Turley on Hardball: "Let me finish for the love of God!"

[eleny]

JT going toe to toe with Matthews and Buchanan over the use of torture and doing a heroic job of it. He won't loosen his hold on the issue. If we didn't want to follow the Geneva Conventions we shouldn't have signed onto them.

[Dragonfli]

1. I think the idea of torture gives tweety a hardon

He defends it like it excites him, spouting all of the hypothetical ticking time bomb bullshit.

[lapfog_1]

4. Somebody check Tweety's leg for a strand of barb wire!

I always imagined that he was a member of Opus Dei.

[Dragonfli]

10. Oddly I have also suspected the same thing.

The "tingle up his leg" may often be caused by a mic cord shorting on his leg barbs.

[AzDar]

12. Heh.

:thumbsup:

[mrs_p]

75. catholics in opus dei generally hate obama

tweety seems kinda sweet on him...

[truedelphi]

160. I haven't watched tweety much, lately, but he

Really was hard on Senator Clinton, and rallied around Obama.

I get in to trouble if I watch him here at the house. So lately haven't been doing it. (If the weather was nastier, I'd put up a fight, but better to be outdoors than to worry over the politics sometimes.)

[Captain Hilts]

5. It's good for ratings. nt

[eleny]

7. Today, I got the impression that Matthews was devil's advocate

He gave Turley the time he needed to make his points even though Buchanan and Matthews did butt in quite often. Turley stayed pretty calm. That gives him so much credibility.

I liked how JT contradicted Buchanan over the issue of investigations tearing the country apart. Turley asserted that we are stronger and that Buchanan was selling the country short.

[Mika]

36. He gave Turley the time he needed? What show were you watching?

Both Tweety and Pat wouldn't let him finish a single sentence. :argh:

[eleny]

50. I thought Turley got his points across over and over

I did say in my reply above that they did butt in a lot. But the beauty of it is that Turley's point was singular and was asserted many times. We're a country of laws, torture is illegal and if we didn't want to go along with the Geneva Conventions we shouldn't have signed on.

Matthews knew it was a singular point to be made. Sso I think he felt free to challenge Turley - but to no avail.

[Cha]

57. Yeah, like pat buchannan isn't trying his damnest

to "tear the country apart" on his own.

[janx]

163. haha..."culture war," etc.

:toast:

:rofl:

[The Magistrate]

2. God Does Not Love Turley, Ma'am

If the wretch wanted to be taken seriously on this matter, he should not have been such an enthusiastic cheer-leader for the wholly trumped up and utterly political impeachment of President Clinton. He is nothing but an unpleasant noise, no matter what side of an issue he aligns upon....

"Never forget, never forgive."

[hlthe2b]

9. That does not make ANY SENSE at all, SIR

except that he is consistent in interpreting the law, with no regard to the political party of the offender. I may not agree with the trumped up impeachment, but the technical and unfortunate reality is that Clinton DID lie under oath, thereby giving them the ammunition. Perjury is perjury in Turley's mind. The impeachment was political and ridiculous. The perjury, however, is fact--even if it is true that Clinton should never have been compelled to answer the question.

"God does not love Turley, Ma'am" Good God, Magistrate! How friggin ridiculous!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And Bill O'Reilly's a fair and balanced journalist.

[hlthe2b]

15. How very disingenuous... This is not about Bll O'lielly

Take your strawdogs elsewhere. No one here would defend O'Rielly. Your changing the subject away from the issue at hand is a totally corrupt form of argument--one the right wing favors. Shame on you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. This is about cable news hacks desperate for an audience.

Turley. O'Reilly. Same shit.

[Dragonfli]

23. You are so RIGHT where did O'Lielly get his law degree from? I forget. /nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. He got his degree in public administration from Harvard.

So he must be important, right?

[Dragonfli]

34. Of Course and he only speaks on issues that he teaches at a college level. Just like Turley

[Tangerine LaBamba]

64. You're serious?

Are you, really?

Serious, I mean?

Really?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. As serious as Turley pretends to be.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

77. He's pretending?

I thought he was giving a very rational discourse on how the law works. As a Constitutional lawyer myself, I think Turley's among the greats.

So, how do you know he's pretending?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

78. Totally.

He's as phony as a three dollar bill.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

79. Why do you say that?

I'd love to know - truly - why you say that, and what is your experience with Jon Turley. I've never encountered anyone who said anything like that about him.

How is he phony?

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JuniperLea]

16. Had he not been dragged over the coals for nothing...

He wouldn't have been given the opportunity to lie.

Lying is bad, and wrong, and Bill did a bad thing by lying about sexual relations with that woman. The fact remains, it was nobody's business and it should have never been taken that far.

[hlthe2b]

17. Which, if you read my post, is EXACTLY what I said...

:shrug:

[janx]

153. The whole thing was a FARCE that embarrassed me.

You're right in that it should never have been taken that far. As one of my former bosses said at the time (he's a Greek academic), "We are going to decide the fate of a world leader based on who is diddling whom?!"

He was so right.

At the same time, technically, Bill Clinton lied under oath. It should never have gotten that far. The whole thing was ridiculous. But once it did get that far, U.S. laws took over, and President Clinton was found guilty of lying under oath.

[The Magistrate]

155. President Clinton, Ma'am, was Neither Indicted, Tried, Nor Convicted Of Perjury

http://mediamatters.org/items/200707050005

[janx]

156. I stand corrected, Mr. Magistrate,

and none of it should have gotten to that point anyway. He said he didn't have sex with that woman, Lewinsky. OK. Technically, in his mind, he didn't.

But the whole thing was a ridiculous farce anyway. It should never have gotten to that point. He certainly wasn't the first president to have dalliances, nor will he be the last.

[The Magistrate]

158. No Problem, Ma'am, But It Is Important To Keep Things Straight In a Matter Like This

Turley's 'advice' on the question of Impeachment, starting with his conclusion a crime had been committed through to his declaration that crime met the standard of 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' was wrong from start to finish, and if preferred to a client facing trial would have amounted to legal malpractice. His commentary on the more vexed and intricate matter of treaty obligations to international law is of no better quality.

Allow me to suggest perusing this piece, Ma'am, for a truly informed commentary on the matter:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/25/nowak/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/greenwald

[janx]

162. Thank you. I respect Salon.

To another point: Do you believe that Turley is wrong in his legal opinions re the torture situation? He seems to agree with Greenwald.

[The Magistrate]

164. Dr. Nowack's Comments, Ma'am

Make dripping hash of Turley's shrill outcries that if President Obama does not immediately set prosecutions in train he is a war criminal himself. It takes little more than perhaps a fourth grade education to state authoritatively that torture is a crime under U.S. and international law, the man gets no particular credit for saying that. What he does is present his 'legal analysis' in a form intended to communicate the message that Democrats are just as bad, if not actually worse, than Republicans in regard to culpability in this matter. That is his purpose, and that is why he is a fixture on cable news. The man is not, repeat not, our friend....

[Enthusiast]

171. And this is what many forget.

Europeans were mystified that a complicit media and the citizenry of the U.S.A. were willing to throw a president out of office over a consensual sex act. Then, when the result of the 2000 election was questionable, Europeans correctly felt that something wasn't on the up and up with the American system. This is why they are thrilled to see we elected President Obama. Needless to say, the U.S.A. could be a very dangerous force in the hands of fascists.

[The Magistrate]

21. No, Ma'am

One of the problems we face at present, and faced during the last Congress, is the popular perception that Congressional action against an Executive of the opposing party is a purely political exercise, and that any claim it is based on legitimate concerns of criminal behavior or serious malfeasance is mere puffery. That is a lesson Turley went to great lengths to drum into the popular mind during the nineties of the last century. He does not get to complain of the consequences of his own actions, any more than a drunk driver gets to complain about having to walk or ride the bus instead of drive nowadays. The man is part of the problem: he never has been, and never can be, part of the solution. he is a pissant of the highest water, and deserves whatever contemptuous treatment he may receive, from any who choose to deal it out, and on whatever grounds they may do so. If low-lifes of the caliber of Buchanan and Matthews talk over him and shut him down, good; the only better thing would be not having him on for interviews in the first place. There are plenty of other people who could be had to press the point that violations of international law that are felonies under the Federal code ought to be prosecuted. This toad is not the man....

