Turley anonys me...once again Obama is not successful.

[vaberella]

When I hear this guy talk...he's extremely intelligent but he most definitely does not like O. I don't know when he's ever given O a positive comment. Really...I mean a sincere and thoughtful----"Good job.". If he does say something positive he always manages to find something negative in the end.

Such as, tonight. So O said that he's not against any prosecution of higher ups. Great we're excited. Good news.

Turley: He's passed the blame onto AG Eric Holder. ie He's passed the buck. ie. He basically didn't want to take on the responsibility that is directly his and any blame associated if it fails or doesn't pass muster.

You know what?! Screw Turley. I realize he's a lawyer and understands constitutional law but he's not a politician dealing with a lot of drama in politics or someone who seems to realize that President Obama SHARES power even if he has the highest seat in office. O can't do it all and I'm tired of listening to Turley....

He just stated the meme of all anti-O people and Repubs...oh he's just passing the blame. ugh.

Oh this was on KO's show tonight to Shuster.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited to add the transcript as requested by a poster (I have DVR):

It's about appointing a special prosecutor.

Here is the question and response

Shuster: White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to say how high up the ladder an investigation could lead, but he also would not rule out the possibility that it would that it might lead all the way to President Bush. Would the logical conclusion of any thorough investigation would have to include officials as high as President Bush and Vice President Cheney?



Turley: Well David that's the really strange thing in the last week or so we've seen an effort to define a potential investigation in terms the lawyers who wrote these memos. That's just facially ridiculous that a war crime investigation does not look at just the people who drove the trains they look at the people who told the trains to roll. They look at the people who not just committed torture but who ordered the torture. The lawyers will indeed be investigated and they may be held accountable, but it is the people who ordered the investigation and those would be George Bush and Vice President Cheney, the CIA Director, the AG; they implemented in full knowledge that it was a war crime a torture program. Now these lawyers have something to answer for but the effort to define it in the case of lawyers is something of a beltway shift that's setting it up for failure. In many ways what Obama did today may be shifting the blame to holder so that he could be the fall guy. Because if he (Holder) defines this as solely as whether lawyers will be investigated. He's very likely to find a legal reason not to do it. But a true war crimes investigation begins with a prosecutor who will follow it where it would lead him or her. And that would most certainly lead him to the former president, or her, or vice president and the people like the CIA director and the AG who pushed through this program.

Where he got that AG Holder is only prosecuting the lawyers beats me. You'll note the statement shifting the blame.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Turley was all in favor of impeaching Clinton, too.

So sometimes I wonder how objective he really is.

[vaberella]

2. Are kidding? Over the sex shit?! n/t

[cali]

4. oh, it went further than that. he testified for impeachment. no shit.

[vaberella]

9. Over sex in the oval office?! You've got to be kidding me.

Oy...this man is just going lower down my shit list. He's passed Andrea Mitchell.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. Yep.

"The allegations against President Clinton go to the very heart of the legitimacy of his office and the integrity of the political system. As an individual, a president may seek spiritual redemption in the company of friends and family. Constitutional redemption, however, is found only in the company of representatives of all three branches in the well of the Senate. It is there that legitimacy, once recklessly lost, can be regained by a president."

http://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/20/clinton-impeachment-testimony-house-judiciary-committee/

To be strictly accurate, his argument was not based on the sex but on the alleged perjury. He claimed Clinton's denials fit the Constitutional definition of high crimes and misdemeanors.

[vaberella]

19. What does sex have to do with the Constitution?!

So Jefferson screwing and probably raping a few slaves said nothing against his Presidency. Actually all the presidents except maybe Lincoln was naughty.

Lordy.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

21. Nothing.

Turley's argument was based on perjury, not sex. But I think he was wrong anyhow.

[Reterr]

58. Wow

That is pretty darn stupid. I bet Newty just luurrrved him for that one.

