1. People are attacking Turley a a hack. He has both a valid argument, which is disingenuous at the same time. The evidentiary record is less robust than it should be; there should be more investigation of Ukraine affair. However, that is still a bit of sophistry and raises...
2...what should be the approach. Trump *should* be impeached now, but not for the totality of the case. He is obstructing justice. He is impeding rightful exercise of Constituitional authority of the House. *This* is why the case is less robust than it should be. Obstruction...
3...should not be rewarded by saying "oh, well, the case hasn't heard from all the witnesses." It's like saying "Well, Joe murdered the witness, so we can't indict him for rape." No, you charge for murder, and keep investigating the rape.....
4...Turley is bemoaning the *consequence* of an impeachable offense. Trump has set himself up for two sets of possible impeachments: One for obstruction, one for Ukraine affair. The Senate GOP will be left arguing "Well, the case is silly." There is no "silly" exemption under....
5...the Constitutional and legal precedent authority of the House to issue subpoenas. In fact, Trump should be impeached for *all* of the refusals to abide by the law on following subpoenas. If the Senate says "not important" they are both crippling all future Senates and....
6...granting enormous power to all future Presidents - if there are any - to act as Kings.
So Turley is, as I said, disingenuous. He is too smart not to understand that you don't reward obstruction.
Two impeachments.
So Turley is, as I said, disingenuous. He is too smart not to understand that you don't reward obstruction.
Two impeachments.