[hlthe2b]

60. I give you credit for verbosity, even as I deduct for reasoning....

But, you are welcome SIR to your opinion.

[The Magistrate]

67. That Will Be Difficult To Bear Up Under, Ma'am, But We All have Burdens In This Life....

"In this vale of sorrows there are yet things to be thankful for; for my part, I give thanks I am not a Republican."

[grantcart]

92. ahem

<giggle><whispering to the others>
"The magistrate just called Matthews 'a low life'"

"Atleast he didn't call him a turd"


<hushed roar of giggles>

[radiclib]

137. Yow!

Hold a grudge much?:yoiks:
Seems to me, Turley is performing invaluable advocacy for the prosecution of hideous crimes committed in our name. To cheer his shouting down by Tweety and Buchanan is just a tad counterproductive, if not totally absurd.

[sabrina 1]

84. I love Turley, but I disagree with him

if he believes Clinton commit perjury. The elements for perjury in the Paula Jones case, which is what the impeachment was based on, were not there. He gave statements in a deposition in a case that was dismissed on the merits. So he never 'lied under oath' about the matter he was impeached for. That was another rightwing lie.

To commit perjury someone has to tell lies that are material to a case, that might affect the outcome. He may have lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky in the depositions, and as far as I know, you are not under oath while giving depositions. Added to that I don't think the questions regarding Monica were material to the Paula Jones case.

I have never read Jonathon Thurley's opinion on the Clinton/Paula Jones case so I don't know how he came to that conclusion. Lying about an affair in a deposition when the lies are not material to the case, not to mention that the case, according to the judge, had no merit, is not perjury.

Here is the judge's opinion after granting Clinton's request for a summary judgement. It is long, but the bottom line was there was no case:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Judge%27s_Opinion_Dismissing_Paula_Jones_v._William_Clinton

plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury. Reduced to its essence, the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party and the court therefore finds that there are no genuine issues for trial in this case.

The Republicans' attempt to get Clinton on perjury charges was related to depositions taken in this dismissed case, and what he supposedly lied about was, in the opinion of many legal experts, not even 'material to the case' even it had had any merit.

I am surprised JT would agree with the perjury charge.

[hlthe2b]

88. Frankly, I could care less about his Clinton opinion at this point...

What I DO care about his his stance on torture.... All the Clinton crap is diversionary.

[sabrina 1]

89. It may be diversionary

But the rightwing claims of perjury and 'lying under oath' should not be allowed to go unchallenged, imo. Clinton was acuitted by the Senate of those charges and that is important to rememeber. Important also, because it means that the Impeachment process worked, contrary to claims that it did not. Iow, a false charge did not succeed and that is how the law is supposed to work.

But the constant repetition of the lie that Clinton was found guilty of perjury shows how successful the rightwing spin machine was in twisting the facts. And it shows how bad the media in general was in educating the public about the facts.

Also, claiming that the Clinton impeachment failed is often used as an excuse for not impeaching Bush when the truth is, Impeachment did not fail. It would have been a failure had Clinton been convicted of something he did not do.

I do agree with Jonathon Thurley on the issue of torture and am glad he is speaking out about it.

[digidigido]

126. An oath is required for a deposition, therefore if he lied in his deposition he lied under oath

Opinions are one thing, facts are another. Not only did he lie under oath, he was caught doing it.
The man lied in writing, and he was the POTUS.
The quote you give was concerning Paula Jones, he was impeached for lying about Lewinsky
The man made his office a joke, and a bad joke at that. Not only that, but if he hadn't shamed
his office, Bush never would have pulled off the stealing of election 2000.
An awful lot of people were pretty fed up with Clinton, the fact that he didn't resign speaks
volumes about him

[sabrina 1]

128. You are correct that an oath is required

in a deposition. I have checked that.

The quote I gave WAS about the Paula Jones case, because it was the deposition in that case that brought about the multi-million dollar witch-hunt by Kenneth Starr. I posted the link to show that a charge of perjury could not succeed since the case itself, a civil case btw, was thrown out of court on its merits and to get a perjury charge, the lie, whether under oath or not, has to be material to the case, which even had the case gone forward, it apparently was not.

Whether Clinton lied or not about his relationship with ML in his deposition is a matter of opinion to some. However, in a strict legal sense, responding to the questions asked of him by Jones' attorneys, he did not. Suffice it to say they were not very smart in their atttempt to entrap a sitting president with the way they framed their questions. The Senate apparently agreed.

If Clinton's affair with ML was anybody's business, so were the affairs of every other president who cheated on their wives. A personal affair or lies about it should never have been a cause for impeachment. It was an abuse of the Constitution and no matter what your opinion, or mine, is of the man himself, no one who cares even remotely about the reasons for the inclusion of Impeachment in the Constitution could condone the abuse of it by the mob of rabid, rightwing conspirators who, as I have already said, committed treason in their relentless, years-long attempt to overturn an election simply for political reasons.

Oh, and yes, he should not have had an affair and handed his enemies, and imo, enemies of this democracy, the means to 'get him'. The law is not meant to be used as they used it, as a bludgeon to 'get' a political opponent.

I think your anger is mis-directed. Their crime, imo, was far, far worse than his personal failure to remain loyal to his wife. Their crime abused the Constitution of the US and that is a direct threat to this Democracy. That is who I reserve my anger for, no matter how I feel about Clinton's actions which none of us needed to know anything about and a majority of the population of this country appear to have agreed with that. The damage done, therefore, was done by those who conducted the withchunt.

[Spazito]

144. I found Turley's opinion that perjury, in this case, qualified..

as "high crimes and misdemeanors" as stated in Article II of the Constitution to be very suspect as to his real intention:

Section. 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

[sabrina 1]

147. Yes, I wasn't aware of his role

in Clinton's impeachment and would have sworn he would have argued against it, from what I know of him now.

The Magistrate's posts on this issue in this thread explain beautifully, imo, why the Clinton impeachment was so out of line with what the FFs had in mind. His posts are well worth reading on the subject, imo. I would like to hear Thurley respond to some of the points he makes here.

[Samantha]

90. Could you please refresh my memory

Exactly what lie under oath did Clinton tell?

Sam

[hlthe2b]

91. No... I defended Clinton, I supported Clinton..I fought against the

witch hunt at the time. Rehashing this is damned ridiculous and if you insist on doing so, YOU Go look it up.

The issue at hand is TORTURE....and Professor TUrley is damned right on that issue.

Take your side issues elsewhere

[Samantha]

94. I don't have to look it up

and it is not a side issue. It is a very important historical fact which your absolute statement above distorts.

Clinton was given a definition of sex as defined by the prosecutor in the case. He was told to answer questions based on the definition of sex as written on the 3 x 5 cards presented to him prior to his testimony. On the 3 x 5 cards were listed various female body parts as well as various male body parts. The questions to Clinton were phrased to inquire about female parts touching male parts and vice versa. Egregiously missing from the 3 x 5 cards were "lips."

As the prosecutors asked the questions, Clinton, himself a lawyer, referred to the cards he had been instructed to utilize, and answered each question literally. The prosecutor hung himself out to dry in the questioning by ridiculously allowing for the possibility that oral sex might have been experienced.

I taped this deposition and watched many Republican lawyers comment on Clinton's testimony. They themselves said he walked a thin legal line, but did not lie.

The public outrage over the misleading answers Clinton gave were misplaced and distorted. He told the literal legal truth as defined by the prosecutors themselves.

It was one thing to be outraged by Clinton's misleading statements in public relations setting, but it is quite another to distort the legal truth about his testimony.

Defining it as a mere side issue to distort your casual accusation against the former President of the United States in a historical impeachment proceeding only diminishes the credibility of your posts here.

And furthermore, "I did not have sex with that woman" was literally true when applying those standards the prosecution itself had defined as sex, limiting it purely to orthodox intercourse, and excluding oral activity.

Sam

[hlthe2b]

101. If it makes you feel better...

:eyes: The issue is torture.. I'd think we could all unite to focus on that for a short while, but apparently not.

[tbyg52]

135. Thank you for the information - I did not know about the cards.

Wow, what an oversight on the part of the prosecutors.

I had heard theories that in the South only intercourse counted as sex being why Clinton said what he did, but had not heard before about the definitions being given to him, and that they lacked the act in question.

