his partisan puppets inundated this country in the minute he stepped foot in office. The Republicans don't believe in constitutional authority and use it as a rag, expose them for it. Trump is not above the law.
3
Trump hates government because it got in his way with pesky regulations that forced him to make dwellings safer and/or more accessible. In short, it cost him money. That, in and of itself, is unforgivable for Mr. Trump. He, like most Republicans, hates regulations. They constantly preach that self-regulation is the way to go, rather than a government entity forcing one to do the right thing. Such pie in the sky thinking.
I'm also pretty sure that Bolton, Mulvaney, and Guliani, are big proponents of the self-regulation gospel. And while I don't hold out any hope that Mulvaney and Guliani have the moral compass to invoke personal self-regulation, John Bolton might. So, Mr. Bolton, if you are a self-regulation guy, who believes that people will do the right thing when given the choice, you should take the self-regulation route and testify as to what you know about the Ukranian affair. Having someone else (courts) make that ultimate decision moves as far away from self-regulation as it can be. It shows that the idea cannot be trusted. Think about it. Self-regulation starts with the self.
4
Why would Trump block testimony from his aids if that testimony would exonerate him? Then why wait for that testimony?
3
Soliciting campaign assistance from foreigners is illegal and the call transcript shows that the president clearly did this. Whether there was a quid pro quo is not important. The president is clearly guilty of a crime.
President Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury about a sexual relationship. What President Trump has done is certainly more serious and is a direct abuse of presidential power. He should be impeached.
3
As an important, but academic, argument about the separation of powers, issuing subpoenas and waiting for the challenges to work through the courts are a useful exercise for the future. But we have a real-time situation now. The president is up for re-election, and appears to have colluded or attempted to collude with foreign powers in this election. Congress must protect the republic from this. The academic argument can include a protracted discussion of whether this impeachment is too hasty. The 'protect the republic' argument' has an urgency of its own that requires expediency.
3
I am a retired physician and life long Democrat. I have followed the Presidential impeachment issue from 2016, and believe that while Trump’s Presidency is but a symptom of deep problems within the Republic, that it is a current clear and present danger to the United States and the World. The impeachment conundrum is a Gordian knot because the challenge of meeting legal form and political reality right now seems necessarily to result in impeachment in the House and acquittal in the Senate. Further, there is a real possibility that a circus in a Senate trial will lead to a Republican victory in 2020 with sustained and increased danger to the Republic and world.
The judicial committee testimony opened a path to an alternative outcome, using the Republican’s Georgetown witness, Professor Turley as an opening. Specifically, since the outcome of a instant Senate trial is reasonably anticipated as acquittal because of the legal points and drama currently in play, a reasonable and astute alternative move might be to say, “Professor Turley's points are well taken. Let us have the process of obtaining potentially available facts as a path forward before entertaining a vote on impeachment. This is a march to the high ground of legal process. It will not throw the dramatic domain of the argument to the Republican controlled Senate whee they can use ridicule, anger and confusion to obscure the transgressions. It will keep the process in play thou
I am very skeptical of news and commentary related to political events and believe Mr. Savage has written an unimpeachable article concerning this most important topic.
I am especially intrigued by Professor Turley's argument, which appears to be constitutionally sound: The utilization of court processes to decide if a claimed right is constitutionally valid and cannot be interpreted as an abuse of power or obstruction of justice.
More important than the current impeachment process and its outcome is the precedent that would be set for future presidential claims of executive privilege. If no presidential discussions can be regarded as privileged, future presidents will be inclined to surround themselves with corrupt officials to avoid the prying eyes of the opposition who will seek to interfere with all presidential activities and treat every discussion of policy as potentially criminal.
The democratic processes of the nation must not be corrupted to advance merely partisan disagreements as appears to be the case in the partisan impeachment process.
8
@Richard Helfrich I agree with what you say. I also think the Dems have a much better impeachment case if the used Mueller's Volume 2 obstruction of justice case.
6
@Richard Helfrich
But timing is thee problem. We live in an age where the news cycle has been accelerated to just minutes, in this case by the velocity of tweets, which, in many cases, are coming out in response to events in real time. The president knows this and is just trying once more to manipulate the situation to his own favor, knowing that there are academics who will point out, as you did, the importance of discretion and full development of the facts, a laudable aim. Unfortunately, this is not a criminal investigation, and such standards do not clearly apply. There has never been a president as indiscreet and unwilling to consider facts as this one, and, sadly, that works in his favor.
12
@Richard Helfrich:
Quote: "future presidents will be inclined to surround themselves with corrupt officials"
Yeah, because Trump hasn't.
Oy.
20
Mr. Turley's argument boils down to a simple proposition: You don't have a strong case for impeachment because the President isn't cooperating. The House Judiciary Committee should not wait until the Supreme Court decides each and every case of obstruction.
The fact that the President isn't cooperating doesn't weaken the case against him; it actually strengthens the impeachment case against him.
Article I of the Constitution does not specify that the Legislative Branch needs to get permission from the Judicial Branch to call witnesses for impeachment proceedings. Article I gives the Legislative Branch sole authority to call witnesses. If witnesses do not show up or are instructed by the President not to show up, then they are in contempt of Congress. Those witnesses could be subject to fines and or imprisonment if Congress deems it necessary. The Judicial Branch should not be put in the middle of a power struggle between the other two Branches.
3
Mr. Turley managed to focus media attention on a straw man argument, that it is necessary to prove a violation of a statute of bribery in order to remove a President. Mr. Turley's argument is equivocal.
The Constitution is not narrow on the matter of impeachment. It does not specify, "Caution: only applies if the President violated a Federal statute."
There is no statute against "high crimes and misdemeanors." It is moot to ask, "Which crimes are covered?" Nor does the Constitution establish a burden of proof. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" does not apply, nor does "preponderance of the evidence." Personally, from what I've read so far, both burdens have been met. But Trump's defense has not yet been heard.
Removing him from office means only this: Take him out of office a year early, and put him into the court system, where actual statutes can and will apply to him.
Ending his term early should not be viewed as a terrible punishment. He will be a free man, able to use his money and personal power in any way he sees fit, no longer bound by any Constitutional duty. Humbled, yes, but not hobbled.
If we go into this with tunnel vision of the kind advocated by Mr. Turley and friends, the Constitution will be irrevocably damaged and our children will grow up in Novo-Russia.
2
Impeachment is the prerogative of Congress, not the courts. Why should they have anything to do with it, other than the chief justice presiding over the Senate trial? If these matters ever get to the Supreme Court, we all know how that will turn out. Congress has the right of subpoena and should also have the right to enforce it.
3
A few thoughts.
First, the impeachment manager should start the Senate trial with him re-taking the oath of office and inviting every Senator to join him/her. If anyone refuses, there's his/her opponent's campaign commercial. Put them on the spot in front of cameras for posterity.
Second, waiting for the courts to compel testimony would draw things out, and if Trump sees the writing on the wall, he could capitulate and start slowly releasing documents or allowing people to testify. His complete refusal to cooperate now gives Dems a clear and uncontested count of Obstruction of Justice. Don't give him this way out.
Third, the house Impeachment Manager could call McGahn, Pompeo and Bolton to testify in the Senate trial as material witnesses.
Risky to proceed quickly, but to delay plays into Trump's hand.
Going too fast? It's been over 3 years!
Since the day he was elected, the Democrats have been striving, planning, doing everything they can to impeach Trump. Because he is Trump, and he shouldn't have won that election!
With a GOP controlled house they couldn't do much except contrive a special counsel inquiry. And there were such hopes! "Mueller ain't going away!". But it turned out to be a bust.
And time is running out. In 11 months there is an election and the Democrats far-left base is getting restless (and the first primaries are looming). That base must be served, so a flimsy case for impeachment is quickly put together and will be voted on before Christmas.
Are Republicans or public opinion supporting this impeachment? Nope. But that's not the point. This impeachment must happen for Democrat-serving political purposes.
Questions, after watching hearings yesterday:
1. Why not do both -- proceed with impeachment process now and at same time start a long term fight through courts to obtain testimony of Bolton and the others about ongoing and future crimes in the same pattern as those under consideration today?
2. In what ways will impeaching Trump stop him from continuing corrupt invitations to foreign governments to interfere in 2020?
Clarifications on these points by leaders of impeachment process would be most welcome.
Thanks.
Yes move forward with this impeachment. Then, no matter the result in Senate, immediately afterwards, charge Trump with criminal charges based on Mueller report as a separate case. Mueller advised Congress to do so during his testimony.
Waiting would simply reward Trump's bad-faith tactics. A blanket and absolute refusal to comply with subpoenas - without particularizing the objections to documents and without objecting to each question asked of the witness, as proper - is obviously legally untenable because it would eviscerate all Congressional oversight. The lower courts have already said this quite clearly. We cannot allow Trump to continue to try to subvert the 2020 election, so the only choice is now.
1
Stop pushing the GOP narrative. Three other witnesses all consistently and articulately laid out the clear violations, yet you lead with the 1/4 who calls for further prudence. Remember the Crest commercial asking "What about the other dentist?" That is what you're doing. Yes, Congress *should* keep pushing to get the witnesses and documents that the White House has blocked, but in this case, the evidence that the GOP are claiming is "circumstantial" is in fact a matter of public record. The president and his administration did the crimes, then took to TV and Twitter to confess to doing the crimes, and then publicly announced their intent to do more crimes. What additional evidence is needed? Or maybe we should hold more hearings about Benghazi, because that's always productive. This article is an example of the NYT taking a false equivalency stance. Fair does not have to mean balancing the scales. If the preponderance of facts are all on one side, then don't be shy about presenting that side. Do not take the bait. Do better!
2
"Catch 22". The republican argument is you can't impeach because you don't have testimony from direct witnesses and White House documents.
The White House won't allow that testimony or release those documents.
The legal system, with endless appeals, postpones the answer to whether the White house must allow testimony or release those documents, indefinitely. For sure beyond the 2020 election.
Therefore you can't satisfy the republicans objections to impeachment.
2
Turley's position is actually legally ludicrous. The president has taken actions to prevent people from testifying before a co-equal branch of government. The Congress does not need the permission of the US Supreme Court to enforce its subpoenas, because it holds the sole power of impeachment and trial.
- Stalling is not legal grounds to delay or to stop the House from acting.
- Personal attacks on witnesses are just more evidence in favor of impeachment, as are threats of harm for doing so.
- It's not like there is any doubt as to the facts, even if some details are missing
- Because those with knowledge are backing a public servant's private interests over their public duties and the public interests does not exonerate the president or discredit any testimony.
- I think most reasonable Americans are tired of the shenanigans, the spin, the attacks, and this entire administration's acts and policies.
- I use the word reasonable because no reasonable person ignores the damages being done to the country in the name of some silly political label that defines no principles.
Enough, is enough.
2
Am amazed at the support the Republican Party gives this man. Rather than admit he is incompetent at a minimum they double down with a parade of inaccuracies in support of him. If the Republicans want to have any influence over the future direction of this country they should admit Trump is unfit and find another candidate for 2020. Trump’s orbit is decaying at an increasing rate and no amount of partisan stonewalling will change that.
2
So much for Democrats’ respect for “the will of the people.” Trump’s use of the courts to “run out the clock” is still not enough to help him avoid having to face voters in 2020 to remain in office, of which he seems to have no fear of. The true enemy of the people would not seem to be Trump then, rather Establishment Democrats hellbent on rushing to impeach in order to take control away from “the people.” Nice people.
"DON INVOKES OMERTA"
That should be the headline on this story. Trump told his people to ignore subpoenas and they did. Trump like many Don's before him, invoked omerta. Loyalty to Trump above all else.
1
if you get a subpoena it is up to you to go to the court to quash it, not on Congress to go there to enforce it. You are in violation otherwise even if they have chosen not to hold you in contempt. So, I like Congress's no playing around approach. obey the subpoena, get it quashed, or they just impeach you and send you to trail. you choose. Trump chose Impeachment!
1
No. We can’t wait and run the risk of him getting four more years to further trash the Constitution, abuse his authority, and turn this country into an autocracy or worse. We also can’t allow an obviously irredeemably corrupted GOP to further entrench itself in Congress.
While I appreciate and agree with the opinion that elections should be the means to oust incompetent or reckless presidents, that is for “ordinary” times and “ordinary” situations where the other two branches of government can temper the third. These times are anything but ordinary. We cannot (well, at least I can’t) trust that the 2020 election will be conducted securely; neither do I trust that Trump will accept the result if he loses, and I fear what license he will give himself if he wins.
This is a huge gamble, but one we have no choice but to take. I have no illusions about its possible outcome. The Founders and future generations demand it. I would rather be remembered in history by fighting, rather than by aiding, abetting, and ultimately doing nothing.
2
Turley says the bar to impeach must be high. He says we need all the evidence. He says we must complete the “foundation.” He thinks the case must be ironclad.
This perspective is wrong. The standard to impeach should not be the highest bar, requiring iron-clad evidence such as the President’s own words heard by a “direct witness.” That is ridiculous.
The standard for the President’s actions and words should be very high. We must hold him to the highest standards, at least as high as we hold all other public servants. Right now in today’s America, in local governments all across our country, that standard is very high.
It’s astounding that the bar is lower at the top than it is for those millions of public servants who actually honor their oath of office.
99
@Astounded Yes, and, as far as I know, the president
doesn't have to pass a top level security clearance.
The standards must be higher.
13
“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”
- Carl Sandburg
A variation of this quote is to say if law and facts are against you, delay.
Based on the logic of either of these, it seems Trump's camp doesn't have the facts, nor the law on their side.
7
Pelosi has just announced that the Judiciary Committee is going to proceed with the Articles of Impeachment, so whatever one thinks of Turley's testimony is now a moot point.
That being said, while I found myself partially agreeing with Turley in terms of "rushing" and not having "all the evidence" in place yet, I did not entirely agree with his reasoning.
At the heart of Trump's (and Barr's) defense is his definition of executive privilege and power.
In other words, Trump is not only above the law, he is the law.
I personally believe that we need to hear how this Supreme Court would interpret his definition of absolute power and the only way to do that is by going through the courts.
I understand that trying to force Trump's immediate subordinates to testify about their role is going to be time consuming, but ultimately necessary.
Failure to do that means that Turley did give the Senate enough of a rationale to exonerate Trump beyond just political expediency and fear of his supporters.
We have not heard from everyone and on that front, Turley is correct. He is also correct in asserting that this is how our system works.
It will also mean that Trump will no longer have any guardrails at all, thus turning the presidential campaign into a kind of war no Democrat is truly prepared to face.
3
It seems rather evident that Trump and company are doing as much as possible to run out the clock. Turley’s main point that Trump’s entitled to petition the Court, since the government is of 3 distinct and independent (theoretically) branches, is worth serious consideration. Not to say that Trump’s being out of office won’t be a blessing for the nation; but a wrong way of doing this that may possibly set a dangerous precedent for the future, ought to be considered. Following through with Trump’s impeachment, especially on an asap basis with Court aside, becomes more and more a moot practical exercise because: a) 2020 is closing-in fast; and b) there is virtually no chance this indictment would result in conviction in a Republican-controlled Senate. Unfortunately, Dems may being shooting themselves in the foot, trapped in doing something that looks like, besides “political,” dogged pursuit of principle for principle’s sake, the grounds for which apparently even some consider arguable. Pelosi’s caution upfront reservation about impeachment winds up to haunt; but there’s no going back. Wouldn’t it be amazingly ironic that Trump would claim to his advantage, that some would believe, he was treated with contempt and unfairly?
1
@wak - "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." That's it. No language involving the courts. So no, Trump is NOT entitled to petition the courts. There comes a time when simple basic language needs to be taken at face value. That is, unless Republicans would like to seriously debate what the meaning of "is" is.
14
@wak
What clock?
Point me to the part of the Constitution that refers to a time limit for the impeachment process.
3
The GOP controlled Senate is going to make a sham of the impeachment process & end by claiming exoneration of Trump. So impeachment in the Congress is almost a mute point. Instead I think the Congress should shift its focus and defeat Trump in court to prevent future corrupt presidents from obstructing justice. It would be stupid for the Democrats to handover control of the impeachment process to Republicans to fabricate a fake exoneration of Trump.
The Republican tactic is the classic Catch-22: Mr. Turley and Mr. Jordan decry the lack of direct evidence that Mr. Trump intended to deny Ukraine a lifeline because he wanted the splashy Biden inquiry announced. Everything is inference, they say.
Of course, Mr. Trump has refused to allow anyone who may have actually heard him say "this is all about Biden" from testifying. So you can't convict me of wrongdoing if you can't get me to say I've done wrong.
Similarly, the Republicans rant about the prolonged grid lock in Congress, while insisting the process ought to be dragged out through the glacial process of court hearings and procedures.
8
Where was the outrage from the impeachment advocates when Obama asked Medvedev for space until after the election when he would have more flexibility to deal with missile defense?
If Trump's comments to Zelensky were inappropriate then so were Obama's. Neither case warrants impeachment.
2
Not even remotely similar. Obama was aknowleging that the reality of an election hampered his ability to negotiate as broadly as he would like. He did not ask Medvedev to take action or publicly announce something damaging to the frontrunner of the Republican party at the time. It is reasonable to deduce that the US could negotiate from a stronger position after an election. Requesting an investigation into a potential rival almost entirely has direct benefits only for Trump and not the country.
18
It was where it belonged. In the back of the minds of bitterly partisan Republicans. These two are not close to equatable events.
3
Obama did not ask him to fix an election.
2
We have an abundance of evidence and it is true more evidence floating up daily including an entire team of White House cohorts refusing to testify.
We have a President arrogant and bullying, continuing to challenge societal norms, breaking laws.
We have Republicans who stand on a fixed pedestal balanced and counting on the ignorance of a base. The idea that Democrats should wait out court proceedings staggeringly slow in order to obtain sought after and legally subpoened witnesses is wrong.
This President to date has had 3,500 lawsuits! He uses the courts to stall and to conduct his business between the lines of the law.
Impeachment needs to proceed unimpeded by the tactics of the President. There is no doubt in the facts or evidence. Impeachment is our Constitution's remedy for a would be King.
11
Dr. Turley was by all appearances simply renewing his 21-year subscription to the Loyal (No Matter What) Republican Club.
And at the moment I’m still registered as a Republican but waiting for the next primary so I can change that.
9
It there were a tape of Trump saaying: "Ukraine, investigate the Bidens or I will never release money authroized by Congress for you, and you will never be invited to the White House as long as I am President" there would be no Republicans voting to impeach nor to convict.
Let's move on. This is not a criminal case, it does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is more than ample evidence to impeach and convict Trump on a variety of charges.
15
Turley’s emphasis on partisanship failed to recognize the obvious—it is the Republicans who have obstructed, deflected and refused out of hand to consider the evidence. Their ultra partisanship has taken precedence over the rule of law and the security of our country and integrity of its elections.
20
Justice delayed is justice denied. That the GOP's only real argument is that delay and obstruction should be allowed to creep along in the name of eventually, possibly coming to a more complete record is absurd. Turley's argument is circular reasoning that stains his reputation. Those who aid the Baby King never come away unsullied.
Impeach. Remove from office.
11
I spoke with an acquaintance the other day, a devout Catholic who I didn't know was also a lifelong Republican. He expressed distress about Trump and what he has done to our country. He is convinced there are enough Republican senators who will do the right thing and vote to remove Trump. It was such a relief to get his perspective. Only hope he's right.
This man is also a Baltimore native, and later I wondered if he had felt stung by Trump's insults of his beloved city.
What goes around comes around.
10
He is wrong. There are not enough—perhaps not any—Republican senators to convict. But I am not surprised that a man who devoutly believes in Catholic dogma would believe such a miracle is in the offing.
Facts presented give Congress the right to proceed with the impeachment process. Our next Presidential election must be free of foreign interference.
Yesterday's Jurist presented a legal tutorial on what exactly qualifies the current occupant of the White House for impeachment. They gave factual examples with analogies that a middle schooler could follow.
The only people not able to comprehend these facts are Republicans receiving funds from the NRA and D.Vitter's Russian Funded Public Relations Firm. Vitter and others who play ball with America's adversaries are tainting the brains of the Republicans in Congress.
3
How about saying the obvious Mr. Turley .
That due to trump's obstruction of the Congress subpoenas by withholding testimony from his key staff that trump's own actions set up “a facially incomplete and inadequate record in order to impeach a president.”
And that it's apparent that trump did this to force it through the constipated courts in order to run out the clock.
You can't have it both ways Mr. Turley. Trump caused this unlawful "incomplete and inadequate" record to occur.
9
Bolton needs to come forward. Americans need his testimony to protect our democracy. GOP has blocked truth, subpoena witnesses and facts. Looks like Putin is Republicans best friend .
6
Of COURSE Republicans want to slow it down. The excruciating two years of the Mueller investigation gave them all the time in the world to muddy the waters, demonize the law enforcement community, and devise countless conspiracy theories. And it worked. When your entire defense rests on peddling lies, character assassination, and conspiracy theories to a brainwashed "base", then time is your friend, and decisive action is your enemy. Therefore decisive action is the course we must follow.
5
Sure. Wait as long as needed. Even into his next term, which the Russians will be undoubtedly helping him achieve. No reason for alarm, though.
(Statement made dripping with sarcasm.)
9
Republican members Louie Gohmert, Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan are acting like clowns doing their best to turn the House Judiciary hearings into a circus. No wonder the Intelligence Committee took the lead.
6
Turley is nothing but a republican shill. One with nice credits to his name being a law professor and all, still, just a hack doing his party's dirty work and nothing more. We have a presidential cabinet full of them, a senate full of them, state houses full of even more representative, governor and mayor shills who have drawn shill gerrymandered election district maps and let ALEC do their work for them so they can go pal around and get more money from rich people who know doing so will protect their wealth.
Nope, just another talking head who sounds like there's a brain there when it's just money talking. How much did they pay him to appear anyway?
Ignore him.
4
And I’ll bet Collins is an expert on railroads.
2
The legal scholars were playing jurors.
3 yes 1 no. Hung jury. Case dismissed.
Move on.
@Bhaskar
Civil case. Only need a majority. 3 yes, 1 no.
Case upheld.
Step away from the Faux News.
#BlueTsunami2020
2
No one should take Republican serious about the lack of evidence to impeach Trump. Jonathan Turley is grabbing for straws. Let them all eat cake!
3
Any move to impeach the president before the election ( that they hope to fix with help of Daddy Putin) is too fast for these patriots.
1
J. Turley recommends taking the scenic route, regardless of roadblocks, to catch the boat that’s leaving the harbor as we speak.
Another “process” no substance Republican, except of course when it’s a Democratic president who lied about extramarital sex.
Under oath! OMG, about an embarrassing sexual encounter.
I guess he’s glad we have such an upstanding guy in the WH.
4
This is why people hate lawyers. Everyone knew OJ killed his wife, and for gods sake, everyone knows Trump is obstructing justice.
8
@Harry B, but remember the crowds linings the freeway overpasses during the Bronco chase waving signing reading “cut the Juice loose”? Trump’s base is way bigger.
Turley is aquatinted with defending bribery.
Just ask the good people of Louisiana.
I don’t believe we could categorize this as “ mooching” meals though.
