Dems’ Lawyer Won’t Let GOP Lib Scholar Prof Turley Answer Questions


During Wednesday’s impeachment testimony, the Democrat counsel is refusing to ask Professor Turley questions, and is only allowing three far-far-left professors answer questions about impeachment. It’s the academic group think our children are subjected to in class daily. It disallows any other opinions.

None of these people are fact witnesses.

The Democrats are trying to say the President is guilty of abuse of power, bribery, and obstruction of justice.

The Democrat counsel, Norm Eisen, would not even allow Jonathan Turley to finish his thoughts when he finally did get a question.  Eisen said he only wanted a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer from Turley and cut him off.

Norm Eisen is a CNN analyst and former Obama White House ethics counselor. His ‘ethics’ organization is funded by George Soros.

If the Democrat case is so “ironclad,” why can’t their statements withstand the responses of a liberal Professor Turley???

Eisen will not ask Turley a question. The ranking member will go next.


Professor Turley is a liberal and the GOP chose him over another liberal, Alan Dershowitz only because of the Dershowitz-Epstein connection. Dershowitz was their first choice. However, Turley is doing a banner job when he gets to say something, which is almost not at all.

George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley testified that the Democrats’ impeachment efforts are “woefully inadequate” and “dangerous.”

“If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president,” Turley stated.

Professor Turley is a liberal who voted for Obama and Clinton but he is at the hearing to protect the Constitution. The other three progressives are angry, smug, and narrow in their opinions.

Professor Jonathan Turley’s opening statement was outstanding. It was logical and reasoned. It included a brilliant constitutional analysis and eloquent oratory. The other three ‘witnesses’ are progressives who believe assumptions and no evidence for non-crimes is enough with which to impeach a President. His statements are the ones that conform to our constitution.

“Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set for this country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is meant to be thorough and complete. This is neither,” Professor Turley said.


Professor Turley noted that the Trump impeachment parallels the Andrew Johnson impeachment of 1868, which was an unqualified disaster: ‘It is not a model or an association that this committee should relish.”

This impeachment should go down in infamy.

Hamilton warned that charges of impeachable conduct “will..divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused,” Turley said. As with the Clinton impeachment, the Trump impeachment has again proven Hamilton’s words to be prophetic.

There is no crime:

Turley stated that there is no evidence that President Trump acted with the corrupt intent required for obstruction of justice on the record created by the House Intelligence Committee.

He reminded those present that early impeachments in the Colonies were marred by loose standards for criminality. The Framers “rejected a proposal to add ‘maladministration'” to the Constitution’s impeachment clause.

The impeachment is not wrong because Congress has no right to investigate the Ukraine call. “No — it’s wrong because this is not how you impeach an American president.”


The media is in lockstep as usual with the socialist Democrats.

Professor Turley’s full opening statement:

Turley Testimony at the impeachment hearing by Johannah Winter on Scribd


The first charge is that the President solicited the help of a foreign government to influence the 2020 election, but that’s not impeachable even it were true. The evidence does not even establish that.

The second charge is using the power of the office of the President to obstruct the House, but that is merely a process charge. It’s an inter-branch argument and doesn’t go to the merits. It’s a dangerous concept. The legislature is not supreme. The judicial branch mediates between those two branches.

The third charge concerns the suspension of aid. Democrats claim it is impeachable. However, the aid was released in time. Besides, aid has been held from Pakistan, Honduras, all of Central America, Lebanon, and so on. It’s a ridiculous argument, end of story.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments