This is an interesting article that appears online in The Washington Monthly.
It was written by a former law student of Jonathan Turley, who appeared as a legal expert to defend President Trump and to argue against his impeachment.
I watched the panel of constitutional scholars and was puzzled by Turley’s claim that the House needed more evidence to impeach Trump. The evidence of the Ukraine scheme–to give that nation $400 million in military aid in exchange for announcing an investigation into the Bidens–was verified repeatedly by foreign service officers in the Intelligence Committee hearings. The only question should be whether asking a foreign nation to interfere in our national election is grounds for impeachment, and the other three lawyers agreed that it was.
But more evidence is needed, more testimony, said Turley. He surely knows that Trump has instructed the members of his administration–current and former–not to testify but to ignore subpoenas from the House. How can their testimony be gathered?
It was disturbing to learn that Turley had testified in favor of impeaching President Clinton in 1998, whose lying concerned sex with an intern, not national security or the sanctity of our elections. At that time, he said he had voted for Clinton.
Now, defending Trump, he insists he voted for Clinton in 2016.
Now, he is a regular on Fox & Friends. But he says he is a liberal Democrat.
Very strange.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Turley must be drunk.
Drunk on his own self-importance.
People like Turkey…I mean Turdley…well you know what I mean …love to hear themselves talk on the cable “news” programs. They act as if they were actually experts on something (anything).
What do Turkey Turdley Turley (TTT for short) and a narcissist have in common?
Turley cannot be a “liberal” democrat or a “progressive”. Turley has to be a libertarian-neoliberal mutant.
Turley calling himself a Democrat, is fraud with intent to convince the unsuspecting public that he “doesn’t have a dog in the race”, when, in fact, he promotes any Republican who has clout.
Then Turley is a Republican wearing the skin of a Democracy, because neo-liberals, neo-conservative, libertarians, and Trumpists all belief in the “noble” lie, if that lie gets them what they want.
Noble and lie- the Greek philosophers got it wrong.
Same place Kelleyanne Conway got her JD degree. George Washington University, and famous for inventing “alternative facts” and also a star for Fox News, defending the Trumpsters, not the Constitution. .
Having plowed through the Mueller Report and Bill Barr’s memo about collusion, I am in no mood to plow through the extended version of Professor Turley’s opinion. He promises a historical analysis of English law that leaves Trump’s behavior somewhere outside the traditional definitions of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” but that this would be the case seems highly doubtful. Trump committed bribery, and he compromised the national security interests of the United States to order to secure for himself an electioneering advantage. I’m with the other expert witnesses. These actions go to the heart of our democratic processes and cannot be allowed to stand.
And, then, there is the other small matter that Vlad’s Asset Orange is clearly operating on behalf of controllers in Moscow. If there is anyone in our intelligence services who still doubts this, we should rethink using the term “intelligence” in reference to him or her.
Turley says that defining “sexual relations” as sexual intercourse and not blow jobs is an impeachable act if done in any civil deposition.
Does Turley really stand on his position that if Trump said anything untrue in any civil deposition, he needs to be impeached? It’s a shame that the media has never asked him that question. Because it is certain that Turley would suddenly decide that statements that are not entirely truthful made in civil depositions are perfectly fine with a Republican does it.
Turley’s views have a whole lot in common with those of Charles Koch.
LOL. Yes. There are those who present arguments, and then there are those who present casuistries trumped up for particular occasions.
(Before the crackdown that followed discovery of offices filled with people engaged in American social media who were employed by Russians), I thought there were a number of repeat Turley blog commenters who seemed more “off”, than the typical right wing nut.
It appeared the suspect commenters could only follow links, not do internet searches of articles referenced in text.
I hope Turley gets some added scrutiny. Maybe he’s just a grandstanding contrarian who has tied his wagon to the party where he can more easily carve out a niche- quasi-intellectual.
I think your last para absolutely nails it. This is the only explanation I have for Turley’s present tack. I watched clips of his testimony open-mouthed, thinking, OMG he had me fooled: he must be one of those silver-tongued lawyers who can talk any side of any issue & stands nowhere himself. Having seen him guest on Wash Jnl [CSPAN] a couple of times within the last few months– & been so impressed I made a note of his blog– I am nonplused. Now I’m going to have to take a look at that blog, but my eye is going to be jaundiced.
I advise caution about reading Turley’s blog. The preponderance of the posts and comments take readers to a dark place.