The argument that Turley made that the process is being rushed is assuming that the obvious refusal to participate in the Impeachment in any way isn't further evidence of Trump's guilt. The fact is that if President Trump felt that John Bolton, Rudy G or Mulvaney had anything to offer him by testifying they would have already taken the stand. Trump knows that his only way to win is to Obstruct Justice. He knows by now that the Senate will not remove him from office regardless of how much evidence is in front of them. Nancy Pelosi also knows this. Due to the Republicans absolute abandonment of the Constitution, the Rule of Law and their duties as Legislators why wait? If this is going to be a purely political statement why wait on numerous court challenges which could literally drag out until past the next election? Instead they can lay the facts as known out on the table and if Republicans want to try to destroy Democracy let them try. She is banking on a large voter turnout to destroy the GOP in 2020. As the professor stated yesterday. If a President can't be impeached for refusing to participate in the Impeachment process then what can he be Impeached for? I agree thoroughly.
211
Remember when the GOP congressmen and senators used to carry a pocket sized version of the Constitution in their lapel pockets always at the ready?
Good times .....
11
@Eric
I believe the Mueller Report said Trump's actions in the 2016 election were impeachable, and I'm sorry the Democrats think this is too abstruse for the American public to understand. But in fact, after it was clear that Mueller's report would have no impact on him because the Senate under McConnell--whose wife is employed by Trump-would never vote for impeachment, the next day Trump encourages Ukraine to become involved in our election process. I though Mueller said even the suggestion that another country be involved in our elections was impeachable? Why does it have to be made more complicated by using the Republicans' quid pro quo, which they well know is another of their routine red herrings. Democrats must really like smoked fish.
4
Witnesses will testify at the Senate trial. The translator for the President and the transcriber should be called to testify as to the President's verbatim conversation with the Ukrainian President . The Barr memo of the call is not a transcript and Barr should be asked why he did not release the full transcript and/or tapes. Every White House official and aide who defied House subpoena should be compelled to testify on this chain of evidence as it has clearly been covered up.
5
Congress intends to go forward with writing the articles of impeachment. Trump claims he will get a fair trial in the Senate. Hmm. Will those federal employees Trump forbade to testify before Congress testify before the Senate? Or will Republicans continue behaving like the 3 monkey circus act attacking everyone and everything in order deflect from Trump's history of bullying others for his benefit? Democrats better get ready to display their own billboard size signs showing the many, many times Trump has used his bullying tactics on others for his own benefits.
2
Considering, had the roles been reversed, the GOP would have come after someone like Trump with his illegal domestic campaign interference that occurred when Trump paid hush money to Karen McDugal and Stormy Daniels through now prison inmate Michael Cohen. Trump's impeachment is overdue! This is no time to entertainment the bottomless tactics of stonewalling by the GOP.
4
Since Republicans are always referring to this in legal (judicial) terms, there is one they may have forgotten-conveniently. The "missing witness" rule. Derived from a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Graves v. United States, 150 U.S. 118 (1893)—this allows one party to obtain an adverse inference against the other for failure to call a controlled witness with material information.
In other words, if one party has control of a witness, and actively prevents their being able to testify, the presumption made is that the witness would not favor the party in control of the witness. Thus, the exercise of Presidential executive privilege to prevent a witness from testifying in an impeachment proceedings House) or trial of the impeachment (Senate) allows the presumption that the witness would present testimony that would be unfavorable.
7
Well so big deal if the trial is moving fast . This corrupt President and Russian/Ukraine placed fake President Trump needs to be removed from office and go to jail as civilian for all his criminal activity. What sick minds to support Trump and say he did nothing wrong. If he gets away with this our constitution is just words no action and worse GOP men will rule.
4
In any case the Republicans will always pick out something that doesn’t please them. If the Democrats were to take their time the GOP would say: « this is dragging on way too long, the Democrats are simply dragging their feet for their own partisan advantage...blah blah blah ».
2
So let the White House take the advice of its own side and present the necessary witnesses and documents, per Congress's lawful subpoenas! This crisis cannot wait for resolution, seeing as the president is still barreling ahead with his efforts to rig the 2020 election. What else is Rudy Giuliani doing in Ukraine this week--???
4
Acceding to Prof. Turley's admonition to 'wait' for the courts ignores 2 things, A) That the administration is unprecedentedly blocking ALL requests and, more to the point, lawful subpoenas (as the Professor himself acknowledged) that are already being litigated in the courts, that leads to B) an attempt by the Executive to use the courts to run out the clock, rather than accept 230 years of precedent as a co-equal branch of government.
While strictly speaking Prof. Turley is making a valid argument, the fact that the administration he speaks for is not operating in good faith with respect to constitutional oversight should negate the concern for strictly following protocol in the matter of 'waiting for the courts'. After all, it is not a matter of opinion that the administration is engaging in blanket obstruction of lawful congressional oversight. Therefore, as impeachment is, in the end, a political matter, the Executive has forfeited any consideration of strict protocol and is simply abusing the process.
Unfortunately, whether he realizes it or not, Prof. Turley is being used by the President's defenders as a pawn, a 'useful idiot' in the current parlance, to further their lawless obstruction of Congress' constitutional prerogative.
8
@Citixen, yep, he is being played as a useful idiot. Emphasis on the second word of that phrase.
1
Turley says the impeachment is moving too quickly and the president is saying "Hurry up." Dizzying.
2
Time is up. Obstruction of Justice screams at us. He is an embarrassment on the world stage. he is a danger to our security, and he is a danger to our democracy.
7
This is a joke; but not a funny one. The Republicans found one man in Turley who would parrot their idiotic talking points about stall and delay; when the FACTS are completely unrefuted due to the TRUTH about Trump`s abuse of power that is simply so odious and devastating. On the other hand the three scholars who clearly and intelligently laid out the FACTS Republicans have no answer for. I know this is a classic case of the Trump base being in complete denial about what is really going on; and taking their talking points from sycophants like Nunes and Jordan as if reading from some script like some Orwellian nightmare; but it is so sad they can obviously not think for themselves that it is both heartbreaking and depressing. At the risk of rattling the cage even more; there is Good Reason why Trudeau, Macron, and all the other NATO leaders are laughing at Trump. He has become an embarrassing joke on the world stage. Impeachment is the solution your founding fathers gave to you in the gift that is your Constitution. I suggest you use that gift before your Democracy disappears forever.
5
This is absurd. A stalling tactic is elevated by The NY Times to a serious argument and a supposed counterweight to real arguments with actual merit. The investigation has not been slipshod or hurried. This is where Turley’s politics are evident. Rather than making the obvious point - there’s been a GOP coverup - he criticizes the Democrats. And Ny Times decides to play it all with a heavy dose of both sidesism. We need journalism here please.
4
I think this is a lose-lose for Republicans. They either have to impeach, or look like corrupt cowards by turning down impeachment in the Senate.
3
To any objective viewer this process feels like a 'Fill in the Blanks' process. Clearly, facts appear muddled and skewed by democrats. While they wish to have the advantage of momentum, to independent minded voters it comes across as a story with too many chapters omitted.
Only on next November will strategies be quantified.
2
Mr. Turley was called to argue the Republican point of view on this matter, which is basically that, even though President Trump did some bad things, we should wait for the next election to make a decision on him. Suppose we did that we did that and then went on to overwhelmingly vote him out of office. Then he would go down in history as just another one-term president, like Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush.
Mr. Trump's conduct has been so egregious, the shortcomings of other latter-day presidents pale in comparison. We must clearly repudiate his conduct, and the best way to make an unambiguous statement on his conduct is by impeachment and removal from office. Only then can we start to rebuild our image in the world.
10
The Dems should subpoena every person and document they want and fight it out in court. But they should still move on to impeachment now and site obstruction of justice and obstruction of Congress as counts. In that way, when the Senate acquits and, God forbid, Trump gets reelected, a new Democratic House will finally get the docs and testimony they need to put out all the evidence in the next impeachment fight.
Never give up. Ever.
10
Turley is right. We need to hear from the courts, the Supreme Court, on all these questions of privilege, subpoenas, immunity from investigations.
But we need to hear, soon. I would argue that since impeachment of a president is so central to our democracy, so unique in our history, the House must strongly ...urge/demand/argue that the Supreme Court immediately take all these controversies, and give us their best guidance. Surely they, or the House, could argue for an ‘impeachment jurisdictional rule’ for immediate consideration. Imagine other presidents, other situations where time, waiting on a decision, might be fatal to our system, our security, our defense.
Or, the House could use it’s one last power, the power of the purse. No funding of anything, until the president allows documents, testimony. Or until the Supreme Court acts. Blackmail? Well, the founders evidently thought that check could balance other powers. So, use it.
1
What legal authority allows Trump to block witnesses? Or is it the witnesses fear of retribution?
Is it the threat of firing? Many no longer work in government.
What am I missing?
8
@Agent 99
Oh, just remembered it’s executive privilege that makes them keep their mouths shut but they should be made to appear, the Democrats should ask one question, hear the witness invoke executive privilege, then give Republicans the chance to do their thing, then convene.
If they don’t show up then have the House Sargent in arms arrest them.
They need to appear. Executive privilege doesn’t give them right not to show up or does it?
I sat and watched in astonishment yesterday as Turley rolled out his argument.
I've been reading him for years and have always found him to be meticulous in his reasoning, and have admired his standing up for civil liberties. But yesterday he was a different person. "Irrational" doesn't begin to describe it.
I have to wonder if he's one of those people who get off on being contrarian. I've known a few like that in my life, including erstwhile respected scholars who are simply too smart to be spouting the stuff they now spout (anti-vax nonsense, conspiracy theories of all kinds). I've never understood this tendency, except perhaps it endows their adherents with a personal sense of grandiosity. It certainly gets them attention.
I tried, really tried, to understand Turley's point of view yesterday, but just came away gobsmacked. This is a man who argued that Bill Clinton's consensual sexual escapade rendered him unfit to govern, yet Trump's demonstrable, evidence-based crimes are no big deal.
14
Everything we know about Trump tells us that he has brought suits in court to wear down opponents. How does Mr. Turley propose to compel the testimony of Bolton, Pompeo and Mulvaney in a timely fashion? It is not acceptable to “let the courts decide,” since this will (as Trump intends) extend beyond the election, when it will be moot. “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
10
Trump would of course like his complete exoneration from the liberal witch hunt, i.e. the Senate coming up short, right before the election. He will go on about it for months.
This isn’t about actual impeachment, as this crop of Republicans without a blink put party over country, but about revealing and presenting the evidence of high crimes to the public.
Democrats should manage expectations more.
2
I am sick and tired of false equivalency journalism.
One "constitutional" expert asks are Democrats moving too fast toward impeachment?
A better headline would be "overwhelming majority of constitutional experts support impeachment"
Trump supporters read nothing more than a headline that might as well have been written by Trump.
NPR is the same - In the rush ensure point/ counterpoint "balance", NPR runs stories today that give the impression that there is real disagreement between constitutional scholars over whether Trump has committed impeachable offences. The truth is the overwhelming opinion is that he did and the ones who are raising questions are real outliers.
Fox news will now be saying that even the liberal left wing socialist, fake news NYT is saying the case against Trump Trump is at best deeply flawed and partisan.
So Trump stopped all the key people, WHO WERE SUBPOENAED from testifying. Does that not tell you that you will never get direct first hand evidence.
13
The Republicans say Trump did it, but it wasn’t bad enough to remove him. On a scale of 1-10, how bad was it? Will they admit any wrongdoing in Trump’s actions? Will they discipline Trump in any matter? What would the Republicans do and what number would they assign to Obama if he did the same actions as Trump?
6
@Time - Space It's mind blowing to thing how quickly they would have acted had Obama done one tenth of what Trump has done.
5
The president has said that his taxes, which he'd love to share with the American public cannot be revealed because of continuing audits. His administration's members would love to testify if the impeachment was honest, they would happily hand over relevant documents to a legitimate concern.
So unless the House wants to wait out the district court, appellate court, court of appeals and the US Supreme Court, they must proceed. That is, if they don't want 2020 determined by Vladimir Putin.
What about the Senate? Will Mitch McConnell say that John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Pence, Giuliani and the rest of the reich don't have to testify because of execution privilege? Will calling them even be entertained? If the senate trial is run fairly, Trump will be gone only if the sycophant Republicans have an epiphany and convert back to being real Americans. Not holding out much hope.
6
This is a ll a show trial. Professor Dershowitz of Harvard has said there's no case at all. And only one witness for the defense was even permitted by Schiff. It's a travesty.
On the other hand, one of the pro-impeachment lawyers spent her time insulting Trumps son and it turned out that she was a major Clinton-Obama donor.
2
@Grace Gee, Grace. there were a lot of Republicans subpoenaed by the committee who were perfectly comfortable thumbing their noses at the validity of the congressional oversight. Can't have it both ways - either come in and testify under oath (preferable if you have nothing to hide) or stonewall (the President's preferred method of dealing with things he doesn't like). If you stonewall, you can't argue you didn't have a chance to get your side out. Also, telling the Congress that any executive in the White House can ignore or have members of his administration ignore Congress's legal subpoenas based on the totally specious 'divine right of kings' argument is a pretty ugly precedent. What will happen when a Democratic president says he or she does not have to cooperate with constitution-ally mandated oversight by Congress? Will you feel the same?
8
@Grace So What? This doesn't make it a valid argument!
If mobster prosecutors waited for ALL possible incriminating evidence, not a single mobster would be in prison.
Get on with it.
8
“Mr. Turley’s point crystallized the constitutional dilemma facing Congress as it pushes forward on impeachment rather than pausing to go after additional evidence the White House has withheld.”
Don’t worry Mr. Turley, this will just be only the first and one of many impeachments of President Trump.
1
So it is not impeachable, since the President did not specifically, clearly state that he wanted dirt on Biden, and without it would not release funds to Ukraine. He alluded to it, but hey, that doesn't meet the threshold.
That may save him from impeachment, but when it comes time for the next election, I can only think of an old adage:
"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."
Hopefully enough voters will see through the sham defense and vote this guy out.
5
Okay, my simple-minded take: In the long light of history, this drama will be only a short paragraph. The Dems hate nasty, amateur Donald more than they hate Tsar Vladimir -- this charade is a political Tar an' Feathering, best they can muster.
Sure, Trump's a skunk, but everything he's ever done is QPQ -- his empire is built on that, as well as bullying, arm-twisting, and skirting the law. Schiff, Nadler, & Co. know the Senate will NOT remove DT, they're living out Nancy's Nightmare (be careful what you wish for). But, it's now difficult to drain the swamp...
In the meantime they have subverted and negated their own campaign -- Who is paying any attention to the gaggle of Never-Again-Trumpers, now down by two -- three? Or six? No matter.
Trump mashing will continue on this level until Schiff ends it. Queen Hillary then calls a Press Conference for the ages as the cherry blossoms bloom, and lines up in the corner opposite the heavyweight champ, resplendent in white-male trunks (Everlast). She'll stand alone in crimson Katniss -- longbow, quiver of red zingers, and as the geek chorus exits left, they'll engage in month by month verbal bashing until the voters give her a TKO, rectifying the injustice of four years past, which negated Oval enshrinement, a move that would have immediately launched world-wide solutions to all problems facing life on earth as we know it.
ALL of this is simply about that. You'll read it right here as it unfolds. Trust me.
1
@capnbilly
If your prediction does not materialize, and America proves itself greater than two individuals, will you consider alternatives to DT? Your clearly described umbrage against the individual name HC implies that DT’s, perhaps lifelong, habitual criminality (described by you), is equivalent to HC running for President again, that thwarting the criminality you yourself describe is really only a matter of Clinton’s ego. I find that odd and a matter that begs examination. Does/did Hillary Clinton’s candidacy threaten you so deeply? It surely seems her’s did for many. Why so, do you think?
1
Turley is absolutely correct.
What's the hurry to pass the gavel to Mitch McConnell?
Subpoena John Bolton. Keep the hearings going until all the subpoena cases are decided. Get testimony from Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney, McGahn & Co.
Republicans can't complain hearings are being dragged out 'cause they are doing the dragging.
Turley should lose his law license. As with all Trump lackeys, his credibility is forever damaged by his lousy argument. There is no doubt if the Democrats were to wait while court cases proceed, Truly would argue they are dragging their feet.
5
Pelosi stated : “The facts are uncontested,” Ms. Pelosi said. “The president abused his power for his own personal political benefit, at the expense of our national security.”
Fact check: it is a lie. Pelosi and Democrats want to impeach a President based on lies to self-serve them by abusing their power as suggested by Prof. Turley yesterday. Not a good day for America.
1
Professor Turley went from law school directly to the Ivy Towers of Tulane and G.W. law schools.
Perhaps it is not found in the U.S. Constitution, but there is a well-known concept in trial law (and in life in general) that if a witness is given an opportunity to testify and refuses, a presumption can be made that their testimony would be adverse to their interests.
In this case, the president and all the president's men have been given the opportunity to tell their side of the story. All but Trump have been subpoenaed. And they have refused to appear. So the Congress can presume they have nothing to say in defense of Trump, and not play into their strategy of delay.
9
Last night, on one of the MSNBC evening shows, it was pointed out that impeachment is a remedy to uphold the Constitutional processes, NOT to punish an individual. I thought this was highly significant, as many GOP Congressional representatives have claimed the impeachment inquiry and processes are targeting the president. The President committed acts against our Constitutional processes and therefore is subject to removal to protect those processes that were violated.
Its ironic that the GOP complains about the process, yet the individual they're defending has abused our processes of law.
14
Turley argues the evidence has to be stronger or the impeachment case is destined for “collapse in a Senate trial.” This is precisely trump's defense strategy ... to deliberately squelch evidence by obstruction. This obstruction in plain sight is an impeachable act in itself. Now the nation is in the grips of a catch-22 dilemma that is shaking the very foundations of our constitutional government
13
i'm pretty sure the republicans want to drag this out just long enough to let him win their election again, and only then impeach him ... at which point their man pence can step in for the rest of the term ...
2
The Speaker has spoken. Now we see if our Senate has the courage to hold this President accountable.
7
@Dorothy
Spoiler alert: the Senate does not.
GOP Senators have long since abandoned complying with their oath of office and faithfully discharging their duties.
8
Obstruction of justice.
Impeach now. And also pursue all those who ignored subpoenas. Fine or jail them. Or you have no power left.
13
“Slow down,” says Prof Turley. Meanwhile, Giuliani is in Ukraine doing God knows what as the very impeachment hearings were playing out in Washington. And Russia continues with its obviously highly effective disinformation campaign aimed at America’s election and political system. This raises the troubling question: slow down for what?
If this was an actual trial, Trump’s lawyers would be negotiating a plea agreement.
13
It's a crying shame that spines are in such short supply. Though Bolton and the rest CAN defer to Donald's claim of executive privilege, they don't have to. What we know so far is due to witnesses who cared more about this country and doing the right thing than protecting themselves. Who would have thought that would be so rare?
7
Prof Turley is a voice of common sense and reason. The Democrats are like children, small children, whose frontal lobe has not yet developed. They make their decisions, choose there course of action based on the primal instincts of fight, flight or immediate gratification for themselves.
Democrats play checkers, not chess. The idea of strategy of thinking three or four moves ahead . . . Well, they have no frontal lobe. In the end they will embarrass themselves. Trump will never be removed from office by the Senate. The case against him will be flawed, based on an incomplete set of facts . . . All this a few short months before the 2020 election. Trump will be armed for bear as the American voting population takes out their distaste for the erratic, child like Democrats at the polling place.
A lay up victory because once again, no frontal lobe. The Dems will not vote in mass for the Democratic candidate. No they will stay away, pouting because their candidate, Harris, Booker, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, didn’t get the nomination. No frontal lobe.
1
@Calvin
You think it's the Democrats that behave like children? They are the only adults in the room.
9
@Andrew Australia? another foreign power trying to influence the election.
Let me get this straight.The Trump base who believed, that just for them , he'd build a giant wall in the border and make Mexico pay for it, we'd reopen all the coal mines so they could get their health destroying, worst job in the world back, instead of getting some kind if retraining or reinventing themselves, that getting cheap health insurance with Obama care was BAD, because it was named after him, not the ACA, that HC who fyi beat him by 3000,000 votes, should be jailed for using the wrong email server but he shouldnt be criticized for sexually assaulting women, and paying them off, ripping off his contractors so he can hide loan money and cry bankruptsy, making friends with deranged, dictators as he alienates our progressive first world allies, putting a halt or totalky reversing laws that would reverse climate change and help preserve the environment and wildblife, takes food lunches from children, puts children in jail, supports denying women their constitutional right to choose, are in your opinion the grownups?
As a lifelong liberal dem I admit to having being as angry at the low info/rich tax dodgers Trump base as I was by the whiny lefties who voted for the 2 legends in their lunch hour candidates jnstead of HC but now we know Trump is,so much worse than we could have then imagined and it is my hope we pick a candidate we can all live with, pull in the disgruntled and disgusted and beat Trump.
2
Professor Turley is a GOP asset and hired gun if ever there was one.
He testified at the Clinton impeachment in support of impeaching Clinton, giving testimony that was wholly incongruous with that he gave yesterday. He's either fundamentally changed his opinion on impeachment or he'll say whatever helps the GOP at the time.
He's a discredited partisan whose evidence carries very little weight.
15
The people in their wisdom thought they had elected an upright and mentally stable person to the presidency. Instead they now realize that they in fact had elected a crooked megalomania who thinks nothing of breaking our laws and who constantly defies the congress. With this mindset he might even defy the courts.
One is reminded of Andrew Jackson defying the courts. Fortunately in that case our republic survived. In this case it may not and Trump will be in a position to effectively declare himself a king. People beware.!!!!!
3
Mueller report took too long. Impeachment moving too fast. GOP needs to pick a lane.
14
@Sean Cunningham
Hypocrisy, double standards and contradictory positions are what the GOP is all about.
8
The best refutation of Turley's testimony I've seen:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/impeachment-hearing-what-legal-experts-agreed-upon/603094/
Basically, Turley acknowledged in his written statement that IF proven, the quid pro quo described by the democrats in the house would definitely be impeachable.
That is, as the Atlantic author states, the extent to which Turley's comments are relevant. He was called as a legal expert, not someone to determine the facts.
And the facts are, Mulvaney already acknowledged the quid pro quo.
Thus the only possible conclusion is that Turley agrees (implicitly) that Trump has committed an impeachable act.
Case closed.
4
Didn't your NYT evening update state that the Republicans moved just as quickly in the case of Bill Clinton's impeachment? Why aren't we hearing mainline TV reports echoing that information? Feels like a false equivalency by oversight on their part. Please keep reminding people.
10
Listen to what this dude said when he testified at Clinton’s impeachment- completely contradicts his testimony now. He’s a hired gun with a silvery tongue that has no core beliefs about impeachment or the constitution.
5
The GOP only recruits nihilists these days
1
Sure, let's wait five years for all of the court appeals to resolve and Trump is out of office. Sounds like a wonderful scenario for Trump and the Republicans. A political rope a dope.
4
But what if Trump is hiding exonerating evidence in his gambit at 4d cHeSs?!
