GOP Star Witness Shuts Down Dems By Reminding Them Of Obama’s Obstruction With Fast And Furious

0
180

Jonathon Turley, a respected legal scholar and GOP witness for today’s hearings just destroyed the entire Dem impeachment case, point by point.

He literally took apart every damn argument the Dems have brought forth with devastating efficiency.

First, Turley brought up Barack Obama and how he obstructed Congress worse or just as much as the Democrats are accusing Trump of during Fast and Furious. Turley said:

Loading...

“PART OF THE PROBLEM IS TO BRING A COUPLE OF THESE ARTICLES, YOU HAVE TO CONTRADICT THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT OBAMA.

PRESIDENT OBAMA WITHHELD EVIDENCE FROM CONGRESS IN FAST AND FURIOUS, AN INVESTIGATION, A RATHER THAN MORONIC PROGRAM, THAT LED TO THE DEATH OF A FEDERAL AGENT.

PRESIDENT OBAMA GAVE A SWEEPING ARGUMENT THAT HE WAS NOT ONLY NOT GOING TO GIVE EVIDENCE TO THIS BODY, BUT THAT A COURT HAD ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE IN DETERMINING WHETHER HE COULD WITHHOLD THE EVIDENCE.”

Correct. The Dems have zero response to that but Turley was just getting started. he then took apart their bribery argument piece by piece.

” I’D LIKE TO START WITH THE ISSUE OF BRIBERY. THE STATEMENT HAS BEEN MADE, NOT JUST BY THESE WITNESSES BUT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND OTHERS THAT THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF BRIBERY. IT’S NOT.

CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAID THAT IT MIGHT NOT FIT TODAY’S DEFINITION OF BRIBERY, BUT IT WOULD FIT THE DEFINITION BACK IN THE 18thCENTURY. NOW, PUTTING ASIDE MR. SCHIFF’S TURN TOWARDS ORIGINALISM, I THINK THAT IT MIGHT COME AS A RELIEF TO HIM AND HIS SUPPORTERS THAT HIS CAREER WILL BE A SHORT ONE, THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGINALIST FUTURE IN THAT ARGUMENT.

THE BRIBERY THEORY BEING PUT FORWARD IS — IN THE 18th CENTURY AS THIS STATEMENT. THE STATEMENT MADE BY ONE OF MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES IS BRIBERY REALLY WASN’T DEFINED UNTIL MUCH LATER.

THERE WAS NO BRIBERY STATUTE. THAT IS CERTAINLY TRUE. BUT IT OBVIOUSLY HAD A MEANING, THAT’S WHY THEY PUT IT IN THIS IMPORTANT STANDARD. BRIBERY WAS NOT THIS OVERARCHING CONCEPT.

THE ORIGINAL STANDARD WAS TREASON AND BRIBERY. THAT LED MASON TO OBJECT THAT IT WAS TOO NARROW. IF BRIBERY COULD INCLUDE ANY TIME YOU DID ANYTHING FOR PERSONAL INTEREST INSTEAD OF PUBLIC INTEREST, IF YOU HAVE THIS OVERARCHING DEFINITION, THAT EXCHANGE WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY USELESS. THE FRAMERS DIDN’T DISAGREE WITH MASON’S VIEW THAT BRIBERY WAS TOO NARROW. WHAT THEY DISAGREED WITH IS WHAT HE SUGGESTED MAL-ADMINISTRATION TO ADD TO THE STANDARD BECAUSE HE WANTED IT TO BE BROADER.

WHAT JAMES MADISON SAID IS THAT THAT’S TOO BROAD, THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY CREATE WHAT YOU MIGHT CALL A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN ENGLAND. IT WOULD BASICALLY ALLOW CONGRESS TO TOSS OUT A PRESIDENT THEY DID NOT LIKE.

ONCE AGAIN, WE’RE CHANNELLING THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS. THAT’S ALWAYS A DANGEROUS THING TO DO. THE ONLY MORE DANGEROUS SPOT TO STAND IN IS BETWEEN CONGRESS AND IMPEACHMENT AS AN ACADEMIC.

I WOULD OFFER INSTEAD THE WORDS OF THE FRAMERS THEMSELVES. IN THAT EXCHANGE, THEY DIDN’T JUST SAY BRIBERY WAS TOO NARROW, THEY ACTUALLY GAVE AN EXAMPLE OF BRIBERY. AND IT WAS NOTHING LIKE WHAT WAS DESCRIBED.

WHEN THE OBJECTION WAS MADE BY MASON — I’M SORRY, BY MADISON, ULTIMATELY THE FRAMERS AGREED. AND THEN MORRIS, WHO WAS REFERRED TO EARLIER, DID SAY, WE NEED TO ADOPT THE STANDARD. WHAT WAS LEFT OUT IS WHAT CAME AFTERWARDS. WHAT MORRIS SAID IS THAT WE NEED TO PROTECT AGAINST BRIBERY BECAUSE WE DON’T WANT ANYTHING LIKE WHAT HAPPENED WITH LOUIS XVIV AND CHARLES II.

