Turley: Quick New Impeachment Would Damage the Constitution

Doc7505

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2016
15,703
27,648
2,430
Turley: Quick New Impeachment Would Damage the Constitution

Turley: Quick New Impeachment Would Damage the Constitution (theepochtimes.com)
10 Jan 2021 ~~ By Jack Phillips

Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley said that the swift impeachment of President Donald Trump over his speech to protesters—some of whom later entered the U.S. Capitol building in the midst of chaos—would be unwise and damage precedent.
“With seeking his removal for incitement, Democrats would gut not only the impeachment standard but also free speech, all in a mad rush to remove Trump just days before his term ends,” Turley, who himself was an impeachment inquiry witness months ago, wrote on The Hill.
Before the Capitol incident, Trump delivered a speech to his supporters alleging election fraud and noted the irregularities during the Nov. 3 contest.
Trump said the protest during the Jan. 6 Joint Session of Congress shows “the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.” And he added to the crowd, “Let us walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.” The president did not tell the protesters to breach the Capitol or commit acts of violence, later condemning them.
At one point, Trump told his supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices be heard.”
Turley said that he opposed Trump’s electoral vote challenge and said some of his remarks were “reckless and wrong” on Jan. 6.
“This address does not meet the definition for incitement under the criminal code. It would be viewed as protected speech by the Supreme Court,” Turley wrote in the opinion article.
“When I testified in the impeachment hearings of Trump and Bill Clinton, I noted that an article of impeachment does not have to be based on any clear crime but that Congress has looked to the criminal code to weigh impeachment offenses,” he said. “For this controversy now, any such comparison would dispel claims of criminal incitement. Despite broad and justified condemnation of his words, Trump never actually called for violence or riots. But he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to raise their opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to back the recent challenges made by a few members of Congress.”
The law professor further argued that, similar to many violent protests over the past several years, “criminal conduct was carried out by a smaller group of instigators” and that “Capitol Police knew of the march but declined an offer from the National Guard since they did not view violence as likely.”
Going further, Turley said that with the impeachment push, House Democrats are moving to set a “more extreme” precedent.
“Under their theory, any president could be removed for rhetoric that is seen to have the ‘natural tendency’ to encourage others to act in a riotous fashion. Even a call for supporters to protest peacefully could not be a defense,” he said. “Such a standard would allow for a type of vicarious impeachment that attributes conduct of third parties to any president for the purposes of removal.”

Comment:
I totally agree with Jonathan Turley in his evaluation.
Let cooler minds like his prevail rather than further destroying our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Leftists appear to be on a roll here in their total show of hatred for Trump and his followers.
If the Left continues on this road of censorship by Big Tech and poltical and physical retribution against Trump and Conservatives they will reap what they have sown and bring down this country in more tha "Fiery Peaceful Protests" as the Quisling Media has previously described.
 
if a democrat president did gather a fanatic crowd in front of the capitol building after an election he lost landslide and send them in to grab the presidency for him, i bet any decent democrat would totally be in for the impeachment of that dude, whomever that might be...

because that would be the decent thing to do...
and obviously decency is tough for some people...
 
if a democrat president did gather a fanatic crowd in front of the capitol building after an election he lost landslide and send them in to grab the presidency for him, i bet any decent democrat would totally be in for the impeachment of that dude, whomever that might be...

because that would be the decent thing to do...
and obviously decency is tough for some people...


Bull Crap...
Here's a flashback for you...
<<<<<<->>>>>>​
<<<<<<->>>>>>​
 
if a democrat president did gather a fanatic crowd in front of the capitol building after an election he lost landslide and send them in to grab the presidency for him, i bet any decent democrat would totally be in for the impeachment of that dude, whomever that might be...

because that would be the decent thing to do...
and obviously decency is tough for some people...


Bull Crap...
Here's a flashback for you...
<<<<<<->>>>>>​
<<<<<<->>>>>>​

and?...
where is the capitol building?...
more importantly, where are the "protestors" inside the capitol building...

you get disturbed by people protesting on the streets...
but you are comfortable with people storming the capitol building...

fully entitled and completely privileged...
should feel nice...
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: cnm
if a democrat president did gather a fanatic crowd in front of the capitol building after an election he lost landslide and send them in to grab the presidency for him, i bet any decent democrat would totally be in for the impeachment of that dude, whomever that might be...

because that would be the decent thing to do...
and obviously decency is tough for some people...