[Usrename]

143. Historically, the term "sexual relations" did have a specific meaning.

It meant what we now call "sexual intercourse" or coitus. It also had a legal sense, in that paternity could not be established absent "sexual relations." This was before DNA and other paternity were used. So, historically, when someone said they "never had sexual relations with that woman" in a legal setting, they were making a statement that would deny paternity. I guess this could have been more frequently used in the South, because of our gentile nature, but I hadn't heard that.

I think that every dictionary that defined "sexual relations" which was published before Clinton was elected expressed the definition as simply "coitus." They had to change all the dictionaries in order to accuse him of perjury. They were almost successful.

[Samantha]

161. That is not a theory -- it is the truth

I moved to the East from Knoxville, Tennessee. As you might know, there are many, many Southern Baptists in that region. Pre-marital sex is against the religion of many people there. But oral sex is not intercourse, and so some people whose hormones are acting up chose that road instead of the one leading to hell and damnation!! So when I heard Clinton saying the things he said, as outrageous as they seemed to people in the East and other regions of the Country, I was not surprised inasmuch as this attitude is so prevalent in the South.

Later when re-questioned about his statements during his Paula Jones testimony, Bill Clinton had to quote his answers previously given; otherwise, he would have immediately been accused by the Republicans of changing his story or lying (as they would have phrased it). Thus we heard the emergence of the phrase, in answer to a question about "did you have sex ..." -- "That depends on what your definition of sex is." While that phrase as well drew many snickers, the lawyer Clinton was referring to the fact that sex had been defined by those prosecuting the Paula Jones' case. He meant that response legally and literally -- not sarcastically.

But you are right -- it is simply unbelievable that a prosecutor in a political witch hunt such as the ones conducted against Bill Clinton could make such an asinine omission. The Republicans have never openly discussed the incompetence of the prosecutor in that case with reference to Clinton's answers. It is just so much more politically convenient to say he lied.

I believe someone like Turley following these statements would have immediately assumed Clinton was simply making outrageously deceptive statements.

Clinton's conduct, while regrettable, did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. And that series of events is what led me to leave the Republican party in disgust and come over to the Democrats. Been here for 13 years and never looked back.

Sam

[sabrina 1]

96. As I said in my post above,

Clinton did not lie under oath as the case was dismissed. He may have evaded questions regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky in the depostions for that case, but you are not under oath in a deposition and as I already said, even if the case had not been dismissed, lying about something that is not material to the case, even if he did, is not perjury.

[sabrina 1]

97. Oops, ignore my post below, I thought your question

was directed to me, I see it was not, my mistake.

[Samantha]

98. No, I was backing you up, my friend

so it is okay.

Sam

[sabrina 1]

127. Thanks,

I appreciate that :-)

[Grateful for Hope]

132. I absolutely agree n/t

[Usrename]

141. There was no perjury.

Any person who is supposed to know the law would know that.

None of the tests for perjury was ever met.

Basically, Turley was the ONLY constitutional scholar to testify in front of Henry Hyde that impeachment was warranted.

He testified something to the effect that Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes has nothing to do with impeaching a president, that a president can be impeached for littering and that he should be impeached for even the tiniest infraction to preserve the "rule of law."

Turley is responsible for supporting a chain of events that made it more difficult to impeach Bush.

Turley is one of the reasons that we are in the mess we are in. He's an imbecile.

And Clinton did not commit perjury. That should be a well established fact after all the nonsense included in the Starr Report was debunked in a trial. If you think he did, then try and produce the statement that he made under oath that you believe is perjury.

[MADem]

11. Thanks for that memory!

He was profoundly "unhelpful" during Clinton's troubles. You don't want to think that people are getting paid to spout bullshit, and you don't want to assume people can be bought, but I sometimes wondered about his "enthusiasm" vis a vis that matter.

[eleny]

20. I get the impression that Turley is enthusiastic about the law

I'd like to stay focused on the issue at hand. But if we you want to take Turley on for being "unhelpful" to Clinton then so be it. I'll take Turley's side. He kept focused on the law and didn't allow partisanship to rule his day.

[Dragonfli]

33. I agree. I don't think the "Dems are not to be held accountable" crowd has

anything to fear from him. If The president follows the law he will trouble him not.

I don't think they have to protect Obama from him because I believe he is going to abide by the law.

So they should stop attacking in defense.

Even polite folks that have been here forever.

[MADem]

58. He wasn't a dispassionate legalist back in the day, though.

He was an enthusiastic "scandalmonger."

Someone with a sense of proportion would suggest that punishments should fit the crime, too. He didn't do that. Advocating impeachment for a fib about a personal peccadillo is just....well, moralistic, and jerky.

[frylock]

63. clinton was profoundly unhelpful during clinton's problems..

a lot of people around here like to jock Clinton much like Monica did, but that fucking dumbshit brought a lot of those troubles upon himself. to call out Turley for following the rule of law just because Clinton LIED about a BJ is beyond ridiculous.

[FrenchieCat]

18. I agree...and as always, he sounds like the one note parrot that he is.....

and his aim currently is to consistently point his finger at the current President at all times....which is getting on my nerves.

It's one thing to keep a light shining on the rule of law and to opt for the insistence upholding such on the issue of torture....but considering that he always seems to incorporate the bashing of Barack Obama into his rant is tiring, because he does it and does not give credit for the release of the memos, the announcement of the pics coming out (including the brilliant wait time inserted-the media has to refer and show the old photos while they are made to wait)or Barack Obama or Holder's words. He, in fact, talks as though he is in a vaccum of all of the news coming out that advances the very case he is wanting to make....all being facilitated by the Obama administration.

[eleny]

26. An independent thinker who is focused on the law is a voice we need in this country

It helps to keep me from becoming totally partisan. "My Party right or wrong" is not my philosophy and I hope it never will be.

[FrenchieCat]

27. If he is not partisan, then he needs to fess up to the fact

that Barack Obama really is not the end all in prosecutions happening....and stop acting like Barack Obama isn't going after folks. He should then stick to the law, and stop bitching about what Barack Obama isn't doing. That would be helpful to his argument...me thinks.

[eleny]

35. Today he talked mostly about Holder

When he spoke about Obama it was in terms of Holder. If Obama tried to influence Holder under penalty of Holder's being fired it would be wrong. Imo, that's correct.

It's impossible to keep Obama out of this discussion. Obama has a dilemma because all this hubbub over torture could have an influence over his agenda. How this shakes out is beyond delicate and I worry about that a lot. But I can't turn my back on the fact that we tortured. To only look forward is to ignore history - at our peril.

[The Magistrate]

28. Exactly, Ma'am

A mere professional provocateur, loyal to nothing but getting air time to posture as the most moral man in the room. People like that always make me pine for the company of an honest rotter....

[madfloridian]

22. God doesn't have to love Turley. It's not in his job description.

There are enough of us to make up for God's not loving Turley.

As I look back at the Clinton impeachment, I still get angry.

But his antics destroyed our Democratic party here in Florida, especially in the more fundamentalist areas.

Clinton hurt our party by having that affair in the White House. He was a good president, but he was dealing with people who were centering in on his personal life.

[Canuckistanian]

59. Yes, Sir, but people's attitudes occasionally change with time, do they not?

If I may offer the example of the charming Ms. Arianna Huffington?

She was a great critic of the President Mr. Clinton during those terrible years. And yet, she has turned full face and is now in command of the illustrious Huffington Post - hardly an anti-Democratic rag, Sir.

Perhaps Mr.Turley has had a similar conversion?

[The Magistrate]

62. Some May, Sir: He Has Not

If he wants redemption, he needs to spice up his act with some such statement as: "I was wrong, badly, badly wrong, in helping the Republicans attempt a coup against President Clinton. I understand that I contributed mightily to the political difficulties of holding the Bush administration to account by the self-serving nonesense I spewed in service of the Republican party back then. I greatly regret the harm I did to our political process, and to our country, through my over-weening desire for celebrity and fame. I got this career as a talking head on the television out of it, and that is what I was willing to sell my country for. When you stop to look at it clearly, I am a pretty cheap date, and have about as much solid ground to stand on in impugning the integrity of other people as any pimp in a bus station waiting room. But having said that, here is my legal opinion on some question or other...."

