Professor Jonathan Turley Opening Statement – Video and Transcript…

Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor and not a supporter of President Trump, warned House lawmakers today against impeaching a President without merit. Mr. Turley said that to impeach Trump based on the current evidence “would be to expose every future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment.”

[Opening Remarks Below]


[Transcript] Chairman Nadler, ranking member Collins, members of the Judiciary Committee, my name is Jonathan Turley, and I am a law professor at George Washington University where I hold the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law.

It is an honor to appear before you today to discuss one of the most solemn and important constitutional functions bestowed on this House by the Framers of our Constitution: the impeachment of the President of the United States.

Twenty-one years ago, I sat here before you, Chairman Nadler, and other members of the Judiciary Committee to testify on the history and meaning of the constitutional impeachment standard as part of the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton. I never thought that I would have to appear a second time to address the same question with regard to another sitting president. Yet, here we are. Some elements are strikingly similar.

The intense rancor and rage of the public debate is the same. It was an atmosphere that the Framers anticipated. Alexander Hamilton warned that charges of impeachable conduct “will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.” As with the Clinton impeachment, the Trump impeachment has again proven Hamilton’s words to be prophetic.

The stifling intolerance for opposing views is the same. As was the case two decades ago, it is a perilous environment for a legal scholar who wants to explore the technical and arcane issues normally involved in an academic examination of a legal standard ratified 234 years ago. In truth, the Clinton impeachment hearing proved to be an exception to the tenor of the overall public debate. The testimony from witnesses, ranging from Arthur Schlesinger Jr. to Laurence Tribe to Cass Sunstein, contained divergent views and disciplines. Yet the hearing remained respectful and substantive as we all grappled with this difficult matter.

I appear today in the hope that we can achieve that same objective of civil and meaningful discourse despite our goodfaith differences on the impeachment standard and its application to the conduct of President Donald J. Trump. I have spent decades writing about impeachment and presidential powers as an academic and as a legal commentator. My academic work reflects the bias of a Madisonian scholar. I tend to favor Congress in disputes with the Executive Branch and I have been critical of the sweeping claims of presidential power and privileges made by modern Administrations. My prior testimony mirrors my criticism of the expansion of executive powers and privileges.

In truth, I have not held much fondness for any president in my lifetime. Indeed, the last president whose executive philosophy I consistently admired was James Madison. In addition to my academic work, I am a practicing criminal defense lawyer.

Among my past cases, I represented the United States House of Representatives as lead counsel challenging payments made under the Affordable Care Act without congressional authorization. I also served as the last lead defense counsel in an impeachment trial in the Senate. With my co-lead counsel Daniel Schwartz, I argued the case on behalf of federal judge Thomas Porteous. (My opposing lead counsel for the House managers was Adam Schiff).

In addition to my testimony with other constitutional scholars at the Clinton impeachment hearings, I also represented former Attorneys General during the Clinton impeachment litigation over privilege disputes triggered by the investigation of Independent Counsel Ken Starr. I also served as lead counsel in a bill of attainder case, the sister of impeachment that will be discussed below.

I would like to start, perhaps incongruously, with a statement of three irrelevant facts. First, I am not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him in 2016 and I have previously voted for Presidents Clinton and Obama.

Second, I have been highly critical of President Trump, his policies, and his rhetoric, in dozens of columns. Third, I have repeatedly criticized his raising of the investigation of the Hunter Biden matter with the Ukrainian president. These points are not meant to curry favor or approval. Rather they are meant to drive home a simple point: one can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president.

To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my only concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of impeachment.

President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger.

If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided.

Although I am citing a wide body of my relevant academic work on these questions, I will not repeat that work in this testimony. Instead, I will focus on the history and cases that bear most directly on the questions facing this Committee. My testimony will first address relevant elements of the history and meaning of the impeachment standard. Second, I will discuss the past presidential impeachments and inquiries in the context of this controversy. Finally, I will address some of the specific alleged impeachable offenses raised in this process. In the end, I believe that this process has raised serious and legitimate issues for investigation.

Indeed, I have previously stated that a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven. Yet moving forward primarily or exclusively with the Ukraine controversy on this record would be as precarious as it would premature. It comes down to a type of constitutional architecture. Such a slender foundation is a red flag for architects who operate on the accepted 1:10 ratio between the width and height of a structure.

The physics are simple. The higher the building, the wider the foundation. There is no higher constitutional structure than the impeachment of a sitting president and, for that reason, an impeachment must have a wide foundation in order to be successful. The Ukraine controversy has not offered such a foundation and would easily collapse in a Senate trial.

Before I address these questions, I would like to make one last cautionary observation regarding the current political atmosphere. In his poem “The Happy Warrior,” William Wordsworth paid homage to Lord Horatio Nelson, a famous admiral and hero of the Napoleonic Wars. Wordsworth began by asking “Who is the happy Warrior? Who is he what every man in arms should wish to be?” The poem captured the deep public sentiment felt by Nelson’s passing and one reader sent Wordsworth a gushing letter proclaiming his love for the poem. Surprisingly, Wordsworth sent back an admonishing response. He told the reader “you are mistaken; your judgment is affected by your moral approval of the lines.” Wordsworth’s point was that it was not his poem that the reader loved, but its subject.

My point is only this: it is easy to fall in love with lines that appeal to one’s moral approval. In impeachments, one’s feeling about the subject can distort one’s judgment on the true meaning or quality of an argument. We have too many happy warriors in this impeachment on both sides. What we need are more objective noncombatants, members willing to set aside political passion in favor of constitutional circumspection.