The blog has a Koch defense team of commenters (“bogey man, Stalin”). There’s racism, bias against women, cognitive weaknesses that produce illogical arguments, etc.
A few years ago, the Turley blog had a person who appeared to function as a type of editor for the blog. At that time, Turley nor the blog seemed like slime.
It is possible, of course, to argue that grass is not green because greenness is a quality neither of the elementary particles that make up grass nor of the whole of these particles nor of the photons that bounce off it and strike the eye but, rather, something that exists in the mind of the perceiver. But such an argument, though minimally “clever,” willfully overlooks the facts that meaning is a matter of conventional use and that when we say, “Grass is green,” we are referring to the fact that it has such qualities that when we look at it, we have this experience, in the mind, of greenness, and “Grass is green” is shorthand for that conventional usage. One can construct other clever arguments as well, such as denying that greenness exists based on the difficulty of demarcating where yellow, green, and blue begin (i.e., sorites, or the paradox of the heap). But such arguments are sophistry, meant to deceive for a purpose. Turley and Barr are bright enough to spin such arguments to achieve the ends they wish to achieve in the same way that astroturf Ed Deform organizations issue “research” reports constructed by starting with the conclusions they want to reach and then building such arguments (or cherry picking evidence) to support them.
I thought at the time that Turley had drunk the poison. Has Putin threatened these people’s children, or what? CBK
Stop it with the anti-Russia hysteria. Red-baiting is soooooooooooooo twentieth century.
James Eales: Where’s your sense of humor? CBK
CBK, he is not missing a sense of humor but a knowledge of history.
Hello Diane: After I wrote that note, I thought, really . . . . call it what he will, the point is that it seems that some who support Trump have changed their way of being, as if overcome by a huge wave of sickness–or like they are being held in some kind of hostage situation, or have been overtaken by a Jim Jones kind of cult consciousness. As I listened to Turley, I was mesmerized as I watched what I thought before was a reasonable intelligent man, even if I didn’t always agree with him, now turn into a Trump puppet. And I wouldn’t put it past Putin–the killer of political enemies–to threaten “dangerous” Americans where he might not yet actually get away with murder. That’s not conspiracy-thinking–it’s plausibility-thinking. CBK
CBK, in my many years of being involved in politics-watching, I have never before seen the cult behavior that we see now among Trump followers. He is quite right to say that if he murdered someone on Fifth Avenue in NYC in broad daylight, his followers wouldn’t care. Or if he solicited campaign help from a foreign government (Ukraine, Russia, China), the Senate Republicans wouldn’t care. This is cult behavior.
Criticism of Russia is not “red-baiting.”
Russia is not Red.
It’s a fascist oligarchy where journalists who criticize Putin are mysteriously murdered and where a small number of Putin’s buddies are billionaires.
It’s not Red Baiting anymore. The Communist dictatorship was replaced by the Russian Mafia. Russia is now a kleptocracy.
Therefore, it is Kleptocracy Baiting and Putin is at the top of the dung heap.
A tell- When is the last time you heard a man use the language,,”sooooooooo”? .
I’m glad you posted this, because Turley has revealed himself to be one of the worst purveyors of right wing propaganda while the media repeats the nonsense that Turley is really a Democrat who doesn’t like Trump (while not mentioning that Turley worships at the altar of William Barr and is one of his biggest supporters and a good friend.)
Turley’s definition of “not a Trump supporter” is ridiculous since he is a huge supporter of William Barr and everything he stands for – which is never mentioned in the news stories that always mischaracterize him as some independent voice who isn’t a Barr sycophant who has written op eds claiming everything Barr does is perfect.
There isn’t a single legitimate scholar who believes that what Trump did was entirely fine, which is basically what Turley kept trying to imply under oath even as he clearly had to carefully watch his words knowing that while he intended people to believe that there was no evidence against Trump, he knew it was perjury so could not say that. In fact, I do believe Turley did step over the line in that hearing and committed perjury and should be prosecuted based on his own standards.
I still remember Turley swearing under oath that any person who is somewhat dishonest about a non-material matter in a civil trial deposition is absolutely, positively committing “perjury”. At least when that person is a Democrat. But Turley is apparently fine with Trump’s dishonest testimony in multiple depositions. According to Turley, Americans should be outraged that any person could possibly define “sexual relations” as sexual intercourse and not blow jobs and if they do, they should be impeached because Turley has judged without one bit of evidence that was “material” to the civil deposition and thus impeachable.
