• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jonathan Turley 'inundated with threatening messages' after testimony opposing Trump impeachment

Atomic Kid said:
You think that was early? A history professor at American University, Professor Alan Lichtman, who has correctly predicted the winner of every Presidential election since 1984 using a quasi-scientific method he calls "13 Keys", made a bold prediction in September 2016. Not just that Trump would win. But he also predicted that Trump would become the first US President ever to be impeached in his first term in office. What was his rationale for making that prediction? Professor Lichtman explains;

" I don’t have a formula for predicting impeachment. But I had studied his entire career, and his campaign, and I concluded this was someone who had no respect for the law, no respect for the truth, who had spent his entire life enriching himself, and promoting himself, often at the expense of others. This was someone who had never been held accountable for anything he had done, not for discriminating against minorities, not for hiring illegal immigrants, not for declaring multiple bankruptcies, not for lying about President Obama’s actual place of birth—nothing. And I saw the ways in which he had cozied up to the Russians in the 2016 campaign.

And I concluded that all of these traits were exactly the kinds of characteristics that would lead a president to be impeached, that he wouldn’t change any of his ways once he became president."

The Professor was right on the money with that one.
Click to expand...

You do realize that impeachment will lead to Trump's re-election in 2020, don't you? Jonathan Turley said it best, no compelling evidence and that is why support for impeachment is dropping except for the radicals who are hell bent on sealing their own doom. Hatred isn't justification for getting rid of someone but the dumbass radicals have no concept of the precedence they are setting. I know we can count on your support when Republicans impeach the next Democratic President simply for political reasons and the fact that he/she is disliked?
 
Conservative said:
You do realize that impeachment will lead to Trump's re-election in 2020, don't you? Jonathan Turley said it best, no compelling evidence and that is why support for impeachment is dropping except for the radicals who are hell bent on sealing their own doom. Hatred isn't justification for getting rid of someone but the dumbass radicals have no concept of the precedence they are setting. I know we can count on your support when Republicans impeach the next Democratic President simply for political reasons and the fact that he/she is disliked?
Click to expand...

Disagreed. Most Americans realize that Trump is a lying D-bag, a serial sexual predator and, worst of all, a draft-dodging coward who happily sends our troops to risk their lives for oil rigs. That said, the sad fact remains the Democrats have nothing better to offer so, yes, Trump will probably be reelected.
 
Rising Sun said:
Disagreed. Most Americans realize that Trump is a lying D-bag, a serial sexual predator and, worst of all, a draft-dodging coward who happily sends our troops to risk their lives for oil rigs. That said, the sad fact remains the Democrats have nothing better to offer so, yes, Trump will probably be reelected.
Click to expand...
What is even sadder is that for so many Americans the facts about Trump make no difference.
 
prometeus said:
What is even sadder is that for so many Americans the facts about Trump make no difference.
Click to expand...

Agreed. OTOH, the same can be said about Hillary. This is how deplorable US national politics have become. Let's both hope that we've reached a tipping point and Americans will demand their leaders be held to a higher standard.
 
haymarket said:
Could you please print the insult to Trumps son? I watched the entire event and heard nothing insulting nor demeaning not hurtful aimed at Trumps son.
Click to expand...

How was it appropriate to bring up Baron Trump's name during testimony that was supposed to be given by a legal expert and Stanford law professor? Karlan came across as an angry political activist with a grudge to bear against Trump, not a competent witness.

Perhaps if our presidential elections expressed the will of the people,
Click to expand...

Oh come on. The Democratic Party hasn't cared about the will of the people for over a half century. The American people didn't support the Hart-Celler act, NAFTA, and the illegal practice of Sanctuary Cities. It was your party that gave us all 3 of those things, which went against the will of the people. Only 24% of Americans supported an increase in immigration in 1965, the year that Johnson signed the Hart-Celler bill into law. NAFTA was similarly unpopular when Clinton signed it into law in 1994. After ignoring the will of the people for half a century, and changing the demographics of the country, you still lost the White House to Donald Trump, so now you want to do away with the electoral college system, because you still can't win?

...nobody would have to overturn them.
Click to expand...

Here's an idea: find a candidate who can compete against Trump in 2020, instead of dragging the country into chaos and possible civil war with your impeachment crusade. That would be the American thing to do.
 
Rising Sun said:
Disagreed. Most Americans realize that Trump is a lying D-bag, a serial sexual predator and, worst of all, a draft-dodging coward who happily sends our troops to risk their lives for oil rigs. That said, the sad fact remains the Democrats have nothing better to offer so, yes, Trump will probably be reelected.
Click to expand...