Despite our differences of opinion, I believe that this esteemed panel can offer a foundation for such reasoned and civil discourse. If we are to impeach a president for only the third time in our history, we will need to rise above this age of rage and genuinely engage in a civil and substantive discussion. It is to that end that my testimony is offered today.

Divining the intent of the Framers often borders on necromancy, with about the same level of reliability. Fortunately, there are some questions that were answered directly by the Framers during the Constitutional and Ratification Conventions. Any proper constitutional interpretation begins with the text of the Constitution. Indeed, such interpretations ideally end with the text when there is clarity as to a constitutional standard or procedure. Five provisions are material to impeachment cases, and therefore structure our analysis:

Article I, Section 2: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. U.S. Const. art. I, cl. 8.

Article I, Section 3: 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: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. U.S. Const. art. I, 3, cl. 6.

Article I, Section 3: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to the Law. U.S. Const. art. I, 3, cl. 7.

Article II, Section 2: [The President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. U.S. Const., art. II, 2, cl. 1.

Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. U.S. Const. art. II, 4.

For the purposes of this hearing, it is Article II, Section 4 that is the focus of our attention and, specifically, the meaning of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

It is telling that the actual constitutional standard is contained in Article II (defining executive powers and obligations) rather than Article I (defining legislative powers and obligations). The location of that standard in Article II serves as a critical check on service as a president, qualifying the considerable powers bestowed upon the Chief Executive with the express limitations of that office.

It is in this sense an executive, not legislative, standard set by the Framers. For presidents, it is essential that this condition be clear and consistent so that they are not subject to the whim of shifting majorities in Congress. That was a stated concern of the Framers and led to the adoption of the current standard and, equally probative, the express rejection of other standards. (continue reading via pdf)


This entry was posted in 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Election 2020, Impeachment, Legislation, media bias, Nancy Pelosi, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

127 Responses to Professor Jonathan Turley Opening Statement – Video and Transcript…

  1. margarite1 says:

    I am home sick and not up to watching this travesty – my question is how did Jonathan Turley get to speak – who invited him?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Don McAro says:

    Mr Turley is doing a kick ass job…3 against one and he owns the room… And what is killing the leftists… He’s a likable guy and comes across as a sane person. The 3 others are rabid…and you get every sense of that.

    Liked by 22 people

  3. CoHoBo says:

    Excellent job incurring the full wrath of the leftist rage mob.

    It means you’re on the right track.

    Liked by 4 people

    • delighteddeplorable says:

      Precisely, CHB. On this day, it doesn’t matter what Jonathan Turley has said on Fox, who he votes for, or whether he likes President Trump. Today, he was the perfect choice to speak at this hearing and he came through, bigly. Winning.

      Liked by 3 people

  4. Johnny Bravo says:

    Given his voting background, we have found one sane democrat! Ring the bell, deck the halls, forget the expense, give the cat another goldfish – hallelujah and praise the Lord!!!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Johnny Bravo says:

      With the terrific explanation of how high officials can break the law by the three amigos, the dems should be extremely worried for Joe.

      While they try to frame Trump, the big 400lb gorilla in the room is how Sloooo Joe did exactly what PT is being accused of, a double whammy if ever I saw one.

      Liked by 1 person

      • bertdilbert says:

        Pelosi opened the Pandora’s box by setting the bar on what bribery is. Under her definition, all dems are guilty. This should have them all worried.

        Liked by 3 people

    • GB Bari says:

      Sane? Turley voted for sHrillary, despite ALL of the hard evidence of her criminality, graft, corruption, and collusion.

      In other words, Turley was OK with what this country would have become under the radical Leftwing Muslim-sympathinzing Ozero’s third and fourth terms with sHrillary as his proxy.

      Turley was OK with voting to elevate into the Oval Office – all of her blatant corruption in selling foreign access to US federal money and power via the Clinton Foundation, all of the corruption that Ozero had overseen and cultivated in the administrative state, all of the abuse of power within every federal agency that the Dems relished, all of the continued hard leftward pull towards full blown socialism and eventually, communism under a Globalist New World Order.

      That’s real delusion, not sanity, in any sense of the word..

      He voiced a lukewarm defense of the institution (Constitutional impeachment) today because he knows the clown show in the House is indefensible and too far from Constitutional to claim any legitimacy.

      That we have to applaud Turley for his testimony is sad evidence of how completely one-sided and grossly unconstitutional the DemonRATS Clown Show has been and continues to be.

      Liked by 3 people

      • msdonnal says:

        When I saw it was Jonathan Turley up there, all I could think of …THIS IS WHO WE HAVE TO REPRESENT US??? Was there no other constitutional scholar available? I would have loved to see Mark Levin OR hey anyone who wasn’t in the Democrats back pocket!!

        Liked by 1 person

        • Aeyrie says:

          Me too, Msdonnal! But who is the House minority looking to convince? Independents. Dems who are starting to see this charade for what it is. Undecided but reasonable people who can still think logically. Don’t like saying it, but Turley was a good choice.

          Liked by 2 people

        • msdonnal says:

          Ok well maybe I judged him too harshly. I really was shocked to see who the last lawyer was.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Tl Howard says:

        It might have been anti-Trump vote as much as a pro-Hillary vote. Reasonable people, I believe, found reasonable evidence to doubt his preparation and his ethos for the role of POTUS. That doesn’t mean they were “right”.

        Liked by 1 person

    • 1911pistolero says:

      The Democrats are clearly trying to destroy what this guy says he’s an expert in. Our Constitution. No such thing as a sane Libtard. In fact after today I would say Military Tribunals are in order.


  5. In my view, nothing they do can undo what they have already done. (That is so obvious, I just cringed to have to write it. It’s like saying “There are trillions at stake”, and meaning all the lives on Earth over the next 100 years or more).

    Liked by 1 person

  6. 6x47 says:

    It’s very interesting to check out what “the other side” is saying over on Twitter.

    The TDS squad is guffawing and ridiculing Turley’s statements, calling it “fodder” for “the conspiracy nuts on Fox” to keep those poor dumb Trump voters “in the dark.”

    Even Lawrence Tribe chimed in, deeply offended at Turley’s characterizing Schiff’s 300-page report as “insufficient evidence” accepting at face value that Schiff has proven “high crimes and misdemeanors” beyond a reasonable doubt.


    • GB Bari says:

      We already know they are ALL TDS-crazed lunatics and are completely irrational. So, IMHO at least, tuning in to their fake news channels is more of an exercise in intellectual self-flagellation than anything that might be interesting.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Gary Lacey says:

    I’m watching the impeachment hoax on TV and it occurred to me all the evidence to prosecute for Sedition/coup is right in front of me, its on film, the hearings are Sedition!
    Show those films to a grand jury and bingo

    Liked by 6 people

  8. Rudy says:

    Interesting, and pretty even handed. One thing though…if this is carried out and if they were to bring DJT down, I think he would be the last President of the USA as we have known her.
    For myself, I would not consider myself a citizen of anything that meant anything from that day forward if it comes to an actual conviction and removal.
    Just a vote would be a bad idea, as many of us rank and file don’t think there are any grounds for what the Democrats are doing now, much less proceeding with an actual vote on this nonsense.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. vikingmom says:

    I have to assume that the Committee members were NOT expecting him to head in this direction when they asked him to testify? Although I do not always agree with every one of his stands, I have always found him to be very meticulous in his explanations, which is a refreshing change from the majority of those testifying! I really don’t care about how badly some diplomat got their feelings hurt because the President chose a different policy than the one they recommended. What I DO care about is the Constitution and Professor Turley is making VERY clear that there are NO Constitutional grounds for impeachment! Maybe, just maybe, when this whole plot is finally explained, IN FULL, Jonathan Turley will be mature enough to change his opinion of President Trump!

    Liked by 4 people

  10. JohnCasper says:

    Turley’s remarks were clearly crafted to appeal to reasonable people, but is there even one reasonable democrat there, let alone enough to make a difference? Does anyone believe such a thing?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Aeyrie says:

      It’s possible, John Casper. More and more are abandoning the Dem ship every day, as polls (real ones) are now showing. It is a slow and painful process bringing our people out from under the spell they have been under. It is taking time. The longer this charade goes on, the more people are shaking it off and seeing what is real. Thankfully, the process is starting to bite. POTUS and the Patriots know what they are doing.Watch as the truth is brought out bit by bit. Has to be this way. Reality is going to be a terrible shock. Patience is needed. Yes, MORE patience.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. joeknuckles says:

    Adam Schiff is going through his phone records as we speak. I’m sure that, with the help of the IC, he will find a way to parallel construct something to ruin Turley’s life and send a message to anybody else who is thinking about speaking up.

    Liked by 1 person

    • vikingmom says:

      And maybe THAT will finally wake up people like Jonathan Turley…if the DS turns on him, simply because he is trying to be reasonable and follow the law! No matter how many negative things he may say about Donald Trump, none of that will matter if he dares to point out that NOTHING these committees are doing is legal under the Constitution!! Dissent from the “plan” and be destroyed!! All from the party of “tolerance”! It would be funny if it weren’t so da*n scary!!

      Liked by 4 people

    • Linda K. says:

      Probably a complaint of sexual harassment up next. That is the dims weapon of choice. He’s not a bad looking guy and he is also a professor?

      Liked by 1 person

  12. louche9 says:

    “Twenty-one years ago, I sat here before you, Chairman Nadler…”
    IMO, a huge part of the problem, right there.

    Liked by 8 people

  13. California Joe says:

    The three Democrat selected lawyers are anarchists in Brooks Brothers suits instead of black hoods and masks! Everything they teach in law school and everything they say in public is carefully designed to destroy public order, the police, our legal system, our immigration system, our schools, our towns, our Constitution and our Western European standard of living. Why do they want this self-inflicted destruction which is obviously going to effect them and their families as well as us? For what it’s worth my experience is that they would happily destroy themselves as long as they are destroying us!

    Liked by 5 people

  14. freespeechfanatic says:

    “It’s an honor to appear before you here today…”

    I was gone right there. Goodbye. You have nothing to say to me.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Bottom line. I agree. Also his criticisms and negative judgment of President Trump shows he is not much of a real thinker, to miss all that good that we who elected Donald Trump see in him. (And, yet again, I am an apolitical scientist and independent thinker, who voted Democrat for President for 28 years, through 8 straight elections, before I had occasion to look up from my work — to put my own revolutionary discoveries before the world — and quickly reject Obama as a man totally lacking in character, riding a 50-year history of angry Black racism, and all the lies that went with it.)

      Liked by 3 people

    • GB Bari says:

      That was my exact same reaction to his opening line….but then I actually did listen to his address and then I even read the transcript. I figured his opening remark was merely a courtesy that he probably felt was required to maintain his sense of “decorum”, despite no other “honor” being demonstrated by any other DemonRAT in the hearings.

      Liked by 2 people

  15. IGiveUp says:

    “Mr. Turley said that to impeach Trump based on the current evidence “would be to expose every future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment.”

    That is not a persuasive argument to liberal ears. The double standard is SOP for libs and has been demonstrated over and over on these pages and elsewhere. Luckily, his argument will hold more sway with the rest of us, and polling will reflect that.

