Turley's legal analysis re grounds for impeachment seems to have evolved.

[Marcuse]

[link:https://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/20/clinton-impeachment-testimony-house-judiciary-committee/

|

There is a considerable difference between the House refusing to impeach a president over serious conduct and the Senate refusing to remove a president for such conduct. The House decision establishes the expectations of a people in the conduct of the Chief Executive and serves as a critical deterrent to presidential misconduct. While the Senate can decide not to remove a president in the interests of the nation for a variety of reasons, the House should not falter in maintaining a bright line for presidential conduct.

In my view, President Clinton’s conduct demands an open and deliberative review under the conditions created for that purpose by the Framers. By his own admission, President Clinton has engaged in reprehensible conduct in office. Allegations of criminal acts in office by a president are perhaps the greatest threat to the perceived legitimacy of a government. When there is compelling evidence of criminal acts in the Chief Executive, an entire system of laws is undermined and demands some form corrective action.

[struggle4progress]

1. I'm a little pimp with my hair gassed back

[Sneederbunk]

2. Turley's dog won't hunt.

[ChubbyStar]

4. Because his dog is mad?

[matt819]

3. Not watching

Has anyone yet questioned him on this about face?

[Gothmog]

5. Jonathan Turley claims an impeachable offense must be a crime -- but wrote this was a 'myth' in 2014

Link to tweet