Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and self-described Trump critic, slammed Democrats for lowering the bar on impeachment and pursuing an agenda based on anger towards the President gute spiele kostenlos downloaden.
Four professors were chosen as witnesses for the House Judiciary Committee’s first day of impeachment hearings, three of them handpicked by the Democrats kostenlos kindle bücher herunterladen.
The other, despite a voting record siding with Democrats, didn’t conform to the wishes of those supporting the removal of Donald Trump from office bus simulator vollversion kostenlosen.
In fact, he lambasted them for lacking evidence, setting a dangerous precedent, and pursuing a vendetta based on emotions.
Turley’s Devastating Testimony
Professor Turley, despite an admission that he has a history of being “highly critical” of President Trump’s actions, laid out the danger posed by the resistance party’s unprecedented impeachment sham whatsapp herunterladen wie.
“I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger,” Turley stated.
“If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.”
The professor noted that Democrats are opening the door for future Presidents to be treated in the same manner herunterladen.
Lowering the standards he said, “does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided.”
Jonathan Turley’s opening statement was masterful — a great example of legal reasoning, Constitutional analysis, and oratory herunterladen. Unlike those of the Democratic #impeachment witnesses, it will stand the test of time youtube musik sicheren. #ImpeachmentHearing
— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) December 4, 2019
Advised Democrats to Act Rationally For a Change
Don’t expect Turley’s comments to receive much in the way of coverage from a mainstream media that has been foaming at the mouth for impeachment since November of 2016 wie viele serien kann man bei netflix herunterladen.
That would be what a rational media does.
Turley, for his part, urged Democrats to act rationally themselves, put aside their partisan hatred for the President and act according to the law herunterladen.
“My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote,” the law professor explained samsung apps herunterladen geht nicht.
“This impeachment not only fails to satisfy the standard of past impeachments but would create a dangerous precedent.” – Turley
Foreign policy disagreements are not grounds for impeachment!pic.twitter.com/gqRC52vQ4L
— Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) December 4, 2019
Turley then explained that the sham process will bring nothing but shame when history is written about this episode of Congressional misconduct.
“We are all mad and where has it taken us? Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad or will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration?” he asked. “That is why this is wrong.”
“I do not believe that this impeachment will be viewed as bringing credit upon this body,” Turley added.
Naturally, that call for rational non-partisan thinking landed on deaf ears as liberal lawmakers refused to even address Turley.
Among other notable testimony, Turley insisted that the Democrats’ case involved a “lack of direct evidence” and that “the current record does not establish a quid pro quo.”
The other professors testifying on behalf of the resistance party had a sharply differing view than Turley, including one who suggested Trump’s actions in that Ukraine phone call were “worse than the misconduct of any prior president.”
Really, Chief? Worse than Barack Obama’s Benghazi and Fast and Furious cover-ups? Worse than Bill Clinton, who has been accused of rape and had an affair in the Oval Office, lying and obstructing justice?
Read more at the Political Insider