    Liked by 7 people

    • GB Bari says:


      I am pretty doggone certain that the DemonRATs FULLY expect their buddies in the Leftwing media to completely shut down any attempt by Republicans to EVER politically impeach a DemonRAT president, no matter how much evidence (IMO) may be presented.

      And that does not address the problem of GOP Establishment Republicans’ spineless cowardice that keeps them from taking aggressive action like that due to their apparent pant-wetting fear of drawing scathing criticism from the media.

      So warnings of equal treatment to DemonRAT presidents just doesn’t address reality.


    • Aeyrie says:

      He wasn’t speaking to TDS people. They are lost.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. Just a reminder, the 3 lefty law professors are today, educating tomorrow’s lawyers…

    Liked by 7 people

    • Linda K. says:

      Mark Levin went to Temple University. Ted Cruz was the best student Dershowitz ever had, or so he said.


      • In the Land of Poz says:

        Dershowitz said Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant, or some words very similar to that. As a matter of politeness, subjectivity of the assessment, realism and caution, I doubt Dershowitz would have gone as far as to tell an interviewer Cruz was the best he ever taught.

        Cruz is the plenty-smart child of two smart parents, in a profession where smarts aren’t the most important thing. Like Mitt Romney, I suspect he might be happy to trade a few IQ points for a more Presidential aura.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Linda K. says:

          Actually Poz, he did say he was one of the best students he ever had and more. Here it is


          • In the Land of Poz says:

            Thanks for the link, which was new to me. There is a big difference, especially at a top-of-heap institution like Harvard Law, between saying “one of the best” and “the best”. Professors are very aware of it because every year they write a large number of recommendation letters where specifying such distinctions (best this year, one of the best this year, best in career, and so on) has a direct impact on the applicant’s prospects. I think they would be even more careful not to make public statements implying to all their other brilliant students that they are less smart than, say, Ted Cruz, unless he were clearly the best without any doubt.

            Dershowitz uses similar language in these two interviews. Brilliant; clearly among the top students (in the class), very intelligent.


            The Ted Cruz article at Wikipedia quotes Dershowitz saying “Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant”.


    • donna kovacevic says:

      My God help those tomorrow’s lawyers. they may as well move to LaLa Land.


    • msdonnal says:

      a scary thought. And they have been doing it for YEARS, turning out lawyers just like them


  17. In the Land of Poz says:

    Turley, as expected, is doing a great job as the Washington Generals. Not so much because the other three are outplaying him (their arguments make less sense) or the referees (Nadler) are helping them.

    He accepts and espouses the Democratic “framing” of the argument (and the President). Several times he writes in his statement that IF there were a quid pro quo connecting aid to investigations, that would be impeachable. There is only the procedural issue that the schedule is rushed, the top-tier officials haven’t testified, subpoena dispute has not been fully litigated, not doing it by-the-book is bad precedent.

    To defend Trump would be to establish that it was right and proper (which it was) to press Ukraine for investigations in general and of Burisma specifically.

    1. Ukraine was a notorious cesspool of corruption, and Trump had every reason to believe that some of this corruption was flowing back into the USA and compromising US politics as well as relations with Ukraine, Russia, NATO, and Europe.

    2. Biden, and to some extent Kerry and Pelosi, were compromised and in Biden’s case likely to be SEVERELY LEVERAGED by foreign entities in the Ukraine (not to mention China, Cyprus, Romania, …). As Biden was VP and remains an important player in American politics, it is important to understand the extent to which he may have been under the control or influence of foreign actors. This is the same argument for investigating Trump for 3 years, a position the Democrats and MSM committed to completely and cannot walk back… and the basis for a similar investigation of Biden is much stronger than it ever was for Trump.

    I am no expert on the legalities, but substantively the “quid pro quo” issue seems exactly the legalism that it sounds like. Trump being Trump, of course he would first try to get what he wants without paying, before offering it in exchange for something. That’s negotiation 101 (don’t ask don’t get) and we should expect no less from a competent President. The very opposite of sending pallets of cash and receiving a negative in return. “We’re keeping the oil”. This is what he was elected to do, get the most for America at the lowest cost. If he really did intend to use a delay in aid to force the outcome he wanted, that too is good negotiation: create leverage at no cost. The real issue is whether what he wanted was a good thing.

    If what Trump asked for is beneficial and necessary for the USA — part of “draining the swamp”, or at least proper assessment of whether improper foreign influence is at work — he should be praised for doing it, not impeached. That he did it without a genuine QPQ shows his skills.

    Liked by 3 people

  18. nuwildcat1977 says:

    The drive by media can learn something from Professor Turley. That is, you can have liberal political leanings but politics should take a back seat to truth, objectivity and fairness. Kudos Jonathan Turley.

    Liked by 3 people

  19. Levon River says:

    Jonathan Turley is the mealy mouthed Neville Chamberlain of our time, walking a greased tightrope of his own making—while slyly comparing our POTUS to the Devil. What a sniveling milquetoast POS.

    That is all. That’s my position and I’m sticking to it.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. Gerry says:

    The Democrats have now turned us from a Republic based on citizen electoral consent to a European style parliamentary form of government. The Congress now can change out the Executive branch without a vote of the people and effectively over riding the Presidential election. This will not end up well. This is more than a check on the executive branch, it now superceeds the Executive. Ranch, IF you have both the Speaker/House and Majority Leader/Senate in agreement. Right now McConnell can and should quash this. In the future if the President is of the other party than both Congress and Senate he will be handicapped and rendered in effective. That is NOt what the founders has in mind.

    Liked by 3 people

  21. Matt Bracken says:

    Louie Gohmert is outing Eric CIAramella by describing all of his jobs and connections.