Come to think of it, I guess he did give me a Naderite kinda vibe a couple of times. I am very left in my views in general, except that I am pragmatic enough to realize that the Naderites are just death for any sort of real left. Complete and utter death. They will sacrifice the entire cause of any sort of real left wing on the altar of complete Naderite purity. I really dislike them for that.

[OwnedByFerrets]

49. No, over the lies...huge difference.

[Gregorian]

50. Thank you for that. I have been trying to make sense of Turley re the Clinton impeachment.

I have been assuming it was about the lies. But even if so, I still find that a difficult path for him to have gone down.

[OwnedByFerrets]

52. He takes the constitution very seriously.....

and is the most non partisan person I know. It doesn't matter who is guilty or of what party they are in.

[vaberella]

54. Sure...but impeachment for sex?! That doesn't make sense.

Secondly in regards to this case I don't understand how one says Obama is passing on the blame to Holder when Holder is the AG and works at the DOJ and that is his job. So why say passing the blame. He's just in for a dig really and talking nonsense.

Secondly he bases his entire argument on lawyers ultimately taking the blame and claiming everyone should have the blame...as though O is pushign that meme. there are other people asking for the lawyers to be impeached but O clearly stated that all higher ups are fair game...so Turley had no grounds to make such a stupid statement.

[OwnedByFerrets]

60. How many ways to I have to say it. The impeachment hearings

weren't for SEX SEX SEX. They were for lying(perjury).

"CONCLUSION

Summary: Any impeachment decision is obviously political in the sense that it is being made by political figures based on their view of the public interest. This does not mean, however, that the methodology and standards are political. Each member will have to reach a principled decision as to the conduct of this President. I hope that the members consider the value of the constitutional process in place for such a divisive national issue. The allegations against President Clinton go to the very heart of the legitimacy of his office and the integrity of the political system. As an individual, a president may seek spiritual redemption in the company of friends and family. Constitutional redemption, however, is found only in the company of representatives of all three branches in the well o f the Senate. It is there that legitimacy, once recklessly lost, can be regained by a president"………………………………………………………………………………….Page 79

PREPARED STATEMENT

Jonathan Turley

Read his prepared statement and then come and tell me that the man isn't smarter than 99% of the loudmouths on this site....certainly including ME.

http://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/20/clinton-impeachment-testimony-house-judiciary-committee/

[Hanse]

55. "It's not about the sex, it's about the lies."

Yeah, no, it was about the sex.

[DURHAM D]

56. During the Clinton years -

my partner was a law professor. I remember being at a cocktail party during an annual national meeting of law professors and listening as a group of leading constitutional law professors were talking about Turley. They were laughing about his claim of constitutional expertise as none of them had ever heard of him and they happily critiqued some of his outrageous comments and assertions.

One of the professors called over a fellow faculty member of Turley's and asked him about Jonathan's field of expertise. The fellow faculty member reported that he was generally thought of as an expert in environmental law and the law school was embarrassed by his grandstanding on the tv.

[Frank Booth]

59. But according to DU, he's the A#1 Constitutional scholar in the world!

Despite the fact that he doesn't even teach Constitutional law (or at least didn't until recently), and his credentials put him squarely in the mediocre range for legal academics. But he's great at promoting himself!

[Reterr]

57. Really? Wow

Thanks for that! I had no idea. I might be slightly more skeptical of this guy's views in the future. I just knew him as some constitutional scholar type that appears on Rachel Maddow, who I generally like.
But anyone who supported the Clinton impeachment over the stupidass sex scandal ...:eyes:.

I didn't like some of Clinton's policies but I had zero interest in his personal life. I really wish the American public would learn to focus on actual issues instead of stuff like infidelity which is a private matter concerning only the couple involved.

[Pirate Smile]

3. Turley is consistent - consistently anti-Obama.

I always know what to expect from him.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

5. But he was also anti-Bush and anti-Clinton.

So I don't think it's specifically anti-Obama.

