>Nonetheless, Jonathan Turley argued in 1998 column titled "Why The President Must Be Impeached" that "impeachment serves a purpose beyond removal ... the House does not convict but merely accuses. Thus, the House plays an important role in deterring presidential misconduct."
>But that deterrence mechanism now seems unwise to Turley.
In 1998, Turley was concerned about the impact of not impeaching the president, saying, "If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct."
It's reasonable to think that Turley simply changed his mind over time.

Turley in Hill Editorial:  However, rather than address the specific concerns I raised over this incomplete record and process, critics have substituted a false attack to suggest that I had contradicted my earlier testimony during the Clinton impeachment. They reported breathlessly that I said in that hearing, “If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct.” What they left out is that, in my testimony then and again this week, I stressed that the certain act in question was perjury. The issue in the Clinton case was whether perjury was an impeachable offense. Most Democratic members of Congress, including Nadler, maintained back then that perjury did not meet the level of an impeachable offense if the subject was an affair with an intern.

I maintained in the Clinton testimony, and still maintain in my Trump testimony, that perjury on any subject by a sitting president is clearly impeachable. Indeed, as I stated Wednesday, that is the contrast between this inquiry and three prior impeachment controversies. In those earlier inquiries, the commission of criminal acts by Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton were clearly established.



>As a specific example, he cited former President Barack Obama's transfer of $454 million from the ACA prevention fund, which had a handful of Republicans talking about impeachment.
>Turley stated that what Obama did was not in the realm of impeachment -- but it would rise to that level if he "redirect[ed] it to another purpose without congressional approval and offer a faulty interpretation of the act. If the president were to openly defy clear federal authority and order unlawful acts, he would move from the realm of using arguable discretion to that of being a danger to the system as a whole."
>A reasonable person might argue that's what President Trump seems to have done by withholding congressionally appropriated military aid to Ukraine unless it announced an investigation into his political rivals.

Turley in Hill Editorial:

 Milbank claimed that I contradicted my testimony in a 2013 hearing when I presented “exactly the opposite case against President Obama” by saying “it would be ‘very dangerous’ to the balance of powers not to hold Obama accountable for assuming powers ‘very similar’ to the ‘right of the king’ to essentially stand above the law.”

But I was not speaking of an impeachment then. It was a discussion of the separation of powers and the need for Congress to fight against unilateral executive actions, the very issue that Democrats raise against Trump. I did not call for Obama to be impeached

In essence what he was saying is this was a discussion not a call for impeachment.  If it was found that funds were redirected (which Obama redirected tons of Medicare funding for the ACA) by executive order against congressional mandates then it could be questionable....as to if that would lead to an impeachment inquiry would be for debate among congressional committees.  Trump never redirected funds like Obama did many times.  Of course we not talking about Obama here but what Turley is getting at is this opened up as a one sided trial hidden in a basement, certain elements are being contained/restrained from discussion, elements of evidence are being denied as to if Trumps call for an investigation was politically motivated or contribute to a defense against charges/accusations of Russian collusion and how this possibly plays into his request.  Like one you can arguably say if you know the facts that Joe Biden jumping into the race four days after the Ukrainian president lost his re-election bid was to obscure the investigation into whether Ukrainian and not Russia interfered in the 2016 election was a justifiable request by his administration and his defense team as Ukraine under the old president wasn't cooperating with the investigations/investigators being done since before Biden jumped into the race.  The fact he hee hawed around until he seen it was pertinent that he absolutely had to to keep the investigations from happening is a pertinent argument to be had....but every time Joe Bidens name comes up it's shut down at the hearing.  This goes far beyond the Burisma debate and any criminally involved there also, this is about obscuring evidence related to the 2016 election Russian collusion narrative and the fact they lost the shield that was protecting them...that being the lost of the election by the former Ukrainian president...a new shield had to be found to not only shield his son from being investigated but to protect the democratic party from being exposed for setting up the whole Russian collusion narrative in the first place.    The fact that the democrats keep staying no evidence has been found to the contrary isn't relative when no investigations/discussions/debates/evidence is allowed to come forward to prove otherwise, it's incomplete.  No jury or the American people should be allowed to judge without presentation of findings from both sides.

Of course Turley isn't claiming all of the above is some hidden agenda by the democrats, he is trying to stay impartial but his quote in the editorial:

>That is precisely what I have said regarding Trump. You just need to prove abuse of power. My objection is not that you cannot impeach Trump for abuse of power but that this record is comparably thin compared to past impeachments and contains conflicts, contradictions, and gaps including various witnesses not subpoenaed. I suggested that Democrats drop the arbitrary schedule of a vote by the end of December and complete their case and this record before voting on any articles of impeachment. In my view, they have not proven abuse of power in this incomplete record.  

sums up what I was saying in a non bias fashion.