More Americans are working today and better off than they were 3 years ago, they have a roof over their heads, food on the table and clothes on their backs, they are working full time whereas you spend all your time here promoting a failed ideology. You keep buying what the left tells you and keep ignoring what really is important, economics and national security
 
Moon said:
With adequate probable cause, sure. As political payback, hell no.
Click to expand...
They still have no probable cause on any charge at all. None. After three full years and formal surveillance even longer. Nada.
 
Jay59 said:
All of this begs the question, why do you back the party that believes in a two tiered system, ie the elites and those that must be tended.
Click to expand...

Look, the bottom line is I think racism is wrong.

Why do you back the party that believes in a two-tiered system, one for white people and one for non-white people?

Why do you back the party that believes individual human rights only apply to Americans, but not all human beings across the world?

Why do you back the party that believes individual human rights only apply to Christians, but not to people of other faiths?

And, I don't think you are being entirely honest. I think you are okay with having elites, you just want the "right" kind of elites.

It not used to be like this. Even twenty years ago, the Democrats were still arguably egalitarian. Not recently. They adopted shaming as their primary political lever and everything changed. DP Moynihan would not recognize this party.
Click to expand...

So, now you are clearly tipping your hand as to what is driving your support of Trump. You are all on board on the side of Fox News in its culture war against the Liberals and Hollywood, etc.

Shame is very effective non-violent method of persuasion. Shame helped bring about the changes in how America relates to race during the Civil Rights movement, for instance.

It is better to be the recipient of violence than the inflicter of it, since the latter only multiplies the existence of violence and bitterness in the universe, while the former may develop a sense of shame in the opponent, and thereby bring about a transformation and change of heart.
Click to expand...

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. "In a Single Garment of Destiny": A Global Vision of Justice”, p.75

The end of violence or the aftermath of violence is bitterness. The aftermath of nonviolence is reconciliation and the creation of a beloved community. A boycott is never an end within itself. It is merely a means to awaken a sense of shame within the oppressor but the end is reconciliation, the end is redemption.
Click to expand...

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “The Essential Martin Luther King, Jr.: "I Have a Dream" and Other Great Writings”, p.38

--

And the reason why Trump supporters are irked by attempts by others to shame them is that the act of shaming someone truly is a coercive act. It's intended to make you change your behavior.

When people shame Trump supporters, Trump supporters feel bad, and for good reason. It's not fun to have someone else to you what you're doing is wrong.

I understand Trump supporters want their racism, ethnocentrism, and bigotry to be unchained and unburdened by any sort of informal societal restrictions. But if we are to exist as a unified multi-ethnic, multi-racial society, glued together by Civic Nationalism, the truth is white people have to treat non-white people as equals, even if it hurts, and even if it makes white people feel uncomfortable.
 
eohrnberger said:
All I'm reading in your post is the leftist's same old politically driven narrative: 'You have an opinion differing from mine so you must be a racist'. As well as using accusations of 'Racist!' to silence those that have differing opinions and political positions.

Thanks for demonstrating those two things.
Click to expand...

Why beat around the bush?

When you complain about the "proclaimed" moral superiority of Democrats you are really complaining about two things: 1) the right to be racist, and 2) the right to do corrupt things in the pursuit of racism.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Look, the bottom line is I think racism is wrong.
Why do you back the party that believes in a two-tiered system, one for white people and one for non-white people?
Why do you back the party that believes individual human rights only apply to Americans, but not all human beings across the world?
Why do you back the party that believes individual human rights only apply to Christians, but not to people of other faiths?
And, I don't think you are being entirely honest. I think you are okay with having elites, you just want the "right" kind of elites.
So, now you are clearly tipping your hand as to what is driving your support of Trump. You are all on board on the side of Fox News in its culture war against the Liberals and Hollywood, etc.

Shame is very effective non-violent method of persuasion. Shame helped bring about the changes in how America relates to race during the Civil Rights movement, for instance. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. "In a Single Garment of Destiny": A Global Vision of Justice”, p.75 r. Martin Luther King, Jr. “The Essential Martin Luther King, Jr.: "I Have a Dream" and Other Great Writings”, p.38

And the reason why Trump supporters are irked by attempts by others to shame them is that the act of shaming someone truly is a coercive act. It's intended to make you change your behavior. When people shame Trump supporters, Trump supporters feel bad, and for good reason. It's not fun to have someone else to you what you're doing is wrong.

