Title : Jonathan Turley writes that he was "a tad naive in hoping that an academic discussion on the history and standards of it might offer a brief hiatus from hateful rhetoric on both sides."
link : Jonathan Turley writes that he was "a tad naive in hoping that an academic discussion on the history and standards of it might offer a brief hiatus from hateful rhetoric on both sides."
Jonathan Turley writes that he was "a tad naive in hoping that an academic discussion on the history and standards of it might offer a brief hiatus from hateful rhetoric on both sides."
Hate! Don't say that word! Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic, and she freaks out at the word "hate."Here — at The Hill — is Turley's reflection on his sojourn before the House Judiciary Committee. It's almost entirely a self-defense, because he's being attacked for contradicting things he said in testimony when Obama was President and when Bill Clinton was President:
Despite 52 pages of my detailed testimony, more than twice the length of all the other witnesses combined, on the cases and history of impeachment, [Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank] described it as being “primarily emotional and political.” Milbank claimed that I contradicted my testimony in a 2013 hearing when I presented “exactly the opposite case against President Obama” by saying “it would be ‘very dangerous’ to the balance of powers not to hold Obama accountable for assuming powers ‘very similar’ to the ‘right of the king’ to essentially stand above the law.”There should have been a witness who did take the position that the President can only be impeached for criminal acts. Turley took a middle position, and perhaps he demonstrates the dangers of moderation. He's drawing distinctions that his antagonists can fail or decline to see.
But I was not speaking of an impeachment then. It was a discussion of the separation of powers and the need for Congress to fight against unilateral executive actions, the very issue that Democrats raise against Trump. I did not call for Obama to be impeached....
In my testimony Wednesday, I stated repeatedly [as I stated in my testimony during the Clinton impeachment] that a president can be impeached for noncriminal acts.... My objection is not that you cannot impeach Trump for abuse of power but that this record is comparably thin compared to past impeachments.... ... Democrats have argued that they do not actually have to prove the elements of crimes.... In the Clinton impeachment, the crime was clearly established and widely recognized.... [W]e are lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger....
I see there's a column at The Nation titled "The Republicans’ Star Impeachment Scholar Is a Shameless Hack/Jonathan Turley’s testimony was so inconsistent, it contradicted his own previous statements on impeachment." Elie Mystal writes:
Jonathan Turley is punking us. The only dangerous lowering of standards we saw at the hearing was the smuggling of Jonathan Turley onto a panel of experts, the rest of whom were able to testify with academic integrity....I agree that the respect for law professors is a dangerous mistake, but I would not limit that to "right-wing" law professors. However conservative Turley might actually be, I wouldn't call him "right-wing." I wouldn't call the other 3 professors "left-wing," but they were liberals, and they were doing law professor things that Mystal, I presume, would rail against if he didn't like where they were going. As for real left-wing law professors, I remember them well. Back in the 1980s. They attacked liberals. It was called Critical Legal Studies, but that self-destructed a long time ago.
There is simply no professional or societal downside for people like Turley in making these bad, intellectually dishonest arguments. Turley himself was a random environmental law wonk before he made himself famous during the Clinton impeachment years. He made the media rounds then, calling himself a “Democrat” who was willing to speak truth to power about the “serious” nature of Clinton’s misbehavior....
The wheel never comes back around on these people. Alan Dershowitz might get the stink-eye on Marthas Vineyard, but he’s still a media fixture available to spout whatever pro-monarchy theory of government best serves President Trump....
These legal elites are ensconced in tenure and available for comment. They don’t wear MAGA hats or share white supremacist memes on Twitter. They understand that the appearance of “objective analysis” is the key to smuggling in all of their Republican talking points under the guise of balance.... Don’t be lulled into thinking these right-wing water carriers are reasonable simply because they sound reasonable while grifting....
Thus articles Jonathan Turley writes that he was "a tad naive in hoping that an academic discussion on the history and standards of it might offer a brief hiatus from hateful rhetoric on both sides."
that is all articles Jonathan Turley writes that he was "a tad naive in hoping that an academic discussion on the history and standards of it might offer a brief hiatus from hateful rhetoric on both sides." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article Jonathan Turley writes that he was "a tad naive in hoping that an academic discussion on the history and standards of it might offer a brief hiatus from hateful rhetoric on both sides." with the link address https://usainnew.blogspot.com/2019/12/jonathan-turley-writes-that-he-was-tad.html
0 Response to "Jonathan Turley writes that he was "a tad naive in hoping that an academic discussion on the history and standards of it might offer a brief hiatus from hateful rhetoric on both sides.""
Post a Comment