[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

American Independent Party Submits List of Presidential Primary Candidates (including President Trump)

Ozzy Osbourne - Goodbye

Submission Training Begins Early

Read Matt Bracken Books Bleeding-edge dystopian thrillers, for readers who are tired of politically-correct fiction.

“Understanding the Corona Virus Hoax”

U.S. Marines Raised American Flag During Battle for Iwo Jima on This Day in 1945

'I'll fight them to the death': Judge Judy warns Bernie Bros that they don't have a chance at the presidency because she's ready to battle to get Mike Bloomberg in the White House

Sanders: Illegal Immigrants Are ‘Entitled’ to the Same Government Benefits as Citizens

Latest Polling Is Terrible News for Michael Bloomberg’s Chances of Taking Down Bernie

What happened to Sneakypete ?

Trump Boat Trolls Bernie Sanders Vallejo Rally

Why Bernie Sanders is just the beginning of an American turn to the left (BARF)

Clint Eastwood supported Trump in 2016 and now supports Bloomberg

Celebrate The 40-Year Anniversary Of The Miracle On Ice

This is the crowd not able to get in to TrumpÂ’s rallyÂ… In Blue State NevadaÂ…

Bloomberg Loses Ground Following Debate Debut in Las Vegas

Pick your Socialist President 2020

Here's a List of All the Stuff 'Nanny' Bloomberg Has Tried to Ban

Voter Data From Trump's Arizona Rally Should Scare The Hell Out Of Democrats

Shocking Video Shows Cop Execute Unarmed Grandpa for Walking Toward Him

A Michigan Police Task Force Is Playing Jurisdiction Games To Avoid Compensating an Innocent Man Cops Put in the Hospital

What is the 'boogaloo?' How online calls for a violent uprising are hitting the mainstream

Dealing with AGWs?

Movie Review: Vanishing Point (1971) : A libertarian perspective

Federal Judges Meeting Will Target Trump And Barr, Report Says

NSC adviser 'is to be reassigned' amid DC rumors SHE is the infamous 'Anonymous' behind anti-Trump NYTimes op-ed and book 'A Warning'

Off-Duty Cop Follows Woman Through Parking Lot, Attacks Her—Taxpayers Shell Out $125K

New Witness Corroborates Accusation That Mike Bloomberg Told Pregnant Employee to 'Kill It'

Cops Stop Veteran with PTSD for No Reason, Savagely Taser and Hit Him Over 30 Times

The Student Debt You Willingly Took On Is Not My Problem To Solve

Virginia: Gun Ban Bill Defeated!

Democrats fear Republican sabotage in key Senate race

Trump Supporters Are George W Bush Supporters LARPing As Ron Paul Supporters

US closes case against ex-FBI boss McCabe with no charges

Pelosi: A.G. Barr 'has deeply damaged the rule of law'

More Victims Discovered After Cop Caught on Video Planting Meth on Innocent People

PasTor Who Prophesized 4 Years Ago ... AbouT Kanye WesT’s ChrisTian Conversion Makes PredicTion --- AbouT PresidenT Trump’s Chances Of Re-elecTion

Senate Democrats queasy over Sanders as nomin

John Kelly Finally Lets Loose on Trump

Thursday, February 13, 2020 Trump breaks New Hampshire record for voter turnout for any incumbent president

Instrumental 9 year old guitarist Taj Farrant plays Chris Stapleton "Tennessee Whiskey" on his Gibson SG and Elixir strings Marshall amp

The Ten Most Destructive Americans of Eight Decades

Nancy Pelosi’s Staff Demands Takedown of ‘Deceptively Altered’ Video of Her SOTU Tantrum

OKC - A Conspiracy Theory

#FlashbackFriday when Vindman perjured himself and @RepBradWenstrup caught him.

Biden Calls Skeptical New Hampshire Voter ‘a Lying, Dog-Faced Pony Soldier’ (The dust-up came after the voter asked whether he can rebound from Iowa)

Trump's resilience ... causes DemocraTs --- To sound The alarm

Hillary Clinton Comments on Potentially Joining Democratic Ticket as VP Nominee

Cop Found Passed Out Drunk in Patrol Car On Duty in Traffic, 5X Over Legal Limit—No Charges

‘Clearly Guilty’: Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano Says Trump Could Be Impeached Again


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles

Title: TURLEY: <b>'Fast and Furious' impeachment looks like a rush to a failed case</b>
Source: The Hill
URL Source: https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia ... s-like-a-rush-to-a-failed-case
Published: Dec 8, 2019
Author: jONATHAN tURLEY
Post Date: 2019-12-08 10:57:05 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 134
Comments: 5

TURLEY: 'Fast and Furious' impeachment looks like a rush to a failed case

By Jonathan Turley, opinion contributor
The Hill
12/07/19 01:00 PM EST

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

The day after the first House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the panel would move immediately to draft articles of impeachment, with a vote expected within two weeks. The most discussed crime is now obstruction of Congress, based on the Trump administration seeking to block witnesses. Democratic lawmakers in the hearing repeated the words of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in rejecting claims of immunity like a mantra, “Presidents are not kings.”