[Canuckistanian]

68. You are a harsh judge of his character, Sir

But I will not quibble with you on this point.

I believe the man has done yeoman service by pointing out to the public the correct interpretation of the law, regardless of his past behaviour.

Good day, Sir!

[freddie mertz]

70. I don't get it, sir...

I did not have much use for Turley during the Clinton impeachment either.

But Matthews was just as vehement as I recall.

Which makes me confused when you direct all your ire at Turley while Matthews, who is DEFENDING ILLEGAL, TREASONOUS TORTURE by the Bush administration, seems to get a pass.

On THIS issue, sir, it seems to me that Turley is right, and Matthews is dead wrong. :-( :shrug:

[The Magistrate]

82. Matthews, Sir, is a Mere Shill, And Contemptible As A Weather-Vane

Do not mistake my disparragement of Turley for affection, or even tolerance, of Matthews.

Turley draws the extra fraction of ire because of his pretension to upholding a neutral standard of law, when he has in fact prostituted and burlesqued it, and presses on without a beat of acknowledgement. It does not matter to me of he says the right thing, more or less, on some issue or other: he is wrong, rotten to the core.

[grantcart]

93. ..

<more whispering giggles>

"he just did it again"

[NYC_SKP]

114. !

<you're KILLING me...>

sssshhhh....

[vaberella]

123. You, Sir, need to leave Tweety alone...

Although everything you say is nothing less than the truth. :rofl:

[freddie mertz]

149. I think he's just a law and order type, mainly...

He was wrong about Clinton because he was apparently blind to the witch hunt...

Matthews on the other hand was and is wrong on BOTH counts... and this time, it is far, far worse.

[Political Heretic]

125. Damn Magistrate I used to think so much of your reasoning.

What the hell happened?

[The Magistrate]

129. There Are Lines Which Cannot Be Crossed, Sir, Acts Which Cannot Be Called Back

This wretch has been on my 'little list of those who'd not be missed' for more than a decade....

[truebrit71]

177. Complete bollocks...

..carry on...

[rucky]

3. Turley is consistently on his game.

Best player on our team in the Pundit Wars, imo.

[movonne]

32. I like Turley ....

[polichick]

6. That was an odd match-up, but Turley did a good job!

[jillan]

8. Was Matthews trying to interrupt Turley when he said that?

I find Matthews so annoying. I can hardly make it thru his show anymore.

[eleny]

14. He did but it didn't keep Turley from making his point

Frankly, I don't think Matthews wants to be on the wrong side of this.

[jillan]

24. I don't think he does either, and I think he agrees that torture is illegal.

[janx]

159. I remember Matthews on the run-up and start of the Iraq War

(that still isn't over yet). I got home from work and made an early dinner, then turned on Tweety. The big hype then was the killing of Saddam Hussein's sons. Their corpses, with eyelids sewn shut and wounds sutured, were promoted on Hardball.

This was my dinner time.

I sent an email to Matthews.

While I generally respect Matthews (not always), some of us need to remember that these cable TV channels exist foremost to make money. It wasn't until the war started going very badly, until people started figuring that out, that the political slant changed on MSNBC.

[madfloridian]

25. DU hating on Turley because he criticized Bill Clinton years ago.

That is making less and less sense all the time.

[The Magistrate]

30. My Memory, Ma'am, Is Very, Very Long Where Treason is Concerned....

[SemiCharmedQuark]

40. I don't think treason is the word...

But I think there must be some sense of the letter of the law and the intent of the law. Turley is absolutely concerned with the letter of the law. I really have a hard time believing that the framers meant that lying to the people about sex was an impeachable offense. Especially that randy Ben Franklin.

[The Magistrate]

42. The Republican House Majority, Ma'am, Attempted A Coup Under Color Of Law: That Is Treason

Turley helped....

[SemiCharmedQuark]

45. Thank you for the gender acknowledgement.

:hi:

What troubles me about Turley is that he would testify for the impeachment of a president who lied about being a natural blond. When you throw impeachment around in such ways, it makes it difficult to *not* look like it is being used as a political tool.

[The Magistrate]

47. Exactly, Ma'am

That is a good deal of my distaste for him. He made a solid contribution to the climate that made it politically impossible for the Democratic House to have acted in the last Congress, by doing his utmost to establish that impeachment is simply what what a majority does to an Executive of the other party, rather than a remedy for crimes of state committed by the Executive. Without the farce of '98, we might well have had an Impeachment trial of Bush two years ago.

[tomp]

136. ah, yes, those nasty gore-supporting republicans. nt

[madfloridian]

48. Honestly, that is stretching things a bit, don't you think?

To call it treason?

It was an ugly time, but I don't think Turley and others were committing treason.

[The Magistrate]

51. No, Ma'am, Not In The Slightest: A Coup Was Attempted, And That Is Treason

Turley helped....

[madfloridian]

52. Well, as a said. DU is now a place to harm Turley's reputation.

I remember those days all too well where I live. I have come a long way from my Southern Baptist days, but I saw the impact here of what Clinton did. He should not have been impeached for it. But I find it hard to condemn someone for that time.

My family are all Republicans except for hubby and myself and one daughter. They had no understanding at all of a blowjob in the oval office. That was reality here.

I can think of many other talking heads you could despise far worse than Turley.

[The Magistrate]

54. Turley Established His Own Reputation, Ma'am, By His Own Perfidy: No One Here Can Harm It

"Forgiveness is between him and God. My job is to arrange the meeting."

[madfloridian]

61. Those are very strong words. They disturb me.

Because I saw the harm caused by the perfidy of others who betrayed trust. You must think poorly of my family, the teachers I taught with, the people I knew here then during that time. So many then were not aware as they are now of the extent to which the right wing would go.

There must be some way to not call Turley a traitor.

That is pretty harsh stuff.

[The Magistrate]

65. No, Ma'am: Turley Is A Traitor

So is anyone who supported the Coup of '98. On this question, you will find me merciless and without the least concern for feelings. Treason to our country, and to Democracy itself, gets right up my left nostril....

[firedupdem]

69. Thank you Magistrate. I don't care for Turley because of that

entire incident. He also seems not to be happy with anything. Initially it was slam Obama for wanting to move forward. That turned into slam Obama for passing the buck to Holder. :shrug: I question his motives.

[leftstreet]

86. Wait a minute....the 'coup of 98?'

What do you mean?

:shrug:

If you had said 'the coup of 2000' it wouldn't have caught my attention.

[The Magistrate]

87. That Was The Year Impeachment Was Pressed By House Republicans, Sir: A Coup Which Failed

That of '00 succeeded....

[sabrina 1]

95. The politically motivated impeachment of Clinton

was an attempted coup using the law as the weapon of choice, and that was one of the worst aspects of it because while they failed to remove a sitting president from office as they intended, they succeeded in corrupting the process of impeachment in the minds of a majority of the American people.

Imo, the process actually did work, as in the end the Senate came to the right decision.

The Founding Fathers were concerned that Impeachment would be used for political purposes and on two occasions it has been, as they anticipated. But they ultimately placed their faith in the Senate not succumbing to politics and ruling on the facts. And that is what has happened so far. I think the FFs would be pleased, not with the attempt to abuse the process but with the fact that the abusers failed to achieve their goals.

As The Magistrate says though, in the minds of the American people Impeachment is a failure and so they were reluctant to impeach Bush. It didn't fail, imo, it worked. Clinton was acquitted as he should have been.

Those who plotted to bring down a president ought to have been tried for treason imo. I don't know why they were not. If you or I had been involved in a conspiracy to remove a president from office, we definitely would have been arrested.

[The Magistrate]

99. Permit Me, Ma'am, To Clarify

For it seems to me your view is in most ways sound, but in some others mistaken.

Impeachment is like Kipling's Marine "neither one o' the Line nor one o' the regular crew': it is a mixture of political and legal processes. It was abolished in England not long after the American Revolution because time had demonstrated the political elements greatly outweighed the legal ones in practice, yet it remains with us.