I understand Trump supporters want their racism, ethnocentrism, and bigotry to be unchained and unburdened by any sort of informal societal restrictions. But if we are to exist as a unified multi-ethnic, multi-racial society, glued together by Civic Nationalism, the truth is white people have to treat non-white people as equals, even if it hurts, and even if it makes white people feel uncomfortable.
Click to expand...
I can appreciate that you do not like it when someone tells you that what you are doing is wrong.

Republicans make no black vs white divide, except in Democrat's political rhetoric. Witness that Trump polls comfortably above 30% with blacks, generally more than black Republicans and independents combined. You acknowledge that what you do is coercive, but it is coercion without justification. It's wrong. What you are doing is wrong.
 
truthatallcost said:
How was it appropriate to bring up Baron Trump's name during testimony that was supposed to be given by a legal expert and Stanford law professor?
Click to expand...

It was a wonderfully apt and perfect illustration of the limitations on the powers of the president.

Here's an idea: find a candidate who can compete against Trump in 2020, instead of dragging the country into chaos and possible civil war with your impeachment crusade. That would be the American thing to do.
Click to expand...

The last one beat Trump by over 2.8 million more votes. That is the will of the people.
 
eohrnberger said:
That's not been proven, and there is evidence counter to that.
Click to expand...

Well, no, that's not true at all. There is evidence of a solicitation for a quid pro quo in the call transcript/summary of the July call between Trump and Zelenskyy. Trump literally says the words, "I would like you to do us a favor though" when Zelenskyy asked for a sale of more javelin missiles. Trump then requested an investigation of the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory and an investigation of the Bidens. Sondland testified that Trump told him to listen to Rudy. Rudy told Sondland to condition a White House visit on a public announcement of an investigation into the Bidens. These two allegations are now on solid ground. And there has been no evidence provided by anyone to counter these allegations.

What is on weaker ground is the allegation that Trump conditioned the $400 million dollars in military aid to Ukraine on an investigation into the Bidens. There's less evidence for that.

Didn't the WB claim that there was a quid pro quo?
Click to expand...

Read it:

The whistleblower complaint, annotated

The whistleblower referenced a White House call, and a White House meeting, which is exactly what Sondland testified to under oath.

The whistleblower did not reference the military aid being part of the pressure Trump applied, and Trump supporters like Nunes and Jordan are not being very honest when they emphasize the lack of evidence in regard to the military aid being part of the quid pro quo, but then fail to mention all the evidence related to the White House call or the White House meeting.

That's twice now you've hung your argument that the WB's quid pro quo has been proven, but it has not, at least in any sort of evidence based manner, mind you hearsay isn't evidence in spite of how hard Democrats seem to want to make it so, it simply isn't.
Click to expand...

I don't think you've actually read the Whistleblower complaint. You need to read it before you talk about it:

The whistleblower complaint, annotated

And how much of the hearings have you actually watched?

Piece of Schiff has been running a sleazy one sided and unfair process
Click to expand...

They opened up the hearings to the public.

Trump was invited to testify.

Trump was invited to send witnesses.

Trump's counsel was invited to cross-examine witnesses.

Trump has declined to do all of this.

Trump does not want to participate because any participation on his part would probably implicate him more. If Rudy, Pompeo, Mulvaney, and Bolton could provide exculpatory evidence, they would have already testified.

Trump doesn't care about the process.

Trump supporters don't care about the process either. Trump supporters want Trump to be above the law and not beholden to Congressional inquiry.

If you cared about the process you would acknowledge the degree to which Democrats have accommodated Republican concerns, and you would demand people like Rudy, Pompeo, Mulvaney, and Bolton testify...immediately.

I have a problem when an anonymous someone can throw a grenade into the middle of it all, and escape any consequences or accountability for doing so, and escape with his anonymity intact.
Click to expand...

The whole point of whistleblower laws and regulations is so people can blow the whistle on corrupt behavior and not be punished by the people engaging in corruption.

We are obligated to protect the whistleblowers anonymity and allow the whistleblower to not face consequences.

The problem isn't the whistleblower. The problem is the whistleblower blew the whistleblower on your favorite politician and now you are mad at the whistleblower for exposing Trump's corrupt acts.

This was exactly the bloated bureaucracy's intent from the git go. Why? Because they've been bypassed in foreign relations, and they don't like it, and they hate Trump, being from the political left of the spectrum.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this. All of the people who testified, with the exception of Sondland, struck me as smart, educated, intelligent, career officials who cared about the Republic and seemed concerned that Trump appeared to be advancing his own interests at the expense of the Republic's interests. Trump took an oath to defend the Constitution, not himself.
 
eohrnberger said:
The left side of the political aisle has been after impeaching this president since his inauguration.
Click to expand...

