By Jon Dougherty

(TNS) It’s become obvious why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrats are slow-walking the impeachment of President Donald Trump: They want to keep it active as a campaign issue throughout the 2020 election cycle.

Outside of the Washington swamp, however, most Americans are busy living their lives and enjoying the massively successful economy created by Trump policies and the Republican tax reform law of 2017.

But others are keeping watch on the clown show as it develops, including Georgetown University Law Professor Jonathan Turley.

A liberal, Turley plainly supports the Democrat political agenda but he has never supported the impeachment of President Trump because he, like most other rational thinking adults, understands that the president hasn’t done anything wrong and that the impeachment process was politicized by the Garbage Party strictly as a 2020 campaign issue.

So when Democrats step in their own doo-doo, Turley has been calling them out for it because preservation of our constitutional processes is more important to him than seeing lawmakers score cheap political points.

He did so Friday after hearing Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) make a patently false statement about “fair impeachment trials” that ought to include “witnesses.”

What balderdash.

Turley took Schumer to task, reminding him that during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, he did not want there to be any witnesses whatsoever.

“Schumer’s statement today is curious since he not only opposed any witnesses in the Clinton trial but also supported a summary vote without a trial. He is insisting on ‘following precedent’ that he opposed creating. He also ran on the pledge to vote to acquit before any trial,” Turley said.

Again, Turley’s been against the sham impeachment of Trump from the get-go, summarizing it as “passion over proof” in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee.

Writing in The Hill, he noted:

In my testimony …I stated repeatedly, as I did 21 years ago, that a president can be impeached for noncriminal acts, including abuse of power. I made that point no fewer that a dozen times in analyzing the case against Trump and, from the first day of the Ukraine scandal, I have made that argument both on air and in print. Yet various news publications still excitedly reported that, in an opinion piece I wrote for the Washington Post five years ago, I said, “While there is a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable,” and it could include “serious misconduct or a violation of public trust.”

That is precisely what I have said regarding Trump. You just need to prove abuse of power. My objection is not that you cannot impeach Trump for abuse of power but that this record is comparably thin compared to past impeachments and contains conflicts, contradictions, and gaps including various witnesses not subpoenaed. I suggested that Democrats drop the arbitrary schedule of a vote by the end of December and complete their case and this record before voting on any articles of impeachment. In my view, they have not proven abuse of power in this incomplete record.

However, rather than address the specific concerns I raised over this incomplete record and process, critics have substituted a false attack to suggest that I had contradicted my earlier testimony during the Clinton impeachment. They reported breathlessly that I said in that hearing, “If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct.” What they left out is that, in my testimony then and again this week, I stressed that the certain act in question was perjury. The issue in the Clinton case was whether perjury was an impeachable offense. Most Democratic members of Congress, including Nadler, maintained back then that perjury did not meet the level of an impeachable offense if the subject was an affair with an intern.

I maintained in the Clinton testimony, and still maintain in my Trump testimony, that perjury on any subject by a sitting president is clearly impeachable. …

…[A] president can still be impeached for abuse of power without a crime, and that includes Trump. But that makes it more important to complete and strengthen the record of such an offense, as well as other possible offenses. I remain concerned that we are lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. Trump will not be our last president. What we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. These “agitated passions” will not be a substitute for proof in an impeachment. We currently have too much of the former and too little of the latter.



Democrats don’t want a “fair trial” anymore than they wanted to impeachment inquiry to be fair, shutting out minority Republicans from the outset and breaking long-established rules in the process.

They just want a campaign issue they can bring to their deranged, lunatic base.

  • We need your help to grow, pure and simple. Share our stories, make sure to tell your friends about this site, and click the red bell in the right corner for push notifications. 

GOT SOMETHING TO SAY? COMMENT BELOW


Survival Legion Tee: $24.99 Navy, OD Green, Charcoal, Gray, Black


2
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x