The intent of impeachment was to give the Congress a final check on the Judicial and Executive branches. Judicial Impeachment has not had a troubled career, and may be passed over here. What Congress needed a check over the Executive for, in the view of the Founders, was to prevent the holder of the office of President from becoming an autocrat, using the office in defiance of Congressional will, and committing crimes of state with the powers of that office. This is the real meaning of the terms 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors": crimes and misdemeanors that involve the powers of office, and indeed, cannot be committed without those powers. Remember that the Founders did not envision a government in which all office-holders were members of one or another well-entrenched party faction, so that political opposition between Congress and a President owing to the former being dominated by a different Party than that the latter belonged to did not cross their minds in setting up their various checks and balances. In their view, an Executive who defied the will of Congress was defying the will of the majority of right-thinking citizens, as expressed through their representatives in the Legislature. They never envisioned it could be the result of a generational faction fight between two solidly established political parties, though all of them saw such come into being within a decade of the Constitution's ratification.

The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson was within the bounds for the act the Founders had envisioned, and whether one agrees with it or not, that should be recognized. Johnson's policy regarding Reconstruction was a defiance of Congress, and was regarded by a majority of the House as employing the powers of his office in favor of traitors and rebels. The exact ground of Impeachment was somewhat trumped-up (the act Johnson defied was later ruled un-Constitutional), but it was a 'crime' relating to exercise of the powers of the office of the Presidency, and so met the definition of 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' envisioned by the Founders. Nor is there any doubt he committed it; his acquittal by the Senate was in the nature of an act of 'jury nullification', when jurors disregard the law or the facts because they do not want to see the defendant convicted, for whatever reason. Obviously, underlying the thing was a purely political quarrel between the 'Black Republican' radicals in the House and Senate, and Johnson, who was a slave-state man, and while a Unionist, was no Abolitionist or friend of the Freedman. But this political element is not foreign to Impeachment, as it was originally conceived and intended by the Founders. While there were certainly elements of a political faction fight in the thing, Johnson being a Union Democrat nominated on a Unity ticket rather than a Republican, he had been elected as President Lincoln's Vice-President, on the same platform and ticket as the men who Impeached him were. The Impeachment was not directed at a person who had won election in his own right, on the ticket of a different party than the majority in the Legislature.

The Impeachment of President Clinton was outside the bounds for the act the Founders had envisioned, and one cannot agree with it without defiance of, and disloyalty to, the Constitution. No crime of office was alleged: no charge related to an act that required the powers of the office of President to commit it. There was simply nothing that met the intent of the phrase "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". All allegations related to President Clinton's behavior in a civil suit, a matter wholly concerned with his private, rather than his official, person. Nor was there anything underlying the act which could be properly construed as defying the will of Congress, in any sense the Founders would have recognized, making allowances for the actual circumstances of faction: President Clinton did not disregard laws passed by Congress over his Veto, for example, or direct agencies of the executive to harrass and arrest Congressional representatives on trumped up charges. He certainly pressed for policies the Republican majority disagreed with, and within the bounds of existing law did things that majority disagreed with, but he had been elected to office in his own right by a solid majority of electors who expected him to do those very things. The real impetus behind the drive to Impeach him was a resolve by the Republican party to set aside the results of national elections that had gone against them, or in other words, to put aside the will of the people expressed by the ballot box in favor of themselves, to the degree they could contrive it. That is dead opposite the intent of the Founders in including the mechanism of Impeachment in the Constitution. That the Senate refused to ratify by a two thirds majority this wholly illegitimate act is beside the point; there was never any prospect of conviction, and the persons who pressed for and voted for Impeachment of President Clinton knew that perfectly well.

Thus, though it can be said the system more or less worked in the matter of Andrew Johnson, the same most definitely cannot be said in regards to the Impeachment of President Clinton. The test is not whether an outcome one agrees with eventuates from the Senate trial, but whether there is a real grounds, in abuse of the powers and prerogatives of the office of the President, that gives rise to the Impeachment vote in the House. That was not the case in the Impeachment of President Clinton. And that is what makes it such a foul episode, and tars for life any who cheered it on. That act was so obviously a purely political exercise, resolved on in advance, and flowing from nothing but partisan rivalry against an Executive of the opposing party on the part of a House majority, that it has fixed in the public mind of present generations the idea that that is all Impeachment really is. Thus we are effectively deprived for the foreseeable future of the one check on an Executive that engages in crimes of state, in "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" in the exercise of the office of President. As things broke out, we had just such a state criminal immediately on the heels of President Clinton, in the person of G.W. Bush. But the weapon had been knocked from the Legislature's hand, and Turley, among others, helped do that.

[leftstreet]

112. It's interesting how 'the American people' are so unreliable

...according to which talking point you're listening to.

On the one hand, they can't be trusted to be bright enough to not 'vote against their own interests.' Yet at the same time their memories are SO specific that they've duly cast aside the complicated notion of impeachment.

The truth is, most average Americans (voters and non) don't remember much about Bill Clinton's administration.

Just talk to people, and listen.

[The Magistrate]

117. If You Say So, Sir....

[tomp]

139. seems to me it was democratic party leadership....

....that prevented the impeachment of g.w. bush. the people favored it.

[sabrina 1]

130. Wow, thank you for this very informative post.

You have explained very clearly the intent of the FFs when they included Impeachment in the Constitution. I think we agree completely regarding the Clinton impeachment, you just explained it better than I. I think this bears repeating:

The Impeachment of President Clinton was outside the bounds for the act the Founders had envisioned, and one cannot agree with it without defiance of, and disloyalty to, the Constitution. No crime of office was alleged: no charge related to an act that required the powers of the office of President to commit it. There was simply nothing that met the intent of the phrase "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". All allegations related to President Clinton's behavior in a civil suit, a matter wholly concerned with his private, rather than his official, person. Nor was there anything underlying the act which could be properly construed as defying the will of Congress, in any sense the Founders would have recognized, making allowances for the actual circumstances of faction: President Clinton did not disregard laws passed by Congress over his Veto, for example, or direct agencies of the executive to harrass and arrest Congressional representatives on trumped up charges.

The best description I have read of the travesty that was the Clinton Impeachment.

Regarding the Andrew Johnson impeachment, I am not very informed about the facts surrounding it. Most of what I did read focused mainly on the political aspects of it. So thank you for the information I was not aware of and I will read more about it so that I can form a better opinion about it. However I get your point that it had more merit than the Clinton impeachment as you point out so clearly here:

The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson was within the bounds for the act the Founders had envisioned, and whether one agrees with it or not, that should be recognized. Johnson's policy regarding Reconstruction was a defiance of Congress, and was regarded by a majority of the House as employing the powers of his office in favor of traitors and rebels. The exact ground of Impeachment was somewhat trumped-up (the act Johnson defied was later ruled un-Constitutional), but it was a 'crime' relating to exercise of the powers of the office of the Presidency, and so met the definition of 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' envisioned by the Founders. Nor is there any doubt he committed it; his acquittal by the Senate was in the nature of an act of 'jury nullification', when jurors disregard the law or the facts because they do not want to see the defendant convicted, for whatever reason. Obviously, underlying the thing was a purely political quarrel between the 'Black Republican' radicals in the House and Senate, and Johnson, who was a slave-state man, and while a Unionist, was no Abolitionist or friend of the Freedman. But this political element is not foreign to Impeachment, as it was originally conceived and intended by the Founders.

On the point where we apparently disagree. I will try to clarify my position. While I agree that the Clinton Impeachment never should have happened, for all the reasons you have stated, since it did, and is likely to happen again, isn't it some consolation that perhaps the FFs were right to, #1 have anticipated such an event, (and I think for that reason debated whether or not to include it in the Constitution) but eventually decided to place some faith in the Senate, that if they were presented with such an eventuality, the weight of the decision they would have to make would cause them to deliberate more thoughtfully than members of the House perhaps, and come to the right decision?

People, other than elected officials, are often falsely accused. Imo, the system works when on rare occasions an ethical prosecutor, once s/he realizes that a defendant is not guilty, sets aside ambition (the need to get convictions) and admits his/her mistake. Iow, it is a fact of life that wrongful prosecutions will take place. And it appears to be a fact of life that wrongful impeachments will take place. So, imo, when political impeachments fail, if there is no other reason for them, the process at least has a happy ending. However, I do understand your point that it never should have happened and it is a small consolation that it did not succeed, even if, as you say, it never had a chance. I for one, was not certain of that at the time.

Btw, I do know a little about the judicial impeachments and true, it is not a very good history.