[vaberella]

13. He's an anarchist...thanks for letting me know. n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

20. I don't know about that.

[Pirate Smile]

31. True. I wasn't thinking about Turley and Clinton.

[ErinBerin84]

6. I didn't watch it tonight

Wasn't he saying last week that the president has no authority to make those decisions, so Obama couldn't be against prosecutions? So wouldn't the AG have the authority? I don't know, I actually think that maybe they should have just deferred to the AG from the beginning, but Turley's answer confuses me. Then again,I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so wth do I know. What does Turley think should be done at this point?

[vaberella]

8. Exactly. But he just said O passed the blame over to Holder about prosecutions.

He said that AG Holder should go all out and take out everyone. I suspect Turley is a closet anarchist or anti-Government.

[ErinBerin84]

did he say what he thinks SHOULD be done at this point?

I mean, I can understand if one doesn't want to pat Obama on the back, but I don't see how this decision specifically can be read automatically as having bad intentions. I would think that if Turley has doubts, he should be applying pressure instead of just being cynical and callin it a lost cause from the getgo.

[vaberella]

32. I'll write the transcript....the beauty of DVR...

It's about appointing a special prosecutor.

Here is the question and response

Shuster: White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to say how high up the ladder an investigation could lead, but he also would not rule out the possibility that it would that it might lead all the way to President Bush. Would the logical conclusion of any thorough investigation would have to include officials as high as President Bush and Vice President Cheney?



Turley: Well David that's the really strange thing in the last week or so we've seen an effort to define a potential investigation in terms the lawyers who wrote these memos. That's just facially ridiculous that a war crime investigation does not look at just the people who drove the trains they look at the people who told the trains to roll. They look at the people who not just committed torture but who ordered the torture. The lawyers will indeed be investigated and they may be held accountable, but it is the people who ordered the investigation and those would be George Bush and Vice President Cheney, the CIA Director, the AG; they implemented in full knowledge that it was a war crime a torture program. Now these lawyers have something to answer for but the effort to define it in the case of lawyers is something of a beltway shift that's setting it up for failure. In many ways what Obama did today may be shifting the blame to holder so that he could be the fall guy. Because if he (Holder) defines this as solely as whether lawyers will be investigated. He's very likely to find a legal reason not to do it. But a true war crimes investigation begins with a prosecutor who will follow it where it would lead him or her. And that would most certainly lead him to the former president, or her, or vice president and the people like the CIA director and the AG who pushed through this program.

Where he got that AG Holder is only prosecuting the lawyers beats me. You'll note the statement shifting the blame.

[ErinBerin84]

35. wow, thanks!

:hi:

[vaberella]

38. No problem. ^_^ n/t

[MarjorieG]

14. I thought keeping distance between justice and exec branch improvement and necessary.

[babylonsister]

7. I think m$nbc needs to find other 'experts' for balance. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

18. Ditto! Bring on John Dean. (nt)

[babylonsister]

23. Not even him-I want to listen to some fresh ideas, or maybe even

thoughts framed differently. There have got to be other {constitutional} lawyers out there who can voice their opinion.

[Tarheel_Dem]

27. I certainly agree with you, but John seems to be able to make his point...

without the "smarmy" & "whiney" that characterizes Turley. If there are others out there, with a fresh point of view, I welcome it. Perhaps we should give Keith a push?

[MarjorieG]

10. Turley always reminds me what I don't like about priggish academics.

Superior, self-righteous, ivory tower and absolutely convinced of his worth. For the lefties who like to beat up on our own, without admitting complexity, he's your guy. This goes beyond moral clarity or even partisan political considerations.

[asphalt.jungle]

44. he's not a lefty, he's a libertarian

and he's a whiny media whore first and a law professor second.

[Thrill]

11. I posted in another thread. He has a become a complete troll

Turley acts arrogant and pompous.

[vaberella]

15. Totally. Like he's looking his nose down at people. n/t

[firedupdem]

12. I don't listen to him. I haven't cared for him since the Clinton

situation.

[vaberella]

I just heard. That man is worthless. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. If you're waiting for Turley to compliment the O administration, don't hold your breath.