    Liked by 9 people

    • beach lover says:

      It will go over the heads of 99% of the liberals, tho.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Aeyrie says:

        True, beach lover. However, the ones being spoken to are the ones who can still think logically and have begun to have some inkling something is terribly wrong here. A ground swell is being built. Gotta start with the ones who are able to see it.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Blaze says:

      If Gohmert was a Dem he would have already mentioned Eric Ciaramella’s name months ago. Because the republicans would have done nothing about it despite mentioning a whistle blowers name.


  22. 6x47 says:

    If one good thing has come of this Congress … it’s that the legislature (specifically the House of Representatives) has rediscovered how much power it actually has.

    I got so damn sick and tired of hearing GOP Speakers like Boehner and his lackey Ryan moaning how they only have 1/2 of 1/3 of the government, they’re POWERLESS and can’t do ANYTHING because of the SENATE and the PRESIDENT.

    Of course none of this circle jerk will amount to much of anything. IF the House passes an impeachment resolution it will surely die in the Senate. But they did make a lot of noise.


  23. 7californian says:

    Judging by their actions to date, the leftists in the impeachment hearing are neither non-partisan, nor fair-minded. Their desire isn’t a clarifying of the impeachment powers, it is designed to discover if the thin hearsay “evidence” and subjective testimony (as opposed to factual testimony) is sufficient for them to influence the 2020 election by voting for impeachment…it’s red meat for their extremist base.


  24. 7californian says:

    Judging by their actions to date, the leftists in the impeachment hearing are neither non-partisan, nor fair-minded. Their desire isn’t a clarifying of the impeachment powers, it is designed to discover if the thin hearsay “evidence” and subjective testimony (as opposed to factual testimony) is sufficient for them to influence the 2020 election by voting for impeachment…it’s red meat for their extremist base.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Caius Lowell says:

    Democrats don’t care at all the this process, “would be to expose every future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment.” Democrats don’t care because Democrat President 0bama and his incompetent administration is guilty of every form of mendacity, corruption, and treason known to humanity. This fact drives this whole impeachment process. So it doesn’t matter what PDJT has done or hasn’t done because 0bama will always be guilty, guilty, guilty. Moreover, saying this process will destroy American tradition is exactly what Democrat want to do per the Cloward-Piven strategy which 0bama executed:

    Liked by 2 people

  26. Patricia Weir says:

    Yikes! When Turley brought up Thomas More, I envisioned the unhinged moon bats on the dais responding like a vampire to holy water. (assuming they even know who he was and how and why he was executed.)

    Liked by 4 people

  27. The Devilbat says:

    I have been doing very some hard thinking as to the reason the democrats are following their unjustified impeachment path that is so obviously going to fail. Here is my conclusion. I believe that the democrats are planning to impeach president Trump as a cover for what they are about to do.

    They are quite likely planning the highest level of voter fraud in world history. After their candidate has been declared the winner in 2020 they will then smuggly say that the American people were behind impeaching Trump all along and they voted for the democrat candidate because they saw Trump’s horrible gang of republicans block it in the senate.

    The media will then wheel out dozens of false street interviews where people will agree with the narrative and rage against Trump. Huge parades of female idiots will be led by the muslim Linda Sarsour though the streets of Washington. you can guess the rest.


    • Daniel says:

      They will try as they always have. But Trump got elected despite ALL forces used against him. The voters were intimidated with violence that exists to this day. To this very day, people are shushed when they dare say anything good about Trump in public. We are made to feel shame (I feel no shame, by the way) if we speak our minds while lunatics are free to call speech violence and violence speech… and act on it.

      In 2016, THEY FAILED. In 2019, Democrat voters are calling themselves “independents” and “former Democrats” because of this.

      I have no doubt they will try. But the public sees more than ever before. I don’t see you as a concern troll. I think you’re genuinely worried. I think you need to look at what happened in 2016 and how the results came about. I think you need to see that the media has destroyed itself utterly. If you think we didn’t stand a chance then, then based on the current situation, you have to admit we’re in a far, far better position than in 2016. And it’s because we now KNOW what we once suspected.

      Liked by 3 people

  28. tonyE says:

    Time to show these Commies that power comes from the barrel of the gun, not papers, words and lies from Jabba The Hut, Shift For Brains, Pitosi, S00ro00s, the globalist cabal, banksters, etc…

    And so far, we have more barrels. I only know one person who votes liberal that has a gun, but she’s a cop.


  29. T2020 says:

    He reminds me of Dr. Robert Epstein, the expert who exposed Google’s election interference in favor of H. Clinton, even though he is a Democrat and voted for Clinton. The left’s response was to vilify him. I suspect the left will do the same to Mr Turley….for telling the truth.

    Liked by 3 people

  30. ezpz2 says:

    Just turned it on. Matt Gaetz is rocking it!


  31. BigTex52 says:

    I’ll bet that Turley’s big words had imbecile Nadless The Hutt and the rest of his criminal bunch scratching their butts and asking each other “What did he say??”


    • Daniel says:

      No, they just laugh to themselves thinking he’s naive. They care nothing about the past and nothing about the future. These adult children only want what they want here and now.

      Liked by 2 people

  32. Daniel says:

    On the right, there is a basis of principle that rarely changes if ever. On the right, there is a sense of identity compromised if one dares to depart from principle.

    On the left, principles are just tools and they have many. They put away principles when they aren’t the right tool to serve their interests and they wheel them out when they feel right.

    We’ve all see the older videos of Nadler and others speaking very much the opposite of what they say today. But their core principle is BAMN. As terrific and touching as this guy’s speech was, it will not move the vari-principled on the left. You can’t be on the left and have firm principles. They can’t get elected on “hate the rich” platforms and not soon become multi-millionaires while in office.