[...]

The House is about to impeach Trump for blocking witnesses while, at the same time, saying the record is overwhelming based on the testimony of many of those very witnesses. That record is composed of roughly a dozen witnesses, including many officials who are still working in the executive branch. None of those witnesses have been disciplined or fired for opting to testify. In addition, Trump released transcripts of his controversial phone calls, which ordinarily would remain privileged and nonpublic information. Finally, while the obstruction claims against Nixon were made in conjunction with established crimes, the array of crimes alleged against Trump, like bribery, extortion, and obstructing justice, lack key elements of those crimes. This impeachment would be based more on obstructing the investigation and less on the alleged crimes themselves.

Instead of explaining the abbreviated period of investigation, Democrats have falsely claimed that this is actually a longer investigation than the impeachment of Andrew Johnson and the impeachment of Bill Clinton. That is not correct, though in my testimony before the House Judiciary Committee I stressed that, with regard to President Johnson, it depends on how you count the days. In order to claim that this is actually a longer investigation, Democrats use the date of the passage of impeachment resolutions instead of the underlying investigations to measure time.

The record in this case is as short as the timeline. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee quoted me as saying that the record is “wafer thin” and held up two binders to prove there is an extensive record for impeachment. To be clear, I testified that this record was comparatively not actually wafer thin. However, the mere fact that Jackson Lee could hold up the relevant record in two binders is precisely the point. If she were to show the record in the Nixon or Clinton cases, she would have had to drive a semitruck into the committee room. Of course, none of this matters. Pelosi will get a fast impeachment, and there is no shortage of fury. Ultimately, “Fast and Furious” amounts to little more than a rush to a failed impeachment.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: nolu chan (#0)

Turley was right. There was an abuse of power ... by the Democrats.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-08   11:44:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: nolu chan (#0) (Edited)

“Presidents are not kings.”

Obama seems to think he's a "king maker" though...

Funny how the dialectic, amoral, corporately owned, Rainbow swine in the farmhouse show their true colors.

They must be worried that Comrade Bernie's Chekist fan club would clean house and do bidness as usual as they burned it down... with them in it.

Judas Goat  posted on  2019-12-08   11:55:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Peromischievous leucopus (#2)

That faithful old government publication of Rules of Evidence in an Impeachment Trial, it states: [boldface as in original]

2218. After discussion of English precedents, the Senate ruled decisively in the Peck trial that the strict rules of evidence in force in the courts should be applied.

Witnesses in an impeachment trial are required to state facts and not opinions.

[...]

When they get out of that "fact-finding stage," and get into the trial stage, none of the hearsay or less than "best evidence" comes in. The Republican led Senate is highly unlikely to waive centuries of precedent to help Sloppy Jerry avoid disaster.

2226. In impeachment trials the rule that the best evidence procurable should be presented has been followed.

It was decided in the Belknap trial that a witness might not be examined as to the contents of an existing letter without the letter itself being submitted.

Instance wherein the President pro tempore ruled on evidence during an impeachment trial.

On April 4, 1868,2 in the Senate sitting for the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, Mr. Robert S. Chew, chief clerk of the State Department, was sworn as a witness on behalf of the House of Representatives, and examined by Mr. Manager Benjamin F. Butler as to the practice of making temporary appointments of assistant secretaries of Departments to perform the duties of their chiefs in the absence of the latter. The witness testified that the appointments in such cases were made by the President, or by his order. Mr. Butler then asked:

Did the letter of authority in most of these cases * * * proceed from the head of the Department or from the President?

Mr. William M. Evarts, of counsel for the President, objected that the letter of authority showed from whom it came, and was the best evidence on that point. In the discussion which followed, the counsel for the President intimated that they did not object if the question was intended to elicit a reply as to whose manual possession the paper came from. But if it was intended to ascertain who signed the paper, then the paper itself would be the best evidence.

Mr. Butler reduced the question to writing as follows:

Question. State whether any of the letters of authority which you have mentioned came from the Secretary of State or from what other officer?

The Chief Justice3 thereupon made an inquiry which led to this colloquy:

The CHIEF JUSTICE. ‘‘Came from the Secretary of State.’’ Do I understand you to mean signed by him?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I am not anxious upon that part of it, sir. I am content with the question as it stands.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice conceives that the question in the form in which it is put is not objectionable, but—

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I will put it, then, with the leave of the Chief Justice.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice was about to proceed to say that if it is intended to ask the question whether these documents of which a list is furnished were signed by the Secretary, then he thinks it is clearly incompetent without producing them.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. Under favor, Mr. President, I have no list of these documents; none has been furnished.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. Does not the question relate to the list which has been furnished?