Bull Crap...
Here's a flashback for you...
<<<<<<->>>>>>​
<<<<<<->>>>>>​

Where are the reports of President Obama and Hillary Clinton telling these people that the election was stolen and tell these people to "fight for them" and to "stop the steal?
 
Turley: Quick New Impeachment Would Damage the Constitution

Turley: Quick New Impeachment Would Damage the Constitution (theepochtimes.com)
10 Jan 2021 ~~ By Jack Phillips

Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley said that the swift impeachment of President Donald Trump over his speech to protesters—some of whom later entered the U.S. Capitol building in the midst of chaos—would be unwise and damage precedent.
“With seeking his removal for incitement, Democrats would gut not only the impeachment standard but also free speech, all in a mad rush to remove Trump just days before his term ends,” Turley, who himself was an impeachment inquiry witness months ago, wrote on The Hill.
Before the Capitol incident, Trump delivered a speech to his supporters alleging election fraud and noted the irregularities during the Nov. 3 contest.
Trump said the protest during the Jan. 6 Joint Session of Congress shows “the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.” And he added to the crowd, “Let us walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.” The president did not tell the protesters to breach the Capitol or commit acts of violence, later condemning them.
At one point, Trump told his supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices be heard.”
Turley said that he opposed Trump’s electoral vote challenge and said some of his remarks were “reckless and wrong” on Jan. 6.
“This address does not meet the definition for incitement under the criminal code. It would be viewed as protected speech by the Supreme Court,” Turley wrote in the opinion article.
“When I testified in the impeachment hearings of Trump and Bill Clinton, I noted that an article of impeachment does not have to be based on any clear crime but that Congress has looked to the criminal code to weigh impeachment offenses,” he said. “For this controversy now, any such comparison would dispel claims of criminal incitement. Despite broad and justified condemnation of his words, Trump never actually called for violence or riots. But he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to raise their opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to back the recent challenges made by a few members of Congress.”
The law professor further argued that, similar to many violent protests over the past several years, “criminal conduct was carried out by a smaller group of instigators” and that “Capitol Police knew of the march but declined an offer from the National Guard since they did not view violence as likely.”
Going further, Turley said that with the impeachment push, House Democrats are moving to set a “more extreme” precedent.
“Under their theory, any president could be removed for rhetoric that is seen to have the ‘natural tendency’ to encourage others to act in a riotous fashion. Even a call for supporters to protest peacefully could not be a defense,” he said. “Such a standard would allow for a type of vicarious impeachment that attributes conduct of third parties to any president for the purposes of removal.”

Comment:
I totally agree with Jonathan Turley in his evaluation.
Let cooler minds like his prevail rather than further destroying our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Leftists appear to be on a roll here in their total show of hatred for Trump and his followers.
If the Left continues on this road of censorship by Big Tech and poltical and physical retribution against Trump and Conservatives they will reap what they have sown and bring down this country in more tha "Fiery Peaceful Protests" as the Quisling Media has previously described.
Dershowitz agrees with what you have posted in reference to impeachment.

"It will not go to trial. All the Democrats can do is impeach the president in the House of Representatives. For that, all you need is a majority vote. You don’t have to take evidence, there are no lawyers involved," Dershowitz said. "But the case cannot come to trial in the Senate because the Senate has rules and the rules would not allow the case to come to trial until – according to the majority leader – until 1 p.m. on Jan. 20, one hour after President Trump leaves office."

Im not yet convinced that "incitement" is the real reason for their desire of impeachment.
Next weeks news cycles should prove to be interesting.
 
Turley: Quick New Impeachment Would Damage the Constitution

Turley: Quick New Impeachment Would Damage the Constitution (theepochtimes.com)
10 Jan 2021 ~~ By Jack Phillips

Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley said that the swift impeachment of President Donald Trump over his speech to protesters—some of whom later entered the U.S. Capitol building in the midst of chaos—would be unwise and damage precedent.
“With seeking his removal for incitement, Democrats would gut not only the impeachment standard but also free speech, all in a mad rush to remove Trump just days before his term ends,” Turley, who himself was an impeachment inquiry witness months ago, wrote on The Hill.
Before the Capitol incident, Trump delivered a speech to his supporters alleging election fraud and noted the irregularities during the Nov. 3 contest.
Trump said the protest during the Jan. 6 Joint Session of Congress shows “the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.” And he added to the crowd, “Let us walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.” The president did not tell the protesters to breach the Capitol or commit acts of violence, later condemning them.
At one point, Trump told his supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices be heard.”
Turley said that he opposed Trump’s electoral vote challenge and said some of his remarks were “reckless and wrong” on Jan. 6.
“This address does not meet the definition for incitement under the criminal code. It would be viewed as protected speech by the Supreme Court,” Turley wrote in the opinion article.
“When I testified in the impeachment hearings of Trump and Bill Clinton, I noted that an article of impeachment does not have to be based on any clear crime but that Congress has looked to the criminal code to weigh impeachment offenses,” he said. “For this controversy now, any such comparison would dispel claims of criminal incitement. Despite broad and justified condemnation of his words, Trump never actually called for violence or riots. But he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to raise their opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to back the recent challenges made by a few members of Congress.”
The law professor further argued that, similar to many violent protests over the past several years, “criminal conduct was carried out by a smaller group of instigators” and that “Capitol Police knew of the march but declined an offer from the National Guard since they did not view violence as likely.”
Going further, Turley said that with the impeachment push, House Democrats are moving to set a “more extreme” precedent.
“Under their theory, any president could be removed for rhetoric that is seen to have the ‘natural tendency’ to encourage others to act in a riotous fashion. Even a call for supporters to protest peacefully could not be a defense,” he said. “Such a standard would allow for a type of vicarious impeachment that attributes conduct of third parties to any president for the purposes of removal.”

Comment:
I totally agree with Jonathan Turley in his evaluation.
Let cooler minds like his prevail rather than further destroying our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Leftists appear to be on a roll here in their total show of hatred for Trump and his followers.
If the Left continues on this road of censorship by Big Tech and poltical and physical retribution against Trump and Conservatives they will reap what they have sown and bring down this country in more tha "Fiery Peaceful Protests" as the Quisling Media has previously described.
Dershowitz agrees with what you have posted in reference to impeachment.

"It will not go to trial. All the Democrats can do is impeach the president in the House of Representatives. For that, all you need is a majority vote. You don’t have to take evidence, there are no lawyers involved," Dershowitz said. "But the case cannot come to trial in the Senate because the Senate has rules and the rules would not allow the case to come to trial until – according to the majority leader – until 1 p.m. on Jan. 20, one hour after President Trump leaves office."

Im not yet convinced that "incitement" is the real reason for their desire of impeachment.
Next weeks news cycles should prove to be interesting.

Dershowitz is full of shit. The guy lost his mind years ago and has become a public embarassment.
 
Turley: Quick New Impeachment Would Damage the Constitution

Turley: Quick New Impeachment Would Damage the Constitution (theepochtimes.com)
10 Jan 2021 ~~ By Jack Phillips

Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley said that the swift impeachment of President Donald Trump over his speech to protesters—some of whom later entered the U.S. Capitol building in the midst of chaos—would be unwise and damage precedent.
“With seeking his removal for incitement, Democrats would gut not only the impeachment standard but also free speech, all in a mad rush to remove Trump just days before his term ends,” Turley, who himself was an impeachment inquiry witness months ago, wrote on The Hill.
Before the Capitol incident, Trump delivered a speech to his supporters alleging election fraud and noted the irregularities during the Nov. 3 contest.
Trump said the protest during the Jan. 6 Joint Session of Congress shows “the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.” And he added to the crowd, “Let us walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.” The president did not tell the protesters to breach the Capitol or commit acts of violence, later condemning them.
At one point, Trump told his supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices be heard.”
Turley said that he opposed Trump’s electoral vote challenge and said some of his remarks were “reckless and wrong” on Jan. 6.
“This address does not meet the definition for incitement under the criminal code. It would be viewed as protected speech by the Supreme Court,” Turley wrote in the opinion article.
“When I testified in the impeachment hearings of Trump and Bill Clinton, I noted that an article of impeachment does not have to be based on any clear crime but that Congress has looked to the criminal code to weigh impeachment offenses,” he said. “For this controversy now, any such comparison would dispel claims of criminal incitement. Despite broad and justified condemnation of his words, Trump never actually called for violence or riots. But he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to raise their opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to back the recent challenges made by a few members of Congress.”
The law professor further argued that, similar to many violent protests over the past several years, “criminal conduct was carried out by a smaller group of instigators” and that “Capitol Police knew of the march but declined an offer from the National Guard since they did not view violence as likely.”
Going further, Turley said that with the impeachment push, House Democrats are moving to set a “more extreme” precedent.
“Under their theory, any president could be removed for rhetoric that is seen to have the ‘natural tendency’ to encourage others to act in a riotous fashion. Even a call for supporters to protest peacefully could not be a defense,” he said. “Such a standard would allow for a type of vicarious impeachment that attributes conduct of third parties to any president for the purposes of removal.”