I wish a reporter would ask Turley whether he would demand Trump’s impeachment if there is any point in any of Trump’s many civil depositions in which he was not entirely truthful. But fortunately for Turley and Trump, the media’s double standard means that they will refuse to ask any follow-up questions whenever Turley spouts his propaganda. Is Turley now claiming that if Trump was not entirely honest in any civil deposition, he would demand his impeachment as he did for Clinton? Turley should have to go on the record with his answer to that question. (FYI, my autocorrect keeps changing Turley to Turkey which is entirely appropriate in this case.)
Turley is important to the political far right because his arguments, at the their core, rest on a notion that there can be no finality, no settled law. Ever. Everything is open to questioning and debate, even fundamental cultural norms. It’s Justice Stewart’s “I know it when I see it” statement interpreted through the Looking Glass.
Interesting analysis.
At Turley’s blog there is finality- too many talking points from the left gets a commenter banned from posting.
There was an NPR interview with one of the other lawyers who was there to recommend impeachment. He said that he had made Turley’s need for delay argument himself in the Clinton hearing. He felt then that the American people should have a chance to catch up with the evidence as they did in the Nixon impeachment. He argued that this was not necessary this time due to the preponderance of the evidence.
My question is one of risk. Given the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, could a fair ruling be had in that institution? Would Justice Roberts rule for law or politics? If the house investigation subpoena was snubbed by a recalcitrant White House, would a fair and balanced Supreme Court uphold the house in his right to perform an investigation? If they were not willing to grant the congress right of investigation, clearly a part of our balance of powers, would it discredit them in the eyes of the people enough to warrant impeachment of one or more justices? Should congress go for a grand slam? What sort of ruling by a Supreme Court would merit impeachment of a majority of the justices?
I have come to feel that the president needs to be stopped as quickly as possible. It seems to me that his refusal to staff the EPA, properly fund the park system, and his attempt to stymie the process of good science in general is impeachable in and of itself, even if he did nothing wrong with relation to Russia, Stormy Daniels, or Ukraine. A majority of the zip codes in our country, however, are filled with 60-40 majorities that differ with me.
What this means is that our systems of checks and balances is out of whack. The majority of places is ruling the majority of people and a minority of people is ruling a voting majority without giving any thought to the matter.
Consider this theory – one or more of the Supreme Court Justices, like Roberts, attended some of the underage booty parties held at Epstein’s mansion in NY or on Epstein’s Orgy Island. All it would take is once.
When the FBI grabbed all the files from Epstein’s NY mansion, William Barr ordered the FBI to turn them over to him. Barr went through them to find as much kompromat as possible on appointed and elected federal officials like Supreme Court justices, governors, Senators, et al.
Then Barr turned that Kompromat over the Trump.
Knowing about that Kimpromat could be Guiliani’s insurance.
Citizens shouldn’t rule out the possible reach of Epstein nor, the prevarication of influencers in D.C.
I’ve read that no one seems to know where Epstein’s money came from.
How about Russia?
Another theory: In Epstein, Russia had a man with no morals or self-control and funded him to record-videotape kompromat on U.S. elected and/or high ranking appointed federal officals so Russia can blackmail them to do what Moscow Mitch does, support Putin’s agenda of building a Russian empire.
And what if William Barr was one of those kompromat-controlled repugnant individuals doing all that he can as the AG of the U.S. to protect Americans (like Trump and Mitch) owned by Putin?
I watched some of Turley’s testimony, but I could not bear to suffer through his orotund speechifying in its entirety. Much of his testimony concerned prior impeachments, and he focused a lot on process, chastising the House Democrats for moving too quickly and on too little evidence.
I’m not sure that Professor Turley and I live on the same planet. If anything, the House has moved too slowly. It should have impeached the President after the submission of the Mueller Report, in which the Special Counsel, in his discussion of obstruction, virtually handed the House articles of impeachment. And the record of the President’s misconduct with respect to Ukraine is not exactly thin. The summary transcript of the now infamous phone call, in which Trump replied to the request for Javelins with “I would like you to do us a favor though . . .” (though being a word that expresses a condition), is alone sufficient to support impeachment and conviction. Trump used the immense power of the presidency not for the good of the country but to attempt to gain an advantage over a political rival. And in doing so, he weakened an essential ally, menaced by neighboring Russia, and invited that ally to interfere in our upcoming election. That Trump was caught in the act and then quickly released the military aid he had mysteriously put on hold does not mitigate his abuse of trust. In my view his conduct was worse than Nixon’s in the Watergate affair. Nixon at least did not jeopardize our national security.
