llovejim
Current Champion
there was even less fairness in the House Impeachment of Clinton. get it? why cry now if you did not cry then? clinton is 5000 times the man trump is, and his "crime" was lying about consensual sex in CIVIL SUIT, THAT WAS LATER DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT FILED ON TIME!! no crime was broken, perjury only applies it if can be proven intentional, and if it has a bearing on the outcome of the case- this case was dismissed and it was not even a criminal case!! Turley testified that what Trump did was awful, there needs to be more subpoenas and certainly the impeachment trial is justified, he believes it is not impeachable unless it can be proven a crime was broken. when he testified against Clinton he said it does not matter if a crime was broken, he still misused the people's trust, or some bullshit.I feel like you're confusing me with somebody else. I think you ought to work on that. Nice screed.
it is unfortunate that there is no balance in these proceedings. I'm sure a full Senate trial will remedy that
But 20 years ago, Turley made the opposite case. At the time, he was one of several GOP legal analysts pushing for President Bill Clinton to be impeached and removed from office.
"If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct," Turley testified in 1998 during Clinton's impeachment hearings. He added that Clinton's actions didn't need to break any laws in order to be considered impeachable conduct.
"While there's a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable," Turley wrote in a 2014 op-ed for the Washington Post. "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.'"
On Wednesday, Turley argued that the mountain of evidence against Trump in the Ukraine scandal didn't matter because it doesn't meet statutory elements for criminal bribery. But the other witnesses pushed back forcefully on his claim.
"Bribery had a clear meaning to the framers," said Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School. "It was when the president, using the power of his office, solicits or receives something of personal value from someone affected by his official powers."
https://www.businessinsider.com/republican-witness-jonathan-turley-contradicted-impeachment-testimony-2019-12