Mr. Manager BUTLER. It relates to the people whose names have been put upon the list; but I have no list of the documents at all. I have only a list of the facts that such appointments were made, but I have no list of the letters, whether they came from the President or from the Secretary or from anybody else.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. In the form in which the question is put the Chief Justice thinks it is not objectionable. If any Senator desires to have the question taken by the Senate, he will put it to the Senate. [To the managers, no Senator speaking.] You can put the question in the form proposed.

Mr. Manager BUTLER (to the witness). State whether any of the letters of authority which you have mentioned came from the Secretary of State, or from what other officer.

Mr. CURTIS. I understand the witness is not to answer by whom they were sent.

Mr. Manager BUTLER. I believe I have this witness.

The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Chief Justice will instruct the witness. [To the witness.] You are not to answer at present by whom these documents were signed. You may say from whom they came.

__________

2 Second session Fortieth Congress, Globe supplement, p. 118.

3 Salmon P. Chase, of Ohio, Chief Justice.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2230. In the Swayne trial hearsay testimony introduced to show inconvenience to litigants from respondent’s conduct was ruled out.

[...]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2235. In general during impeachment trials questions as to conversations with third parties, not in presence of respondent, have been excluded from evidence.—On March 8, 1803,2 in the high court of impeachment during the trial of John Pickering, judge of the United States district court of New Hampshire, Mr. Jonathan Steele was testifying, when, Mr. Joseph H. Nicholson, of Maryland, chairman of the managers for the House of Representatives, addressed the court. He said he wished in case it should be deemed proper by the court, to ask one of the witnesses whether he had conversed with the family physician of Judge Pickering, and what his opinion was as to the origination of his insanity. Mr. Nicholson observed that he had doubts of the propriety of this question, and therefore, in the first instance, stated it to the court.

The court decided the question inadmissible.

Later, on the same day, this witness, in the course of his testimony, was going on to state some conversation he had with Judge Pickering’s physician at this time

which he was induced to ask in consequence of solicitude to gain true information as to the reported intemperance of the Judge, when he was interrupted by the Court,1 and informed that this species of testimony had been already decided to be inadmissible.

__________

2 First session Eighth Congress, Annals, pp. 358, 359.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2238. In the Johnson trial declarations of respondent, made anterior to the act, and even concomitant with it, were held inadmissible as evidence.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2245. In the Johnson trial the Chief Justice ruled that an official message transmitted after the act was not admissible as evidence to show intent.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-08   15:09:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: nolu chan (#3)

2226. In impeachment trials the rule that the best evidence procurable should be presented has been followed.

Do Fearless Leader and his cult of Log Cabin Pipe Fitters/Pizza Pedophiles not LOVE wikileaks anymore?

search.wikileaks.org/?q=Firtash

Lots of evidence there. Odd how his/their/your "concern" over Ukrainian corruption seems to, conveniently, miss that.

Judas Goat  posted on  2019-12-08   15:19:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Peromischievous leucopus (#4)

Lots of evidence there.

Speaking of evidence....

From Rules of Evidence in an Impeachment Trial:

2256. In the Belknap trial objection was successfully made to an opinion of a subordinate officer as to evidence of the character of respondent’s administration.—On July 12, 1876,1 in the Senate sitting for the impeachment trial of William W. Belknap, late Secretary of War, Nelson H. Davis, Inspector General of the Army, was examined as a witness on behalf of the respondent, and Mr. Matt. H. Carpenter, of counsel for the respondent, having ascertained that witness had been in the Army during respondent’s entire administration and had been holding constant official relations with him, asked:

From all you know of the subject, and from all you know of General Belknap, I ask you what has been the general character of his administration of the War Department?

Mr. Manager George A. Jenks at once objected:

The objection I make to that is that a witness must testify to character instead of to the specific acts of this man, or general acts. He must know what has been said by those who are familiar with his administration in that office, instead of how has he done the business.

Mr. Manager George F. Hoar said:

We understand also that it should be the opposite of the particular offense charged. If a man is charged with adultery, his reputation for chastity; if he is charged with perjury, his reputation for veracity. We suppose the question should be, ‘‘What is the reputation of the Secretary for official integrity?’’ * * * We do not understand that it is competent to prove by a subordinate officer in the Army, as an expert, the general character of the administration of a great officer of state. There is no such thing as an expert in such an administration. We object to the question unless it is limited to the reputation of the Secretary for official integrity.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-08   23:45:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com