Turley will be a footnote in a history textbook someday. I hope that sooner or later he comes to regret his testimony.
@ Lloyd: There is no evidence that Chief Justice Roberts had anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein, so I am not sure why you theorize about it.
But like you, I do wonder what exactly the FBI found in Epstein’s safe and elsewhere in his NY townhouse. And how did Epstein end up owning property worth more than half a billion dollars?
About Giuliani: I don’t know what he means by “insurance.” But if he has committed federal crimes, no “insurance” will protect him from the estimable prosecutors in the Southern District of NY.
True, there is no evidence that would hold up in court, but that doesn’t mean he is innocent. If Roberts repeatedly rules in favor of Trump and the autocratic-theocratic kleptocracy Trump represents/supports, then I suspect there is kompromat being held over Roberts head like an executioner ax.
Yes, yes, and, yeah, yes. Okay, I agree with what people have said above, in that you’ve got lots of information about how Professor Turley is an odd duck..and more, much more.
But I was listening to him being interviewed on NPR’s “Morning Edition” Thursday and Turley raised a question that I agree with. Why is there such a rush to impeach? Aren’t there issues that really need a full hearing in the U.S. Supreme Court?
Like, can the President actually shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave and get away with it -like the President’s lawyers argued back in October? https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/23/trump-lawyer-prosecuted-shooting-someone-055648
Now in that NPR interview Rachel Martin implies that we can’t wait: “Well, isn’t the case about election interference? I mean, isn’t that the answer, that the central query here is about the interference of U.S. elections and 2020’s coming right up?”
Yup, good point, Ms. Martin
And, probably the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually weigh in on these constitutional issues -after the impeachment issue is moot.
Also, RT raises the argument (above) of whether these questions would get a fair hearing in the now quite conservative court.
But, this is the only U.S.Supreme Court we have right now. And, this is the President we have. These are the unhappy, well, really, tragic cards we’ve been dealt.
In U.S. v. Nixon the court ruled that no president is above the law and, what, 16 days later RN hit the road (or, I should say, lifted off in Marine One.) Could a similar thing happen with Trump?
I have to wonder if one of the reasons why the impeachment is zooming along is that the attention span of much of the American public (me included!) has become so truncated that there’s a concern about keeping us focused on this mess. And, you know, the Trump regime has been unfolding like a slow motion car crash. There’s this “new normal” that has debased our country…..trying to argue with some of his supporters is like unilaterally disarming. But, I have to wonder, again, why the rush?
Maybe Turley is just playing a delaying game, you know, running down the clock until the election. But, wasn’t that what Pelosi has been doing, too, until it just got impossible to ignore.
Hell, I fired off an e-mail to Pelosi as soon as I heard about the phone call to Ukraine. I got to work and said, my God, this is just over the top. I’ve never even thought of writing to her.
And, here’s another thought, what if Donald Trump is happy to see this rush job, too. Get it over with. Didn’t he actually say that?
Here’s the link to the NPR interview with Turley. Sure, maybe he’s just some sort of Zelig-like character who shape shifts depending on the environment he encounters, in this case, left-leaning public radio. But it was an interesting interview. I don’t hear him saying he’s against impeachment. I mean, it’s a bit confusing even after rereading the interview several times, but here’s the crux of it: Turley: “It’s not that you can’t impeach a president for withholding documents and witnesses. You can, and President Trump could well be the next one to be impeached on those grounds.”
I’ve always thought obstruction of justice is the best argument raised by this Trump fiasco. But maybe that’s me.
Here’s the link to the NPR piece. It clocks in at around 4 min. https://www.npr.org/2019/12/05/784994918/jonathan-turley-on-his-impeachment-testimony
BTW I went down last night to an absolutely wonderful Christmas parade held in our town’s square. There was snow and colored lights and hot chocolate and happy kids not feeling as frozen as my wife and me. (I don’t know, maybe it was called a “Holiday Parade” but most stuff seemed to be Christmas related…plenty of elves, candy canes on floats etc….etc. ) Anyway, I saw this Archie Bunker-looking guy wearing this Trump MAGA ball cap. He was walking around looking like, well, an unhappy looking Archie Bunker come back to life now in 2019. And, I felt like a wanted to barf. Puke. Hurl. Either that or get in his face, and say, WTF, how dare you wear that stinking hat. Do you know what it represents? You’re frickin’ ruining my scenic (though freezing) ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ Saturday evening.