Since Trump will never actually be impeached - that's the job of the currently Trump loving Senate, I think the hearings should be dragged out by the House. Elizabeth Warren can then run around campaigning and hopefully Trump will be somewhat disabled in terms of what bad legislation he can pass, and State AGs can figure out ways to get around some of his messes like the work or food stamps requirement. (Having a sound body does not nec. mean one has a sound mine... and p.s. where are the jobs. Meantime I give a couple of quarters to various beggars -- except when the hair is freshly done or they stink like skunks (cannot stand the smell of the new MJ!) Sometimes I offer food. I do not know what is wrong with the people and the educational system in the USA.. Wait, it was the electoral college (needs to be abolished) not the people who elected Trump!!
just buying time, these GOP
they do this to democrats all the time but the Dems don't do it back to them
typical playground bullies should be dealt with in one way and one way only
1
Let's see if my answer comes trough this time.
Why, because I have tried to write about my view from how I as a European sees it.
I do not think that Trump is going to be impeached and thrown out of the white house by the Republicans. And I do not think that the Democrats in Congress believe that either.
As I see it this is a play for the gallery, or whatever U want to call it, when the real reason for it is to get the Senate sitting at the end of January and February to glue Senator Sanders and Warren to their sets in the Senate.
Why, because they want to reduce their chances to win the early states because the Democratic Party is afraid of what will happen if they do.
They do not want the radical politic that they represent to be the main theme in next year's Presidental election.
They still like to have the rich and the powerful to support the party because they still want their money.
This is the fourth time I am writing about this, but New York times support Biden and his foes, and not the American people and what they want, enough of this so far, anyone holds any other opinion on this...
Please explain this to me, because I have big problems seeing it any other way.
Kind regards from Norway and Spain :)
2
If you are not concerned that Donald Trump has misused his office for personal gain, to support autocrats and to punish citizens that didn’t vote for him then you should buy a red hat and sign up to attend his coronation.
5
When I've seen Turley lately, he's been like a republican mouthpiece. By his reasoning, impeachment would never be used but he supported impeachment against Clinton for far, far less. I don't trust him.
2
I felt the law professors for the Democrats gave compelling evidence that we cannot let Mr Trump continue to obstruct in the matter of dire fact finding, and at the same time be blamed for rushing at the exclusion of evidence that he deliberately withholds for examination. The Partisanship of the Republicans has failed in logic, using the argument that impeachment is being rushed knowing he is preventing the evidence to be aired. Clearly, Mr. Trump’s flagrant abuses against are Constitution are beyond dispute. Let us get on with the Impeachment and hope that the Republican lawmakers that support this lawless behavior in a US president will come to their senses. In each yea or nay vote, each congressional member should be asked to justify his vote in two sentences or less. Let history and each member’s legacy be put on official record.
139
@Jan Shellman The law professors didn't offer any evidence. They only commented on their reading of the thin evidence offered by the Schiff committee hearing. I'm surprised that the Times hasn't pointed out that all of the professors voted for Clinton and that two of them were substantial Clinton donors. Three of them said Trump sold be impeached long ago. They contributed nothing, but it was a good dog and pony show. At least until the dimmest of them decided it would be funny to mock Barron Trump.
@Jan Shellman
“...each congressional member should be asked to justify his vote in two sentences or less. Let history and each member’s legacy be put on official record.”
Really love this idea. I’ve been continually gobsmacked (never in my life have I used this favorite word from elementary word lists as much as I have since 2016) at the astonishing 180-degree turn of the legacy of the Republican Party in their capitulation to Trump and Russia. I’d love to see each Republican attempt to whitewash their abandonment of Republican and democratic values for the Congressional record. Historians and future Americans would have the last laugh.
Unfortunately, I believe it’s just a yea or nay vote for the record. Either way, History is recording their speech and actions and, after judging them traitorous, will eventually forget they even mattered on this day.
7
@Jan Shellman
The chance of more than one or two of the cabal of the dishonorable called the GOP caucus is remote at best.
They are the exact people Franklin warned against.
6
Absent the participation and presence of subpoenaed witnesses and documents, I do not see what other recourse the House has in its lawful, constitutionally appropriate oversight of the Executive. Yesterday's hearings were important. Even Prof. Turley, the GOP witness, indicated that Trump's actions may be impeachable - he just wants to see the full complement of facts and evidence, first. Given that this administration is actively engaged in obstructing access to the facts and evidence, the House moves forward decisively. The democrats' decisiveness in defending our laws and constitution is a redeeming characteristic in government that is not generally known for agility and speed.
1
The Democrat's unilateral effort to impeach Trump is ill advised. While Trump's conduct was inappropriate it does not warrant impeachment and impeachment will not result in his removal from office in any event. The Democrats would be wiser to pursue public censure.
And I suppose Trump will promise to never ever do it again. Get real!
3
Censure is the procedural equivalent of a slap on the wrist. Extortion (call it bribery), abuse of power, and obstruction of justice are clearly impeachable crimes. The only course of action is impeachment.
1
Those arguing that the impeachment process is “moving too fast’ should be reminded of the 2 year Mueller investigation and the 10 incidents of obstruction of justice contained therein.
Were it not for Mueller slavish adherence to the OLC memo, Trump would have already been removed from office.
4
I am not understanding the argument about it taking too long in the courts. The Supreme Court decided on an accelerated basis within weeks on the various Watergate issues. If the Democrats has stopped ditzing around months ago, we would probably have the decisions already. As the Republican chief justice wrote in the 9-0 Nixon Tapes case:
"Finally, Burger reached the heart of the dispute and he quickly found that President Nixon was wrong in arguing that courts must honor without question any presidential claim of executive privilege. "
Mr. Turley's opinion fails to consider the simple fact that the courts can ultimately rule in the Democrats favor, but the witnesses can also invoke their 5th amendment rights when finally testifying before Congress. A very likely possibility. Hence, we would be no closer to knowing more than we already do today. The Democrats really have no choice but to proceed with what they have because Trump has demonstrated that he will do anything to rig the 2020 election to his favor.
Why doesn't the Supreme Court intervene here like they did in the election of 2000? Easy. In the 2000 election the Republican Supreme Court got to appoint their candidate; in 2019 they get to protect their candidate. If you think we still have a functional democracy, you haven't been paying attention.
5
Am I missing something? Congress did the right thing in inviting John Bolton and others to testify. They chose not to do so. Let the Senate subpoena them at trial after impeachment. If they aren't subpoenaed, we will know why.
2
Me too: Prosecutors I've heard from essentially make the point "the perfect is the enemy of the good." There can always be more evidence to include in the prosecution of a case, but it can nevertheless proceed a some reasonable point. It strikes me as flabbergasting that it may still be necessary at this point in time to note that Trump is notorious for trying to run out a judicial clock, thereby abusing the court system in order to thwart justice. People involved in any responsible legal body would be considered blind to this history and thereby virtually contribute to helping him further thwart justice by following Jonathan Turley's advice in this impeachment process. The Democrats are not blind and are taking not only the smartest path but also the moral one--fully realizing Trump's outrageous disregard for justice and thereby short-circuiting one of his most infamous ploys. The people he's cheated in his contracts with them must be cheering. I've already commented that the most bizarre element of this Trump Twilight Zone episode in our history is how long he has already gotten away with his various, multiple hideous behaviors. But again, it has been an obvious pattern nearly throughout his adult life, so no-one should be surprised at his demonstration of it in the office of the presidency. Yes, in this impeachment process, there is not "perfect" evidence but there is "good" enough of it. Out with him through all lawful means, a.s.a.p., and save our country.
Those of us who are not of the current GOP camp feel confidant the the courts would rule that the people called forth must by law appear. If not the courts will be help responsible for destroying our democracy. Surely at that point the military would need to take charge. Perhaps that is why Trump has been infiltrating into military authority.
Help me out here folks. A response would be greatly appreciated.
My thinking is that the process that is currently playing out in the House is akin to what happens as a prosecutor prepares a case (perhaps in front of a grand jury, who do not themselves speak but in private amongst themselves) that will lead him to issue an indictment (in this case the "Articles of Impeachment") That indictment is then sent to the courts for pre-trial and/or trial procedures, in the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice.
Then all the GOP arguments about process can be dismissed more or less out of hand. The defense does not call witnesses at this stage at all, right? What they are saying carries the same weight vis-a-vis the truth as a father (who was not present at the time of the alleged crime) saying "my son did not commit this murder". That father is not called in front of an investigating grand jury as his testimony is not factual.
Where the hard rules will be applied is in the Senate trial. There they have to show up or be held in contempt for not doing so, and they have to testify or take the 5th.
Are these 2 explanations correct?
Professor Turley actually said that the Democrats should take all Trump's people who will not cooperate to court to make the impeachment charge stick, and then said they don't have to wait the whole time it takes for the cases to run through the court system. What he didn't say was what is an appropriate amount of time to wait before calling for a vote to impeach, which makes his sticking point seem completely arbitrary. What's a long enough wait? Can they just file the court claims and go ahead and impeach? His solution for making the impeachment more "legitimate" seems like the work of a niggling contrarian to me and would make the existence of an impeachment option as laid out in the Constitution meaningless. Impeachment is not just a constitutional exercise, but is meant to be a solution to an urgent dilemma created by an authoritarian president.
Regardless of the evidence, the Republican controlled Senate will not impeach. Therefore, do NOT give the GOP control to make a mockery of impeachment. IMO the smart political strategy for Democrats is to keep control of the process. If Trump is going to stonewall & obstruct justice by ignoring subpoenas, the Congress should go to court to establish a precedent to ensure future presidents do not obstruct a Congressional investigation.
In the meantime, let the drip, drip, drip of damaging facts convict Trump in the court of public opinion into the next election. Let stonewalling Trump own the blame for prolonging the process.
Subpoena them for the Senate trial and force Chief Justice Roberts to rule on whether executive privilege applies and, if so, whether the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege can be argued and whether it defeats executive privilege.
Republicans would oppose impeachment if every available witness testified truthfully and every available document was produced.
Turnsey says wait as long as necessary to talk to those with first hand knowledge. A Republican Congresman, I forget who, alleged other Presidents employed dirty tricks against their political opponents without being impeached. The example I recall was Johnson using the FBI to wiretap Goldwater. The implication by this Congressman is that if Johnson wasn't impeached for wiretapping Goldwater, then Trump should not be impeached because he asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival. However, what wasn't noted is that Conngress was unaware of this wiretapping at the time, in 1964, and held hearings about it only 10 years later, in the early 70s, when Hoover denied the allegations. It was too late to impeach then. And the alternative? Are Republicans saying it is perfectly fine for a President to wiretap his opponents, and request foreign governments announce sham investigations of them? If Congress refuses to act, or waits as Turnsey suggests, several years for more evidence as subpoenas wind their way through the courts, then Trump will be given the green light to do those things and more.
Arguments that the inquiry has been rushed are disingenuous. What’s the point in slowing the proceedings down when Republicans in general are going to continue to assail the legitimacy of the inquiry itself and the White House is going to continue ignore Congressional subpoenas?
We all know what the end result is going to be anyway - an acquittal in the Senate. So, the House should put on the strongest public case it can and let the voters decide. If Trump is re-elected, odds are this won’t be his only time to the impeachment rodeo.
1
Trump's conduct involves a threat to national security and the integrity of an upcoming election. Time is of the essence. If Democrats cannot get speedy finality from the courts on the validity of their subpoenas they must proceed. The proof they have would be sufficient in a criminal proceeding according to many prosecutors. The fact that more proof would be available but for obstruction is in itself additional proof of culpability.
2
Mr. Turley seems to believe that the President has the right to use the courts to block legitimate subpoenas to prevent Congress from performing its Constitutional duties. In this case that means using the courts to cover up a crime. Unfortunately the DOJ rules (not the Constitution) prevents a sitting President from being indicted.
So what should the House do? Mr. Turley believes the House has not made its case. Given the evidence that has been brought forward and testimony given I find that a difficult position to defend. Therefore they make their case and move on. And they defend their case in the Senate.
Mr. Turley is an academician. This is the real world.
Game on.
2
@Steve Daniel
"Mr. Turley is an academician."
He's also a disingenuous hack - as shown by, for example, his defense of Judge Porteous, when he described taking $2,000 from attorneys appearing in a case before the judge as just being a "moocher."
2
When the aid to Ukraine was stalled, no one seemed to know why it was stalled. No one has yet explained why it was stalled.
Given the timing, why is it not reasonable to reach conclusion of a quid pro quo.
A thirty-minute phone call was reduced to a five-page submission, while the full transcript was scurried out of sight.
Given the purposed omissions, why is it not reasonable to reach conclusion of obstruction.
Too fast? This is an emergency. DJT has already had a couple of years to undermine the separation of powers and the functioning of the civil state, to wreck our foreign policy and coarsen the national discourse. Every minute of delay in correcting this egregious situation harms the United States.
1
Many people who want Trump impeached have been looking for a reason since his inauguration.
That has undermined whatever is going on now.
What to some people is "finally!" to others is, "what else did you expect?"
There is a "boy who cried wolf" aspect to these proceedings that does not benefit Democrats.
1
It has been a thoughtful, well-organized approach. Why wait for Godot? Trump isn't going to honor subpoenas or provide witnesses. What's the point?
True to its anti-democracy colours, US Media highlights the contrarian views of a single GOP witness & downplays, even suppresses, the clear & forceful views of 3 other Expert Witnesses. This is the US Media practice of last 2 decades which has unleashed anti-democratic forces in the US while muzzling pro-people voices. When will US Media learn from the balanced reporting of the Free Media in Germany, in France.. which has preserved democracy in the face of similar Rightist Populist anti-democracy forces ??
Beyond my comprehension that we have a judiciary that allows this behavior by a president who is being investigated. I understand the courts are busy but this obstruction of justice is intolerable
1
Republican mantra - Delay and Deflect.
Mantra meet sense - Justice delayed is Justice denied.
And don't forget we are now discovering that aid to Lebanon has been delayed by the White House. There is a lot more to discover, but there is enough now to undoubtedly show how much we need a speedy end to this corruption.
Trump stated on camera that he did threaten Ukraine to get dirt on a political opponent, Biden and his son. An edited document gave an overview of the facts. Mulvaney confirmed the deed. Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, acting as a witness, testified to the fact of conversation after reported it as highly inappropriate. Trump, being the person who threatened Zelenskt, is first hand knowledge, right? Or have we all forgotten which way is up in these days of disingenuous disinformation?
1
I think they can't complain that Dems are moving ahead too quickly when they are refusing to testify. These stall tactics are something a child does when a child doesn't want to do something. And it never works. I don't know what they are so worried about. They have already said they will use the Senate to kill impeachment. Unless they are worried their traitorous behavior will be recorded in perpetuity for history to judge.
In reality, I don't believe the Republicans really want the House to follow Mr. Turkey's advice. He has simply framed an argument they can use to cover their Senate fellows vote to aquit in the trail. I suggest the House starts the subpoena process promptly. The initial efforts to block testimony will fail and with it the Senate Republican resolve. If it takes until September to go to trail so be it. The more hard evidence provided will make his reelection hopes and the prospect of winning during trail fail. We should give the them exactly what Turkey suggests and watch them squirm!
It seems to me that the key to understanding the Democrats’ timetable is the quotation herein by Mr. Nadler, who said that Congress “must act now” because the president had “made clear that if left unchecked,” he would again ask a foreign government to intervene in the American election.
I am aware of no such declaration by Mr. Trump. He may have a multitude of psychological problems, but the president is not stupid.
Rather, I think that Mr. Nadler sees an opportunity to stick it to the president, who himself has hinted publicly at distant past run-ins with the representative from New York.
Moreover, it is no secret that Mr. Nadler was miffed by the preeminence of the intelligence committee’s role in opening this impeachment investigation, and he has been chomping at the bit to get into the public eye.
In that sense, Mr. Nadler is seeking to impeach the president for his own political ends, which is not too different from the allegations against Mr. Trump himself.
3
Let’s assume we go through a six month legal battle and Rudy, John and Mick end up testifying and provided first hand knowledge that Trump did, in fact, attempt the quid pro quo. Does anybody realistically believe that two thirds of the Senate would vote to convict? I think the battle lines have been set in stone and the Republicans will never support impeachment. The humiliation of finally admitting their “Trump problem” is far too great.
16
You don’t know that especially when you consider there could be questions of many corrupt and different actions by this president and that they be testifying UNDER OATH
There is no such thing as moving too fast to rein in Trump as he is perhaps picking up the phone this minute to make another deal to benefit himself at the expense of our democracy. If the impeachment inquiry were going any slower, the GOP would holler "You're dragging your heals to throw dirt at Trump for months and months."
14
The GOP controlled Senate is going to make a sham of the impeachment process & end by claiming exoneration of Trump. So impeachment in the Congress is almost a mute point. Instead I think the Congress should shift its focus and defeat Trump in court to prevent future corrupt presidents from obstructing justice. It would be stupid for the Democrats to handover control of the impeachment process to Republicans to fabricate a fake exoneration of Trump.
Feldman and Karlan, in particular, aren’t the “dispassionate constitutional scholars” they are portrayed to be. They are highly partisan anti-Trump left-wing hacks who have been calling for the President’s impeachment ever since he was inaugurated.
In fact, Feldman lied to Congress when he testified under oath that he had been opposed to impeachment, until the latest Ukraine matter. There is a public record of him calling for impeachment going back 3 years. But he’s a Trump hating Democrat so there’ll be no legal consequences for him.
7
@JQGALT, yes and John Galt is a fictional Ayn Rand character, not a role model. Have you ever read the Constitution, Mr. "Galt"? Nowhere does it say that when the House impeaches, all witnesses must pass a loyalty test to the President.
Isn't it kind of weird how all the internet libertarians of yesteryear are now loyal followers of their would be dictator in the White House? They had such a huge vocabulary of worthless "Austrian Economics" and "anarcho-capitalism" and all that other stuff. But given even the ghost of a chance, they put on the brown shirts and do their salutes and lockstep marching to the first corrupt autocrat that comes along.
I'm saying all that because I want you to know that a whole lot of us are Trump hating Democrats. We absolutely loathe him. We do that because he doesn't believe in government of the people, for the people, and by the people, and wants it to vanish from this earth.
That's more than enough reason to impeach, right there.
3
@JQGALT personal beliefs aside, he is a law professor at Harvard. The purpose of the hearing was to educate the public about impeachment, not to be a demonstration of political preference. Gaetz and Collins just turned into that because that’s all they can really do. Showboatin’ circus clowns play well to a base that enjoys watching that sort of stuff whether it’s Joel Osteen or WWE body slams. They ain’t reading “Middlemarch” that’s for sure...
2
On the issue of non-cooperating witnesses and a refusal to comply with subpoenas, Professor Turley wants to have it both ways. The Republicans on the committee complained about fact witnesses and legal experts drawing inferences and making presumptions. However, it was the Conservative Justices who opined that it can be correct to draw unfavorable inferences from the silence of a witness or defendant. Salinas v. Texas (2013).
10
More time would make no difference. The Supreme Court could rule Bolton and Mulvaney had to testify, and they would plead the 5th or executive privilege. But let's say they both did admit "Trump definitely told us to hold up aid until Zelensky investigated Biden," Republicans would say they were lying or it was no big deal (remember "get over it"?) and acquit Trump in the Senate.
Trump could actually shoot someone on 5th Avenue, and Republicans would say it wasn't an impeachable offense, but self-defense.
Impeachment is not about removing Trump from office because the Senate would never do that. It's about sending a message that half of America knows Trump is corrupt as well as documenting that Democrats actually went on the record to declare that and defend our democracy from a would-be king.
17
I am not a lawyer though I am a Republican.
I think this whole process is a rushed job - especially when we are only 11 months away from an election which is really the decision point for Americans.
Sure, the House represents the will of the people who elected them in the first place.
When Clinton was being impeached, I was of the opinion along with many others that Republicans should have censured him rather than go with this circus of impeachment.
The result would have been the same - disapproval of a POTUS by the Congress that represents we, the Americans.
Recent events in London at the NATO - I am expecting that the next House will find another excuse to impeach this POTUS when he nails Canada and France for - whatever - as an abuse of power.
I have always maintained the criminalizing a political process takes you nowhere - the decision is best left to we, the Americans.
I think this whole process of impeachment - I suspect - the Founders were saying "listen, buddy - you may be POTUS but you are not a king. We can still get rid of you."
But left unsaid was removal thru voting.
1
If Trump weren’t still inviting foreign countries to meddle with our election, I might agree with you.
1
I agree censure has some merit as a way forward. But it’s pretty clear that perhaps other than you, no prominent Republican private person or rep is either publicly calling for it or showing any sign of being willing to vote for it. As for letting the people decide, why isn’t this the Merrick Garland scenario all over again? Run out the clock in expectation that a power change in the House would drop the whole inquiry.
@Neil, yes, and you probably thought the appointment of Merrick Garland was a rushed job too. Guess what?
Even Democrats skilled in the art of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory know the expression that starts with, "Fool me once..."
1
The Mueller investigation was too broad and too slow. The House inquiry is too fast and too narrow. Regardless, both have brought forth the horror of the truly corrupt intentions of this administration. I haven't been committed to the impeachment of this president since Day One as the GOP insist. But I have been horrified from the beginning of the words and actions of Trump. From insisting on lies about crowd size to insulting the wall of honor at the CIA, to alligning himself with despots, to the lining of his pockets and the pockets of his children, he has never been worthy of the power of the the office he occupies. This is not an attempt to "overthrow" an election, unless there is evidence that Pence could not succeed him. It is the currently only Constitutionally approved remedy to, in the words of Lindsey Graham, "to purify the White House." Fumigation would be the term I would use.
6
Why have your headlines (top story on the front page) adopted the Republican talking points? You are distorting the hearings yesterday. I watched almost all the testimony and questioning, and the main story was that 3 scholars unanimously said that the president had committed impeachable offenses; the secondary story: the 4th scholar agreed that the conduct (if proven) was impeachable, but congress should get more proof.
Don't fall into the Republican trap in order to drive clicks.
10
Too fast? No way! Not fast enough is what the problem is.....Everyday this clown is in office and is another day in this Nation’s degradation. From packing the courts with in unqualified judges to wrecking our military chain of command. But I hold my greatest disgust for the GOP minions who make it all possible. May they all live long enough to feel the shame of their decisions.
6
GOP witness spouts GOP fiction. Surprise!
Congress should have moved with Trumps first impeachable offense, rather than writing for his 5,000th.
2
This is a most malodorous argument by the Republicans.
The stench is overpowering.
Why can't Bolton, Pompeo, Giuliani testify?
Proximity to the president has already been declared null and void by the incarcerations of Cohen and Manafort.
The Republicans are simply being treasonous in not respecting due process.
Failure to abide by the Constitution is revolutionary at minimum. It seems that the Republicans would not mind bringing on a civil war. By placing Trump outside the law, it is a coup attempt. How does one avoid a coup? The only way is if all contenders for power respect the Constitution. That means Congress has the right to subpoena witnesses wherever they are.
If I recall, Eric Holder and Hilary Clinton both had to testify before congress. That wasn't over impeachment. But, it did mean that proximity to the president did not make one immune to the law.
Bolton, Pompeo and Giuliani must testify. Precedent has already been set. The Republicans need to let the process go forward. It is legitimate and legal.
4
You can’t claim the case is incomplete without the input of the very witnesses you’re preventing from testifying.
8
What happens when Trump loses the 2020 election. Does he go to jail for all this?
3
Why are their no black legal experts involved with the impeachment? This gives the appearance of being both tone deaf and being unfair. We are better than this.
Depend on the NYT to force this false equiivalncy to the top of the news site! Just as they did with Hilary's emails in 2016.
