 |
|
You're so lazy
Posted on: February 16, 2022 at 17:14:26 CT
JayHoaxH8r MU
Posts:
70666
Member For:
25.99 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
On December 4, 2019, Turley testified before the House Judiciary Committee regarding the constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment in the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, arguing against a Trump impeachment.[2][59][60][61] In his testimony, Professor Turley objected to the effort to craft articles of impeachment around four criminal allegations: bribery, extortion, obstruction of justice, and campaign finance violations.[62] He argued that the evidence did not meet the standard definitions of those crimes and, against the testimony of the three Democratic witnesses, such legal definitions have always been used as a measure for impeachment deliberations.[62] Turley objected to the lower of the impeachment standards to "fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger."[63] The Committee ultimately rejected all four of those articles and adopted the two that Turley argued could be legitimate if proven: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.[64] Where the Committee departed from the testimony was the rejection of Turley's call for more time to develop a more complete record rather than fulfill a promise to impeach by Christmas—an issue that was rekindled by the delay in the submission of the articles to the Senate as new evidence emerged in 2020.[65]
It was observed that the bases he expressed regarding his prior position that President Bill Clinton should be impeached diametrically contradicted the opinions he shared regarding the impeachment of President Donald Trump, twenty one years later.[59][60][61] Those 2019 reports contrasted his extensive quotes from the separate processes.[59][60][61] Turley sought to clarify his positions regarding the two impeachments the next day in an op-ed.[66] Turley noted that in both hearings he stressed that a president could be impeached for non-criminal acts, including abuse of power, and House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler ended the Trump impeachment hearings by quoting him to that effect. He has noted that the only disagreement was the sufficiency of the record and his calling on House to issue subpoenas for key witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton.[66] The push for additional time was due in part to Turley's concern that the House was going to impeach a president for going to the courts rather than yielding to congressional demands for witnesses and documents.[67] Given the short period of investigation, Turley objected that such a move would effectively make seeking judicial review as high crime and misdemeanor. He noted that both Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were able to go all the way to the Supreme Court on their challenges before impeachment.[68] While Turley told the Committee that such judicial opinions were not required to impeach on obstruction, the abbreviated period of investigation undermined the foundation of that article.[69]
Turley was cited by both the White House and House managers in their arguments before the United States Senate in the Trump impeachment trial.[70] During the trial, Turley opposed the White House argument that impeachment requires a criminal allegation.[71] Turley wrote in the Washington Post that "If some of the president’s critics are adopting a far too broad understanding of impeachable offenses, the White House is adopting a far too narrow one."[72]
After the second impeachment of Donald Trump he said there could not be a trial after Trump left office.[73] This contradicted Turley's own writings that said it was correct to hold impeachment proceedings against former officials.[74][improper synthesis?] Turley's views were also cited on the House floor in the second impeachment of President Donald Trump in January 2021, particularly his opposition to what he called a "snap impeachment."[75] Turley opposed the decision to forego any hearing to consider the implications of such a rapid impeachment, consider changes to the language, and allow for a formal response from President Trump.[76] While Turley said that Trump's conduct could amount to impeachable conduct, he expressed reservations over the specific language of the article on free speech grounds.[76] He condemned Trump's speech before the riot on Twitter when it was still being given and opposed the challenge to the electoral votes from the outset.[77] He argued for a bipartisan, bicameral vote of censure to condemn Trump for the harm that he caused the nation with his speech.[77] Turley declined to represent President Trump[78] but did speak to Republican senators before both the first Trump trial[79] and the second Trump trial.[80]
It was observed that the bases he expressed regarding his prior position that President Bill Clinton should be impeached diametrically contradicted the opinions he shared regarding the impeachment of President Donald Trump, twenty one years later.[59][60][61] Those 2019 reports contrasted his extensive quotes from the separate processes.[59][60][61] Turley sought to clarify his positions regarding the two impeachments the next day in an op-ed.[66] Turley noted that in both hearings he stressed that a president could be impeached for non-criminal acts, including abuse of power, and House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler ended the Trump impeachment hearings by quoting him to that effect. He has noted that the only disagreement was the sufficiency of the record and his calling on House to issue subpoenas for key witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton.[66] The push for additional time was due in part to Turley's concern that the House was going to impeach a president for going to the courts rather than yielding to congressional demands for witnesses and documents.[67] Given the short period of investigation, Turley objected that such a move would effectively make seeking judicial review as high crime and misdemeanor. He noted that both Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were able to go all the way to the Supreme Court on their challenges before impeachment.[68] While Turley told the Committee that such judicial opinions were not required to impeach on obstruction, the abbreviated period of investigation undermined the foundation of that article.[69]
Turley was cited by both the White House and House managers in their arguments before the United States Senate in the Trump impeachment trial.[70] During the trial, Turley opposed the White House argument that impeachment requires a criminal allegation.[71] Turley wrote in the Washington Post that "If some of the president’s critics are adopting a far too broad understanding of impeachable offenses, the White House is adopting a far too narrow one."[72]
After the second impeachment of Donald Trump he said there could not be a trial after Trump left office.[73] This contradicted Turley's own writings that said it was correct to hold impeachment proceedings against former officials.[74][improper synthesis?] Turley's views were also cited on the House floor in the second impeachment of President Donald Trump in January 2021, particularly his opposition to what he called a "snap impeachment."[75] Turley opposed the decision to forego any hearing to consider the implications of such a rapid impeachment, consider changes to the language, and allow for a formal response from President Trump.[76] While Turley said that Trump's conduct could amount to impeachable conduct, he expressed reservations over the specific language of the article on free speech grounds.[76] He condemned Trump's speech before the riot on Twitter when it was still being given and opposed the challenge to the electoral votes from the outset.[77] He argued for a bipartisan, bicameral vote of censure to condemn Trump for the harm that he caused the nation with his speech.[77] Turley declined to represent President Trump[78] but did speak to Republican senators before both the first Trump trial[79] and the second Trump trial.[80]
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
You're so lazy - JayHoaxH8r MU - 2/16 17:14:26