But a few questions, what about the Nixon case? Just the threat of impeachment was enough to cause him to step down. In that case, don't you think it worked, having that tool as the FFs intended?

And, in the case of George Bush, do you think Congress should have ignored the Clinton case and thought more of the Nixon case where as the investigations progressed and more and more revelations of crimes were revealed, public opinion changed? I know you said this:

That act was so obviously a purely political exercise, resolved on in advance, and flowing from nothing but partisan rivalry against an Executive of the opposing party on the part of a House majority, that it has fixed in the public mind of present generations the idea that that is all Impeachment really is. Thus we are effectively deprived for the foreseeable future of the one check on an Executive that engages in crimes of state, in "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" in the exercise of the office of President.

I am not so sure. The public has a short memory and a majority realized that a personal matter such as an affair, was not grounds for impeachment. I think the public, once they have information, are capable of understanding the difference between a private matter and public crimes.

I have faith in the public so long as they have facts. My main concern would be the media, who I have little faith would honestly and clearly present the facts.

Anyhow, thank you for a great post! :-)

[The Magistrate]

131. Our Disagreement Is Very Small, Ma'am, At This Point

Your view that 'the system worked' in the Impeachment of President Clinton, because the result was acquittal of the wrongful charge is reasonable enough and not worth opposing. My point is a bit more technical: it is one thing if the wrong man is charged with a crime, or if a man is charged with the wrong crime, say strong-arm robbery when the real charge should be simple theft: it is another when a man is charged with a crime that was never committed at all. What went wrong in the Impeachment of President Clinton occurred at the latter level, and to my mind is not quite repaired by an acquittal. But it is a small point, worth clarifying, but not pressing.

The Nixon case illustrates both the proper standards being employed for Impeachment, and the political character of Impeachment. There is no doubt Nixon committed 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors': he committed crimes of state, crimes that could not have been carried out by anyone who did not direct the powers of the office of the President of the United States, and he was to have been charged with just such crimes. The threat of Impeachment gained weight sufficient to compel his resignation from the fact that leading Republicans in the Congress were willing to support a Bill of Impeachment in the House, and vote to convict in the Senate. This made it clear the Impeachment would not be merely a partisan attack by a majority of one party against an Executive of the other, and deprived Nixon of any politically viable standing from which to resist Impeachment.

Regarding Bush, the matter is more complicated. Bush certainly committed 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors', and that he had done so, and was doing so, was evident even before the 2004 election. However, the Congress, and particularly the House, was firmly in the hands of members of his own party, who would never have voted for his Impeachment, or even allowed a Bill of Impeachment to reach the House floor. This political reality made Impeachment, while the proper and deserved remedy, a dead letter until the new Congress was seated in January of '07. Several calculations seem to have guided the Democratic leadership in the Congress at this point. One certainly was that if the first thing they did upon regaining the majority after a dozen years in minority status was embark upon an Impeachment of Bush, that would be certainly open to vigorous counter-attack as mere partisan assault and 'pay-back' for the Impeachment of President Clinton, and that this counter-attack would have been effectively echoed by the media, and fit well with the popular perception of Impeachment created a decade earlier. Another certainly was that the growing unpopularity of Bush had such potential to hamper Republican prospects in '08 that the easiest way to do the greatest harm to the Republicans was to leave the man in office to poison the well, so that while Impeachment risked much, albeit perhaps for a great gain, inaction guaranteed a sizable gain with no risk whatever. One can portray these calculations as rank cowardice or shabby expediency, but professional politics requires healthy helpings of expediency, and caution is often advisable, and often difficult to distinguish from cowardice.

My personal view is that the Democratic majority House should have embarked on a course to Impeachment, by beginning the session in '07 with major hearings into the various malfeasances of the Bush administration, to educate the public, and rub its nose in the headlines of the administration's crimes, and force the Republicans into defense of of a very unpopular figure and very unpopular policies and actions, bringing a Bill of Impeachment to the floor in the early months of 2008. But it is easy to urge radical action when one does not bear any responsibility for the outcome, and it is hard to argue with the resounding success we Democrats enjoyed in the recent national election. The calculations of the Democratic leadership in this matter seem to have paid off well, so it does not bother me unduly that a course different than my preference was followed.

Many thanks for your kind words, Ma'am!

[CTyankee]

138. What we need now is a serious discussion, with REPUBLICANS, about the Constitution.

Elsewhere on this board I have asked why do we have a Constitution if it is so easily tossed aside for "national security" and/or it is so easily "politicized." I am beginning to think that the right regards the Constitution as a "feel good" document, suitable for framing and putting on the wall, but not much else.

I would really like an answer from a right winger on it but it's hard for me to find one here in New Haven!

What do you think a republican would answer?

[sabrina 1]

146. No, your point is very important:

My point is a bit more technical: it is one thing if the wrong man is charged with a crime, or if a man is charged with the wrong crime, say strong-arm robbery when the real charge should be simple theft: it is another when a man is charged with a crime that was never committed at all. What went wrong in the Impeachment of President Clinton occurred at the latter level, and to my mind is not quite repaired by an acquittal. But it is a small point, worth clarifying, but not pressing.

No, it is an extremely important point. I was not clear enough in making it, but will make sure to do so in the future. 'No crime at all'. Beautifully stated, once again.

Thank you for responding to my questions. I particularly liked this explanation, which is perfectly in line with explanation in your previous post about the intent of the FFs regarding the use of impeachment:

The Nixon case illustrates both the proper standards being employed for Impeachment, and the political character of Impeachment. There is no doubt Nixon committed 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors': he committed crimes of state, crimes that could not have been carried out by anyone who did not direct the powers of the office of the President of the United States, and he was to have been charged with just such crimes. The threat of Impeachment gained weight sufficient to compel his resignation from the fact that leading Republicans in the Congress were willing to support a Bill of Impeachment in the House, and vote to convict in the Senate./blockquote]

I have read that initially Republicans were not on board though and only came to that position after it became clear that the crimes could not be hidden.

I can see that you weighed all options regarding my second question, the impeachment of Bush. I was for impeachment after the Dems gained a majority and did see their reluctance to do so as cowardice. I did not think they ought to do it right away but rather wait until the middle of 2008 and simply start the investigative hearings then which would have continued into the next, hopefully, Democratic administration.

Another certainly was that the growing unpopularity of Bush had such potential to hamper Republican prospects in '08 that the easiest way to do the greatest harm to the Republicans was to leave the man in office to poison the well, so that while Impeachment risked much, albeit perhaps for a great gain, inaction guaranteed a sizable gain with no risk whatever. One can portray these calculations as rank cowardice or shabby expediency, but professional politics requires healthy helpings of expediency, and caution is often advisable, and often difficult to distinguish from cowardice.

Very well explained again. I have to say though, that many people leaned toward 'cowardice', and even worse 'complicity' after so many years of watching too many Democrats support many of the policies of the Bush administration with their votes. One of the most egregious examples was the MCA when 12 Dems went along with that disgusting piece of legislation.

It was these kind of, what seemed like capitulations, and eventually complicity became a possibility, that made it difficult for you very reasonable argument above to be convincing to many of us.

Self-serving :applause: :applause: :applause: for this, mainly because you are in agreement with what I thought would be the best way to go about it. Or is it that I am in agreement with you? :-)

My personal view is that the Democratic majority House should have embarked on a course to Impeachment, by beginning the session in '07 with major hearings into the various malfeasances of the Bush administration, to educate the public, and rub its nose in the headlines of the administration's crimes, and force the Republicans into defense of of a very unpopular figure and very unpopular policies and actions, bringing a Bill of Impeachment to the floor in the early months of 2008.

And finally, I think the jury is still out on the last sentence in this excerpt, at least imo although there are some positive signs:

But it is easy to urge radical action when one does not bear any responsibility for the outcome, and it is hard to argue with the resounding success we Democrats enjoyed in the recent national election. The calculations of the Democratic leadership in this matter seem to have paid off well,

Definitely in terms of winning something paid off. I wonder though, had the economy not collapsed when it did, would McCain have won? The race was very close considering all the crimes of the Bush administration, before that. And I wonder if that was because of Democrats who were holding back, and Independents who wanted accountability for all the crimes of the past eight years, and didn't believe anymore that a Democratic administration would insist on it?

