Connect with us


MSNBC Legal Analyst Blows Up Jonathan Turley’s ‘Deeply Illogical’ Trump Defense Against Impeachment



MSNBC’s Chuck Rosenberg blew up the legal arguments put forth by Jonathan Turley to defend President Donald Trump from impeachment.

The former U.S. Attorney and head of the Drug Enforcement Agency told “Morning Joe” that Turley, also an MSNBC contributor, made no sense when he complained that the impeachment process was moving too fast.

“One of the complaints that professor Turley had yesterday, and I thought it was deeply illogical, is that this process is moving fast and too narrow,” Rosenberg said. “If something bad happens you move quickly. Law enforcement, if someone does something wrong, we arrest them and move quickly. This is ongoing so it’s a threat.”

“But the narrow part is what irked me,” he continued. “Here’s why: It’s narrow because the White House has blocked access to subpoenas and witnesses. It’s narrow by design, but not by the Democrats but by the White House.”

“So to criticize Democrats for being too narrow in their inquiry misses the entire point,” he added. “It’s narrow because they have been blocked from getting access to these people that … we would like to hear from.”


‘Like the Gestapo’: GOP Congressman Blasted for Asking Sworn Witnesses if They ‘Actually Voted for Donald Trump’

‘Literally Just Making Things Up Right Now’: Legal Analyst Wallops Turley’s Testimony Against Impeachment as ‘Nonsense’

GOP’s Legal Expert Insisted Clinton Had to Be Impeached to Protect the ‘Existence of Government’ and Prevent ‘Anarchy’



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.


‘I Am Not Yielding!’ Rep. Pramila Jayapal Shuts Down Jim Jordan’s Attempt to Hijack Impeachment Hearing



Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) stood her ground at an impeachment hearing on Thursday after Republicans tried to derail her arguments in favor of removing President Donald Trump.

Jayapal began her remarks by pointing out that Florida Republican Matt Gaetz was wrong to suggest that President Donald Trump was invested in Ukraine’s fight against Russia.

“Why then did he decide he was so concerned about ‘corruption’ that he was not going to release military aid?” Jayapal said, prompting Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio to demand that she yield the floor.

“I am not yielding!” Jayapal exclaimed. “I am not yielding. I am not yielding.”

“They got a new president!” Jordan shouted, referring to Ukraine.

“The gentlelady has the time!” Chairman Jerry Nadler said, bringing down the gavel. “People will not interrupt.”

“That argument has no weight whatsoever!” Jayapal fired back at Jordan. “No where between the time that Donald Trump withheld aid and the time that he released that aid was there an additional assessment [on Ukraine corruption] required or done.”

“Forget about President Trump,” she said. “Will any one of my colleagues on the other side say that it is an abuse of power to condition aid on official acts?”

“Not a single one of you has said that so far,” Jayapal noted.

Watch the video below from CNN.


Continue Reading


‘Literally Just Making Things Up Right Now’: Legal Analyst Wallops Turley’s Testimony Against Impeachment as ‘Nonsense’



“A tap dancing exercise in intellectual dishonesty”

George Washington University Law School Law professor Jonathan Turley was the GOP’s only witness during Wednesday’s Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings, and based on the reactions of legal experts, it did not go well for him or the Republicans.

Professor Turley made many claims, with MSNBC hosts at one point declaring what he was really doing was offering new amendments to the U.S. Constitution, suggesting his arguments against impeaching President Trump did not hold up.

CNN National Security and Legal Analyst Susan Hennessey is calling Turley’s claims “nonsense,” and says Democrats should turn their attention to him to “demolish” his arguments.

Hennessey, who is also the Executive Editor at the highly-respected Lawfare blog, goes on to say, “Turley is literally just making things up right now.”

Turley had argued that House Democrats were guilty of abuse of power for attempting to impeach Trump for using the courts as a shield to refuse to hand over any subpoenaed materials and to block key witnesses from testifying.

Related: GOP’s Legal Expert Insisted Clinton Had to Be Impeached to Protect the ‘Existence of Government’ and Prevent ‘Anarchy’

Hennessey clearly disagreed:

She was not yet finished, accusing Turley of engaging in “a tap dancing exercise in intellectual dishonesty.”

Continue Reading


WATCH: Constitutional Scholar Pamela Karlan Explains Why Trump’s Actions Have All the Elements of Bribery



Stanford Law School professor Pamela Karlan, who offered a fiery rebuttal to Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) during impeachment hearings in the House Judiciary Committee, delivered testimony on Wednesday that succinctly explained why President Donald Trump’s actions constitute bribery.

During her testimony, attorney Norm Eisen described bribery as one of the offenses specifically listed in the Constitution as an offense that would warrant impeachment of the president.

Karlan began by explaining that there was no federal law against bribery until decades after the Constitution was ratified, which meant that the inclusion of bribery in the country’s founding document referred to the term as understood by common law.

“So what they were thinking about was bribery as it was understood in the 18th century based on the common law up until that point,” she explained. “But what they were understanding then was the idea that when you took private benefits or when you asked for private benefits… in return for an official act, or someone gave them to you to influence an official act, that was bribery.”

Eisen then asked her to evaluate whether the president’s actions in pressuring the government of Ukraine to investigate his political rivals constituted bribery.

“If you conclude that he asked for the investigation of Vice President Biden and his son for political reasons — that is to aid his re-election, then, yes,” she said. “You have bribery here.”

Watch the video below.


GOP’s Legal Expert Insisted Clinton Had to Be Impeached to Protect the ‘Existence of Government’ and Prevent ‘Anarchy’

Experts: House Impeachment Report Spells ‘Deep, Deep Trouble’ – For Devin Nunes

Trump Warns a Future Democratic President Might Get Impeached ‘Because Somebody Picked an Orange Out of a Refrigerator’



Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.