THE BRIBERY WAS OFFERING MONEY AS HEAD OF STATE. WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN THAT EXAMPLE MORRIS GAVE AS HIS EXAMPLE OF BRIBERY IS THAT LOUIS XIV, WHO WAS A BIT OF A RECIDIVIST WHEN IT CAME TO BRIBES, GAVE CHARLES II A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY AS WELL AS OTHER BENEFITS INCLUDING, APPARENTLY, A FRENCH MISTRESS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE SECRET TREATY OF DOVER OF 1670.

IT ALSO WAS AN EXCHANGE FOR HIM CONVERTING TO CATHOLICISM. BUT THAT WASN’T SOME BROAD NOTION OF BRIBERY. IT WAS ACTUALLY QUITE NARROW. I DON’T THINK THAT DOG WILL HUNT IN THE 18th CENTURY AND I DON’T THINK IT WILL HUNT TODAY, BECAUSE IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE 21st CENTURY, BRIBERY IS WELL DEFINED.

YOU SHOULDN’T JUST TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT. YOU SHOULD LOOK TO HOW IT’S DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. IN A CASE CALLED McDONALD VERSUS THE UNITED STATES, THE SUPREME COURT LOOKED AT A PUBLIC CORRUPTION BRIBERY CASE. THIS WAS A CASE WHERE GIFTS WERE ACTUALLY RECEIVED, BENEFITS WERE ACTUALLY EXTENDED. THERE WAS COMPLETION.

THIS WAS NOT SOME HYPOTHETICAL OF A CRIME THAT WAS NOT FULFILLED OR AN ACTION THAT WAS NOT ACTUALLY TAKEN. THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY OVERTURNED THAT CONVICTION. UNANIMOUSLY.

AND WHAT THEY SAID WAS THAT YOU CANNOT TAKE THE BRIBERY CRIME AND USE WHAT THEY CALLED A BOUNDLESS INTERPRETATION. ALL THE JUSTICES SAID THAT IT’S A DANGEROUS THING TO TAKE A CRIME LIKE BRIBERY AND APPLY A BOUNDLESS INTERPRETATION. THEY REJECTED THE NOTION, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT BRIBERY COULD BE USED IN TERMS OF SETTING UP MEETINGS AND OTHER TYPES OF THINGS THAT OCCUR IN THE COURSE OF A PUBLIC SERVICE CAREER.

WHAT I WOULD CAUTION THE COMMITTEE, THESE CRIMES HAVE MEANING. IT GIVES ME NO JOY TO DISAGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES HERE. AND I REALLY DON’T HAVE A DOG IN THIS FIGHT. BUT YOU CAN’T ACCUSE A PRESIDENT OF BRIBERY AND THEN WHEN SOME OF US NOTE THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS REJECTED YOUR TYPE OF BOUNDLESS INTERPRETATION, SAY, WELL, IT’S JUST IMPEACHMENT. WE REALLY DON’T HAVE TO PROVE THE ELEMENTS.

THAT’S A FAVORITE MANTRA. IT’S CLOSE ENOUGH FOR JAZZ. WELL, THIS ISN’T IMPROVISATIONAL JAZZ. CLOSE ENOUGH ISN’T GOOD ENOUGH. IF YOU’RE GOING TO ACCUSE A PRESIDENT OF BRIBERY, YOU NEED TO MAKE IT STICK BECAUSE YOU’RE TRYING TO REMOVE A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. NOW, IT’S UNFAIR TO ACCUSE SOMEONE OF A CRIME, AND WHEN OTHERS SAY, WELL, THOSE INTERPRETATIONS YOU’RE USING TO DEFINE THE CRIME ARE NOT VALID AND TO SAY THEY DON’T HAVE TO BE VALID. BECAUSE THIS IS IMPEACHMENT.

THAT HAS NOT BEEN THE STANDARD HISTORICALLY. MY TESTIMONY LAYS OUT THE CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS IN THE PREVIOUS IMPEACHMENTS. THOSE WERE NOT JUST PROVEN CRIMES, THEY WERE ACCEPTED CRIMES. THAT IS EVEN THE DEMOCRATS ON THAT — ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AGREED THAT BILL CLINTON HAD COMMITTED PERJURY. THAT’S ON THE RECORD. AND A FEDERAL JUDGE LATER SAID IT WAS PERJURY. IN THE CASE OF NIXON, THE CRIMES WERE ESTABLISHED.

NO ONE SERIOUSLY DISAGREED WITH THOSE CRIMES. NOW, JOHNSON IS THE OUTLIER BECAUSE JOHNSON WAS A TRAP DOOR CRIME. THEY BASICALLY CREATED A CRIME KNOWING THAT JOHNSON WANTED TO REPLACE SECRETARY OF WAR STANTON. AND JOHNSON DID, BECAUSE THEY HAD SERIOUS TROUBLE IN THE CABINET.

SO, THEY CREATED A TRAP DOOR CRIME, WAITED FOR HIM TO FIRE THE SECRETARY OF WAR AND THEN THEY IMPEACHED HIM. THERE’S NO QUESTION HE COMMITTED THE CRIME. IT’S JUST THE UNDERLYING STATUTE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SO, I WOULD CAUTION YOU NOT ONLY ABOUT BRIBERY BUT ALSO OBSTRUCTION.

Transcript from CSPAN.

Loading...