    It’s easy for us to see from our stable set of principles. But since they have no specific foundation, they cannot see for themselves what they do as wrong because everything is relative to them.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Nowut Ameen says:

    Why do we still refer to a whistleblower? Eric C was a Schiff staffer. They cooked up a scenario to solicit complaints about Trump from Ciaramella’s associates and then package them as an IG complaint to make it look valid. Bogus from the start.

    Schiff needs to be Investigated for corruption.

    This is my theory. Prove me wrong.


  34. NJF says:

    I knew Turley would be fair. Yes he’s a dem & annoying at times, I also think he’s naive in that he knows they’re all evil but believes the system works. Not sure about that anymore. Rs should not have let the left take the house. But then again they cheated….They are evil.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Aeyrie says:

      I know this is hard for most folks to see NJF, but it was the Senate that was the key to success in 2016. It was to be the safety net against the excesses we are currently seeing in the House. It was a bold a risky chess move by POTUS to allow the House to be taken. For a while I wondered why POTUS said after the election and the House went under Dem control, that he couldn’t be everywhere at once and sort of tossed it off. Hmm. He knew how important that was. So, what was the strategy? Why, for Heaven’s sake?!?

      Answer: To bring the nation to the painful Aha! (redpill) moment we are at right now. People can’t just be told the hard truth. They won’t accept being told. They have to see it and realize it, viscerally, for themselves. I believe that the necessary Aha! moment is coming along any time now. Hold onto ‘yer socks, Treepers! When it comes it will be “Biblical”. We will need to be there for those who are in shock. We are all in this together.

      Liked by 2 people

  35. Spooky says:

    “to impeach Trump based on the current evidence “would be to expose every future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment.”

    The esteemed Prof. Turley is quite wrong about that. It would only expose REPUBLICAN future presidents to impeachment under similar circumstances. It seems obvious that Republican politicians have neither the unmitigated gall, megalomania nor the fanatical hatred necessary to create a governing crisis of this sort over policy differences. Only Demonrats can behave like this and live with their own consciences BECAUSE THEY ARE MEMBERS OF A SOCIOPATHIC POLITICAL PARTY THAT BELIEVES IN THE PRINCIPAL “BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY”.

    Once you start to believe that the purpose of government is to create heaven on earth their is no limit to the inhuman depravity that results from that sort of dystopian thinking.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Aeyrie says:

      I believe Turley was right. Republicans are NOT above good old fashioned revenge. Ensuing tit for tat turf battles would destroy this nation utterly.


      • zekness says:

        that is my concern also, and I think turley builds a strong argument against the abuse of impeachement in flimsy “narrow foundations” such as this.

        turley is not saying impeachment is wrong…he is noticing the errors in this impeachment and if followed to its intended ends, would create a very real consequence where congress WOULD be likely to weaponize it purely for political advantage…

        While we can’t imagine that “our” party would commit the same irregular and highly questionable and illicit abuse of this power, one should not assume it. We cannot predict what political conflict might exist into the future..or tomorrow…

        In a sense, the impeachment should be viewed as a tool with at least as much scrutiny and caution than any exercise of any criminal and civil law…that it be narrowly limited conditioned on solid and steep thresholds….in the same way the founders considered the matter: we cannot predict what kinds of manipulations and partisan actions into the future or even the circumstances…so the impeachment process must be limited to only those actions where remedies cannot be resolved in a regular court of law because and only because a real crime has been alleged and a separations of powers and supremacy conflict exists. or both.

        then only in those circumstance would impeachment even be contemplated as a valid excercise of impeachment actions.

        I think this case fails for many reasons. Mostly that the allegations suggest a real crime has been committed, as listed in statute..and yet the impeachment process has failed to handle the procedures to prove it…or even to entertain the reasons that such due process procedures are required ..

        this is what is so problematic to me. there is a crime being alleged…why not follow the principles of due process?

        why do the dems continue to deny these procedures are unnecessary and can be set aside in total?


  36. ristvan says:

    Read Turley’s 51 page statement. Very well done, lots of footnotes to stuff that was new to me. It can be simplified for Treepers, and the simplification then used to ponder Clinton’s impeachment.

    The original constitutional convention draft formulation was ‘Treason, Bribes, and Maladministration’. Virginians argued that maladministration was too vague and risked political impeachment. The Andrew Johnson impeachment ‘trap’ was an unconstitutional law he was impeached but not convicted of violating was just that, at heart a disagreement over reconstruction (as Turley explains in depth).

    So the Founders went with the then existing British formulation of impeachment grounds, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, although not the British process. That provided a historical basis for the meaning of those words adopted by the founders, as Turley explains.

    High meant public officials were held to a higher standard. This translates to a lower standard of fact proof than ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ to convict in the Senate.

    Crimes meant just that, felonies. Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction, but not convicted by the Senate. PDJT has done none of that despite Schiff’s claims. Schiff’s demands were not proper subpoenas, as Sundance has pointed out, so not responding is not criminal obstruction. PDJT tweets about hearsay witnesses were not criminal witness intimidation. Acting Presidential is NOT an abuse of power, as Turley pointed out several times today. Abuse of power is only a felony under special narrow circumstances like 18USC242, which do not remotely apply to Ukraine or anything else PDJT has done.

    Misdemeanors meant conduct grossly unfitting the office held. The very first ongressiinal impeachment and conviction in 1804 was of a New Hampshire federal judge who appeared drunk on the bench, clearly a high misdemeanor. I researched the Clinton impeachment at the time. Thought that rather than charging Clinton’s coverup process crimes (which indicated Clinton knew he had committed a high misdemeanor when diddling WH intern Monica Lewinsky in the OVAL), Repubs should have just charged him for the root cause high misdemeanor and debated that in the Senate rather than what the meaning of ‘is’ is.