I think a lot of trust was lost among Democrats (and Independents) in their own party, over the past several years. But it does seem that things are changing so I am hopeful. And a McCain/Palin administration was simply not an option. I think the choice of Palin also helped the Dems win. But all that is another discussion.

I think I have taken the thread off topic as Jonathon Thurley and Matthews were the topic. I did not know about JT's role in the Clinton Impeachment and will definitely be researching it.

I hope you wouldn't mind, btw, if I were to use some of the quotes I blockquoted from your posts, should I need to in the future, (the subject often comes up when arguing with Republicans especially, and even Democrats)? With attribution of course :-)

[The Magistrate]

148. A Pleasure To Make Your Acquaintance, Ma'am

It is true that in the election of '08, we were favored by fortune. Napoleon once said he would sooner have a general who was lucky than one who was simply skilled, and there is something of the star above a lucky man about President Obama, without question. It is to my view the best surety of a good enough outcome to his efforts at present.

[sabrina 1]

167. Thank you, my pleasure ~

[Supersedeas]

178. Judicial Impeachment has never had a troubled career....Jefferson all but declared war on the

Judiciary, no?

Samuel Chase is feeling you.

[vaberella]

124. Agreed. By the way I haven't seen your posts in a while until today.

Hope all is well.

[bvar22]

145. That says more about you than it does about Clinton or Turley.

The long held bitter resentment doesn't harm Turley on the least, but has clouded your vision.
Turley may or may not have been in error back in the '90s, but he is SPOT ON about TORTURE in the 21st Century....which is what we are discussing here....today.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

37. To be fair, he didn't just criticized. He testified at the impeachment trial against him.

And I do sometimes have to wonder which presidents Turley wouldn't want impeached.

[WinkyDink]

38. He must be amazed at how extremely difficult such action was this last go-round.

[rvablue]

56. Didn't know that. How disappointing and you raise an interesting theory. n/t

[glitch]

142. Not all of DU! Not even most. Just a few... nt

[SWr]

31. well its not that simple

Politically Pat's right (and sometimes he is in fact is right).

If we do unfortunately get hit again the average voter (who has an attention span of 60 seconds) is going to

take it out on Obama for being weak because deep down inside they don't really care about what goes on at Gitmo.

Sometimes the difference between right and wrong leads to dangerous territory.

I also see a dangerous spiral effect here. If the parties switch in the next election (and someday they will again)

I fear that our elected officials are going to spend too much time "getting even", rather than passing important

bills for Americans ... like health care, education, jobs, etc.

[eleny]

39. If we let this torture issue go and the parties do change next election....

Then torture remains acceptable. :scared:

I disagree with Pat when he says that an investigation will tear the country apart. We have to believe in our strength to face what we have done.

[jillan]

41. If anything, I think it is bringing people together. This is not about politics

it's about being a nation of laws....

Even Shepard Smith agrees.

The people that are playing politics with this looks like fools.

[eleny]

44. Smith is long overdue for a major epiphany, btw

I thought he got one over Katrina.

I believe that Dems need to have confidence over this major test of our resolve to maintain a democracy. Faith in themselves and a little more faith in Obama, too. This is a test for him and I think he's up to the challenge.

[SWr]

49. right

I dont agree with Pat on that point ... I doubt it will tear the country apart but I certainly dont think its going

to bring us all together like some great nirvana at woodstock.

But your very idealistic and unrealistic. D.C. is a dirty town and its NOT about idealism (despite the garbage you see on TV) its about winning thats

the end game in politics. Your prob. right but I can tell you after spending a few years on the Hill ... thats NOT

what the game's about.

The fact still remains ... this issue WILL NEVER be apolitical.

And I predict its going to spiral out of control.

We will take the moral high ground UNTIL we get attacked again then the cycle will start all over again.

Torture isnt acceptable but it doesnt mean that this issue shouldnt have been dealt with in other ways. I believe

Obama was trying to deal with it subtlety but now I believe he's lost control of the issue.

[gkhouston]

55. It's not about politics, but the right wing is trying its damnedest to make it about politics.

Because they're sunk, otherwise. I saw a Republican openly floating the threat of reprisals against the Obama administration by some hypothetical future Republican administration yesterday. Why not wave a 20 foot banner saying, "We're in this up to our necks?" :shrug:

[Born_A_Truman]

66. That was Kit Bond

[gkhouston]

72. Right you are, thanks. I could almost smell his deodorant failing over the airwaves. n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

43. "Tearing the country apart" is a poor argument.

Integration tore the country apart.
Slavery tore the country apart.

[eleny]

46. Buchanan is flat wrong about that, yes.

But it's a way for him to try and make all this go away. He's just worried about the Republican Party being smashed to smithereens.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

81. They said the exact same thing -

same language, even - about Watergate.

It's GOPig code for "Don't LOOK AT US OR WHAT WE'VE DONE!"

[AtomicKitten]

53. Turley was magnificent.

:loveya:

[freddie mertz]

71. Agreed.

And it's clear that Matthews LOVES the torture.

[AtomicKitten]

74. I think you're right about Matthews.

How creepy is that?

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[Born_A_Truman]

73. Was I hearing things?

Did Pat Buchanan just use MLK as a reason to break the law?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

80. His bag was empty ........

He had nothing to back up his sadomasochistic affinity for torture when confronted with rational and legal realities, so he whipped out Dr. King.

Then, they went to commercial, so we were all spared the spectacle of torture defended as civil disobedience ......................

[SoCalDem]

83. These "confrontation" shows need a mute button for the host

when guests have said their piece and it's someone else's turn. they just mute the other's mic..

[vaberella]

85. You bunch of Tweety bashers....To Hell With You All!!

God, I love my Tweets and I definitely DON'T like Turley...but Tweety is always stirring up trouble. :rofl:

[Forkboy]

100. Two idiots duking it out. Awesome!

[The Magistrate]

102. Side-Bets can Bring Some Amusement, My Friend....

"Round and round and round she goes, and where she stops nobody knows, 'cept the Good Lord and He don't say, 'cause He gets a cut from the pit-boss...."

[Forkboy]

104. It's most excellent to see you about the place again, my friend.

Especially after having just reading your post above on the history of impeachment. I have the same feelings about Turley, and for the same reasons, but I never could have put them into such a nice historical context as that one. It almost hurt to read something that intelligent here. It's been awhile. ;)

[The Magistrate]

106. Thank You, My Friend

"One cannot hate both lightly and well."

[madfloridian]

103. To be very clear...could you name the two idiots?

?

[Forkboy]

105. Sure...Turley and Matthews.

[madfloridian]

108. I was afraid that was what you meant.

:shrug:

I agree on Matthews. I respect Turley.

[Forkboy]

109. I could explain my feelings on the matter in my usual way....

In other words, badly worded, badly expressed, disjointed, and full of snark. Instead, I'll direct you to the Magistrate's post #99, where he puts it far, far better than I could.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8369152#8369852

[madfloridian]

110. Then poor Jonathan Turley, never to be accepted because

he did not think Clinton should have lied about a blowjob in the Oval Office.

I understand. He is forever a bad guy, and no redeeming qualities. And Bill bears no responsibility for his actions.

[Forkboy]

111. That's a lot of words to put into someone else's mouth.

And you're better than that.

[madfloridian]

113. No, I am really not better than that

Not when there is such an undeserved gang up on a man who is a lawyer and sees things from that view.

Sorry, but this is a gang up. I ought to know. Seen a lot of them here.

[Forkboy]

115. A gang up? The Magistrate and I are about the only ones here saying anything negative.

And if you read the post I linked to you should at least understand why, whether you agree or not.

Yes, you are better than putting false words in my mouth. If you're not better than that than my previous high respect for you just plummeted, because you surely wouldn't want someone doing that to you.

[madfloridian]

118. They do.

Do that to me...that is. All the time. Not just me. Others.

[Forkboy]

120. I know they do, and it bothers me when they do that to you, but that's not the case here.

No one is ganging up on you, or Turley. The thread on Turley in GD was entirely positive last time I saw it, and this one is 98% positive.

Peace, MF. We don't see eye to eye on this one, but there's a million more where we do.

[madfloridian]

121. It just is unfair to blame him for seeing the Clinton situation as a lawyer.

It was a very bad time for everyone. My Republican family was divided then as well. I tried to defend Clinton at school during that time when the other teachers were vicious. My principal asked me not to do that, it was divisive.