Comment:
I totally agree with Jonathan Turley in his evaluation.
Let cooler minds like his prevail rather than further destroying our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Leftists appear to be on a roll here in their total show of hatred for Trump and his followers.
If the Left continues on this road of censorship by Big Tech and poltical and physical retribution against Trump and Conservatives they will reap what they have sown and bring down this country in more tha "Fiery Peaceful Protests" as the Quisling Media has previously described.
Dershowitz agrees with what you have posted in reference to impeachment.

"It will not go to trial. All the Democrats can do is impeach the president in the House of Representatives. For that, all you need is a majority vote. You don’t have to take evidence, there are no lawyers involved," Dershowitz said. "But the case cannot come to trial in the Senate because the Senate has rules and the rules would not allow the case to come to trial until – according to the majority leader – until 1 p.m. on Jan. 20, one hour after President Trump leaves office."

Im not yet convinced that "incitement" is the real reason for their desire of impeachment.
Next weeks news cycles should prove to be interesting.

Dershowitz is full of shit. The guy lost his mind years ago and has become a public embarassment.

And what are your credentials?
A PhD in Assholeism?
 
Dershowitz is full of shit. The guy lost his mind years ago and has become a public embarassment.
Ive not heard about Dershowitz being constipated, and Im sure there's several hundreds of top scholars that would disagree with your personality assessment, especially when it comes to his knowledge of the US Constitution compared to yours, but we all know how much you enjoy bumping those old gums together, dont we ?
 
No one has done more damage to the Constitution and the nation than Trump. The traitorous Trump needs to be impeached then charged and prosecuted for crimes against the nation.
 
Turley: Quick New Impeachment Would Damage the Constitution

Turley: Quick New Impeachment Would Damage the Constitution (theepochtimes.com)
10 Jan 2021 ~~ By Jack Phillips

Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley said that the swift impeachment of President Donald Trump over his speech to protesters—some of whom later entered the U.S. Capitol building in the midst of chaos—would be unwise and damage precedent.
“With seeking his removal for incitement, Democrats would gut not only the impeachment standard but also free speech, all in a mad rush to remove Trump just days before his term ends,” Turley, who himself was an impeachment inquiry witness months ago, wrote on The Hill.
Before the Capitol incident, Trump delivered a speech to his supporters alleging election fraud and noted the irregularities during the Nov. 3 contest.
Trump said the protest during the Jan. 6 Joint Session of Congress shows “the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.” And he added to the crowd, “Let us walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.” The president did not tell the protesters to breach the Capitol or commit acts of violence, later condemning them.
At one point, Trump told his supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices be heard.”
Turley said that he opposed Trump’s electoral vote challenge and said some of his remarks were “reckless and wrong” on Jan. 6.
“This address does not meet the definition for incitement under the criminal code. It would be viewed as protected speech by the Supreme Court,” Turley wrote in the opinion article.
“When I testified in the impeachment hearings of Trump and Bill Clinton, I noted that an article of impeachment does not have to be based on any clear crime but that Congress has looked to the criminal code to weigh impeachment offenses,” he said. “For this controversy now, any such comparison would dispel claims of criminal incitement. Despite broad and justified condemnation of his words, Trump never actually called for violence or riots. But he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to raise their opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to back the recent challenges made by a few members of Congress.”
The law professor further argued that, similar to many violent protests over the past several years, “criminal conduct was carried out by a smaller group of instigators” and that “Capitol Police knew of the march but declined an offer from the National Guard since they did not view violence as likely.”
Going further, Turley said that with the impeachment push, House Democrats are moving to set a “more extreme” precedent.
“Under their theory, any president could be removed for rhetoric that is seen to have the ‘natural tendency’ to encourage others to act in a riotous fashion. Even a call for supporters to protest peacefully could not be a defense,” he said. “Such a standard would allow for a type of vicarious impeachment that attributes conduct of third parties to any president for the purposes of removal.”

Comment:
I totally agree with Jonathan Turley in his evaluation.
Let cooler minds like his prevail rather than further destroying our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Leftists appear to be on a roll here in their total show of hatred for Trump and his followers.
If the Left continues on this road of censorship by Big Tech and poltical and physical retribution against Trump and Conservatives they will reap what they have sown and bring down this country in more tha "Fiery Peaceful Protests" as the Quisling Media has previously described.
One thing is for certain , there is not a one of the hate trumpers that care about the constitution or our laws.
 
