Olde Europe
Diamond Member
- Dec 8, 2014
- 6,025
- 4,523
- 2,065
I have to agree somewhat. But there needs to be a way to take it directly to the Supreme Court in a timely fashion. Like within a month. Tying it up for 2 or 3 years doesn't cut it. Look how long it took to get it in front of the courts under Nixon. Otherwise, the Dems need to table it and just release what they have. It's not ready to go to the Senate by a long shot.
Look, I understand your point, and, in an ideal world, things would run as you say: All witnesses were called, all the evidence complete, and only then a well-rounded text is written up, Is dotted, Ts crossed and all.
As to court procedures, you don't get a district court ruling within a month. Supreme Court cases take years. Moreover, as the was the case in the McGahn trial, the government, as the losing party, has the role of determining what to do next, and they can drag this out forever, appealing to the next level, and then the next, and so on. As you say, that cannot work. At this time it cannot work since the integrity of the 2020 election is at stake. As I said before, the Nixon Supreme Court ruling set the standards for the Executives obligations, and it's controlling. What Trump is doing, with a nice assist by Turley, is to run out the clock, in effect rendering Congress's impeachment authority inoperable. Respect for the Constitution and the institutions this document establishes looks quite different.
I would suggest you read Turley's text on the matter. It is quite instructive. I contend, it demonstrates Turley is arguing in bad faith. Take, for instance, Turley's claim that Trump's would be the first attempt at impeaching a president without an underlying crime - as opposed to Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton. How he can even know that while the articles aren't yet written up, is a bit of a puzzle. Moreover, I, not a lawyer, can name at least three violations of federal laws Trump stands credibly accused to have perpetrated, namely, statutes against obstruction of justice, felony campaign finance violations (Stormy Daniels and the hush money, exacerbated by the subsequent cover-up), and the Impoundment Control Act (by illegally holding up properly appropriated funding). Turley, professor of law, and following that case, surely knows that.
And that's before we begin to examine Turley's deliberately stupid reading the memorandum the July 25 phone call, in which he finds no extortion, no quid pro quo, no bribery, and no abuse of office. You really have to suspend disbelief, common sense, and logic altogether, to arrive at that conclusion. Turley's lame defense is that there may - may - be innocent explanations, when we already know that the White House lawyers, having been shown the memorandum, moved with lightning speed to hide it as best they could. Of course, those fine lawyers hid the call because, as Turley suggests, Trump was driven by a genuine desire to eradicate corruption in Ukraine. I used to respect Turley. That ended roughly two years ago when he disparaged the Mueller investigation, and by now I am disappointed almost beyond measure.