I was furious.

[The Magistrate]

116. That Is Not The Question, Ma'am

The question is whether that was grounds for Impeachment under the Constitution, rather than a pretext for an illegitimate putsch on the part of House Republicans. Turley pretended for his own gain that it was the former rather than the latter. That makes him a traitor to our Democracy, and, yes, renders him unfit to be taken seriously as a commentator on the Constitution and the law, for the remainder of his natural days. It does not matter if by chance he should come up now and then on the side of a question which is, according to my own lights, the 'right' side: he himself is wrong, and deserves nothing but contempt and scorn.

[madfloridian]

119. So it does no good to defend him.

So I won't.

However, I do enjoy seeing him on Countdown. I respect him very much. Clinton's escapade harmed our area a lot, and set the Democrats way back.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

165. Here's a neat article:

http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/1998/11/16/News/Turley.Calls.Clintons.Impeachment.Unlikely-15315.shtml


It almost gives the feeling that he knew it was a bunch of bunk, but thought it was cool to be a part of.

"As debate spilled over into the halls of Congress, Turley said the scene conjured up images that virtually made the framers come to life.

“People got so engrossed in their arguments that they almost seemed to be taking on the persona of particular framers,” Turley said. “In fact, at one point I thought I actually saw James Madison and George Mason duking it out in the Rayburn House Office Building.”"

I wonder what the framers really would have thought about it?

*facepalm*

[The Magistrate]

168. Jesus Wept, Ma'am....

Words fail me.

[Clio the Leo]

107. If I were a conservative, I'd hate Tweety....

... as it is, I'm not .... and his knack for DEMANDING an answer to question while simultaneously not allowing the other person to speak never fails to crack me up.

[depakid]

122. I can't understand how folks can watch these shows- all they do is get riled up and holler

over one another.

[Clio the Leo]

133. It's a bit like pro wrestling, only slightly more intellectual. NT

[Doremus]

140. Video

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FOzqIL4Qnw

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07hsSF6dCDM&feature=channel

[janx]

152. Thanks for posting those links.

Wow. Turley demonstrated sound logic and knowledge of the law.

[IndianaGreen]

150. Millions died in World War II fighting the Nazis and fascism, and their twisted view of the law

International law exists to punish those that commit crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Under Bush, America was well on her way to becoming a totalitarian regime at home, and an aggressor state abroad. These are the very same characteristics that turned the country that gave us Goethe and Beethoven, into the country of gas chambers and genocide.

Jonathan Turley is a constitutional conservative, a far cry from the fascist conservatism of the likes of Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas. Turley is right when he says that not even the President can pick and choose which laws he is going to enforce, not even Obama.

If we want to restore the Republic, we are going to have to prosecute the criminals that broke the law regardless of how lofty a position they once held in government.

BTW, Pat Buchanan is an anti-Semite and a cryto-nazi. I don't know why he is given such a large megaphone by the MSM. He is only inches apart from David Duke.

[The Magistrate]

151. The Problem With Your Ringing Endorsement Here, Ma'am

Is that as a matter of practical fact, at every level of the justice system from the police officer on the beat to the prosecutor's office, a great deal of discretion regarding what crimes will and will not result in arrest and prosecution is exercised. Police do not by any means arrest in every instance where they have good grounds to do so, nor do prosecutors bring charges in every instance where they could. It is pointless to inveigh against this, because a good deal of real justice results from such exercises of discretion on the part of law enforcement personnel. The position you ascribe to Turley exists in a dream world of the Ideal, matched nowhere in the real and material practice of society and law. To insist on it, to force the legal organs of society to bring full weight to bear on every noticeable violation of law, would necessarily turn any society into one populated largely by convicts. Nor, for that matter, is a President supposed either to order criminal inquiries into any person, or to forbid them. Such things are supposed to originate in the Justice Department, and are the responsibility of the Attorney General and his deputies. Turley has recourse to his fantasy view of legal duty and practice in order to ensure his presence on the television screen, not to educate, or even argue rationally for an honest view. He consistently massages his comments to mount attacks on Democrats for the crimes of Republicans, and that is both the essence of his purpose throughout his public career, and the key to why he has become the anointed television spokesperson for 'prosecution of Bush administration officials': he can be relied on to do it in such a way that it is really Democrats, rather than Republicans, who are being presented to the public in a poor light.

[janx]

154. That may be so, but did you see such an instance

in the links to videos in this thread? I didn't. :shrug:

[Piewhacket]

169. Respectfully, Sir, I must disagree.

But preliminaries first....

First these is the matter of your handle, which with your postings cause this one
to raise an eyebrow. Are you a sitting or retired judicial officer?

Second there is the matter of your sig, for it is somewhat interesting to see one
purporting to bear the title "Magistrate" adopt a sig so mocking of law as:

When asked why calling things by their right names was so important
to good governance, the Master replied: "What a boor you are! When things are not called
by their right names, what is said cannot make sense. When what is said does not make sense,
what is planned cannot succeed. When plans do not succeed, people become uneasy. When people
are uneasy, punishments do not fit crimes. When punishments do not fit crimes, people cannot
know where to put hand or foot."

I do not recognize it. Is this a quote from somewhere? Do you offer the view as your own?

[The Magistrate]

170. The Quotation, Sir, Is From The Confucian 'Analects'

It is certainly in my view the essence of Master K'ung's outlook on and approach to understanding.

[Piewhacket]

172. Your "Sir" is not entirely courteous, Sir.

Perhaps a more collegial approach will serve us better,
for we are, under the skin, brothers in DU.

Otherwise we might find ourselves soon disagreeing
with (shudder) "all due respect" and that would be most
distressing, for otherwise we do not appear that much
philosophically diverse.

Yet I note you have declined to reply whether you are a current or
former judicial officer. Some here seem to know you, and have
addressed you as 'your honor'.

You have no obligation to answer, but I trust you may
appreciate that a sitting judge might here be vastly different than
even a retired judge, and that by raising the specter that you
are currently a judicial officer you may have also raised the
obligation to clarify whether that is so or not.

You have further declined to state whether the sig is offered as
reflecting your own view. That could also be of significance. Surely
"The Magistrate" must see that also.

On the other hand, and no matter how many hands we use there always
seems to be one available, you been most courteous to reply about
the source of your quote, I see now it is from book 13 of the Analects,
for which there are various translations, and now my brain stirs in
faint recollection. The teachings of Confucius require much
study, possibly because they are fraught with ambiguity. Thus this
itself raises a discussion topic whether the translation is correct, then further
whether it means what some might think. A further question is whether,
in the hands of a judicial officer, it may be properly applied
in cases where conformity with the law of the land is required (given the
additional possibility you are in my land, that is).

So now having respectfully explained to you the relevance of my two
questions perhaps you would be inclined to give responsive reply
so that I may better proceed with discussion of my concerns about
your earlier comments.

[Piewhacket]

173. Well, Sir, if you will not defend or explain your position...

should it be taken seriously?

[Supersedeas]

176. since when does the demand to honor the Constitution and enforce the law equate to be cast in a poor

light. Turley's demand is simple: do not obstruct justice by standing in the way of a real DoJ investigation. He is not inveighing or ascribing anything out of the ordinary AND is certainly not attempting to turn our society into one populated largely by convicts. Hyperbole points.

Think about it: maybe you are approaching the analogy from the wrong angle.

Discretion is not possible (discretion is estopped), when the chief executive in charge of excuting the laws BLOCKS any and all investigations into real acts committed by 'certain groups.'

[BlooInBloo]

157. I didn't recall the Turley supported Clinton impeachment stuff..

But I was with Turley on the torture stuff until he started calling Obama a war criminal.

So he's 0-for-2 now, on pretty big things.

Torture investigations/prosecutions needed = damn right. Obama is a war criminal = troll.

[HopeOverFear]

166. Turdley can suck it

[bdamomma]

174. I love Jonathan Turley why don't people listen to this man?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

175. Simple.

Because the man he's picking on now has a "D" after his name. :shrug:
Turley's opinions on torture and the Constitution were somehow good enough when the target was George W. Bush, but now?

Not so much.... :eyes:

This is clearly a case of party before principle. And it stinks.