If you are a conservative, you have no memory. Jonathan Turley
I learned a long time ago at much personal expense, that there is a personality type which function within reality, but only in the present moment of reality. That is, what ever I say now has no bearing or relationship to what I just said or what I am about to say. I will deny what you thought you heard. If that is not enough, I will qualify it but…it has no bearing on what you believe I am saying. You can just never know and ultimately have no conversation that resolves.
It’s as if they can time shift. You can just never know and ultimately have no conversation that resolves.
That is what I believe we are witnessing today with the republican party. They are not protecting Trump. They are protecting an image they believe in at the moment fully dependent on what they believe is the reality which as I noted is only for the fleeting moment.
Being today was the day for debate club at the House Judiciary committee, and one Jonathan Turley is the republican witness as to what is or is not impeachment, I thought it is only proper preparation to have gone back and see what he has stated in the past. Sadly, it is apparent that none of the Democratic members did this simple activity in preparation.
I give you Mr. Turley on with Keith Olbermann during the Bush years regarding torture and surveillance the constitution and presidential power.
This clip is most telling as to his sincerity testifying today.
But, here he is regarding the president’s ability to continue a war even if congress cuts off funds. It’s a constitutional question in which he defends congress. When asked, he responded: No. It’s as simple as that.
Last and more relevant for today’s presentation, here is Mr Turley regarding Bush regarding the Constitution as just a piece of paper. That is, Bush thumbing his nose at the law. And note how Mr. Turley lists those in the administration that have run into legal conflicts.
“First of all, this president and his theory of power, is now I think so extreme, that its unprecedented. He believes that he has the inherent authority to violate federal law. He has said that…that he could in some circumstances order federal officials to violate federal law…Frankly I’m not to sure what he thought he was swearing to when he took the oath to uphold the constitution and our laws. I’ve never seen a president who is so uncomfortable in his constitutional skin. ”
“Unfortunately, civil liberties don’t swing back like other issues. Civil liberties is a very precious commodity. When you lose them, it tends to run out of your hand like sand. Its hard to get it back, and that’s one of the dangers here. That presidents, when they acquire power rarely return it to the people. And so, we have to be very concerned. This country is changing in a very significant way…We’re really at a point where the president is arguing about his own presidential power in ways that are the antithesis of that constitution and the values that it contains.”
Today he’s defending all that he protested against while on with Keith Olbermann. No memory. Only in the moment. What I say now has no relation to what I said or what I’m about to say.
In the portion I heard Professor Turley seemed to be arguing that the overwhelming circumstantial evidence of the President’s actions was insufficient to support impeachment, much less removal in the Senate. I thought it was a silly argument for a lawyer to make.
Turley pulled that Elmer Fund defense today. He would support impeachment of Trump if the facts supported the charges (they do Professor) but darn it the presentation of the facts have moved too fast for this TV personality playing a law professor on the TV.
JackD is spot on but I’d go further. Turley claimed that the House Democrats did not go through the process of subpoening key potential witnesses. Either Turley is dumber than rocks or he lied with this one. The whole GOP defense which Turley was all so happy to parrot is that the House Democrats have blocked Trump’s witnesses. No – it is Trump who has blocked these witnesses. George Washington Univ. should tell Professor Turley that he needs to find a new employer.
Maybe he’s looking to do some paid work for the defense.
It goes back farther.
“WASHINGTON—Here is Jonathan Turley, to the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.
‘That is why this is wrong. It’s not wrong because President Trump is right. His call was anything but perfect. It’s not wrong because the House has no legitimate reason to investigate Ukrainian controversy. Point’s not wrong because we’re in an election year. There is no good time for an impeachment. No, it’s wrong because this is not how you impeach an American president. This case is not a case of the unknowable. It’s a case of the peripheral. We have a record of conflicts, defenses that have not been fully considered, unsubpoenaed witness with material evidence. To impeach a president on this record would expose every future president to the same time of inchoate impeachment.’
Here is Jonathan Turley, in 1998.
‘In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker; it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. The allegations against President Clinton go to the very heart of the legitimacy of his office and the integrity of the political system. As an individual, a president may seek spiritual redemption in the company of friends and family. Constitutional redemption, however, is found only in the company of representatives of all three branches in the well of the Senate. It is there that legitimacy, once recklessly lost, can be regained by a president.’
If there ever was need for more evidence that the pursuit of Bill Clinton was destructive to good government, it is right there in Jonathan Turley, who spent Wednesday rattling around on a hook on which he hung himself 20 years ago.
Impeach a president* for shaking down an ally for personal political advantage?
Everybody calm down before something gets broken.
Impeach a president for lying about an affair?
If not, anarchy!
Nothing is ever really over.”
“Impeach a president* for shaking down an ally for personal political advantage?
Everybody calm down before something gets broken.”
Great comment. But Turley was actually all over the map yesterday. He seems to be saying: (1) if the evidence is there to prove Trump shook down Ukraine for a personal political advantage, that is impeachable; but (2) the evidence on this score is weak.
Is Turley really this FUC$ING stupid? The other 3 witnesses reviewed the House testimony from all those witnesses. I guess Turley did not. Just lame.
What was Turley’s sole beef? Oh yea the process, the process, the process. It is like he joined all those other GOP parrots and kept repeating the same old BS.
At some level this sort of….intellectual and moral flexibility is encouraged in the legal profession, where your job is to promote the best argument or legal theory for TODAY’S client. It really does not matter that the logic of this legal theory conflicts with the theory that you offered last year/month/week.
Jim A. – interesting comment if Turley’s job was to be a mouth piece for the Republican spin masters. Of course when it was suggested that he was acting as the Trump defense attorney – Turley shot back that this was not his “intention”. Of course anyone watching his POS testimony knew it came across as his intention.
It was obviously his intention; maybe as a volunteer but more likely as a hired advocate. Lawyers who appear regularly before the same court get confronted with their prior arguments all the time, usually to their misfortune. While it is understood that a lawyer’s duty is to argue for the client, credibility with the court is crucial to likelihood of success. Of course, nothing guarantees success and the court will typically go with whatever argument it finds persuasive. The public at large? Not so much. This is a political fight and credibility is crucial in winning over the public.
Erwin had a commentary in the LA Times. Basically, he is saying the Pres does not have to commit a criminal act to be impeached.
Thanks for the acid flashback.
…there’s no surer sign that you’re dealing with a hack. Turley and Greenspan, peas in a pod.
Welcome to Angry Bear. First time commenters always go to moderation to weed out spam, spammers, and advertising.
Run, I think even Turley would agree with that, reluctantly.
Did not Chicago Mayor Daley say around the protests in 1968?
” I don’t care what I said yesterday I didn’t say it.”