Jonathan Turley is consulting with republicans to fight impeachment of trump as unconstitutional

[still_one]

per CNN

[dem4decades]

1. What a turd. Seriously, he's the cheap junk of Constitutional lawyers.

[still_one]

2. Yes he is. Turley is definitely a turd

[PCIntern]

3. And I'm meeting with my dental hygienist to determine

that Turley is a giant asshole.

[still_one]

5. lol

[ScratchCat]

4. For the Love of God

So how exactly are they going to argue that the Constitution says impeachment is unConstitutional? I watched some dork argue this with Lawrence Tribe over the weekend and they have no argument. Tribe shut the guy down by saying that if what he argued was true, then a POTUS facing impeachment could just resign to avoid the potential of being barred from running again. Its a non-starter and its mind boggling that any "scholar" would try to argue this.

[qazplm135]

11. well one argument is that Constitution

specifically mentions "Officers of the United States" or words to that effect as those eligible for impeachment.

Trump is no longer that, thus no longer eligible to be impeached.

Obviously there are common sense arguments as to why he is eligible, but the law is not always amenable to common sense. The Constitution is not very detailed on stuff like this unfortunately so this is something that is at least a colorable argument. I don't think it will ultimately matter in this case because I just don't see 17 Republicans voting to convict. Heck, not sure I see 7.

Of course, that doesn't mean I don't think we should continue, I do. Get the evidence out and get folks on the record.

[ScratchCat]

16. Even attempting that argument

Ignores that fact that he was impeached by The House when he was an "Officer of the United States". The Senate Trial is just the remainder of what the Constitution prescribes. And again, if this is what the Founders intended, then a first-term POTUS facing impeachment could just resign to avoid being barred from running again. It would negate the entire impeachment process.

The lack of detail in the Constitution is exactly why a)no court would hear a challenge to the Senate's ability to hold a trial b)why any Republicans who choose to go this ridiculous rout have no argument. If the best they can come up with that the reason the trial "violates" the US Constitution is because the Constitution is "silent" on this scenario, then they have no case.

[qazplm135]

18. The problem is

because the Constitution is pretty bare bones about this process, we don't necessarily know what the Founders intended. Lack of detail in the Constitution is what makes up the vast majority of the reason for cases based on the Constitution. So don't agree there.

I ultimately could see it going either way. They could certainly rule that because there is nothing explicitly barring this, that it's allowable.

Then again, they could rule that because the Constitution does not expressly permit impeaching former Officers, that it's not allowed.

I certainly agree that all in all, it makes sense to avoid the scenario where resignation bars punishment by allowing impeachment to continue past time as an Officer of the US, but it's not a ridiculous argument to go the other way either. It may even be a winning argument. Then again, it may not. I honestly don't know. I also think it's a bridge we won't cross because he won't be convicted or barred so no court will take it up in that case because it's a moot question.

[uponit7771]

23. kGOP is trying to conflate impeachment with senate trial. They senate is NOT impeaching a former ...

... officer they're trying him and and sentencing him, the impeachment is already done.

[qazplm135]

24. impeachment can either describe

just the House process, or the entire process.

The entire process is similar to a criminal process.

An indictment in the House, followed by a trial in the Senate.

Regardless, the question isn't about the former, it's about the latter.

[uponit7771]

26. That's not my understanding of the process, the impeachment process includes the trial but

... the trial is not impeachment or as you said the indictment.

The "impeachment process" is a socialized phrase not a technical one, the impeachment trial is just a trial in the senate

I don't read that one has to be attached to the other, they can impeach and not have a trial at all.

[qazplm135]

27. none of which is really relevant

other than as semantics.

The relevant part is, can they try, convict and/or bar him from the future service.

This is what Turley is going to be arguing about, and what any potential court case would address.

[COLGATE4]

20. You're missing the forest for the trees. Trump WAS impeached

while President. He left office before his trial in the Senate. But he was (and is) still impeached.

[qazplm135]

22. no one is talking about that part though

they are talking about the trial and they are talking about bar to service.

No one is arguing that he wasn't "impeached" or that he couldn't be "impeached" in the sense of what the House can do, this is about what the Senate can do.

[Wounded Bear]

6. I used to respect him. Now he's a RW shill...

nothing more, nothing less.

[GeorgeGist]

7. What a dumbfuck.

[Arne]

8. oopsie little problem, it's completely constitutional.

[StClone]

9. What ever happened to Turley?

In the early 2000's he was considered a legitimate unbiased Authority on Constitutional Law at George Washington University. My daughter took a class from him. Now he is, as others have noted, a cheap hit man for hire slinging poop at cases of Constitutionality. He's now a hack.

[Dawson Leery]

10. The standards for lawyers in America is f--a--r too low.

Last edited Tue Jan 26, 2021, 07:22 PM - Edit history (1)

[Whiskeytide]

15. Yeah. Sometimes we don't use the right words two. n/t

[Iliyah]

12. Is this the guy they caught on face time . . .

[still_one]

13. no, that was Jeffrey Toobin on Zoom

[onenote]

14. I doubt that it matters much.

The Republicans have no real reason to get the issue presented to the Supreme Court (and there's good reason to doubt the Supreme Court wouldn't take the case). They simply will make their arguments during the trial that the Constitution doesn't contemplate an impeachment trial for a former official and the Democrats will make the counterargument. In the end.Republicans will wrap themselves in their argument to justify not voting to convict. And there isn't anything anyone can do about it.

[struggle4progress]

17. "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments"

If the GOP Senators want to go on record as side-stepping America's Kristallnacht, they can go on record

[Chainfire]

19. If not in the Senate, then in the Federal Criminal Courts.

[Caliman73]

25. Trump could still run for office, even if convicted of federal crimes.

While I support the continuation of the Impeachment process, I also don't see that much of a downside to Trump running for office again. His candidacy does not hurt Democrats in the least. It will only peel away any "Democrats" who had not voted for Biden anyway, and would certainly not support a Kamala Harris Presidency.

The ethical issue would be that we have a candidate who actively supported Insurrection against the government. This is a serious issue and a serious threat if Trump were to get far in the primary or win (which is highly doubtful).


He'd either run as a Republican (which Republicans would have to defend), or he will run as an independent and pull apart the Conservative movement. I wouldn't mind seeing a Democratic President again because of the chaos and infighting that a Trump candidacy would entail.

[Cracklin Charlie]

21. Who all does Putin pay?

With all that money he steals from his countrymen?