"It will not go to trial. All the Democrats can do is impeach the president in the House of Representatives. For that, all you need is a majority vote. You don’t have to take evidence, there are no lawyers involved," Dershowitz said. "But the case cannot come to trial in the Senate because the Senate has rules and the rules would not allow the case to come to trial until – according to the majority leader – until 1 p.m. on Jan. 20, one hour after President Trump leaves office."

Im not yet convinced that "incitement" is the real reason for their desire of impeachment.
Next weeks news cycles should prove to be interesting.

I think it's a matter of self-preservation. If you don't impeach Trump, what's to keep Biden or Harris from inciting a BLM/ANTIFA mob in Washington from storming the Capitol in search of Republicans to lynch.

1610366632048.png
 
Turley: Quick New Impeachment Would Damage the Constitution

Turley: Quick New Impeachment Would Damage the Constitution (theepochtimes.com)
10 Jan 2021 ~~ By Jack Phillips

Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley said that the swift impeachment of President Donald Trump over his speech to protesters—some of whom later entered the U.S. Capitol building in the midst of chaos—would be unwise and damage precedent.
“With seeking his removal for incitement, Democrats would gut not only the impeachment standard but also free speech, all in a mad rush to remove Trump just days before his term ends,” Turley, who himself was an impeachment inquiry witness months ago, wrote on The Hill.
Before the Capitol incident, Trump delivered a speech to his supporters alleging election fraud and noted the irregularities during the Nov. 3 contest.
Trump said the protest during the Jan. 6 Joint Session of Congress shows “the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.” And he added to the crowd, “Let us walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.” The president did not tell the protesters to breach the Capitol or commit acts of violence, later condemning them.
At one point, Trump told his supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices be heard.”
Turley said that he opposed Trump’s electoral vote challenge and said some of his remarks were “reckless and wrong” on Jan. 6.
“This address does not meet the definition for incitement under the criminal code. It would be viewed as protected speech by the Supreme Court,” Turley wrote in the opinion article.
“When I testified in the impeachment hearings of Trump and Bill Clinton, I noted that an article of impeachment does not have to be based on any clear crime but that Congress has looked to the criminal code to weigh impeachment offenses,” he said. “For this controversy now, any such comparison would dispel claims of criminal incitement. Despite broad and justified condemnation of his words, Trump never actually called for violence or riots. But he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to raise their opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to back the recent challenges made by a few members of Congress.”
The law professor further argued that, similar to many violent protests over the past several years, “criminal conduct was carried out by a smaller group of instigators” and that “Capitol Police knew of the march but declined an offer from the National Guard since they did not view violence as likely.”
Going further, Turley said that with the impeachment push, House Democrats are moving to set a “more extreme” precedent.
“Under their theory, any president could be removed for rhetoric that is seen to have the ‘natural tendency’ to encourage others to act in a riotous fashion. Even a call for supporters to protest peacefully could not be a defense,” he said. “Such a standard would allow for a type of vicarious impeachment that attributes conduct of third parties to any president for the purposes of removal.”

Comment:
I totally agree with Jonathan Turley in his evaluation.
Let cooler minds like his prevail rather than further destroying our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Leftists appear to be on a roll here in their total show of hatred for Trump and his followers.
If the Left continues on this road of censorship by Big Tech and poltical and physical retribution against Trump and Conservatives they will reap what they have sown and bring down this country in more tha "Fiery Peaceful Protests" as the Quisling Media has previously described.

Turley is the guy who was for the Impeachment of Bill Clinton because the President must be of high moral character, but opposed first the Impeachment of Donald Trump on the grounds that it would encourage frivlous impeachments. Turley lost all credibility when he opposed the impeachment last February.

Maybe he's hoping to testify at the next impeachment trial too.
 
if a democrat president did gather a fanatic crowd in front of the capitol building after an election he lost landslide and send them in to grab the presidency for him, i bet any decent democrat would totally be in for the impeachment of that dude, whomever that might be...

because that would be the decent thing to do...
and obviously decency is tough for some people...

Democrats sent in Antifa to loot commit arson and riot on January 20th, 2016. Also nrealy 70 Congress persons and Senators refused to atten the Inauguration.
Funny how you conveniently forgot that instance of insurrection. Then again your Pussy hat may have been to tight at the time you were attending that protest against Trump.

<<<<<<->>>>>>​
<<<<<<->>>>>>​

 

Forum List

Back
Top