When was this 'call to arms' published? Jan. 20, 2017 at 12:19 p.m. EST.
Click to expand...

The evidence indicates otherwise.

If Al Green were representative of the Party as a whole you'd see far more Democrats voting for impeachment in 2017 than not. Only 58 Democrats voted in favor of Al Greens' idea.

So when you write, "The left side of the political aisle has been after impeaching this president since his inauguration." it is flat-out, not true.

If you can't accept that the Democrats and the left have been driving this politically motivated impeachment, I can't help your willful ignorance.
Click to expand...

Why did Al Green's idea only receive 58 votes?
 
New Remarks From Top Ukrainian Official Damages Democrats’ Impeachment Narrative
November 14th, 2019

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said on Thursday that the United States Ambassador Gordon Sondland did not link financial military assistance to a request for Ukraine to open up an investigation into former vice president and current Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

“Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and certainly did not tell me, about a connection between the assistance and the investigations,” Prystaiko said, according to Reuters. “You should ask him.”

“I have never seen a direct relationship between investigations and security assistance,” Prystaiko continued. “Yes, the investigations were mentioned, you know, in the conversation of the presidents. But there was no clear connection between these events.”


Jim Jordan Shreds Democrats’ Impeachment Witness

Jim Jordan Shreds Democrats’ Impeachment Witness: ‘What You Heard Did Not Happen’ | The Daily Wire

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) ripped Democrats’ impeachment witness Ambassador William Taylor on Wednesday as he deconstructed the narrative the Democratic Party has promoted surrounding President Donald Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

During one exchange, Jordan highlighted Taylor’s limited knowledge of the events about which he was testifying:

Jordan: You didn’t listen in on President Trump and Zelensky’s call?

Taylor: I did not.

Jordan: You’ve never talked with Chief of Staff Mulvaney?

Taylor: I never did.

Jordan: You’ve never met the president?

Taylor: That’s correct.

Jordan: You had three meetings again with Zelenksy and it didn’t come up … and President Zelensky never made an announcement. … and you’re their star witness.
 
Poor democrats floundering once again!


Ukrainian president says he felt no pressure on Trump call
September 25, 2019

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Wednesday that President Trump didn’t pressure him during an infamous phone call, emboldening Mr. Trump to scold the media and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi while demanding credit for wins on the global stage.

“We had, I think, [a] good phone call. It was normal. We spoke about many things,” Mr. Zelensky said in a highly anticipated sit-down with Mr. Trump at the U.N. General Assembly in New York. “Nobody pushed me.”

In a flash, the comedic actor turned president undercut Democrats’ claims that Mr. Trump turned the screws on the novice leader by demanding dirt on former Vice President Joseph R. Biden and his son Hunter.

Volodymyr Zelensky felt no pressure from Trump on controversial call - Washington Times
 
Typical LEFT WING free speech demonstration.
 
eohrnberger said:
I don't agree with your portrayal either. What of the rank antisemitic tropes that Ilhan Omar spouts (and has for years)? What of the same from from Rashida Tlaib? Only a general and largely meaningless virtual signalling House resolution. The two have continued in kind since.
Click to expand...

There are 278 some-odd members of Congress who are members of the Democratic Party and all you guys can focus on are Omar, Tlaib, and AOC.

You need to stop watching Hannity. This is so boring.

Apparently not, if the Clinton campaign picked it up and ran with it.
Click to expand...

Lol, yeah, no. Christopher Steele did not get any tips from Chalupa. Nice propagandistic wording in the article though, "Notably, this theme would be picked up by the Clinton campaign in the summer of 2016." Apparently, the phrasing worked to trick you.

So it's your position that the Democrat presidential primary candidates are making sound public policy proposals? Even though, more often than not, their math simply doesn't add up? Interesting.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with a lot of what they are proposing to be honest, but they Democrats do agree that we should operate on the principles outlined in the Constitution, that citizens get to vote, even citizens you may not like, and these citizens choose their representatives in Congress, and Congress gets to pass legislation, appropriate funds, and the Presidents executes the law, and so on. That there are checks and balances, and the President isn't above the law, and so on. I'm not okay with Republicans abandoning how we have done things for 240 years because they hate atheists, gay people, and immigrants. Sorry. I refuse to participate in the dismantling of the Republic in pursuit of short-term policy goals, and no, I don't think God is going to bless us for banning abortion.