Three of the four academics carefully laid out the historical precedents that apply in this instance, and all three flatly asserted that Trump should definitely be impeached, this is exactly what the Founders feared, etc. ONE academic made a generally unsupported assertion that this is "moving too fast" (since the Clinton & Johnson impeachments were faster, it's unclear what basis this historian had for his belief). Sounded very partisan, not a well-constructed argument, BUT that doesn't stop the NYT from making the headline about that minority GOP view, not the majority view of that panel of well-qualified historians.
5
Why are the judges so slow to get to this? One would think the supeona issue would be the highest priority for them.
5
At some point all judgements rest upon the interpretations of people that must determine intentions. What is the probability of President Trump’s conversations and actions of his agents being innocent?
The GOP and constitutionalists will not say, based on the current impeachment evidence —— “I can prove the President is not guilty of doing anything wrong.” If the President wants the opportunity to prove his innocence the time is now.
Specifically, everyone with knowledge of the events must testify before the senate. Justice delayed is Justice denied” William E. Gladstone
Turley's testimony is just the latest example of a long-running GOP tactic during this administration- attempt to grind truth and facts to a halt over feigned concern over minutiae. It's what the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee attempted to do with their interruptions and spurious motions at the beginning of the hearing. It's what Jim Jordan and his ilk do, with their endless theatrics and attempts to divert attention and muddy the waters. It's what Trump, his lawyers, and his various lackeys in government and the media, have been doing as they stonewall investigations and testimony and fret and scream about procedures. It's what William Barr did during his initial nomination testimony, and what he continues to do as Trump's chief smokescreen artist.
The truth and facts are damning- Donald Trump has committed multiple impeachable acts during his tenure. Rather than face up to reality, Republicans would rather insult our collective intelligence and senses and hide the truth, slander the truth, or bury the truth. The Republican party is incapable of acting in good faith. Republicans couldn't care less about the Constitution, or the apparently false oaths they took to uphold it.
2
Essentially, this “expert” argued the crime boss can’t be convicted without the witnesses the crime boss himself has stopped from testifying!!!
So, the accused deliberately withholds the evidence, then, argues he can’t be convicted without that evidence!?!
That can only be proof of guilt!!!
3
The shameful behavior of the Republicans who mindlessly defend their Dear Leader should lead to the American people voting against each and every one of them in November 2020.
So what? He's in the tank for republicans.
This is like the old joke where the kid killed both his parents then ask for mercy of the court that he's an orphan. Trump is doing everything to slow walk the evidence in cooperating with congress yet Jonathan Turley wants us to feel sorry for Trump because congress won't give him a fair chance to defend himself while he's actively obstructing and calling the inquiry a sham.
The House should issue subpoenas to Giuliani, Mulvaney, Office of Management and Budget, et al. Republicans argue that there is not enough information, that the proceedings are rushed, and that the President hasn’t had a fair opportunity to present his case. Give it to them. Nothing good will happen sending the matter to the Senate until at least a few Republicans defect from the choir.
Yes, the evidence that President Trump withheld a White House visit and $371 million in military aid to force President Zelensky to announce investigations that would aid his 2020 presidential campaign is substantial, but enough of the country still doesn’t see that conduct as impeachable. The facts demonstrating an abuse of office are there to be used in the campaign. Going ahead to more strife in the Senate benefits neither party and further erodes our democracy. Let it play out in the courts. If the subpoenas are ultimately enforced in the middle of the campaign, calling the witnesses can be delayed until after the election. If the are enforced earlier, all the better.
That is a circular argument. The Republican legal scholar asserted that the case is incomplete yet it s the Republican strategy to disallow a dozen or so fact witnesses. The idea that the legislative branch should agree to this delaying tactic of waiting for the courts to decide is equally absurd. They must proceed with the uncontested facts they have at this time.
Also remember that impeachment is more about future Presidents than the torrent occupant. They are defining the limits of executive action and executive power. President Trump has been challenging these limits since elected. This is just an opportunity to define what future Presidents can and cannot do.
1
@ Mark Abel. The Constitution sets out impeachment as a strictly political remedy. The Framers did not make the Article I power of impeachment or any of its proceedings subject to judicial review by Article III courts, which they would have done if they so intended. They did not want to dilute the remedy of impeachment. Turley’s view that gives the courts a role in impeachment is dangerous; it would permit any president to run out the clock through baseless appeals, thus destroying the effectiveness of impeachment as a remedy for clear abuses of power, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. The Framers did not intend a “back door” by which a president could stymie impeachment and insulate his abuse of power from any recourse during the term of the presidency. Turley’s efforts to do so are at odds with the strict construction of the Constitution favored by conservatives, at least when it benefits them.
2
The Supreme court has not decided when it will hear any of the cases in front of it concerning the impeachment.
A partisan majority could delay until summer and decide against, worst case scenario.
The democrats need to go forward with the cards that they hold now.
And continue praying for the good health of RBG.
Not a single Republican will dare cross Trump. Sen. Joe Manchin too.
4
Respectfully disagree with Turley’s statement that the judiciary should decide if Trump aides must testify if subpoenaed. Impeachment is not a judicial process, it’s legislative. To subject impeachment to judicial review renders Congress’ Constitutional right to impeach null and void. In the context of checks and balances, that is very dangerous.
8
Since just about everyone knows the ultimate conclusion here - that the House will vote for impeachment, and the Senate will vote not to remove the president, Democrats should make the most of this exercise.
This includes drafting a wide swath of articles of impeachment, and there are many. Not all articles will be passed by the House, but every one of them will go into the record and will be publicly available, to provide a rich trove of information for the Democratic candidate to mine in the run up to the election.
To ignore the widespread and chronic abuse of power because of some misguided idea that the American electorate will view a narrow set more favorably than a wider set is to cut the impeachment value off at the knees.
Democrats should seize this opportunity and place on the record every impeachable offense in the articles, no matter how many reams of paper we need to publish them.
2
Prof. Turley didn’t really address the problem created by the President preventing witnesses from testifying. While he said that the committees could subpoena the witnesses, he neglects the fact that every subpoena already issued has been met with court battles and appeals up to the Supreme Court.
Yes, additional witnesses could provide further clarity. Those witnesses have made unavailable by the perpetrator.
But enough dots have been connected to reveal the picture. If you see a bank robber pointing a gun at a bank teller, do you need to see what color shoes he is wearing before yo call the police?
4
Trump deserves to be impeached and removed, but he will be acquitted by the Senate. So, what is the point of this futile exercise? This should have been an oversight investigation without the time constraints of a trial in an election year. An oversight investigation would have allowed democrats to proceed with the subpoena fight in court and it would have been better to get more details during the election season. As it is, democrats seem to be losing the message war. Republicans are much better at propaganda. A senate acquittal will only allow Trump to be the vindicated victim. I really don't see the point of a senate trial with a foregone conclusion. As for principles, not enough people seem to care. The issues are getting drowned out by this circus. Independents and swing voters that we need for 270 electoral votes are not on the impeachment side. I fear that at this point, it doesn't matter who the democratic nominee will be because Trump will win reelection. I hope I am wrong.
1
If we wait for the courts, Trump will lose, like he always does, and as precedent shows he should (but he thinks he's too special to follow).
Afterwards, the Dems will send their letter asking each person nicely to appear for a deposition, then if they don't confirm they will, follow up with subpoenas. Those that disagree - or are afraid of Trump - will simply show up and lie, plead the fifth, or claim executive privilege (making it necessary to return to court to compel testimony).
This could drag out for years. And Trump knows EXACTLY how you play the game.
In the meantime, Putin will have his IT wizards wreaking havoc in our electoral systems & Trump will continue across the country making more enemies of our previous US allies, and before we're even halfway thru the courts, N. Korea drops a nuke on the White House.
I fear a pre-Christmas impeachment will be lost in the shuffle of the dead end-of-year zone -- by the time the average American gets his/her credit-card bill in January the impact will be dissipated.
Whereas more hearings during the dull months of Jan/Feb might actually captivate a national audience. Hammer it in.
The real question is — will these fact witnesses— those refusing to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry under strict instructions from Trump — be called / allowed to testify on the Impeachment Trial in the Senate.
What say ye, Sen McConnell?
2
I wish someone like, Mr. Nadler, would announce at the beginning of each Impeachment Hearing, the names of all folks who were subpoenaed and told by DJT not to testify, re-read what the Constitution says regarding Impeachment and express that the Republicans want to have their cake and eat it too. Mr. Nadler or someone needs to explain that DJT's court challenges regarding subpoenas duly served have been previously litigated and decided in favor of Congress never a POTUS who was under impeachment investigation. Mr. Nadler also ought address the fact that the Republicans could only find Mr. Turley to argue its position. I think the right term for Mr. Turley might be 'hired gun'.
Please don't tell me that everyone has the right to go into court regarding a subpoena, because the truth is that if you can't afford it, you 'ain't' going anywhere and may be even find yourself/your counsel knee deep in sanctions.
The Republicans are doing what Republicans always do- stonewall and stay together in lockstep.
Recently Leslie Stahl of CBS News appeared on their streaming channel CBSN and talked about Watergate which she covered as a member of the Washington Bureau.
The whole segment is about 6 minutes but I have marked it to start where she mentions how the Republicans behaved until the tapes became public. We often hear people about how Republicans joined in on the investigation and impeachment of Nixon which is simply not true. They lined up behind Nixon just like they are lining up for Trump until they could not deny things any longer.
https://youtu.be/whOAGl7XeqA?t=222
1
@David Gregory ,
it is like a medieval battle. The lines hold until they crumble, everybody runs, and the battle quickly ends in a rout.
We need John Bolton to testify — to verify the facts in such a way the GOP can no longer say “It’s all hearsay, and not much of a crime anyway.” But since he will run the clock down by going to the courts, on orders from Trump, the Dems have no choice but to move ahead and impeach. And Trump should be impeached. There is nothing confusing about the facts. Nothing. And facts are stubborn things. They don’t go away, even when GOP tries to distract, obfuscate, postulate. And so here we are.
All 3 cherry picked so called scholars were Democrat donors picked by Democrats and their testimony was clearly biased lacked credibility and were a waste of time. Jonathan Turley's scholarly and thoughtful analysis was calm but brilliant even though he was a self confessed Hillary Clinton voter who was not a Trump fan. I disagree with Turley that this partisan impeachment should drag on. The impeachment inquiry is an albatross on the nation and sooner it is unloaded sooner the nation will be free to get to the people's work. As the lion of Ohio, Rep. Jordan roared the facts are on the president's side and the impeachment charade or sham was predetermined by the democrats ever since the duly elected president Trump was inaugurated. Schiff and Nadler's game is over and Turley has spoken the words of wisdom based on what is known there is no there there.
Move on to the 2020 free and fair elections ensuring no more perception of foreign influence. Who cares whether the alleged phantom of the opera Putin tries to attempt election meddling? There is no country in the world more than the US which tries to change regime by spilling blood and treasure that makes the perceived hacking and release of vital information the the voters look like a mickey mouse attempt. I repeat what I have said several times before. Not a single free American was influenced by the Russians or Ukrainians. I am not going to dispute that several people foreign and domestic may have tried. ZERO INFLUENCE.
1
@Girish Kotwal -
And your evidence for all these claims are?
BTW - I know a couple of people who were persuaded by real fake news. They both referenced an article that was later determined to be part of the Russian influencing campaign as a deciding factor in their vote for Trump. Interesting side note, neither will be voting for Trump next year.
1
@ASPruyn By domestic influence I mean the editorial endorsements by leading newspapers. Are questioning whether NY Times endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016 election? I hope non one in the future elections tries to influence other voters in any way shape or form.
1
Fast because there are three emergencies:
1. Policy decisions that adversely affect both the domestic politics in the US and the Ukraine
2. Withholding funds that the Congress had already allocated and were supposed to be delivered, as per the will of the people, thus disobeying the Congress
3. Abuse of power to both interfere with domestic election outcomes, internal policy of the Ukraine, and disobeying the Congress.
They are serious crimes and they create an emergency and we need to get this usurper out as quickly as possible. The price of delay is to catastrophic on the domestic election and sends a message that such behavior is permitted to future presidents. 43 million may like when Trump does such things. Will they like it as much when a Democrat does them? Now is the time. Trump is a monster.
2
A thief broke into a house. Finger prints were left. The window was broken, items were missing. Neighbors saw and identified the thief, but they didn't talk to him; they didn't ask him directly, "Are you robbing this house?" Nor did the thief directly, unequivocally, state that he was robbing the house. The stolen items are currently being auctioned off on eBay; supeonas, search warrants and cease and desist orders are tied up in courts.
One out of four legal scholars agree with the criminal gang to which the thief belongs, and his defense team, that until the theif admits he has robbed the house, he cannot be prosecuted.
Imagine such a legal system. Imagine the society under such a legal system.
4
Having worked within the government for over 20 years, both at the House of Representatives and at Defense, I recognize Mr. Turley. Not specifically, but as one of those denizens of DC who apparently has reached a comfortable perch in his “Ivory Tower in a swamp” as he put it. He appeared slightly amused by the proceedings (there was always a half-smile on his face, as though patiently enduring it all) and did not appear abashed when confronted with his own words from the Clinton Impeachment, where he argued for exactly what the Democrats are arguing for now. I guess the 21 years since then of classrooms, conferences, Georgetown cocktail parties, and well-paid TV appearances gives one a taste for the good life and let’s certainly not endanger that. Despite insisting that WH obstruction should be allowed to continue until sometime well past the 2020 election. He knew EXACTLY what he was suggesting. He’s rolled the dice and made a choice; he’s going to have to live in DC so why rock the boat? Don’t want to endanger that academic tenure. But the rest of us pay.
Wait for what? Why? The American people know Trump is guilty of betraying his Oath of Office and our Constitution by his own words and actions. Any honest person knows this to be the truth. The beauty of all this is Trump will be charged with multiple Articles of Impeachment, the cowardice Republican U.S. Senate will fail in their duties to convict Trump, but 'We the People' will have the pleasure of completing their job for them. But, I must admit, my biggest pleasure will be after he is thrown out of office, watching the legal system shred him like a piece of waste paper.
The White House is literally on fire, Americans are at each others throats, Trump has admitted to what he did and won't send the fact witnesses closest to him. I think we are done here, time to impeach and remove.
1
Obstruction isn’t a defense, it’s a crime.
Re-electing Donald Trump would be trading a president for a king.
1
“The Democrats are moving too fast...”
If they actually had something it might have taken a little longer.
Whiny university professors’ opinions and every witness so far saying Trump never asked for anything.
To top it off, you have the Ukrainians saying they felt no pressure and it was never brought up in any of the five subsequent meetings after the phone call between Ukrainian and US officials.
Impressive.
At this point, the Democrats are fooling exactly nobody.
@Ken even in the Republicans report they ADMIT he did what the Dems say he did, but they give excuses for it. There's NO EXCUSE for putting our national security in danger for his personal reasons! Yet the Republicans say "I'm sure you can see why he did it."
NO! I CAN'T!
1
It doesn't take highbrow scholars to prove to me that Trump and his family and enablers are criminals that should be removed from positions of authority. This farce has gone on for far too long, and the damage to our Democracy will be longstanding.
Clearly and without remorse, the House must make obstruction a co-reason for impeachment. The case for there being an imperial presidency was made decades ago by historians and others. The House has the option of blinking at its constitutional imperitives, or seizing the day. Clearly, the Founders wanted co-equal branches, and just as clearly, the Executive branch is stonewalling. My own thought is exercise your prerogatives based on previous precedents and court cases and stop waiting. The courts are increasingly being packed with the equivalent of modern anti-federalists, and the Supreme Court was similarly lost due to the Democrats' previous blinking on Judge Garland.
Winning is not what this process is about, nor could it have reversed the Garland fiasco since it was not feasible. Being practical based on prevailing is not advisable. History will judge who blinked, not the outcome. It is rights and perogatives that must be exercised. Trump will stay in office, hopefully inexorably tarnished. The real tragedy right now would be to throw out the constitutional toolbox based on the prospect of not ultimately prevailing. Stop waiting for the refs because the other side incessantly keeps crying "foul". Do what you believe is justified, defend the rationale and remind the public Congress is supposed to be "the peoples' branch" against obstructive demagoguery and a personality cult that is supplanting the checks and balances that are the lifeblood of our endangered democracy.
6
How times have changed. In the Clinton impeachment obstruction of justice was an impeachable offense (which the Republican controlled House ruled he committed), today obstructing justice by withholding documents and blocking witnesses creates is a path to undermining the impeachment process.
3
Are the Democrats moving too fast?
Too fast for what? The Senate is not going to vote to impeach Trump.
The House could vote next week, next month, next Spring. They will vote to impeach.
And it will move to the Senate, who won't.
We already know how this will turn out. The speed is largely irrelevant.
2
Much to the disbelief of the commenters here, most moderate and independent voters have lost interest in impeachment, and - based on the degradation of the quality of life in New York and California under Democratic rule, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump wins these two states.
The democrats can't accuse the GOP of playing power vs constitution by ceding to Trump, when they themselves allow the Oval Office to prevent witness's from appearing. Either you do the job that has been mandated and authorized to you to do or you just play his game. Note this is not a game. If crimes have been committed then go a get your evidence. You can't make statements that the President is not above the law and then let him off when he obstructs Congress.
2
What’s wrong with this picture?
Republicans claim that more fact and first hand witnesses must be heard in order for there to be a fair process that protects the President. While at the same time, President Trump orders first hand witnesses who were provably involved in the activities at the heart of the matter, to defy subpoenas and has ordered them to not testify.
The Democrats need to immediately demand that the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee join them in subpoenaing Mulvany, Pompeo, Bolton and Giuliani. The picture will get much clearer when the GOP refuses to accept what they claim to want.
Mr. Turkey is correct. Would any reader want to be convicted in court by a DA of a serious crime without hearing from all material witnesses? If that DA moved ahead I suspect he would end up losing his job. Democrats better be careful or they could easily lose not only the presidency but both houses of Congress in the next election.
1
It's important for us to remember that Republicans are merely playing kabuki theatre for the president and his base. They don't care if WE believe it, they care if THEY believe it.
1
The argument that the impeachment process is being rushed is absurd. When you add in the time spent in the Muller inquiry, which exposed much of Trump's nefarious wrongdoing and put the ball in the court of Congress, the investigation has been underway for most of this presidency. Nothing has been uncovered that suggests Trump did anything remotely in accordance with law and presidential norms, nor have all the president's men argued that he has.
1
The Republicans, who have little in a way of legitimate arguments to defend Trump, have complained about the House impeachment process as moving too fast, too slow, too secretive, too openly— anything but legitimate factual challenges to the accusations against the president— are going to continue their line of defense until the inevitable impeachment.
It’s been clear from the get go that the Senate will eventually fail to convict and it’s useless to
2
The law professor Noah Feldman testified yesterday that a criminal act might not be an impeachable act, and on the other hand, a legal act might nevertheless be an impeachable act.
Therefore, it seems to me that the Courts are not the arbiters of what is impeachable, only what is legal.
The Supreme Court might rule that President Trump’s claim of executive privilege is legally valid. But isn’t it up to Congress to determine whether using executive privilege in order to obstruct an investigation of himself is an impeachable abuse of the presidential power of executive privilege?
1
Unfortunately, the Democrats may well be moving too fast in that once the Republican-led Senate acquits Trump of impeachable offenses then Trump, having gotten away with past violations, will subsequently have months before the 2020 election to play the victim card while the Democrats will be powerless to stop him from accepting further aid from foreign agents. Accordingly, a measure of delay by the Democrats here, say to obtain more evidence through the courts, may well be on balance a net advantage to them.
1
John Bolton seems willing to testify if a judge so orders, but I have a few questions about the legal process:
Could the admin try to block him from testifying after a court orders him too?
If yes, I assume it would eventually go to the scotus. If they allow him to testify, could the admin then claim executive privilege and block him from testifying again?
With all due respect to Prof. Turdley, permitting MORE obstruction by Trump and WH officials is not the answer. These officials are federal employees who're paid by the American people. ALL American people! And as such, should respect subpoenas issued and testify. Guilliani should also appear and testify. Trump used Guiliani, his personal attorney, in an attempt to circumvent legal channels and hide his Ukraine shake down with the goal for Trump's personal political gains. Republicans complaint about the "process" is simply deflection because they can't defend Trump's obvious corrupt actions.
2
I have watched the hearings yesterday. I fear this corrupt President will get elected again. Maybe not be popular vote, but because of gerrymandering, citizens united (allowing corporations contribute without identifying who they are), loopholes, electoral college and Russian and perhaps other nations interference. Our Country is at risk of being hijacked by the GOP and their very rich donors. Here goes our democracy and attempt to improve the lives of our citizens.
It will be a slow process. President Trump and his three Republican predecessors have started the process in slowly dismantling the rights of Unions, the rights to a decent wage, the right for healthcare , the right to have free education. Religious freedom, Womens choice.
Do we want a country that will take away our freedom? Long live plutocracy and oligarchy? Meritocracy will be gone.
2
The charge that Democrats are rushing the process is a distraction from the Republicans’ efforts to tie it up in the courts until after the election. Democrats are not rushing it, Republicans are slow-playing it. And the NYT should point that out.
2
More time. I want Trump out and the White House fumigated ASAP but this case looks too weak to stand a chance of convincing the handful of GOP Senators needed. Public support is eroding. This has been mishandled. Get a plan to do it right.
Impeach. Let if fail in the Senate.
Impeach. Even if it hurts the Dems in 2020.
Impeach even if it seems partisan, because the only reason it is such is because the GOP has chosen to stick its head in the sand.
Impeach because at times like this, you have no other choice but to stand up on principle. You'll never swing Trump's supporters, so Impeach. The bleeding gunshot victim on 5th Avenue is America itself, and only half the country cares.
So Impeach.
Turley's testimony is disingenuous at best. It amounts to an endorsement of obstruction of justice and subversion of the constitutionally mandated process of impeachment. George Washington, by the way, rejected the sovereignty of the president.
Let's look a little deeper at Mr. Jonathan Turley before taking his opinion as worthy. He's the man who wrote, "For Obama, there has been no better sin eater than Holder," he testified in favor of the Clinton impeachment (to me more of a private dalliance gone public than an impeachable offence with the result being the possible removal of a sitting President), and he's argued for the legalization of polygamy. This man should not be called as anyone's witness to the evidence at hand. He's obviously compelled to be outrageous in his opinions, and with little intellectual weight behind them.
Democrats shouldn’t be distracted by the quid pro quo issue. Soliciting accepting, or receiving foreign help in an election is against the law on its own. The criminality of the act is worsened by the fact that the person doing the soliciting is the President if the United States. So that is impeachable. Dangling the foreign aid and the White House visit only make it worse. Those are taxpayer funds being diverted to his re election campaign. A bipartisan Congress authorized those funds to go to Ukraine. So Trump also subverted an act of Congress. The abuse of power is a grave one.
Nancy Pelosi was right when she tried to refocus the energies of far left activists away from impeachment. The process is drawing so much energy away from the much more important exercise of winning the 2020 election. Silly left activists will end up handing the election to the Republicans.
1
The Republicans are disingenuous and hypocritical - especially vis-à-vis the inquiries they've managed against Clinton and the Obama administration's handling of Bengasi - but it is not hard to see that Trumps supporters and, perhaps (this is the risk) the middle of the electorate may well see the Democrats as similarly partisan and unfair in these matters
Mueller & Congress have investigated thoroughly. Trump directed obstruction would likely keep the enforcement of subpoenas tied up in courts until long after the 2020 election. Congressional recourse is impeachment for serial criminality, abuse of power & obstruction.
Time for Republicans to stand up to the corruption or be called out for Trumpublican complicity.
“By turning into apologists and advocates for a Russian dictator” Max Boot wrote “the Republican Party has become all that it once despised.”
I know the Rule of Law is sacrosanct in our country, but honestly, stuff like this makes it all a joke and us the laughing stock of the world. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar - Sigmund Freud.
Regardless of the relative merits of the case the Dems have weaponized Impeachment.
This group of progressives have ensured an entry in the political history books as the progenitor of a regular rite of holding the presidency to the Impeachment gauntlet.
The Dems will wear this for all of time.
Let the House proceed, draft articles to allow McConnell to do his best work, then accept the result in a gracious manner to proceed toward 2020.
It's the best system available, anywhere on earth; it is the constitutional strength of the USA.
So be it, as lacking congressional legislation has weakened voter rights over decades, we have no recourse and must continue ... living, until we may be overrun.
Our education systems are faltering, labor laws favor employers, healthcare is designed for profit, taxation is wholly unbalanced and the national infrastructure is headed to a crumble. Move it to 2020 and do not stop.
2
The nation lost 2 years of Congressional oversight of Trump when the GOP was controlling the House of Representatives. The crimes committed during that period are amply identified in the Mueller report. Credit the new leadership for accomplishing what they have done, and the evidence they have gathered in less than 90 days ! There is no evidence that exonerates Trump; and Turley is not saying the committee will find any. So it would seem that no further time is needed to go to court to compel reluctant witnesses (which may take years). Yes, the time frame is compressed, but the threat to the nation is serious.
15
Congress should continue on its present course.
Trump has always used the lawyers and courts to get what he wants--delay and final capitulation by his opponents because they don't have the money for a prolonged legal battle.
10
WAIT! Compel Giuliani, Barr, Pompeo to testify. I witness for the Republicans gave us a roadmap to victory. Why not listen? If there is a trial in the Senate and those same people are shielded from testifying, the case is lost.
The witnesses were sufficient evidence, but the GOP is an expert in facts denial, whether it is climate or the gender gap or the cause of the US Civil war. If the GOP wants witnesses higher on the food chain, I don't mind playing their game. Would love to have Guliani in the hearing.
5
I was disappointed in Turley's testimony. Does he not see the president as a clear and present danger? Is there any question at all about what occurred? And with at least 6 more months of delay - if the Democrats waited for a court to rule on their subpoenas, we would face even more harm. So let's do what we must do now.
11
Democrats already have enough to impeach Trump. That's why Republicans are playing political games.
13
I agree with Turley that the president has the right to go through the courts on issues. The problem is that the president refuses to engage in any way besides through the courts, which is just a form of obstruction. Maybe he didn't realize until after releasing the 'perfect' transcript that what he did was wrong? That scenario is even scarier!
6
Dear Professor Turley,
Imagine how fast Congress' impeachment might proceed if Trump allowed his staff to testify after being subpoenaed? Also, Mitch McConnell's Senate has already stated that they intend to complete their impeachment process quickly, perhaps in as little as two weeks. Is that equally alarming in your esteemed opinion?
To suggest that the tempo of the impeachment is a concern, instead of the obvious abuse of power by Donald J. Trump, is a laughable concept at best. President Trump committed a high crime that makes him eligible for impeachment. The House has defined the impeachment process. The Senate will similarly create their process for the trial. As the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution expressly, "... guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a speedy trial by an "impartial jury." I guess America will soon see if the Senate can be an impartial jury. Chief Justice Roberts would likely provide fair oversight, assuming McConnell invites him to preside over the proceedings.
Signed,
We The People.
6
@Question Everything -
Per Article I, Section 3 of the constitution, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.”
So McConnell has no choice in whether Chief Justice Roberts will preside.
The other interesting here is that the Senators will be under “oath or affirmation”. So, if Trump’s lawyers were to make a defense based on something known to a Senator to be false, that Senator will be violating his or her oath to accept that defense of Trump. Unfortunately, I know that has become routine with many members of this Senate.
2
@ASPruyn
Thank you for the clarification that use of the SCOTUS Chief Justice is obligatory, not optional. My partner read my comment after I posted it and noted the same error.
I didn't know about Senators being under "oath or affirmation" and the risk that poses.
1
Unless my memory fails me, I seem to recall that there were three additional Constitutional scholars who expressed full support for the impeachment process. So I find it curious that the Times leads its coverage with the one scholarly outlier of the group, whose argument that the Dems need more evidence is completely disingenuous. There is likely more evidence to be had, except the Trump regime has abused its power by blocking key figures in the know from testifying.
Yes, Turley's comments must be reported, but giving relatively short shrift to the other three witnesses strikes me as unbalanced.
9
So basically he’s saying “give it a few more months for the courts to drag along and to give the Republicans some time to come up with new talking points.” Why do this when the proof is pretty obvious at this point? Using the judiciary as a stalling tactic is just another Republican ruse.
8
@Dudesworth
Agreed.
Trump the private business person repeatedly used lengthy court proceedings in an attempt to bankrupt his opponent by constantly appealing a lower court ruling not in his favor. That strategy also stalls a final higher court ruling. One last part of Trump's legal scheme involves a last minute settlement whereby Trump pays "damages" for his action in exchange he demands the court challenger sign an NDA, agreeing to never to discuss elements of the court case.
President Trump cannot uses the courts in this fashion because he is a public servant. Donald is using Congressional Republicans as his mouth piece in the House impeachment proceedings. Trump has instructed Nunes, Jordan, Gaetz and Collins and other members of these two committees to attack witness reputations and/or place doubt about the "fairness" of the impeachment proceedings. Note the Democrats are using a mirror copy of the Republicans procedures when they tried impeaching Clinton in two decades ago. Both sets of proceedings are fair.
The simple fact remains: President Trump abused the power of his office for personal gain by asking a foreign government a favor, to investigate his political opponent in the 2020 election. Republicans cannot argue that fact away so they attack witnesses and procedure as a criminal attorney would when the facts and the law is not on your client's side.
An impartial referee looks at the facts and makes this call.
Game. Set. Impeachment.
Refusing to allow subpoenad witnesses to testify, claiming executive privilege for every spoken word, including coughing, and weaponizing the legal system as a form of stonewalling, is not going to allow for more information to come to light. I am not an attorney, but to date I have not read or heard about anything in the Constitution that mandates a time stamp on impeachment. Trump and his sycophants are still engaging in election interference, as well as other deleterious acts to the well being of America. Waiting around for the Roy Cohn defense methodology to play its self out is not an option.
6
Turley's approach reminds me of ads from pharmaceutical companies about their drugs that treat symptoms of various diseases. The drugs make life livable , but there are side effects. In a perfect world, what professor Turley prescribes would be ideal, but it is clear that Trump will do everything he can to ensure that congress can not achieve the perfect world that Turley seeks. A less than perfect solution is better than allowing this gangster president to totally escape accountability. So there may be no classic textbook impeachment process that pleases law professors, but our democracy may be saved when voters see what a thug our president is, and vote accordingly in 2020. A bonus will be that Republican senators up for reelection will also be exposed for what they are.
4
Why weren't these witnesses subpoena two month ago?
@ everyone other than J
So you all are opposed to the President exercising his Constitutional right to appeal unfavorable lower court decisions to higher appellate courts? This is obstruction? Likewise, it appears that you are all opposed to basic federalism and separation of powers between the branches of gov't? According to your reasoning Congress can impose its will on the Executive branch regardless of due process and executive privilege. Forget about the President's prerogative and responsibility to set foreign policy and investigate corruption. Oh boy my friends, wait until the shoe is on the other foot. Forgive my naivety, but the impeachment process is not supposed to be a political tool for purely partisan purposes.
1
Don't forget they got the greatest crime boss on tax evasion. Use what you got, it's plenty. Seize the day!
5
I don’t understand why the Democrats don’t issue subpoenas. Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, Lev Parnas, and Igor Fruman. Let the courts decide if executive privilege applies. Precedent has to be set. If the President is asking you to commit a crime, is that conversation protected? Giuliani might try attorney client privilege but that would be a joke. Parnas and Fruman can’t claim anything and could illuminate the drug deal.
2
Turley kept saying that the President was "duly elected". Didn't he read the Mueller report? The electorate were essentially hacked by the Russians. God help us in 2020.
7
With Rudy back in Ukraine digging up rumor dirt, time is not on the Dems side. Just look at a how vicious the Republicans jumped on the Baron point and spun it. It would have been better to use Earl. Or maybe Greta, Trump has no problem with making fun of her.
Again with the ridiculous headlines that suggest that Republican operatives are just the other side of a normal debate. What that headline ignores is that this same GOP expert, Turley, team previously made statements that Clinton's conduct clearly met the impeachment standard. To now call this impeachment against Trump hasty, when your complaint is also rooted in Trump's obstruction of justice, is beyond hypocritical. But again, the NYT insists on covering this as if there were some sort of plausible equivalence between the sides. I'm starting to wonder whether the NYT is also a communications branch of the Trump Administration like Fox News.
2
Jonathan Turley complained about the “abbreviated” period of the investigation.
Although he made a point about the necessity to hear testimony from critical witnesses – Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Rudy Giuliani etc – in Trump’s circle, he refused to condemn Trump’s efforts to boycott the impeachment proceedings by stonewalling any cooperation with the House Judiciary Committe.
He only urged House Democrats to seek more documents and “core” witnesses needed through the courts to bolster the impeachment case. It’s time consuming and Trump might benefit from it politically if proceedings dragged on and on.
By playing down the gravity of the allegations against the Trump and the strength of the existing record, Turley has basically given Trump the green light to carry on with his business-as-usual approach.
Obviously he is incorrigible and hadn’t even learned from the Mueller report, which dominated the media weeks before his ominous phone-call with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky.
2
Turley's is a process argument, not an evidence argument. The glaring mistake of Turley is that impeachment follows congressional rules, not federal rules of evidence in a criminal trial. That said, even federal rules allow certain types of hearsay evidence, enough to convict the accused and send them to prison. We don't need Trump or Bolton to testify. We have enough evidence to impeach and convict.
20
The glaring problem with Turley is that he had no such hesitations when insisting that Clinton should be impeached for much lesser misconduct.
2
@SF
Every Republican in the House totally disagrees with you.
As will some Democrats
The Senate will also disagree with you.
If the Democrats case has holes in it because the witnesses were not in the middle of the action, then that argument would only tend to exonerate the President if the witnesses and documents denied to the proceedings supported his innocence. But if they did, he would not be moving heaven and earth to prevent the American People from learning anything about them.
9
Only one fact is beyond dispute- this is a purely partisan undertaking.
5
It is not partisan when one side has decided to abdicate their responsibility to the Constitution and has relinquished any shred of morality and ethics. The Republican party appears to have been swallowed whole by the demagogue in the White House, and we are now dealing with the residue left behind by him and will continue to pick up the mess long after he had left office.
1
@LTJ
In that the Republicans have completely abrogated their responsibilities as elected officials to our country, you are correct.
The fact that they choose the hill of DJT, grifter in chief, to die on astounds.
1
@LTJ what is? This testimony or the impeachment, or both?
Can the president be impeached more than once?
6
“Can the president be impeached more than once?” Yes. As often as necessary, which for Trump is every day he remains in office. As a practical political matter, a second impeachment is unlikely barring even more blatant criminal misconduct. Oh, wait, ... Trump!
2
Ah, yes. The vaunted NYT "balance," which you saw for at least two decades on global warming -- you know, back when we had a shot at reversing its worst effects.
But the NYT, ever-ready to prove to -- who? Trump's base of completely brainwashed proto-fascists who think him the Chosen One and better than Lincoln? -- that it is "unbiased" turbocharges the PR of the Trump squad.
Well, hey, we don't have total agreement that evolution occurs, right? I'm sure we can find some biochemist, like, say, Michael Behe, to say, "Um, no." We cover that 0.1% and the 99.9% as equivalent sides...and then say, "Oh, golly gee widdickers, we can't be expected to, like, find out the TRUTH of such things. I mean, we learned our Pilate -- I mean, our watered-down, faux-democratic postmodernism -- well at our fancy schools: 'Like, what is truth, ya know?'"
Except...somehow any notion to the left of Michelle Goldberg is ruled out ASAP. And there were WMDs in Iraq. And so on. Quite selective, ain't it?
5
Is the NY Times making a mistake by putting the Republican point of view front and center?
8
Absurd. What a shill. Why on earth would you drag this out. Heard him on NPR stating witnesses that the courts should produce. Right and here we would be next September.
I am a lawyer, and I would encourage law students to boycott Turley's classes at GWU!
12
Too fast, he has to be kidding, they are about 3years too late.
12
Picking on a kid? Crossing the street to get away from a BUILDING? With Professor Karlan, Democrats handed a solid victory to Trump.
3
If the person in question were any other human being on planet earth other than Donald Trump, I would give Turley's opinion some consideration. One third of the electorate has already been, and continues to be, taken for fools by this president. I will not be joining them.
8
I am annoyed that the headline for this article is a Republican talking point. Could the editorial board find a neutral and factual tone for covering this historical event rather than taking sides when pretending not to? There is already too much of that in this process.
10
"I Donald J. Trump, nominate Professor Jonathan Turley to the Supreme Court of the United States. He is a really smart guy, one of the smartest ever and will probably be the best Supreme Court justice in history."
14
Turley maybe a professor- but he is also a reliable political hack- who will gladly bend an argument to suit his suitors. I suppose he was chosen by the desperate Republicans precisely for this reason. To argue that the evidence is weak (laughable)- or that more testimony is needed (and not at the same time address Trump's obstruction of justice and rejection of subpoenas (pathetic))- is the height of intellectual chicanery- hence why he was chosen by Republicans. That even Turley- reading the tea leaves really couldn't defend Trump himself- and yet couldn't muster the moral force to describe his behavior as a detriment and dishonor to the office- is further tribute to moral turpitude.
9
Turley was surely an enthusiastic proponent of Clinton’s impeachment on far lesser grounds. It makes one wonder as to the motives for his current observations.
11
Should Congress Wait?
Short answer: NO.
Regardless of what some aptly-named person thinks.
We’ve waited far too long already.
Impeach!
7
What did we learn yesterday?
Four out out of four Constitutional Law professors voted against Trump.
10
The Republicans should be thrown in jail for obstruction of justice. How dare they commit the crime of obstruction of justice, over and over again, and then say that we should wait for more evidence on the bribery and extortion charges?
8
@David Binko
Every week the House Sargent in arms should arrest one of those who ignored the subpoenas. Lock them up in the basement until the first one strikes a deal or flips in trump parlance. Start with Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton...
At the same time continue the impeachment.
Am I the only one who finds the impeachment hearings, i.e., yesterday's proceedings, over rehearsed? Asking three highly trained scholars to respond like seals with horns honking "yes" to set up questions seems too mechanical. I suppose some of the public needs education on what impeachment means but there's an unsettling artificial theatricality to it. Please don't mistake my POV - the sooner Trump goes the better.
2
Mr. Trump, if you are so innocent let your people testify and release any documents that are requested. From the beginning given Mr. Trump's habitual lying, I have always said there will come a time when he needs the American people to believe him. And when that time came we would not be able to trust anything he says. It appears that time has arrived.
4
Dragging it out is obviously advantageous. It keeps him in the headlines and Democratic presidential candidates tucked way back, their messages seen as irrelevant--people barely know who they are as long as "our" president continues to be persecuted.
1
A genuinely curious question: why do we assume and accept that our courts --- they too work for us, don't they? --- are unable to act in a more timely manner? It didn't take the SCOTUS long to decide Bush v. Gore.
4
Three legal expert witnesses testified that the evidence on the record, clearly supports the impeachment of the President under the Constitution and the law of the land. We should be reading and discussing that conclusion. Instead, the Times lead article focused so much on the one expert who disagreed with that conclusion. Mr. Turley’s testimony, that impeachment should require higher thresholds of evidence, time, law and public support, is really just his opinion about what the rules should be, dressed up in legal mumbo jumbo. His argument flies in the face of clear and unprecedented Obstruction of Congress that is making evidence gathering difficult if not impossible.
5
NO! Going through the courts as Turley suggests spend more of taxpayer's money, and nothing will be proved anyway as the witnesses will only do Fifths and any documents will have been scrubbed or altered ... remember the hurricane map?
And whether or not this president is found guilty by the Senate or removed/stays, it needs to be recorded in the Annals of History that the Democrats tried to preserve our Democracy, and the GOP en masse supported the man who tore our nation apart. Perhaps then there will be some chance of resurrecting what he has destroyed.
Final thought...shame on Turley.
6
In a congressional hearing earlier this year AG Barr uttered, "The voter will decide."
I hope that the impeachment process lays bare facts that will encourage voters to come out and make the right decision at the ballot box next year.
1
"There remain core witnesses and documents that have not been sought through the courts," Turley wrote.
Really? How many of these witnesses are failing to show up when subpoenas have been issued?
Arrest those who have ignored the subpoenas then.
Where's Bolton? He's first.
6
Only a Professor would say that this process is puzzling and problematic. With the evidence now on the table a first year law student would at a minimum get a plea bargain from Trump for bribery--pay a fine, maybe some jail time. Yes, I understand that impeachment is a different animal, but, again, this is the real world not the academic world. We would have to wait months, perhaps years before the witnesses Mr. Turley wants to hear from would exhaust their legal maneuverings. That has been Trump's MO from his real estate days--run out the legal clock--
3
The cases for impeachment against Nixon and Clinton were so very different from trump's. Time was not an issue. No one was afraid of another Watergate break-in and no one was afraid that Clinton was going to lie about having sex in the Oval office while the proceedings were going on. There is a sense of urgency here because this President is a threat to national security and all of his actions benefit Putin.
4
Moving too fast or too slowly will never deter Trump's criminality or stop his Republican accomplices in aiding and condoning his unconstitutional abuse of power. IMPEACHMENT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!
5
Trump is miscalculating in a major way. He may have presidential immunity now, but once he is a private citizen again he will not. It would be smarter for him to cut a deal and be pardoned. like his hero Nixon, than to keep obstructing the impeachment. If he is impeached and then acquitted by a feckless GOP controlled Senate, he will be hounded for all his many crimes after leaving office. Pardoned, he will skate away scot free. Trump won't do it though, he never admits doing anything wrong and always does the dumbest thing he can think of.
Blue wave 2020 !
4
@joe parrott: Trump can only be pardoned for federal crimes. He'd still be prosecuted by New York State, which is already happening. He recently changed his residency to Florida, but that won't help him much. He might have to flee the country to Russia to escape prosecution, and good riddance!
4
No. The Democrats should not wait.
5
So fun to watch the liberal witnesses get exposed for their obvious bias, while the worst jab against Prof. Turley (by the epic smear mongerer Eric Swallwell) is that he once represented a criminal. What horrors. Turley pointed out the obvious- Presidential privilege is institutional, and challenging that privilege should be adjudicated in court, rather than used as evidence of ‘obstruction’. To demand that Don McGahn, the President’s lawyer- or anyone’s lawyer for Gods sake, testify about his client’s conversations is ludicrous, and for all of their posturing otherwise, the Democrats know the Supreme Court would skewer that notion. This is a dog and pony show set in motion on November 9, 2016, as plenty of recorded conversations document. We’ll see how it plays out in 2020.
2
@HENRY: What you and Turley don't understand, is that the Senate IS the court, presided over by Chief Judge Roberts in impeachment cases, and the House is the prosecution. If a president cannot be charged with a crime when in office (i.e., a regular prosecutor cannot bring a case against him), he should not be able to use the regular court system to thwart the House in its investigations and evidence collection to support their case. He should wait until the trial phase in the Senate, where he can provide evidence and witnesses in his favor, if any.
3
Trump may be your tyrant today, but power corrupts. Trump supporters will rue the day their arguments succeed.
Presidential privilege must be invoked with regard to specific questions and topics. Its assertion wholesale, as Trump has done, to prohibit executive departments from providing any documentary evidence or testimony is the definition of obstruction. Add to that the ridiculous interpretation of that DOJ memo, expanded to claim that presidents are completely immune from any peripheral investigation into matters touching on executive activity, and you have the formula for tyranny.
How low have Republicans sunk to prefer a despot over a functioning constitutional democracy?
4
What some contributors here don’t seem to understand is that even if the courts — eventually— require witnesses to show up, they can still claim executive privilege once they are in the seat. And then everyone has to go back to the courts to evaluate each of those claims.
No, the Democrats are right. There is a traitor in the White House who wants to corrupt the next election and to delay is unconscionable.
9
Isn't the fact that Trump has a history full of court appeals , stonewalling and using Lawyers and costs to intimidate, deny and stop any and all acts of litigation against him or his businesses...clear evidence of not just his behaviour /tactics but also of his guilt ....in that despite not paying contractors (for example) he uses the leverage and resources only available to him to stop justice and fairness being served?
Trump has used such tractics and similar strategies to mostly escape responsibility and doing the right thing in so many instances and so many different areas of personal and business behaviours it is obvious the man has no conscience and has always used his money, power and ability to manipulate and influence things to his advantageso as to gain the maximum benefit and outcome possible.
Sucess in these things via the ways and means he gets it...does not make it right.
What he did and what he has done and is doing in regards to this Impeachment Inquiry is clearly wrong.
Say no more.
7
As the Trump push for re-election moves forward like a speeding train, the Democrats don’t have a moment to lose if we want a fair and free election in 2020.Trump is not chastened by the threat to Ukraine, he is doubling down by sending Giuliani back to Ukraine to film a fiction that Ukraine did uncover dirt. He and his accomplice Barr are turning over every stone looking for conspiracies against Trump.So far they have come up empty.Trump is not acting as chief executive-he is running for re-election.That consumes his every waking moment.The Democrats need to move with deliberation and a decisive timetable to try to check the Trump take over of our Constitutional system.
7
Using the model Impeachment=Indictment and Senate Trial=Conviction, I believe that there is ample evidence to Impeach.
I fully understand that, in general, a prosecutor wouldn't indict unless the prosecutor felt there was a good chance of conviction, in this case it is reasonable for the prosecutor (House Democrats) to assume that, if the trial attorney (Senate Republicans) subpoena all relevant witnesses - and force their appearance in front of the court (Senate), there is a likely chance of conviction.
Mr. Turley's argument is analogous to the persons accused of murdering their parents and throwing themselves at the mercy of the court on the grounds that they are orphans.
6
And yet Ken Calvert said Democrats have brought Congress to a standstill with impeachment. So which is it: too fast, or too slow?
Surely it cannot be both?
5
@Grunchy: Yup, and even the standstill is a Republican lie, because it's McConnell who has brought Congress to a standstill, with the dozens of House bills gathering dust on his desk.
1
I agree with Turley. Pelosi should adopt Turley's request for first hand witness. Let's call Pompeo, Mulvaney, and Giuliani, with Bolton as clean up batter. The first three will be reluctant to lie if they don't know what Bolton will say. The house should demand that Chief Justice Roberts insure that the lower courts act expeditiously for the good of the nation.
4
Moving too fast? He should have been impeached when the Access Hollywood video was made public three years ago.
9
Although Prof Turley was an extremely eloquent “defender” of Trump, I was quite disappointed in him.
He made insanity look reasonable by arguing things such as the charges for Bill Clinton were just, impeachable and fair but Nixon’s obstruction of justice weren’t.
If that doesn’t tell you where his heart is then I am not sure what is.
I guess having a democrat and dna on a dress puts you in the gallons but having a republican cheating on an election and covering it up all is OK with him.
10
Turley is acting in bad faith (under oath), as if he doesn't recognize the circular and absurd arguments he presents. But those appear to be the arguments Republicans have settled on in the absence of ANY exculpatory evidence that might explain Trump's egregious behavior. And tragically, those same circular and absurd arguments will likely be used by Senate Republicans as cover when they vote to acquit this clearly and demonstrably guilty (and awful) president. What power does Trump or Trumpism have over these Republicans, these conservatives who apparently believe the absurdities emanating from their mouths? What's it going to take to break the spell Trump has over these people? These are truly crazy and disorienting times.
5
Trump will not be put out of office before the election. The Senate will not convict even if he shoots someone in cold blood. Resolve yourself to that and understand that impeachment is not a political tool--it is a political loser. But good and decent people have to do it because it is their (our) lawful and moral obligation.
If impeachment will lose in the senate no matter what, then what is the point of rushing. Take your time, do it quietly and thoroughly. There is a very good chance Trump will win re-election, and even if he doesn't, the republic is better served in the long run by doing a good job, not a quick and incomplete job at this.
1
But the very reason Trump's being impeached is because he's attempting to cheat in the 2020 election. Trump's attempts to cheat need to be stopped in their tracks and the legitimacy of the electoral process ensured before serious campaigning gets under way in 2020. Waiting for subpoena cases to wind their way through courts only plays into Trump's cheating hands.
4
There is no set minimum timeline for impeachment in the constitution. There is already enough evidence to impeach. It’s pointless to get more witnesses to say the same obvious things.
2
Mr. Turley seems OK with the fact that Trump has blocked the investigations at every turn in an unprecedented and brazen attempt to block Congress's oversight responsibility. Trump and his enablers are trying to run out the clock so that the can continue to undermine our democracy. Trumps is a habitual liar - which by itself should be unacceptable for a president. Sadly, Mr. Turley has joined the camp or Trump enablers.
The most important question is whether our democracy will survive. Every day Trump remains unchecked and in power makes this less likely.
8
One thing bother me (Really, more than one, but ... ). All the Dems asked, almost exclusively, questions to all but Mr. Turley and all the Reps asked questions almost exclusively to Mr. Turley. Was there nothing that the Democrats could have asked Mr. Turley that would have deflated his position of non-impeachment? Of course, Republicans could have done similar with Professors Karlan, Gerhardt, and Feldman, but everyone stayed in their safe place. A missed opportunity.
3
The Republican stalling, delaying and stonewalling tactics are intended to paralyze the impeachment process until after the election. It will then become a moot point. If they win, it will be disbanded. If they lose, impeachment won't matter.
Don't fall for the Republican con. Don't let Trump steal another election. American democracy is at stake.
2
Impeachment is a Congressional, not court function. Republicans want the process in the courts because they have become partisan and they are hoping to win there. Let's remember that federal judges are not elected. They have become political pork.
6
Clearly guilty. There would be none of this if there was nothing to hide; unfortunately there is a lot to hide, deny, and alternate...
4
If you're innocent and have done everything by the book, you wouldn't hide those documents, you wouldn't complain you have no involvement but then refuse involvement when invited to attend hearings to represent your case, you wouldn't send out an executive branch wide memo telling government employees to ignore legal subpoenas, you wouldn't seek to prevent leaders of the State Dept, OMB, WH Counsel, etc. from testifying, you wouldn't taunt and threaten people on Twitter, and you wouldn't have sought to hide all knowledge of the contents of the July 25th call on a high security server where it ordinarily wouldn't go. None of these actions look like the actions of an innocent man, and none help to exonerate the president. If the president is innocent, it is easy enough to present the "overwhelming" evidence of his innocence to the American people, publicly and in full. But he is not choosing to provide all that would show his alleged innocence. Why not? Because he knows he's guilty, his staff knows he's guilty, the GOP knows he's guilty, and even his supporters know he's guilty...but none of these people care. All they care about is "winning" at any cost, tossing the nation into the trash heap of history as they go.
7
Trump's obstruction and refusal to cooperate with Congress should just be another count in the Articles of impeachment.
4
I am not sure that this headline is about getting reaction more than anything but- the answer is NO we should not wait one moment more!! We have watched and waited three years. As has been explained by many who have testified this is about the people's right to free and fair elections. That means without foreign interference. If the President, THIS president, goes unchecked we will have walked a way towards tyranny and the loss of our democracy.
7
The Republicans were once enamored of Colin Powell’s leadership. One of his “rules” or “lessons” warns against procrastination in the guise of fact gathering:
Part I: "Use the formula P=40 to 70, in which P stands for the probability of success and the numbers indicate the percentage of information acquired." Part II: "Once the information is in the 40 to 70 range, go with your gut."
Powell's advice is don't take action if you have only enough information to give you less than a 40 percent chance of being right, but don't wait until you have enough facts to be 100 percent sure, because by then it is almost always too late. Procrastination in the name of reducing risk actually increases risk.
This seems especially true where the sole controller of potentially relevant information is blocking access to it. Trump may have a “right” to insist on a judicial resolution of every legal obstacle he employs. But, his repeated exercise of that “right” permits an inference that the information to which he’s blocking access is not helpful to him. This is especially so since the courts have soundly and repeatedly rejected Trump’s claims in a variety of contexts. Under these circumstances, Trump’s claims can and should be deemed frivolous. Trump has become the proverbial kid who kills his parents (on 5th Avenue or elsewhere) and pleads for mercy because he’s an orphan.
6
“Still, the White House call record was not that explicit. Mr. Trump did respond to the Ukrainian president’s mention of military assistance by saying “I would like you to do us a favor, though” and then talked about his desire for investigations, including into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son, “ How duplicitous. “not that explicit” is not a valid argument, it is not a fact, it is a bias. The context of the conversation makes the President’s condition clear. What else could it mean? This news story is an opinion piece that alters the story.
Turley’s only argument is that the process is moving too fast. That would be accurate if the Courts were compelled to address the matters before it as a priority, as if it were vital to the survival of the Republic. Judicial culture is slowing the process. Given the certainty that lower court decisions will be appealed to the Supreme Court it would be judicious for the Court to be compelled to hear the appeal when it occurs. Nothing is more important, Would that the legal experts would address this absurd delay and demand expeditious hearings of appeals. Turley, Karla, Gephardt, and Feldman can do the country a lasting favor: petition the Supreme Court to prioritize appeals that are delaying testimony. It is curious that the Roberts has not recognized the cumbersome method employed has endangered our Republic.
2
The Democrats took their 10 day break recently, no problem, instead of gravely considering impeachment. Impeachment was guaranteed the day after the last presidential election. The Democrats, rest assured, despite the gravity and seriousness with which impeachment should be taken, will rush to impeach before December 25, so that they can take their Christmas break. Yes, so grave and serious they are. This process is so one-sided and rigged, if I were Trump, I would not allow certain key witnesses to testify either, until the guaranteed and already predetermined impeachment got to the Senate. When it gets to the Senate, the Republicans can stack a day with right wing constitutional “experts” just like the Democrats stacked hearings this week with left wing constitutional “experts”. It was a smart move by Trump and his advisors not to allow their witnesses to testify in the House kangaroo court.
2
@Scott K what are you trying to say?
3
Turley did a magnificent job of trying to justify slowing things down. He blew pretty obvious smoke in flogging the distinction between the legal and constitutional definition of bribery. He was obviously right that the evidence not made available thanks to White House defiance of subpoenas really should be made available before the House votes on Articles, but he he failed to make a case that the impeachment effort was therefore flawed. He was also a personable foil to the brilliant trio he was up against.
I always admire Turley's arguments, but most often disagree with him.
2
Turley was the only impartial Jurisprudence Scholar on the witness stand. Our legal system is adversarial and courts are equipped to handle conflicts between parties.
The democrats want this impeachment, an end-goal, to be over with, so they can claim to 1/2 of the people who they kept arousing with overarching assortment of accusations and charges about Trump since he took office that they did something about him!
In 2020, this strategy will stand bare and will fail spectacularly when Trump gets re-elected.
2
Mr Turley is playing politics. No more evidence is needed. Every thinking American, including Turley and Republicans on the committees, understands that Trump did what he is alleged to have done. He withheld military aid to Ukraine in order to pressure the Ukrainian government to open investigations that were intended to help him politically. The only question is whether it rises to the level of impeachment. Democrats have no choice other than to bring the articles. Trump has already proven that he will repeat his past behavior if not held accountable. He IS beholden to Putin and Russia did meddle in our 2016 election on Trump's behalf.
4
I’m pretty sure that if I were subpoenaed by a Grand Jury or Congress and didn’t show, a marshal would come get me, probably in cuffs.
We have a Catch-22 here that works only in the case of a POTUS, who it seems is above the law if they choose to put themselves there. Nixon had a shred of decency and didn’t destroy the tapes. If he he’d have skated.
Turley has a valid point in that the Congress hasn’t exhausted all possible remedies by going to court. The Nixon tapes matter moved quickly as I recall. If Trump defied the Supremes then the case would be airtight.
2
Three things make a conclusive case:
The military aid was initially withheld.
The phone call.
Mulvaney's admission.
All this is irrelevant.
The GOP knows what Trump did.
But the GOP likes Trump's agenda of Trump's tax cuts and slashing of social programs and gutting financial and environmental regulations and appointment of conservative judges.
These desires make any illegal action by Trump acceptable.
Even if the House impeaches the Senate [where a 2/3 vote is required] will not convict.
Trump can only be stopped at the ballot box.
To do this the Dems must regain the votes of the working class element of Trump's base.
The Dems must propose and support programs to restore the lost income of displaced workers.
There are programs that do this and do not require reviving coal or destroying the environment.
Instead HRC ridiculed displaced workers called them deplorables and also talked down to rural America.
HRC lost.
That many have deplorable attitudes is irrelevant.
They vote and their votes elected Trump and will elect other demagoges if their economic concerns are not addressed
That HRC although flawed had a much better economic program than Trump is irrelevant.
She had NO program to store lost jobs or provide new jobs at a wage EQUAL to the wage of the lost job.
And so displaced workers elected Trump.
@david: And the displaced workers are still displaced or have jobs with half the wages and no benefits compared to what they had in the past...
1
Movie too fast compared to other impeachments all of which were conducted in a pre-internet era with no office email and the like.
No, not too fast.
4
If Trump were innocent, he would have ordered all of his lackeys to testify, and not obstructed them appearing.
Turley knows this.
19
They should have impeached Trump for putting children in cages. The Ukraine quid pro quo is abstract, in a way. But most people understand the act of committing human rights violations Is impeachable.
4
Did the Democrats even vet their witness Miss Karlan? Did anyone see the video from 2017, before Mueller before impeachment right after the inauguration where she clearly shows her hatred for the president? I do not think anyone’s opinion was changed by yesterday’s show. And the embarrassment of reading Nadler’s statement during the Clinton impeachment trial where he said impeachment should not be a narrow vote nor a party line vote. How embarrassing for the Democrats. This will not serve them well in the 2020 elections
4
@Mitchell myrin Funny, I see it as an embarrassment for the Republicans. Accepting obstruction isn't a small thing.
3
With trump being mocked and the subject of laughter by world leaders yesterday, we know one thing for certain: no way this administration* wants the American voters to vote.
6
The Democrats would be wise to pause and Take Turley's advice and wait until the issue--whether all the potential witnesses (Pompeo, Bolton, et al.) must testify--moves through the courts. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose if they go ahead and let the Senate exonerate him before the election. If they wait, the issue will remain out there, hanging over the presidents' head, throughout the campaign. The only difference between proceeding and waiting is that if they proceed he is almost certain to be acquitted by the Senate. I don't see how that helps the Democrats. If he is reelected now, while the issue is still pending, then he would surely have been reelected had the senate exonerated him. The best of both worlds would be to pause and just wait for this to go through the courts. Then the impeachment would be hanging over his head throughout the election season. The Democrats would not even need to mention it. Most of the time, rope-a-dope doesn't work--and that would be the case here.
“You know what else they say about my people? The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It’s like incredible," Trump said.
6
Trump is the Dark Side. He uses his power to sow fear, anger, hatred, passion, and aggression. The whole of the GOP is grouped behind him.
5
The 500 page report is rock solid.
Trump daily causes severe irreversible damage to the US.
He has been caught red-handed several times over the past 3 years. Conspiring with Russia in the 2016 election, obstruction of justice (Mueller, Schiff), using taxpayer money to extort personal favors from a foreign government, emoluments, soliciting election interference in the 2020 election.
Trump needs to be removed NOW.
After he is gone, everything he has been hiding will rain from the skies.
5
Mr.Turley, although a smart man, isn't playing the correct game. Mr.Trump will finish his first term November 2020 as pointed out. The Democrats know the results of the senate impeachment trial. I am sure they once questioned whether the Republican senate will have or could have voted to impeach Trump, they know now they won't. Mr. Turley does not seem to factor that into his argument. The correct move for the Democrats would be to arrest the Republicans around Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump and his cohorts may act like the mafia, but they will fold easily if arrested for treason, bribery, fraud, sedition etc. Even disbarment for the legal professionals will be enough to scare those cohorts into talking. It would not be hard to charge Mr. Nunes,for example, with sedition: pushing a false narrative originally supplied or supported by the Russian government as internet propaganda to undermine the US elections. I am certain a lot of Republicans are guilty of propagating Russian propaganda without even realizing it, ie. Sedition. But we all know that the Democrats are to nice for that. So that leaves telling the correct narrative, putting the truth out there and watching the Republicans lie their way into the history books. That will get them enough white suburban votes. The question now is how to get African Americans out to vote. If the Democrats control all three branches of government they win, if they lose any, they have lost. This game is about votes after all.
4
Mitt Romney is concerned in the most sincere and deepest fashion about new allegations, and says if only someone could do something about it.
1
The answer! No!!
This is a stall tactic by the Republicans. They don’t want to play the game by the rules and are using stall tactics to allow the dirty game of corruption to continue for as long as they can make it work. In the meantime they are doing untold damage with judicial appointments, gerrymandering and God knows what else.
5
Turley is another Mueller. In the absence of ironclad evidence he thinks Trump should be allowed to continue to betray his oath of office. But I think most of us are convinced of his guilt well beyond any reasonable doubt and a majority of us would like to see him removed from the Oval Office, preferably in handcuffs.
4
How unseemly is it that Trump lawyers are colluding with GOP senators (i.e. jurors in Trump’s impeachment trial) to defend Trump in a forthcoming impeachment trial. Prejudge your case much, so-called-defenders of our freedoms and liberties? The GOP is bought and paid for by Vladimir Putin!
4
The GOP and its Witness expert can't have it both ways, with the GOP using its usual delay tactics, just like they did with the Mueller report. And like they did for years with Benghazi, while they ruled the House. They reap what they sowed for years. Enough games!
3
Turley argues, essentially, for the jury to stay out on impeachment because of a supposed lack of evidence that is the result of the President’s stonewalling and lies. In other words, reward Trump for running out the clock and allow his misconduct to continue unchecked. Turley is disingenuous here and has become one more lapdog for a dishonest and authoritarian President who has dishonored his office and is a mortal danger to democracy.
5
Just to be clear, the argument is this:
1. Republicans say that House Dems don’t have enough information to prove impeachable offenses.
2. House Dems subpoena White House records that they deem would fill the gaps.
3. White House blocks efforts to provide information.
4. House Dems proceed with witness testimony that lays out clear quid quo pro and efforts directed by Trump to investigate top political opponent.
5. Republicans say that House Dems don’t have enough... wait we’ve been here before...
Anyone else exhausted?
10
The courts should put everything else on hold and make this situation their #1 priority. If the courts signaled that the cases currently in the pipeline would be dealt with definitively and quickly I think that would be in the country's best interest. And I think Trump would ultimately lose and people would have to testify. The question is whether the sense of urgency is warranted. And I think it most certainly is. It's like letting a bank robber hang out on the streets and rob more banks while waiting for the courts to decide if witnesses to the crimes are admissible. Trump feels he never does anything wrong. Never. Someone has to put the foot down and say NO, not acceptable.
4
I think Dems should subpoena Bolton; wait for the response from the court. I have a suspicion that if the court rules he needs to respond to the subpoena, I believe he will. That would be a game changer. He may be looking for a "good excuse" to get in front of the committee and tell all. But he may also feel he needs the protection of the backing of the court to allow him to do so.
4
Turley's twirly logic,
His double-standard wit,
Shows he's the world's foremost
Constitutional hypocrite.
His views are topsy turvy,
And that makes some quite surly,
But that's not how those at the top
See Turley.
6
The idea that the witnesses Mr. Trump is blocking would give exculpatory testimony is simply ludicrous. If he had anyone whom his lawyers thought could swear to his innocence, they'd be on the Hill in a heartbeat.
Trump & Co. hope that they can draw it out, that they can use the whole thing as an election motivator and take back the House in November in addition to putting Trump back in the White House. I think they are partly right because I think that Impeachment in the House and acquittal in the Senate ("vindication" or "completely innocent" in Trump's campaign rhetoric) will win him a second term.
The Dems, behaving with responsibility and integrity, have no choice at this point except to impeach him, but politically it will hurt them.
5
The absurdity of all this theater is highly unbecoming to say the least. We all know that there was talk of an "insurance policy" before the first vote was cast and talk about impeachment before the president was even sworn in. The greater danger to our democracy is the unwillingness of the loser to accept the results of an election. We used to be able to do that as this is the fabric of all democracy. The only acceptable remedy to the present situation is for the Democrats to run a better candidate who will run a better campaign. Trying to undo an election is not the answer.
The impeachment inquiry by the House is equivalent to a grand jury convened to depose witnesses, review evidence and determine whether a trial is warranted. It is not for the House to determine the final guilt or innocence of the President -- that is the task of the Senate, should Articles be submitted to them.
There is no need to spend months in the courts to uncover facts to somehow bolster the case for impeachment. By any reasonable measure, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence attesting to ongoing presidential malfeasance. We cannot lose sight of the forest -- the multifarious acts of brazen lawlessness and immorality that pervade every corner of this administration.
6
"The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, noted Mr. Trump’s stonewalling and said that Congress “must act now” because the president had “made clear that if left unchecked,” he would again ask a foreign government to intervene in the American election."
This is a prime example of conjecture but no evidence. Conjecture of future behavior is not grounds for impeachment. Because my neighbor cuts down one tree on my property is not proof he will do it again.
I think we are witnessing all the close-to-the-vest reasons that Nancy Pelosi was for so long hesitant about this entire process. It could backfire unpleasantly for Dems.
Note: I'd love to see Trump removed.
Sorry, but this country cannot wait to meet the “5th Avenue standard of evidence” that Trump could shoot someone in plain sight on 5th Avenue and no one in his base would care. The republicans had every opportunity to bring forth their own evidence, witnesses and rebuttals throughout the impeachment inquiry process. It is too late now to decry that the process is moving too quickly. The republicans wasted time during the inquiry process with; refusing subpoenas, unsuccessful witness intimidation, theatrical sarcasm and screaming questions to the witnesses.
5
Why so coy? I feel fairly certain that if the executive branch possessed any exculpatory evidence they would have eagerly presented it in the House.
1
I agree with Charlie Savage in that the Democrats have no other recourse but follow through with impeachment. Trump will run to the courts, frustrating every attempt by Democrats to bring him in, or his staff, to be questioned. Democrats also know that most likely they will lose this battle in the Senate, therefore, they might just as well, expose Trump's illicit activities to the public before the election. It is a gamble, but, should they have a good candidate, they may just win back the White House in 2020. Needless to say, Trump will be smarting after this affront to his reign and will make future mistakes that will make him look more irrational and dangerous than before. People will vote accordingly. Enough is enough!
393
Democrats “may just win” in 2020?
Trump is finished. Even he knows it.
It’s only a question of how much more damage he’s going to be allowed to do. And that blame will be placed on Senate Republicans.
43
@Desert Rat
I wish I could share your confidence that "People will vote accordingly." So far, Trump has been right about his ability to "shoot somebody on television" and get away with it.
The facts have long since ceased to matter to the 43% of Americans who have been consuming large quantities of Fox News nonsense and Rush Limbaugh toxin for the last 30 years. That 43% is enough, thanks to the recently upheld gerrymandering scheme they've managed to secure in place.
18
@Desert Rat
First of a all we have the "perfect transcript" released and promoted by Trump, that has the President of Ukraine saying he is ready for the anti-tank missiles he needs to defend against the Russian invasion of his country, followed directly by "I need you to do us a favor, THOUGH." Investigate my political opponent.
Then we have Mick Mulvaney saying yes, it was a quid pro quo, we do it all the time, get used to it.
Then we have Vindman, who was on the call, saying he was shocked that the President put his personal political interests above official policy on the call.
Maybe Democrats should take the advice of the Republican witness and the Republican members of the House that think we should wait for the courts. Maybe they should keep this inquiry going in the House all year long.
Republicans can try to complain both that the Democrats haven't brought principal witnesses that Trump is unconstitionally blockingi and that Inquiry is taking the whole election year, but almost everyone will see through that.
Meanwhile the House can expand upon the context of Trump's public High Crimes, including asking China to interfere in our elections on TV, saying that the Emoluments Clause is "phony" while taking payments from foreign countries, saying "the Press is the enemy of the people," while calling for violence again the Press, misappropriating funds by abusing his emergency powers, etc.
It is the CONTEXT of the Trump PATTERN of High Crimes that proves his INTENT.
24
Of course it is moving fast. This whole charade has been scripted way in advance. Going back to 2016 even 2015.
1
So the GOP's best shot for producing a legal scholar to argue that Trump shouldn't be impeached is one who says that he shouldn't be impeached just yet. Impeach him years from now when the President's roadblocks to a fast track impeachment have finally been removed, and the existing facts and considerable body of circumstantial evidence is confirmed by the testimony of GOP witnesses such as Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo? Who is to say that these persons will speak the truth now or ever? Documents? Those will disappear or get erased like the 18.5 minutes from the Nixon tapes. The evidence supports Impeachment now, America doesn't have the luxury of waiting any longer.
5
Mr. Turley stated that the impeachment process was shoddy with inadequate evidence. However, neither Mr. Turley nor the GOP house panel members will admit that the White House has purposely withheld this evidence, especially the testimony of Mulvaney and Bolton, which Mr. Turley alluded to in his statement. Will someone publicly call their bluff -- Rep. Nadler? Are you there?
2
I understand Mr. Turley's argument and prior to 11-9-2016 this would be the route to take but, It's 2019 and we live in a different reality. djt and GOP play the game of 'catch me if you can' using 'the courts to run out the clock.'
The 'fight over the subpoena to Mr. McGahn' you refer to is a perfect example. Mr. Barr's Justice Department will continue to appeal any court ruling not favoriting their blockade of the testimony of a key witness to include Bolton, Pompeo, and Mulvaney. It's a given that these guys, these foot soldiers will never step up to the plate and do the right thing answering the request of subpoenas.
I honestly do not know how any of the mess will end. What I do know for certain is that Congress did nothing regarding the man 'who would be king' and his subjects, our young Democratic Republic would fade into our history books as a time since past.
VOTE him out in 2020 and make it Historical.
3
Not so long ago, the house was said to be slow and deficient.
I want this president's bad behaviors stopped. It's his 3rd year of bad behavior, and there has been enough. Put limits and warnings on him, now.
368
@pointofdiscovery exactly. I have had enough of the Trump show. Time for the gong!
25
@pointofdiscovery
When Muller was compiling his report there were daily cries that it was taking too long, that Americans just wanted it to end, that it was being unnecessarily dragged out and we needed to put it behind us. Now we’re moving forward with numerous witness statements and evidence but being told to slow down. I would much prefer we hear from Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc., but if it’s going to take months - or years - for courts to clear their testimony, we’ll be right back to “this is taking too long, Americans just want it to end, it is being unnecessarily dragged out and we need to put it behind us.”
If the White House has a defense other than it isn’t wrong because the president did it and he is immune from any oversight, then they should provide it. Otherwise their refusal to allow key witnesses to testify appears to be an admission of guilt through withholding evidence. And Dems are stuck in a no win by trying to compel the WH to do the right thing and show its hand. So yes. Move forward with impeachment. Because trying to both hold the WH accountable AND trying to play legal whack a mole with an non compliant actor who will denigrate any attempt to respect law and order will just prolong this process.
31
@pointofdiscovery
If you want to end the Trump presidency, read the Constitution, and compare the words in the Constitution to Trump's public actions and statements.
Then list Trump's public High Crimes and explain why contradicting the Constitution in word and deed on TV and Twitter are abuses of power, every day until he is gone.
Trump has actually said that he can take away birthright citizenship with an executive order. Citizens who were born here are the largest voter block. Ask the People if they trust Trump not to exile them.
It is not enough to be sick of Trump. Or to call out his rudeness, racism, or bad policies.
It we do not list and explain his abuses of power, they will be normalized.
There is no impeachment without High Crimes. List and explain Trump's High Crimes.
17
Professor Turley wants to cast himself in the role of careful and prudent advisor with his eye on the precedent of impeachment. Yet while Democrats wait for still more smoking guns with Trump's fingerprints all over them, Russia is at work interfering in our 2020 election, and Trump remains in contact with Putin. The clock is running out. Is Turley seeing the bigger picture here or is he obsessing on a higher than necessary standard of proof without regard to real time?
Turley's preferred standard of proof is actually inappropriate to the process of impeachment. Yet it is entirely appropriate to the criminal trials of citizen Trump, which can take all the time they need. In the meantime, we would all be dupes to hope that even when Turley thinks he has enough proof, Republicans will acquiesce and accept the accumulation of evidence that does not yet disturb them.
350
@CallahanStudio
Turley's almost 'dripping sincerity' about his views are not to be believed. There is a video clip of him testifying just the opposite in another impeachment case years ago where he says a crime does not need to be established in order to impeach someone (a judge, I believe, in the earlier case).
35
@CallahanStudio Mr. Turley was spinning on behalf of a client. He's been all over the place on impeachment. He's a lawyer for hire and has a calm demeanor and tried his best in a losing situation.
14
@CallahanStudio He's auditioning.
14
Hard to take Professor Turley seriously when he says it's puzzling that the House is not waiting for protracted legal fights over subpoenas. He's unfamiliar with the concept of running out the clock? He doesn't know that the election is in eleven months?
He appears to be a rather idiosyncratic fellow, having voted for Nader. Perhaps he's a born contrarian and with most law professors being utterly appalled by Trump's high crimes and misdemeanors just has to take the other side.
In any event his studied avoidance of comprehending Trump's attempt to drag things out, his lack of any concern about Trump's outright refusal of Congressional oversight fully undermine his arguments.
1
If the House waits, the moment will be lost. Turley knows that; Trump knows that; the courts know that. Because the courts have allowed Trump's legal team to tie up key witnesses in an obvious move to ignore legal subpoenas, Trump has been able to skate away from both Mr. Mueller, and now the House investigation. What we know is enough. He broke the law. He is attempting to hide the truth. He is not above the law.
375
@Patrick Stevens Exactly the same as was done after the shootings in Texas and Ohio....they realized if they run the clock out people will forget
19
@Patrick Stevens The Republican strategy is: Lie Big, Lie Always, Never Stop Lying. With a party of moral acrobats and a constituency of sheep, it's a winning strategy.
26
@Gustav Aschenbach
...and yelling. Their strategy involves LOTS of yelling.
15
It could not be more evident that Democrats are moving too fast. They are doing it because their schedule has nothing to do with anything relating to impeachment, and everything to do with the perceived political convenience of the Democrats' centrist faction—factors which for some reason Democrats do not discuss publicly.
So long a key witnesses have yet to testify, Democrats in an impeachment trial risk nasty surprises. They rely now on a central piece of evidence, the August 25 "transcript," which they have never actually seen. One misstep on that and Republicans can blow the Democratic case out of the water by producing the actual document in rebuttal.
Worse, in what is apparently an enormous conspiracy, all kinds of evidence remain completely unexplored. How does it serve the nation to give a pass and a wave to what history will probably judge to be the bulk of the case?
Finally, and most important, given Senate Republicans' intransigence, the only real good which can come of impeachment would be systematic, point-by-point de-normalization of Trumpism. But that would be a national benefit notably greater than just getting rid of Trump himself. It is imperative that Democrats do everything they can to include all Trump's offenses, examine all his co-conspirators, and impose the responsibility for approving that conduct on Republicans, so the electorate can hold them responsible.
Extend the schedule. Use as long as it takes.
26
@S.P. The Democrats have plenty of evidence -- testimony, documents, the public statements of Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and Mick Mulvaney. There is more evidence, but given the strong circumstantial case the Democrats would be fools to allow Donald Trump to run out the clock as he clearly wants to do.
72
@S.P. As far as evidence is concerned it's seems that you neglected all the testimony given to the Intelligence Committee and obviously you've not read their report.
26
@Mary Rivkatot I'm with you until you called him a boomer. Not cool. Just as uncool as calling you anything.
28
After Bush v. Gore, which was sped to and through the Supreme Court due to a Constitutional deadline and fears of a Constitutional crisis; and which was portrayed as a one-off, as well as the delayed timing issue of the Merrick Garland appointment, it seems that we need an expanded Due Process ruling, Amendment, Bill, or Clause. It should give politically Constitutional issues a Speedy and explicit process and timeframe.
Rich and powerful entities can and do game the Judiciary with delay tactics galore as Trump has excelled at.
This Impeachment is a Constitutional Crisis and will test the future viability of our Democracy. Resolve the issues of Congressional subpoenas vs. Executive Privilege powers, etc. Barr and his ilk on the Supreme Court are the real danger. Attention and due haste must be applied now.
2
This is where Turley shows his true heavily partisan stripes. Besides the fact the GOP would howl, should the Dems go slower, about the Dems slow-walking out this supposedly biased exercise well into an election year, he is well aware of the Republican strategy to do just that by preventing witness after witness from testifying. The policy of the Trump Administration is crystal clear: to tie all these depositions, not to mention reams of potential documentary evidence, up in the courts so that the process CANNOT be completed before the election. His failure to acknowledge that while calling for the need for more evidence—which these prevented witnesses could provide—shows him to be either another gaslighting Trump lackey or a stunningly incompetent ”expert”—and witness.
26
The various ways by which Trump is slowing down the impeachment process may work ... for a while. But as the impeachment drama drags on the 2020 presidential election rapidly approaches. Perhaps this is the dems tactic. Let him stutter and gesture and bellow and wail ...
WIN the election, and none of it will matter. The assumed immunity Trump has from the fed, state, and local charges awaiting him will evaporate and he'll be runnin' scared.
Compared to his life as a private citizen in January 2021 impeachment will look like a picnic.
7
@cd
Republicans won't remove Trump, but the coming year will continue the drip-drip-drip of reports of malfeasance that could affect his re-election.
Pending court cases include requested Freedom of Information Act documents from the State Dept, and SCOTUS decisions on tax returns and Deutsche Bank records (IF they take the cases at all). And of course there is Trump's own big mouth that could sink him.
4
@Jules
thanks for the specifics; the 'drip drip' will swell to a flood, as his 'big mouth' causes many repubs to hold their nose in public ...
I still think none of this will get him indicted, because as prez he can slow down the process.
But in Jan 2021 when he's not prez he'll drown screaming in the torrent as his former puppets turn their collective backs on him ... Exactly
the way he's treated his own 'loyal followers'
Yes, it's so obvious that Democrats should wait until Trump commits even more impeachable offenses. (After all, it could have happened by the time you read this.)
12
You forgot to mention that he is a Democrat who voted for Hillary and Obama. The other three are hardcore leftists who have absolutely no credibility. You think they would testify against Trump if he were a liberal Democrat?
4
Republicans can easily provide more information evidence if they choose. Right now they have decided to block testimonies by key personnel.
They don't get to claim that there's not enough info with the left hand while preventing the release of that info with the right hand.
Regardless, Trump already got up on tv and confessed to committing crimes. He even committed new ones in asking Russia and China for election help at the same time. No need delay getting him out of office for a more clear picture. Get him out. Gather more criminal details after.
14
Please. Please.
This is not complicated.
Questions for Mr. Turley:
Okay. Let's take your position as fact:
There is not enough direct evidence and more needs to be collected to substantiate an impeachment. Correct?
But those with direct knowledge and all documents related to the events are being withheld by the accused.
So if we follow this logic - there are only two options.
1. Use all of the witnesses testimony outside the conspiracy who witnessed the evidence - and combine it to make a case (what we are doing)
or
2. Allow any president who does not want to be impeached to simply withhold all information.
My small mind - because I am not a scholar - can not fathom a third scenario. Can yours?
If not - are you not saying that by definition - any president that wants to break the law and avoid impeachment simply refuse to share any documents? Isn't that really the logical outcome of your possition?
If Nadler can not assemble this level of reasoning and challenge he needs to be replaced. Tomorrow.
12
So let me get this straight. Republicans had Mr. Turley testify to drive home and clarify this point: Trump repeatedly obstructed justice by preventing anyone within his realm of authority from testifying. Wow!
8
Speaking to any republican politician, lawyer, or fox viewer is like talking to someone with borderline personality disorder. It quickly becomes clear that the first goal is to end the conversation as quickly as possible unless you enjoy arguing in circles over nothing.
It’s not possible to have an honest conversation with a party committed to dishonesty. It’s time to impeach our president.
16
Muller conclusion - cant confirm conspiracy because of the obstruction. Democrats allowed that to go unpunished once , no surprise trumpistan plays the same again.
Any restrain is taken by mob / gop as sign of weakness.
11
I remember Turley from the Clinton impeachment as several Representatives noted. Frankly, how could he favor the conviction of Bill Clinton for one lie when we now have a serial liar very clearly shaking down a foreign leader for personal political advantage? I can’t believe that Turley, with his history, was the best that the Republicans could find.
18
I think he’s the only one who would actually say what he did
2
So this is where we are- Trump supporters invoking “innocent till guilt proven beyond a shadow of doubt” while not recognizing that they’re putting the nan above the Office- Trump opponents fatalistic, going ahead knowing full well 67 Senators will not vote to remove. We’ve lost all decency as a nation, Republicans & Democrats. Meanwhile Democratic hopefuls don’t offer any hope to the majority of Americans, to unite. It’s everyone for his own corner, indignant to others views. It’s a race to the bottom. Trump will win, not because he deserves it but because we the people deserve him! Sad & disgusted.
2
Why isn't the headline: "Republicans' Handpicked Constitutuonal Scholar Doesn't Agree Impeachment is a Hoax"?
15
It was my understanding that the House may impeach which would move the matter to the Senate where the actual trial would take place. If the Senate is GOP controlled why wouldn’t they want this to happen? After the Merrick Garland fiasco one could reasonably expect for the GOP controlled senate to do all in their power to keep the impeachment moving to an actual trial.
One is actually keen to see the GOP backflips and gyrating that would be on display if the trial were to be set in motion.
3
I wonder if Lindsey Graham is going to read this one? Or is it also a waste of time?
7
One Republican witness does seem to generate a lot of NYT headlines..
6
It became abundantly clear that GOP members in the committee is more than interested to protect Trump than uncovering truth or discuss the issue of impeachment about its merits. But it's very unfortunate that Democrat, mainly Nadler, run committee is also does not seem to be up to the task, unlike Adam Schiff run Intelligence committee hearings.
I'm impressed with Prof Turley. Democratic members and/or its counsel should have engaged with him more than patting each others' back with the 3 Dem nominated expert.
If they were not ready for this public show, then they could have done that behind closed doors to check the loopholes of their approach and/or arguments with few respected neutral and opposite (openly Trump supporting but respected expert, if possible. I agree the job is hard, very hard.)
The Dems should have evaluated the case including Intelligence committee report before they take the hearing to general public on live TV.
5
I love the latest Republican justification: Trump had to corrupt Zelensky to clean up endemic corruption in Ukraine. How stupid is the US?
11
This analysis is basically dignifying high-end "trolling."
5
It is my understanding that a House impeachment is more like a grand jury investigation.” And that standards are less than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
This is self-evident by the fact that executive privilege even exists.
Likewise the evidence for obstruction of justice is pretty clear.
3
One is reminded of the OJ Trial.
The Prosecution believed it could not lose.
OJ's Lawyers used every trick in the book and then some
and when he was found "Not Guilty" one part of America
celebrated and the other wondered what had gone wrong.
Perhaps the Polls are incorrect, but at this time, three weeks before Christmas not even 50 % of respondents think that Trump should be impeached and 40 % seem utterly unconvinced by what the Democrats have so far produced as "Evidence".
Rather surprising that the 3 Constitutional Law Professors the Democrats brought forth took such a biased line against Trump.
Yes, these charges, if true, warrant an impeachment investigation given the history of impeachments and what High Crimes and Misdemeanors meant in 18th century England.
What they should not have said is that they thought Trump should be impeached.
As for Subpoenas - does not the person served by one have
the right to ask why they were served and whether said subpoenas has any validity before being brought forth to appear before Congress and a nationwide audience ?
Those of us who are old enough watched the House misuse its power in the hunt for Communists after World War II and saw lives destroyed by the power of subpoena. Likewise, we saw
Senator Joe McCarthy misuse his Senatorial powers.
If it is Obstruction of Justice to ask a Judge to examine the validity of a subpoena, then what does it mean to be Free Citizen ?
If Trump is guilty, throw him out.
But do so fairly.
Its almost laughable that the cowards who stood silently by while Trump deprived all the asylum seekers due process of law, and the Republican Senators who deprived Merit Garland of the chance for a fair hearing for SCOTUS, whine about the lack of fairness during this Congressional hearing. Especially after Trump was invited to appear and declined.
16
John Brown,
Your points are flawed, the main one being about a subpoena. A subpoena is a legal request compelling a witness to appear and truthfully testify, not an admission of guilt or sentence of guilt. There is ample precedents for the House subpoenas to be honored and the Trump administration is denying their validity. Just one more con by the biggest con artist since P.T.Barnum --- Trump.
Blue wave 2020!
1
Considering past behavior Trump may very well do something outrageous once the trial actually begins to draw attention away from it. This his mode of operation. We have seen it frequently in the past. His deviousness knows no bounds.
8
@uras For instance: The situation in Iran that's heating up right now. War is always a good distraction.
2
I listened to the entirety of today's hearing.
If the Republicans on the committee raised a single objection to the facts at the core of this proceeding--I must have missed it in the process of sneezing.
The sum total of the objections they raised were all on the process.
Perfectly summarized by their handpicked "witness" --Professor Turley--who argued the whole proceeding was tainted by haste--in one of his most memorable moments, dismissing the whole thing as "...a rocket docket."
Let's be totally clear here.
If the Democrats choose the alternative path--moving slowly and waiting for the courts to adjudicate the Trump imposed obstacles to the investigation ("Thou Shall Not Testify by Order Of Donald")--his Republican goon squad would be screeching (you pick the time frame) that the Democrats are (1) dragging this out to make it an election issue, (2) it's so close to the election we have to cease, desist and le the voters decide, or (3) the voters have spoken.
Any of the arguments are demonstrably venal.
15
It is incredibly cynical about American's intelligence that the Republicans chose a man from "George Washington" University as a symbol, to defend Trump. History states that President George Washington declined an offer by colonists to be the King of our nation most likely thinking about how the nation would suffer under a corrupt dangerous king.
Trump is no George Washington!
3
This is not a partisan issue.
The GWU law professor should be ashamed of himself.
How can a law professor not believe in the rule of law?
6
Mitch McConnell himself called for the whole process to be complete by year’s end.
3
Pretty easy to play the press if you’re a Republican: just deny or come up with another fanciful excuse and it’s a story with “two sides.” The beauty part: this can be used over and over again without the press getting any wiser. Thought experiment: how great an outrage would be necessary to end this paralysis in the face of extremism? At this point, it’s sadly almost impossible to say.
3
Turley is unconvincing - he is not denying that Trump engaged in attempted extortion/corruption and subsequent obstruction. Turley is just saying that Trump should continue to abuse the legal system to run out the clock. The die is cast - the democrats should impeach Trump, the republicans will give him a pass. The record will show Trump was impeached for Ukraine corruption, and the country can move on.
9
What happens when the Senate acquits Trump?
1
He will say he was exonerated and use every means possible to win (corrupt) the next election.
1
"But we need more evidence" Law Professor Turdley
“For people who want the truth, adequate evidence is enough, but for those who don’t want the truth overwhelming evidence is inadequate” Thuli Madonsela, South African advocate and Professor of law; July 4, 2017
12
My eyes are crossed.
This makes me want to cancel my subscription. Are you kidding me?
Cases are brought all the time without every shred of available evidence. In this case, there is no genuine issue of material fact. Trump withheld government aid, that had been appropriated by Congress and approved by the President, to coerce Ukraine to take action to damage his political opponent. He used public funds and his office for personal gain. The correct decision is crystal clear.
12
Absolutely Congress should wait. This is too serious to go racing ahead without gathering all the available data. They are simply giving the GOP good reason to say it’s a badly run hit job. Dems need to make the best case they can and they can’t do that without either seeing the key documents and witnesses or showing that the courts upheld the subpoenas and the President and his allies broke the law by defying a court order.
4
Time us if the essence here because Trump's alleged crimes relate to attempts to undermine the American election process in
November 2019, and the Courts are not likely to resolve the subpoena issue until after the American elections in 2020. This puts Turley's legal arguments that the Democrats should wait indefinitely for a resolution of all the Court cases very much into question. Turley does get credit for his subtle attempt to undermine and destroy the Constitutional impeachment of Trump.
5
There is an obvious problem in Mr. Turley's argument: you need all evidence before you can impeach. And the president can withhold evidence, so he can never be impeached. I don't think that's how it's meant to work.
To all the Trump defenders: let Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Trump testify under oath. Then we have all evidence. My guess is that this would not change the narrative of the Democrats. And that is the issue here: the Republicans know that the facts are not on their side, so they stonewall. Too obvious.
14
I think he’s saying go to the courts and make the president’s men testify. Except for Sondland not one person heard directly from Trump. Watergate got Haldeman, Erlichman and Dean to testify. Done. Right now it’s too
shoddy to impeach.
Turley is continuing GOP traditions of hypocrisy and conveniently short memory. Twenty years ago, he argued that "Serious misconduct or a violation of public trust is enough. And the founders emphasized that impeachments were about what happened in the political arena: involving 'political crimes and misdemeanors' and resulting in 'political punishments.'"
As Turley argued, Congress does not have to meet the judicial standard of proof. Elsewhere, he even argued that the offense in question does not need to be a crime at all, which completely rules out a judicial ruling.
The difference, of course, was that in 1998 a Democratic president was on trial. Today it is a Republican.
13
According to Trump allies there would never be enough evidence, even though he is standing beside the body with a smoking gun.
12
From reading these comments, I now know where those people come from that appear on Judge Judy. That all “feel” they’re right, but they show up with shoddy documents and arguments. Does anyone look at the process through an objective fact-based lens anymore? Do we understand the difference between evidence and belief?
I’m not defending Trump, but I think he’s right. It’s shoddy. Get the courts to force Bolton, Mulvaney and Pence (others) to testify. Nadler and his hearing was a joke today.
2
The fact that the evidence is "facially incomplete" and is being hidden is entirely on trump and his cronies, replaced by divisive Russian propaganda filth. Indeed, they've released only the incriminating evidence. That's why the impeachment is going so fast - get over it, Republicans!
Besides, why are they hiding exculpatory evidence while releasing the incriminating evidence like the transcript and Mulvany's truth-meltdown on TV? No wonder Turley's dog is mad.
The reason Republicans only had one scholar versus three on the Democratic side makes a lot of sense given that Republicans are not very scholarly - it's cultural thing, to put it kindly. Indeed, I'm surprised they found any legitimate scholar to carry their swamp-water in public.
Turley's argument to slow down because the Dems are leaving half the country behind - is behind the times - as if The NY Times, Washington Post, CNN and Twitter still relied on the Pony Express to reach all corners of America.
A delay and circus is exactly what the Russians and Republicans want to distract us as they continue to corrupt the 2020 election we are supposed to rely on to vote trump from office - a la North Korea and Russia - true Republican style democracies.
8
The President's prohibition of testimony by the relevant officials threatens the separation of powers central to the Constitution. In essence, Turley and the Republicans argue that’s Congress has no oversight authority without action by the third branch of government, the Courts. Thus the congressional branch would be deprived of any independent authority by these disingenuous tacticians. Shame on Turley...he has no separation from Barr’s “there is only the executive” policy. These are people dangerous to democracy.
9
Time to revisit all the obstructions identified in the Mueller enquiry, and include them in the articles of impeachment.
8
Short Answer: No.
A good lawyer like Turley can argue for anyone, even someone like Trump, who obviously needs to go.
3
I am totally baffled. I cannot make sense of what Turley was trying to say.
2
I just wrote the White House a message saying that I support the WH prosecuting a Senate subpoena against Biden up to and including the US Supreme Court: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-official-trump-full-senate-trial-live/story?id=67502822
I want to SEE Joe Biden make the sign of the cross, sweat, and cry for his beloved son, on camera for hours.
For real.
1
@Louis Anthes YesYes I too want to see Biden make the sign of the cross and sweat and cry!! For Real!
1
"A president willing to dig in and stonewall subpoenas for documents and testimony can use the courts to run out the clock, undermining the House’s ability to use its impeachment power in practice."
What clock?
The constitution says nothing about a time limit.
The Democrats obviously have a "clock". They want to ram impeachment through the House before Christmas, no matter how incomplete their evidence, so they can move on to the 2020 primaries.
The more the Democrats rush, the more obvious it becomes that this is only, and strictly, a partisan political event. Their eagerness to impeach Trump began the day after he was elected.
What standard does this Democrat frenzy set for future presidents who face a House from the other party, I wonder?
4
Don't you think Trump should release his tax returns? He has endlessly prevaricated on even the simplest of issues. The reason why, evidently, is that he is a pathological liar, a fact which his supporters are apparently unbothered by.
8
This was not a good faith argument put forward by Turley, who is more than well aware that the reason some evidence remains hidden is that Trump has obstructed justice.
But then again, no further evidence is needed. There are mountains of inculpatory evidence from the call summary and credible witnesses, who have confirmed every detail of the whistleblower's complaint; and not one single shred of exculpatory evidence, despite Trump's team having ample opportunity to put such evidence forward.
By saying there is insufficient evidence (glaringly incorrect) and that the Dems should wait until all the various cases are dealt with by the courts, Turley is making a transparent effort to delay proceedings to the 2020 election.
11
This was a constitutional scholar testifying. Why didn’t someone ask him where in the constitution it was written that this process was going too fast? Or where in the constitution there was written anything about how fast or slow the process had to go? The answer is: NOWHERE. This is just a Republican talking point. There is no prescribed timeline for this process. I do not know why the Dems do not shut down this specious argument.
12
If it is really the case that the House has the right to choose its prosecutor for the Senate trial, who then has the right to call any witness believed to have important evidence to offer, subject to a decision by the presiding judge to affirm or deny the request, then that appears to be the only option available in light of the ongoing obstruction.
A second question
inquires about what types of supporting documentation can
also be directed to be part of the record....
I did not watch the entire proceedings because it
seemed as if most was going to be given over to
5 minute long soliloquies without any useful back
and forth engagement with Turley about this
option. What would his judgment be in light of
this uniform NYET from trump?
The issue of whether this rushes the process, thereby
weakening it, is a natural one to worry about abstractly.
In this case, however, if there is sufficient evidence to
believe that a majority of whatever composition would approve a motion to impeach, then a Senate trial
would simply serve as a suitable forum to gain this inner ring
level of testimony in light of the fact that it won't be
forthcoming any other way within any realistic time frame.
Were there any useful suggestions other than the
wait around forever for a court to direct a witness to obey
a subpoena?
Is it really too late to issue subpoenas now by asking a court
to expedite its decision?
1
When the pOTUS declares he will not participate in the proceedings, forbids his staff, both appointed and career, from testifying, and does all he can to stonewall the investigation, what else can be expected other than a quicker process? Just as in real life, if the defendant rests without calling witnesses etc, the proceedings are much faster.
trump has created this situation willfully and is crying “Foul” over the results of his own actions. What is to be gained by delaying the process other than more trumpian showboating? And how does that further the integrity of the process? his participation does nothing but denigrate everything he touches. The impeachment hearings, and trial should it come to that, will be no different.
8
If there was key exonerating evidence, we would have it by now. What are we waiting for?
4
I agree with Mr. Turley in wondering why there is a rush to impeachment. Aside form bringing along the public, an added benefit of completing the record, would be the exposure of today's Haldemans and Ehrlichmans.
And to the question of court delays, didn't the committee go directly to the Supreme Court for a ruling on the Nixon tapes?
1
I think that were the Judiciary Committee to start subpoenaing (as Turley it could well backfire on the Republicans. Just as a trial early next year in the Senate could tie up Democratic senators, especially those running for president, subpoenas accepted by the courts could well result in the trial occurring in the summer and fall. Is that how McConnell wants to spend his autumn? Is that what Trump wants? I want Trump gone, the sooner the better, but if the GOP wants to tie itself in knots when normally they are in recess campaigning, and the lede in the news every day is coverage of the trial, that could affect the election too. I care less that they do it quickly as long as they get it right. And if he’s re-elected in November and then new impeachable offenses are discovered, they could and should impeach him again. Remember, this is the guy who proclaims he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue. For the sake of unsuspecting pedestrians, I sincerely hope he won’t, but he needs to be stopped.
6
Congress should make obstruction and witness intimidation the primary case for impeachment and removal from office. The evidence has been repeated, egregious, and easily supported by plenty of facts. It’s illegal and indisputable. A slam-dunk.
5
Too fast, too slow is a red herring. Either there’s evidence or there’s not. The White House version of the phone call was so incriminating that the additional evidence was icing on the cake. We the people should not get defensive about speed or anything else. The evils done by this President are the only issue.
6
Innocent individuals do not obstruct an investigation that would clear their name. Furthermore, an innocent and honorable President would not put his ego ahead of the good of the country for personal folly by intentionally indefinitely thwarting an investigation into his actions before an impending election--that would be a clear abuse of power. If anything, the impeachment inquiry is not moving fast enough since the presidential election is less than 12 months away and Trump has demonstrated he will not cooperate in any way. Forcing the impeachment inquiry into the judicial system will all but guarantee the inquiry is slowed to a snails pace and could never be completed before the 2020 election. Full steam ahead Democrats!
7
Professor Turley argument/reasoning ... “Are House Democrats making a mistake by moving swiftly to impeach President Trump when some facts remain hidden about whether he abused his power in the Ukraine affair?” ...is irrelevant and facetious.
Congress cannot wait any longer to impeach Trump, as he continuously poses a threat, during his remaining term in office, to commit additional illegal intervention into our 2020 elections. We have seen and listened to Trump solicit intervention by China, Russia, etc. to provide dirt on Biden, and his son, as well as Hillary Clinton. Further proof of his recklessness and intent to continue his abuse of power.
Additionally, as many have observed, Trump has a history of “stall and delay” tactics used solely for the purpose of disrupting and dragging out proceedings in the courts ,with his reckless and manipulative disregard for the legal system.
So, I say...Full speed ahead...
3
No! His argument for moving slowly is based on the judiciary deciding whether or not Trump can use executive privilege and possibly getting more and better witnesses to comply with subpoenas? That whole argument assumes he is even arguing executive privilege, when he is not. He admittedly is just refusing to participate and obstructing. Moving slowly is what the demagogue wants you to do with no realistic change in outcome. The evidence is there! Impeach now and impeach fast!
5
I would agree that more testimony/investigation is necessary but for the fact that Trump has stonewalled the process. Also, I don’t think it would matter to Republicans if they did find more smoking gun evidence. They seem completely content to take Trump’s denials and laughable explanations at face value. Their minds are closed. Their hero is the real victim here. What an incurious bunch!
1
I got a plan. Shut it down and let the people decide in November.
3
Everyday that Trump remains in office our national security is jeopardized. The entire world is on to Trump’s ridiculousness, know he has no clue what he’s doing, is corrupt, and Kim Jong Un is even riding his white horse and threatening America -on Christmas- while Trump does nothing about it. We need a sober deliberation of the facts not a GOP frat party at the hearings. Trump has to go now!
2
I am sure the Senate trial rules will leave no stone unturned. Not!
Here’s a question for you all:
Would you impeach an elected president for asking Mexico to investigate a corrupt US Senator doing business with the cartels, and if Mexico didn’t do so, the president would withhold aid? Of course not!
What young, troubled, unqualified Biden did or promised to do to gain access and money needed to be investigated.
2
Criminal activity is playing out in real time before our eyes. Are there any other crimes that Turley would let be perpetrated in real time while we wait and study the issue to his satisfaction?
3
While Prof. Turley made a compelling case against impeachment, I cannot trust the judgment of someone who trusted the candidate, who brazenly deleted emails that were subpoenaed by Congress, with the keys to the White House.
2
He didn’t make a case against impeachment, he made a case for making sure key witnesses were heard from and key documents seen before impeachment. He seemed to think Trump very possibly should be impeached but that the evidence needed to be even stronger than it is because of the GOP can point to all the material that was never seen and convince the public that that means the process was shoddy and rushed it undermines the gravity of the impeachment process.
This is the 71 day of the proceedings... the Clinton Impeachment, conducted by the Republicans took 72 days to Impeach. My question is if I know this why would the NYT run this Trump talking point as a headline?
6
This whole thing swirls around Giuliani. And the hidden state knows it, that's why they are pressuring Giuliani by going after his associates. They don't have anything yet directly on him...maybe shooting warning shots to unhinge him?
2
Let me get this straight. The Republicans found one guy, Turley, to testify that impeachment hearings are moving too quickly. So now, Turley's opinion trumps all the witnesses and experts to come before him. Sounds like a hung jury to me! As Trump flees Europe early because the NATO allies didn't lick his boots, back in DC we have law and disorder, "irregardless," of the facts, according to ranking member Collins. Obviously, we Americans have nothing to worry about.
1
Half the American electorate thinks that the Emperor is not wearing clothes and a nearly like amount thinks he is wearing clothes.
I don't understand the Christmas rush. Let the courts put Bolton McGahn in front of Congress and the truth will out. We need to complete the Court process of determining whether the President can order a blanket refusal to appear in from of congress during an impeachment inquiry. I feel pretty confident that the Courts will sort this out in favor of the legislative branch. There doesn't seem to be enough press analysis of the relative time pressures and how long it would be for the Supreme Court to rule on this definitively. Can anyone fill in these blanks for us?
2
Very nice of Chairman NADLER to pose as spokesman for the American people, but venture guess that vast majority of fellow citizens do not even know who he is, or what are the grounds for undermining an election conducted fairly and squarely an disenfranchising all of the 63 million voters who cast ballots for Trump.. Law professorTurley summed it up beautifully when he said that impeachment was being rushed through, and appeared to be motivated more by anger than factual evidence. Predict, as have so many others, that it will all backfire on the Democrats, and if so many were threatening to impeach even before Trump was inaugurated, then their motives r doubly suspect. As the Congresswoman from Arizona said, nothing would divide an already divided nation more than an impeachment pushed through by the House while there is still testimony to gather and there is no proof only presumptions.Testimony of woman lawyer appears tainted because of her ties to the Clintons and her reported desire, if HRC had been elected, to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
4
@Alexander Hamilton
You show distain for the 65 million Americans who voted for Clinton, and the 200 million or so Americans who voted for neither candidate. Why?
3
@Alexander Harrison
Law professor Turley is the most suspect witness since he testified during the Clinton impeachment hearings that Clinton should be impeached for the "high crime and misdemeanor" of having an extramarital affair in the White House and not telling the truth about it. Turley testified that int would be a serious danger to democracy if other Presidents knew they could get away with affairs.
But today Turley testified it isn't a problem for future Presidents to get away with treason or using foreign policy for a political errand to help their campaigns.
I do love that the hypocrisy of those who were outraged at sex but fine with treason is evident in posts like this from people who hate America.
6
@Alexander Harrison
It’s simple. Trump cheated in the 2016 election and stole the presidency with the help of our enemy, a foreign country. That is illegal, it’s a crime. Now he has done it again on TV in his own words, which is actually two more crimes. He is depriving us of free and fair elections such that the People did not and do not select the president. THAT’S A CRIME that destroys our constitutional democracy. Look up how Russians live. I don’t want that, nor do you.
6
Let's not overthink this. Our president is asking foreign governments to go after American citizens working abroad instead of protecting their interests. Vote to impeach and remove so we can have a president willing to provide public service again.
14
@Thomas Dye
I admit I'm a Democrat who would have never, ever voted for Trump. But to me, there are too incriminating episodes in which Trump asked (begged?) for foreign intervention. One was "Russia, are you listening....?" and the other was asking China to investigate.
My God, what is wrong with the American people? Didn't they see this?
1
Too much, alas, depends on Sondlund and his inferences.
We statisticians conduct sensitivity analyses if we are serious about credibility. The sensitivity is to assumptions about our data and critical assumptions.
Here's a thought experiment. What if Sondland reverses his testimony, says he was mistaken about his inferences? Was it not a surprise when he last testified in open hearings?
2
@DemostiX
Sondland did not ask Zelensky for a favor. Sondland did not lock up the transcript to cover up the illegal action of President Trump asking Zelensky for a favor.
Sondland did not direct his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to "help" draft a statement for Zelensky to say once Trump asked him for a favor, making edits to insure that Zelensky's statement met Trump's criteria to smear Biden. Sondland did not illegally hold up foreign aid that Congress had lawfully voted on.
Here is a thought experiment. If Sondland had not testified at all, why would anyone say that the President of the US demanding another country smear his opponent -- having his personal lawyer HELPING to draft the smear -- be okay?
Typical Republican who would condone Trump shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, just like Trump told us you would.
2
The Republicans have criticized the Democrats for rushing the hearings. The Republicans have also criticized the Democrats for NOT rushing the hearings...taking time away from doing much more valuable work. Too fast? Too slow? Which is it?
6
I wrote a comment a while back to this paper saying the same thing - why isn't Schiff going to the Supreme Court, even though it will take more time, to force Bolton and Mulvaney to testify? They will either exculpate or inculpate the President, either of which is fine. What matters is to get the truth out and the people closest to the President have the details. I don't understand the rush when the details are so important.
3
@Scott Werden
You know former Justice Kennedy’s son worked at Deutsche Bank and signed off on Trump’s loans? Need to know more?
5
Agreed. Moving forward without more direct evidence gives republicans a very easy out in the senate. Poor strategy, dems... in some ways I think having things tied up in the courts are best for moderate dems in swing districts.
1
agreed
Hmmm... Trump won't let the people on his own staff testify under oath. I just can't imagine why anyone would find that suspicious.
7
Nonsense...the evidence is overwhelming. Why drag it out?
7
There's precedent for taking expediting the judicial review.
During the Watergate hearings, Leon Jaworski was dueling with Nixon over the release of the infamous tapes. On May 31, 1974, District Court Judge John Sirica ruled that Nixon had to turn over the tapes. The appeal went straight to the Supreme Court, who heard oral arguments on July 8 and then ruled unanimously in favor of Jaworski less than 3 weeks later. That was roughly two months.
U.S. District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson just ruled that Don McGahn, the former Trump White House counsel, had to comply with the subpoena issued by the House. The Democrats should cite Nixon v. United States and ask for the same expedited review by the Supreme Court.
9
"A president willing to dig in and stonewall subpoenas for documents and testimony can use the courts to run out the clock, undermining the House’s ability to use its impeachment power in practice."
While I know that Turley -- whom the NYT neglects to identify as a conservative hack who testified in support of Bill Clinton's impeachment for an extramarital affair -- is making this claim, that is no excuse for the NY Times to give this credibility.
Even on Fox News, their two legal scholars demonstrated how absurd Turley's false and outrageous claim was.
But meanwhile, the NY Times is still repeating right wing Republican talking points.
It's shameful when even Fox News commentators recognize how ridiculous the right wing legal arguments have become while the NY Times works so very hard to give those outrageous claims credibility.
8
I recorded C-SPAN and then watched without getting talking heads trying to tell me what I’m seeing or hearing.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Is this all Nadler and Pelosi have for impeachment, they sure lost me.
7
@Jerry Davenport
Netflix. And don’t vote anymore, if you find this boring.
1
It’s rich to hear Turley claim a rush job and later in the day, Collins whining and sneering about the weeks and weeks of time wasted on the proceedings. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. impeach now and let the Senatorial cowards vote on the record. Then vote them all out. VOTE BLUE 2020.
6
@Donna in Chicago
You’re counting on free and fair elections while Trump is doing everything possible to prevent that... just like in 2016.
3
The House should exercise the option of inherent contempt. The sergeant at arms should arrest one of the subpoena obstructors and bring him to the bar. Keep him under arrest until a suitable agreement is reached with the House.
I think Mulvaney would be the perfect witness to arrest first. As the acting chief of staff and head of OMB he must have the keys to the Trump kingdom.
If he doesn’t cooperate by reaching an agreement then arrest the next one until they are all staring at each other wondering which one will flip first.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34097
7
Of course Turley is right. The only witnesses the Democrats have promoted have zero firsthand knowledge of Democrats alleged claims. The Ukrainian President has repeatedly stayed there was no quid pro quo. Thought crimes are not impeachable and Dems don’t have evidence of a crime.
6
@XLER ,
come Monday, President Zelensky plans to meet with the leaders of France, Germany and Russia for peace talks in Paris. He wishes to represent a strong and independent Ukraine. Had he admitted to a quid-pro-quo with the US president, his chances would have been zero.
3
@XLER
Asking Ukraine for a favor, having your white house staff improperly lock up the transcript of you asking Ukraine for a favor, holding up foreign aid until that favor is granted, and ordering US Ambassadors to work with your personal attorney on this "favor" because the first draft did not properly smear your political opponent enough and making sure aid still wasn't released is not a "thought crime".
It is treason except to those who Trump says would be fine with him shooting someone on Fifth Avenue.
Trump would certainly know that XLER would call that shooting a "thought crime" and say it was fine.
3
@XLER
That is absolutely false. Not only were witnesses on the call or listening to the call the evidence is greater than that one call. Trump also admitted it and also committed the same crime on TV right before our eyes. That you refuse to understand that makes me think you are ok with Trump spitting on America and are inviting dictatorship.
3
Trying to get this impeachment defect free to the Republican eye is harder than painting a rolled over Rolls gloss black.
2
The "no one said" argument that supposedly exonerates Trump asking Ukraine for a favor and then directing Giuliani and the state department to work with Ukraine to get that favor that is repeated by right wing hacks and the NYT journalists giving it credibility has to be the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard.
That standard has never been applied to any court case in history. Evidence of a crime is what the person did, NOT what the person said he did. And there is not a single word of testimony that challenges what Trump, Giuliani, and the White House did.
Trump asked Ukraine for a favor. Trump directed aid to be held up aid and then directed his personal attorney and the state house to work with Ukraine to draft the exact wording of the favor that Trump asked.
It doesn't matter what anyone "said" that Trump did. What matters is that there is clear evidence of what Trump did. Even on Fox News, legal experts understand how much Turley is wrong, and yet the NYT keeps giving what is truly the most absurd argument ever the same weight as 100 years of legal scholarship.
5
Turley is 0 for 2 in appearances during impeachment proceedings. He will be 0 for 3 after this.
3
Republicans, grasping at straws.
4
Trump and Putin are working full time bastardizing the next election. We have to stop it at some point. He's a rotten scoundrel to put it mildly and must be thrown out!
3
How dangerous will this cornered rat become as the walls close in on him.
6
The rationale Professor Jonathan Turley offered in response to impeachment was in itself contradictory and ultimately self-defeating. His posit that the Committee may in fact be guilty of committing the same Constitutional offense it is inquiring about is among the most arcane, convoluted interpretations of the Framers intent one could ever hope (not) to hear. It represents a descent into legal entropy - which is the best Republican apologists for Trump could hope for...because they have no defense other than to muddy the waters, disparage the Committee and denigrate the witnesses. Ambulance chasers take note; you have a new champion.
11
@Tom
But Turley was there claiming that an extramarital affair was a high crime when a Democrat does it.
I don't care that Turley is a partisan hack. I do care that a once respectable newspaper like the NY Times keeps mischaracterizing Turley as an honest and upright non-partisan whose scholarly reasoning is above approach.
Even Fox News called Turley out for the same ridiculous argument that the NY Times is now saying is valid, thoughtful, and should be considered to have the same weight as the bipartisan legal scholars who actually argue the law and not whatever Trump wants.
5
I agree somewhat that Congress should “take care of business.” In addition to pursuing impeachment, they need to enact emergency legislation that bans any federal official, President included, from asking personal favors that subvert elections in exchange for beneficial government actions. It should explicitly declare that this constitutes bribery for both justice and impeachment purpose. No brainer, but this should be a felony and it should get bipartisan support. Non supporters should be called out for supporting foreign intervention in our elections.
It’s sad to contemplate, but the vagueness of the Constitution’s impeachment clause and the Trump administration’s aggressive assertion of unlimited Executive prerogative cries out for law that describes impeachable behavior. Law should also be put in place that requires Executive compliance with Congressional subpoenas, so that the long-stall strategy of stonewalling testimony and documentary evidence through court delays
2
Turley claimed Democrats should wait for Trump Administration lawsuits to work their way through the courts. The problem with this theory is that there is no lawsuit contesting the Congressional subpoenas for documents, only witnesses.
Both the Trump Administration and Professor Turley apparently share the belief that presidents can ignore subpoenas for documents forever. In short, compliance is on the honor system.
5
The Democrats leading the investigation have made many mistakes so far for sure. I am one of their biggest critics. But moving too quickly is not one of those mistakes. In fact they should be moving even more quickly. This case does not require more documentary evidence. It does not require more witness testimony. Virtually all the evidence required has been admitted to by Trump Giuliani etc. The witnesses so far have added color for sure but the basic facts and transgressions are clear on their surface. The case is compact and should be argued that way. More evidence and more witnesses simply give Trump the opportunity to attack each one.
7
What's the hurry?
What's so bad about having this case front and center during the presidential election?
It would show that the Democrats are listening to and compromising with their Republican "friends" while providing the voting public with regular reminders of who Trump is?
4
Perhaps it might be wrong to go ahead with impeachment without some key testimony, Giuliani, McGahn and Bolton in particular. But it far worse for a president and his flunkies to hide behind Trump's coat tails and not testify
or even appear in the face of a Congressional subpeona. That Trump believes he is a law unto himself and flaunts it is the basis for an article of impeachment.
No, I do not like Trump, but his personality is not the issue as the GOP claims. It is Trump's trampling on the constitution, his misuse of Presidential power, that calls for his impeachment. And for this I will never respect him much les call him my president.
4
The process isn’t rushed; it’s simply finished sooner as the White House has obstructed justice by refusing to provide witnesses or documents.
The appeals court has already ruled that the White House must comply.
3
We all know what Trump did. The question is, is it acceptable to the American people? Republicans are willing to accept it because the trade-off for their judges and agenda are worth it to them. Professor Turley is arguing that we have to dot every "i" before going forward. It gets right back to the debate over whether "do me a favor" is "quid pro quo." Minds are made up, you could search for the "undecideds" with a microscope. On to tomorrow and the next day.
1
Actually, not released by Barr, is an unredacted version of the Mueller Report, That, combined with what the House has now, would be more than enough evidence to impeach and convict. Not only that, is what Guiliani is now doing in Ukraine producing a documentary, blessed by Trump, that blames Ukraine for interfering in the 2016 election, and blackballing the Bidens. This, being produced by the One America Network. Tell a lie enough times, it becomes accepted as the truth.
So, the House Judiciary Committee should compel Barr to release the unredacted Mueller Report. And, forcing him to do so under penalty of imprisonment.
Mr. Turley is right, the House is moving to swiftly, and they are not dotting all the "i"'s and crossing all the "t"s. He also did say, what the House has now is wafer thin thin in favor of impeachment.
Having more compelling evidence, may actually convince moderate Republicans (the few that are left) to abandon Trump; like was done with Nixon.
If the Democrats lose, in the Senate, Trump, and the GOP, will be emboldened to throw what is left of American democracy under the bus.
Thus, it may be better to take the time, and spend another month, getting it right, then to rush and failing. The future of the country is at stake, Thus, this needs to be done right, and a case even more solid than Watergate.
Personally, I think Trump deserves to be removed from office. I am willing to be patient, and have the House build an iron clad case.
1
It has been reported by the press that during the Clinton impeachment proceedings, Professor Turley’s public, legal position was that in order to be impeached it was not necessary for him to have committed an actual crime, completely opposite the legal opinion he has expressed in the Trump impeachment. It is one matter to express different opinions on the facts but quite another to disingenuously alter one’s position on the very same presented legal issue, particularly for a law professor. This legal “flip” by Turley is enough evidence to call into question the other opinions he has expressed relative to the Trump impeachment.
5
It’s interesting that everyone’s suddenly focused on insufficient time regarding an impeachment that “appears” conclusive, unless you’re asking a Republican.
So if this were a chess analogy, are we between check and checkmate?
1
Mr. Turley’s argument essentially boils down to: we should wait to let judges named by a potentially illegitimately elected president decide his fate.
4