This is precisely why I tape Countdown now, so that I can speed past his whiny assed editorializing. I remember his smarmy ass from the Clinton years. I honestly believe he thinks the president should drop everything, and handle the torture case personally, as if he doesn't have anything else on his plate.

I miss John Dean.

[vaberella]

39. I don't..I stopped back in September. n/t

[napi21]

22. Johnathan is still pissed at the Dems for not doing something about Shrub/Cheney

during the last 2 years they held the majority in the House. On THAT POINT he's absolutely right! They should have.

You also have to remember that he's a law professor. The subject he discusses is the LAW! In fairness to Turley, among all the great thing O has done, his handling of the Shrub admin. crimes hasn't been that great. I'm glad to see that he's left the door open to prosecuting all those criminals, but I think it's going to take continued pressure from US...now on Holder...to keep moving this ball forward.

I like Rep. Nadler's explaination. "Holder has no choice but to appoint a Special Prosecutor because even though in most cases the DOJ would do the investigating, in this case the DOJ, even though it was a prior admin, was involved, so they can't be part of the investigation."

[Occam Bandage]

28. Not really. He was a huge impeachment hawk for Clinton, too.

The guy just has a raging hard-on for circus trials.

[Cha]

24. Does anyone know his email?

Besides..
MSNBC
- Phone: [phone] EMAIL: [email protected]

[babylonsister]

29. Here's his blog, but it doesn't seem he likes feedback. Or I'm missing the link.

http://jonathanturley.org/

[Cha]

30. Then the letters @ msnbc will have to do..if

he can't handle the heat directly.

[napi21]

53. Here's his email at the university.. Google loves us all!

[email protected]

If you care, here's some more info.

Telephone
202.994.7001

Fax
202.994.9811

[Political Tiger]

25. He's getting on my nerves too. And for a so-called expert on the Constitution

one would think he, of all people, would understand the President is not the Sheriff-in-Chief! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the president is required to police the previous administration ... and, "passing the buck" to the AG is exactly what is supposed to be done in a case like this!

His constant attacks on President Obama show that like with Paul Krugman, he is biased against the president and therefore is not to be taken seriously.

[vaberella]

36. He claims that they'll use going after the lawyers as an excuse not to prosecute.

I don't know where he got that from. It makes no sense.

[Occam Bandage]

26. Turley is an entertainer.

That's the shtick that gets him airtime.

[vaberella]

33. I'm noticing this. I added the transcript. n/t

[Realtalk]

40. Precisely

I agree.

[Realtalk]

34. Yeah

I didn't like Turley tonight... as I don't most nights. He shouldn't have said what he did.

[vaberella]

37. It just doesn't make sense to me and I had to wonder where he built his ideas on. n/t

[stevenleser]

41. I will never take him seriously after justifying impeachment for consensual adult-on-adult blowjob.

I just cannot take someone seriously after that.

[vaberella]

47. I just found out and he's just plummeted to my shit list. n/t

[Realtalk]

42. Well...

To say President Obama just passed the blame onto Holder (like this isn't Holder's primary job!), surely not the Constitution, as he so utterly and declaratorily upholds.

[vaberella]

45. Exactly.

I can't understand how a constitutional law expert can say such a thing. It doesn't make sense.

[Median Democrat]

43. Wow, Didn't Know Turley Was A Political Strategist and Criminal Trial Lawyer!

I thought he was just a Con Law professor at some law school, but he is Gary Spence, Karl Rove and Laurence Tribe all roled up into one little package. Who knew? You learn something new everyday.

[vaberella]

46. He's special that way. n/t

[slackmaster]

48. A man named Mr. Turley came to my house to fix a toilet when I was a young child

I've never gotten over the association, and Archie Bunker referring to the commode as a "turlet" didn't help.

BTW what is this thread about?

[WhiteTara]

51. in the spirit of FDR

I want to do it. Now, you must make me do it.

Let's keep our eye on the chessboard of history. :popcorn: Of course we are participants and :patriot: too!