    It is conceivable that real abuse of power could eventually rise to a high misdemeanor, but certainly not in PDJT’s case since there has been none.

    Nadler has nothing except the TDS displayed by his three con law ‘experts’ who offered their biased conclusions without even trying to explain the underlying con law, as Turley did for the Repubs. Today was worse than the Schiff show for Pelosi.

    Liked by 8 people

    • ms Idaho says:

      ristvan – thanks bunches. love your input


    • In the Land of Poz says:

      Under Turley’s analysis, all that’s needed for Trump to avoid removal from office are that the House or Senate agree with all of his impeccable citations, and that no significant support for the Democrat theory of the case emerge from Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo, Giuliani, Duffey or any other witnesses or documents that may be forthcoming in the next few weeks. Because as soon as there is good evidence of “quid pro quo”, it’s game over and definitely impeachable, as Turley took pains to point out…. subject to some milquetoast Washington Generals reservations about an investigation possibly-not-benefiting Trump in time for the election or amounting to less than $25000 (is he joking?) in value, or other such niceties that will be summarily steamrolled as the minute academic hypotheticals that they are, in both chambers of Congress.

      What is needed are two things.

      1. “Direct action” by Trump’s supporters, to make it clear NOW, yesterday, in every district represented by a Democrat or shaky Republican, as well as to the DNC media slaves who empower them, that consequences of a coup will be hellish, immediate and unending —— and regardless of any legalistic rationalizations wrapped into Reports and Roadmaps.

      2. Argue that Trump’s actions were and are an affirmative good (see my comment above) that he should be praised for, not impeached. He damn well should be investigating Ukraine or at least asking them to investigate on behalf of the US. A *sitting vice president*, by extension the Obama presidency, not to mention major figures outside the administration, are likely to have been compromised by foreign money and the general use of Ukraine as a playground-cum-slushfund.

      Framing is as some question of whether Trump committed the (preposterous) legalistic sin of Quid Pro Quo and that if not, he is essentially some sort of criminal who got off on a technicality, is a losing strategy. Yes, the arguments of the Democrats have to all be defeated in detail; no, that is far from a sufficient defense.


    • Aeyrie says:

      BINGO. Thank you, Ristvan!


    • SHV says:

      FWIW and found it informative, my take is that impeachment is in a different “universe” from statutory/legal process.
      ” In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton described the subject of impeachment as:
      those offences which proceed from the
      misconduct of public men, or, in other
      words, from the abuse or violation of
      some public trust. They are of a nature
      which may with peculiar propriety be
      denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.(59)
      Comments in the state ratifying conventions also suggest that those who
      adopted the Constitution viewed impeachment as a remedy for usurpation or
      abuse of power or serious breach of trust”

      Report by the Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry on the
      Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment,
      Committee Print, Committee on the Judiciary, 93d Cong. 2d
      Sess., Feb. 1974

      Click to access GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3-5-6.pdf

      Andrew Johnson was never accused or charged with a crime by the judicial system, his “crime” was a policy dispute with the Congress re:Reconstruction and Congress manufactured a “crime” with The Tenure of Office Act.
      I was a science major, so my understanding may be full of sh*t. :>)


      • In the Land of Poz says:

        Dershowitz said a while ago that Congress can impeach a President for jaywalking. It is free to make a politicized decision that any particular act is a high crime or misdemeanor, and risk “impeachment” by the public at the next election.

        That’s another reason why Turley-ism, defined as the Washington Generals “fair-playing loser” strategy of playing the game on the opponent’s court under the opponent’s rules (that he doesn’t have to follow) supervised by opponent referees…. doesn’t work.

        The whole idea that a quid pro quo is bad has to be deconstructed. The expert witnesses other than Turley simply assumed their conclusion, that QPQ to investigate Biden is bad to the point of being impeachable. Why?

        – Is it the QPQ, i.e., if Trump had merely asked for investigations in a way that clearly was not tied to the aid, would it have been kosher?

        – If the non-QPQ approach is not kosher, is it because of some rule that Trump (but no other politician) and anyone connected to Trump must always refrain-and-recuse from any action that might benefit them in any way? Is this rule written down somewhere? Has it ever been applied to a Democrat politician?

        – If it’s not the benefit to Trump that is bad but the likely damage to Biden, would it be kosher if Trump had asked for investigations likely to harm Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson, or Bill Clinton? Does this immunity from investigation apply to every US political figure, or any candidate who might potentially oppose Trump in the election, or only major candidates, or to all US citizens? Is there an actual principle here, or just another special rule that only applies against Trump?


    • gueppebarre says:

      Thanks, great summary – I really appreciate your insights!


    • zekness says:

      really appreciated your outstanding research and explain here.

      I have a question if you have time relevant to the impeachment background.

      high crimes and misdemeanors. In your example, the judge is DRUNK ON THE BENCH.

      My question goes to the heart of what is a crime and what is “political impeachment articles”

      I understand what the founders were attempting to address..

      but clearly, when one examines every single act, in history, where there is some action that bears investigation, there exists a chargeable crime. in law.

      in the example of the drunk judge, this crime would be “public drunkedness”..or “deprivation of rights” etc…all those crimes that might exist except those involving the civil liability and separation of powers arguments (judges are problematic in the sense that there are special case law that is unique to the judicial..but lets just assume the act does not fall into those areas..drunk on the bench is therefore a pretty easy act where a criminal charge would be lawful)

      so, given the obvious that all acts not involving separations arguments or limits to the civil arena, does it follow to question what exactly is the purpose in reality for impeachment at all.?

      here is where I am going and I think has many people confused on the current matter.

      what exactly does impeachment solve, if the underlying act is in fact a chargeable offense in law?

      it would seem at least logically, that the same due process in lieu of actually sending the case to a normal court process would be required.

      isn’t this the loophole being exploited by schiff, nadler, pelosi.

      meaning they are not held to a normal due process, in spite of the reality that what they are alleging is in fact a criminal act?

      seems like impeachment is just an escape hatch to avoid certain protections afforded the defendant AND allows them to maneuver the case to assert multiple irregular procedures that a court would never allow?

      what am I missing here?

      this is why originally, I always felt this case was headed to the supreme court for interpretation..

      it would seem there is something fundamentally flawed in how this impeachment was created ….something that goes to the very essence of impeachment itself.



  37. Bit Coyne says:

    Three Dem. openers to 1 Rep.—- note Turley’s reference to unfair, railroading. I read the entire 53 page PDF. A couple of things Turley did not mention. Andrew Johnson was a Dem., the 1st time in U.S. history where a Rep. Pres., Lincoln had a Dem. VP. There were 2/3 Rep. super majorities in both the House and Senate. Johnson was a southerner and with it had huge prejudice against him because of the war. Finally Johnson was not re-nominated in 1868. The Dem. party had been destroyed by the war its best people had been killed, wounded or reduced to abject poverty. The party had no money. It only won the Presidency twice–8 years between 1868 and 1912, 36-8 years Rep-Dem. Not only was the South destroyed by the Civil War but so was the Dem. party.
    The Johnson impeachment was a farce, done to completely destroy the South and Dem. party and to stomp them into the ground. A similar attempt is being made here.

    Liked by 1 person

    • In the Land of Poz says:

      Great point. Periodically the conquered (the South, Nixon’s silent majority, rural whites clinging bitterly to their guns, the Tea Party, Trump’s deplorables) get uppity and need to be crushed. The permanent revolution does not forgive or forget!


  38. For Eyes says:

    The damage done to this country in this travesty is already immense. Even if stopped today, any healing would still leave the US in a very different place than where we were a few short years ago.

    And yet, we know there is much more to come.

    The country has lost, and is losing a great deal of what and who we are. Or were.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Aeyrie says:

      All is not lost For Eyes. Recovery will be a long process but we are up to it. Our Republic has survived much. It will survive this, and moreover, we will triumph. I choose to bring this into our collective reality. What do you choose?

      Liked by 1 person

  39. This is a particular case when “you should read the PDF.” It contains copious footnotes and legal citations which do not appear in the Professor’s recitation of it. Don’t miss it, even though it’s quite long in that format.


  40. CNN_sucks says:

    Thank you, Turley. You do not need to love PDJT. Just tell the truth.


    • zekfidle says:


      turley offers something that has been missing in the leftists agenda:

      a return to intellectual honesty.

      “narrow foundations”

      and oh, by the way, the dem that held up some papers refuting turleys statement that this impeachment was one of the fastest on record. and nadler accepted it on record without her actually reading it to make a case of refute..

      yeah..that one…

      she was just hand waving..I looked it up.

      he was right…by yards.

      that entered into the record hand waving was just to be disruptive and create the illusion that he isn’t to be respected.

      THIS impeachment IS the fastest on record…the moment it was announced until the judiciary stage….at this point in the process, he gets it right.

      no other impeachment went from inquiry to forming a judiciary hearing..

      in fact, everything he said was fact based and accurate…

      again proving the dems are simply not interested in facts..or accuracy..or ethics…only creating misinformation….this is their MO.


  41. Professor Turley says a lot of things – even before page 15 of 53 – which really should (but, undoubtedly won’t …) introduce into these people’s thick heads that Lawfare has been playing them for years. (I shudder to think how many hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars they’ve been able to invoice … so far.) Things like this:

    […] such misuses of impeachment would convert our process into a type of no-confidence vote of Parliament. Impeachment has become an impulse buy item in our raging political environment. Slate has even featured a running “Impeach-O-Meter.” Despite my disagreement with many of President Trump’s policies and statements, impeachment was never intended to be used as a mid-term corrective option for a divisive or unpopular leader.

    Yeah. Anybody listening?


    • SHV says:

      ” such misuses of impeachment would convert our process into a type of no-confidence vote of Parliament. ”
      The Founders were aware of this potential abuse and therefore required a 2/3 majority vote rather than a majority vote in the Senate for removal from office.


    • In the Land of Poz says:

      (Turley): “…convert our process into a type of no-confidence vote of Parliament.”

      Right. In parliamentary systems, where the MP’s of a majority coalition choose a PM from within their ranks, replacing a PM is less of a big deal. The public does not elect a head of government, there is no fixed term of office, and replacements of PM can be quite frequent (e.g, Italy) in times of political conflict. It’s a normal feature of the system, not the soft revolution that impeachment implies in America.


  42. Donzo says:

    In my opinion Turkey did as much harm as he did good when at the end he compared Trump to the devil. No doubt he did that intentionally to keep his bonafides with his fellow Leftist “professors”. Slimeball….

    Liked by 1 person

  43. 6x47 says:

    Professor Turley is simply pointing out the obvious: Under the Constitution, the House has sole power of impeachment and can do whatever it wants to. But just because the CAN doesn’t mean they SHOULD.

    Pelosi can allow her chairmen Schiff and Nadler to ram through articles of impeachment based completely upon specious charges, bereft of public support (aside from their own rage caucus) … but it’s really REALLY a bad idea.

    But hey – rock on with your bad selves if you’re really THAT stupid and full of hate. Which they are.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s