Jonathan Turley destroys democrat party today

[canceled.2021.2]

https://pjmedia.com/trending/watch-l...l-was-bribery/

Leftists will not be happy with the democrat Turley. He is a straight shooter and is bound by constitutional law.

Leftists will probably call him a Trumper now

[Truth Detector]

https://pjmedia.com/trending/watch-l...l-was-bribery/

Leftists will not be happy with the democrat Turley. He is a straight shooter and is bound by constitutional law.

Leftists will probably call him a Trumper now

Notice how they didn't ask him questions? Their focus were on the partisan turds who wouldn't know the Constitution if it slapped them upside their partisan shill dense skulls.

[Truth Detector]

Turley: Rather they are meant to drive home a simple point: one can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president.

[Sailor]

Turley: Rather they are meant to drive home a simple point: one can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president.

Outstanding. This will be the Democrat rebuttal to that truth:

[CharacterAssassin]

https://pjmedia.com/trending/watch-l...l-was-bribery/

Leftists will not be happy with the democrat Turley. He is a straight shooter and is bound by constitutional law.

Leftists will probably call him a Trumper now

And the other three professors laid waste to his asshat's claim.

You're really quite stupid.

[Celticguy]

And the other three professors laid waste to his asshat's claim.

You're really quite stupid.

Current UNANIMOUS SC ruling was the stake in the heart to this foolishness.

[Stretch]

Jonathan Turley impeachment inquiry testimony
His opening statement............
https://www.scribd.com/document/4382...ony#from_embed

This is from his statement. It's from my favorite movie, "A Man For All Seasons"............

In this age of rage, many are appealing for us to simply put the law aside and “just do it” like this is some impulse-buy Nike sneaker. You can certainly do that. You can declare the definitions of crimes alleged are immaterial and this is an exercise of politics, not law. However, the legal definitions and standards that I have addressed in my testimony are the very thing dividing rage from reason. Listening to these calls to dispense with such legal niceties, brings to mind a famous scene with Sir Thomas More in “A Man For All Seasons.” In a critical exchange, More is accused by his son-in-law William Roper of putting the law before morality and that More would “give the Devil the benefit of law!” When More asks if Roper would instead “cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?,” Roper proudly declares “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!” More responds by saying “And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!” Both sides in this controversy have demonized the other to justify any measure in defense much like Roper. Perhaps that is the saddest part of all of this. We have forgotten the common article of faith that binds each of us to each other in our Constitution. However, before we cut down the trees so carefully planted by the Framers, I hope you consider what you will do when the wind blows again . . . perhaps for a Democratic president. Where will you stand then “the laws all being flat?”

Thank you again for the honor of testifying before you today. I am happy to answer any
questions that you may have.

[Truth Detector]

And the other three professors laid waste to his asshat's claim.
You're really quite stupid.

No, they didn't. But you are a repugnant mentally ill moron on steroids who wears depends.

[Truth Detector]

Jonathan Turley impeachment inquiry testimony
His opening statement............
https://www.scribd.com/document/4382...ony#from_embed

This is from his statement. It's from my favorite movie, "A Man For All Seasons"............

In this age of rage, many are appealing for us to simply put the law aside and “just do it” like this is some impulse-buy Nike sneaker. You can certainly do that. You can declare the definitions of crimes alleged are immaterial and this is an exercise of politics, not law. However, the legal definitions and standards that I have addressed in my testimony are the very thing dividing rage from reason. Listening to these calls to dispense with such legal niceties, brings to mind a famous scene with Sir Thomas More in “A Man For All Seasons.” In a critical exchange, More is accused by his son-in-law William Roper of putting the law before morality and that More would “give the Devil the benefit of law!” When More asks if Roper would instead “cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?,” Roper proudly declares “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!” More responds by saying “And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!” Both sides in this controversy have demonized the other to justify any measure in defense much like Roper. Perhaps that is the saddest part of all of this. We have forgotten the common article of faith that binds each of us to each other in our Constitution. However, before we cut down the trees so carefully planted by the Framers, I hope you consider what you will do when the wind blows again . . . perhaps for a Democratic president. Where will you stand then “the laws all being flat?”

Thank you again for the honor of testifying before you today. I am happy to answer any
questions that you may have.

[Stretch]

Jonathan Turley's opening statement.......





Best remark?

"I get it. You are mad. The President is mad. My Democratic friends are mad. My Republican friends are mad. My wife is mad. My kids are mad. Even my dog is mad . . . and Luna is a golden doodle and they are never mad."

[Micawber]

The woefully inadequate stuff is laughably dumb. Evidence is replete.
The supposition that bribing or soliciting a foreign leader to use his gubmint to smear the President's rival is not impeachable is even more laughable.

He was there to make the ridiculous seem plausible. I think he succeeded in doing that with his target audience. I sure ain't buying that crap.
Neither were three other eminent scholars.

[volsrock]

Notice whenever Dems have a bad day a shooting happens, somewhere

[Stretch]

"Recently there are some rulings against President Trump, including a ruling involving Don McGahn. ... That's an example of what can happen if you actually subpoena witnesses and go to court. Then you have an obstruction case because a court issues an order. And unless they stay that order by a higher court, you have obstruction. But I can't emphasize this enough and I'll say it just one more time. If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power. You're doing precisely what you're criticizing the president for doing."

— Turley

[Stretch]

[jimmymccready]

Oversight, which can include subpoenas, is the People's duty not an abuse of power.