But, you know, what’s the chances of if I was wearing a “Bernie” hat or “Hillary” scarf or “Buttigieg” boots? Would some Trump supporter have felt the same way about ME? Like want to puke because of good ‘ole moi?
(Here’s a bet: someone reading this comment right now is thinking, yeah, but the Trump person would come up an actually punch you in the nose, Johnny Boy!)
Or, what if the Archie Bunker MAGA guy is actually a Nobel Prize winning scientist who volunteers twice a week helping at a homeless shelter? I mean the guy looked like a stereotype, so much so that I wanted to go over and say, hey, Archie, can I get a picture of you with that stupid hat? But we live just north of two hours from NYC and there’s been plenty of times I’ve been deceived by my own eyes. Same goes for when lived in the city. I’m trying awfully hard to not judge people, at least, by their looks….
Anyway, I’ve been thinking so much about this Turley thing that I haven’t eaten breakfast yet.
WWTE? (meaning, what would Donald Trump eat?) I get hungry and I think about this question. Then, I eat the exact opposite. Folks, I’m not kidding. I’ve lost 25 pounds asking this question since Trump took office in 2017. I haven’t been in this good of shape since college. Don’t get bitter, get better. I should market the idea…
Have a great Sunday!
What a great diet!
Diane, I hereby donate the idea to the Network for Public Education. If they want to use it, I’d be VERY glad to see them reap the profit. See you. I gotta eat.
I really enjoy your musings, John. Thanks for your contemplation of issues, philosophies, and life.
Hey, I appreciate that, RT Diane’s blog is one of the few sites I check all the time on the internet. I really value the people on here. Among other things, you help me have a little more faith in this new technology. (My special interest as a student was always the history of science and technology. I took an especially life-changing course many, many years ago called the Philosophy of Technology. The class consisted of me, another student and two professors -and they were people who were much, much smarter than me. (So, I had to do all the reading and actually show up, LOL.) Have a great one. I gotta go be a teacher, or at least try.
John,
You say that you don’t understand why the House Democrats are in such a rush to impeach? Why should they wait? The evidence that the President used his powers to attempt to gain an advantage over a political rival rather than for the good of the country is overwhelming.
Also, I don’t understand what you want the Supreme Court to decide. What Article III “case or controversy” should be decided before the impeachment proceeds?
P.S. You are what you eat
I think the argument is, would the case be stronger. Much of what I see says is that the needle measuring public opinion hasn’t moved much lately past the people who already think Trump should be impeached.And, it is a big deal to overturn an election, even one as weird and dangerous as the 2016 vote. Of course, I’ve read that much of the public was not for impeachment for a long time during the Watergate Scandal. But, again, the high court ruled against Nixon and, bang, he was out the door. There are reasons for three branches of government and this is one of them. But, Metaphysicianx, I’ve been wrong about a lot of things in the past, ha,ha. One thing I notice is that so much of the news these days is analysis and trying to predict the future. Every Friday I play Jeopardy! with my students at the end of the class. I usually have a “current events” category so each weekend I hunt through online sites for good questions about the news.. I end up having to look all over….NBS, MSN, Fox, BBC, because it’s actually hard to find adequate, hard news stories these days. The focus is on a few big stories, then it’s on to something else after a few days. That’s when it struck me about all the analysis and prediction stuff. So, my family subscribes to lots of newspapers online. But I’m still bad at guessing the future. If I sell stocks, I should let people on here know. Those stocks are sure to actually go up. See you.
How about going to the most reputable “Fact Check” sites to find what the real news was supposed to be?
I’ve wondered as well. Perhaps Turley’s brilliance and early fame turned his head, and he can no longer see the proverbial forest for the trees? It seems he’s more in ‘love’ with constitutional law (and his own erudition) rather than the Constitution itself. Much like Alan Dershowitz.
I don’t think he in love with the Constitution, based on his tolerance for Trump’s misdeeds. He was ready to impeach Clinton for far, far less. What changed?