In general, I think Democrats and Republicans agree essentially on operating the economy in the same way, philosophically, and the variation is in the various constituencies they are trying to help. For instance, Republicans HATE giving free food to black and brown people but are perfectly okay with white farmers in rural areas getting government aid.
 
Moon said:
That’s why we have a Supreme Court. It’s up to them and the lower courts to sort out disputes between Congress and the Executive.
Click to expand...

The President has a duty to refrain from taking unconstitutional actions.

This is the oath he took:

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I don't think we should wait for the Courts to step in and put a wannabe dictator in check. We should be proactive about removing wannabe dictators like Trump. Hell, if Trump had enough time he could put in enough judges who would give him dictatorial powers. And with a cowardly Republican Party, too afraid to put him in check, this is not beyond the realm of possibility.

And this isn't some previously undecided aspect of Constitutional law.

Trump is going against everything the Constitution stands for by asserting absolute immunity. It has no precedent in our laws our history.

Oh, and I don’t need the approval of anyone to call myself a conservative, but thank you for your input.
Click to expand...

You can call yourself whatever you want, but I'm going to criticize you for claiming to be something you're not.

If you truly believed in our country's founding values, and if you truly believed in the Constitution, you would reject Trump's claims of absolute immunity as what they are, pathetic attempts to make himself a dictator.
 
lurchadams said:
"Welch", my friend.

"Welsh" are a people.
Click to expand...
Really?? Well what ever. Cardinal is welshing on his bet with me. :lol:
welch - Google Search
welsh
/welSH/
Learn to pronounce
verbOFFENSIVE
verb: welch
fail to honour (a debt or obligation incurred through a promise or agreement).
"banks began welshing on their agreement not to convert dollar reserves into gold"


Welch | Definition of Welch by Merriam-Webster
welch verb
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In
\ ˈwelch \
less common variant of WELSH
intransitive verb

1informal, now sometimes offensive : to avoid payment —used with on
2informal, now sometimes offensive : to break one's word : RENEGE
 
Last edited:
Jay59 said:
I can appreciate that you do not like it when someone tells you that what you are doing is wrong.

Republicans make no black vs white divide, except in Democrat's political rhetoric. Witness that Trump polls comfortably above 30% with blacks, generally more than black Republicans and independents combined. You acknowledge that what you
Click to expand...

Look, 30% is not very high. Also, about 30% of the population ranks high on authoritarian personality traits so it makes sense that Trump would have a sort of 30% base level of support amongst any ethnic/racial group.

do is coercive, but it is coercion without justification. It's wrong.
Click to expand...

Oh, so when old ladies in my church hiss at me for having sex out of wedlock that's wrong too?

What you are doing is wrong.
Click to expand...

It's wrong to tell people to stop being cruel to gay people, immigrants, non-Christians, and ethnic minorities?
 
SLC said:
Really?? Well what ever. Cardinal is welshing on his bet with me. [emoji38]

welsh
/welSH/
Learn to pronounce
verbOFFENSIVE
verb: welch
fail to honour (a debt or obligation incurred through a promise or agreement).
"banks began welshing on their agreement not to convert dollar reserves into gold"
Click to expand...
Know! Your rong!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 
The Mark said:
The point I attempted to make is that we don't know for sure who, if anyone, made threats, as we only have Turley's word that someone or multiple someones did.

It seems a flimsy basis to extrapolate into a general statement assuming the intent and actions of millions.
Click to expand...

Right, well we can't be sure, but we can make a very educated guess at who would be making threats, like 99% to 1%.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Look, 30% is not very high. Also, about 30% of the population ranks high on authoritarian personality traits so it makes sense that Trump would have a sort of 30% base level of support amongst any ethnic/racial group.
Oh, so when old ladies in my church hiss at me for having sex out of wedlock that's wrong too?
It's wrong to tell people to stop being cruel to gay people, immigrants, non-Christians, and ethnic minorities?
Click to expand...
Read the part about Trump's support exceeding the combined totals of Republicans and independents. Trump is getting support from black Democrats.

What you are doing is coercion without justification. What you are doing is wrong.
 
Conservative said:
More Americans are working today and better off than they were 3 years ago, they have a roof over their heads, food on the table and clothes on their backs, they are working full time whereas you spend all your time here promoting a failed ideology. You keep buying what the left tells you and keep ignoring what really is important, economics and national security
Click to expand...

Attributing that to Trump is as mistaken as the Lefties who attribute the 1990s economy to Clinton....the other lying draft-dodging coward and serial sexual predator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom