• 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!

Why Prof. Jonathan Turley is wrong in his opening statement today

bottom line-Trump haters claim Turley didn't exonerate Trump. Trump supporters claim the three leftwing law professors made a good case. The sky is blue and TDS is rampant as well.
 
Prof. Turley failed to mention the scope of this president's willful obstruction of congress, and contempt of congress. His argument was to criticize the bribery arguments being presented by the house.

Set that Bribery aspect aside, and we are still left with Contempt of Congress, and Obstruction of Congress. It was mentioned and is true that an impeachable offense, if committed, does not necessarily rise to the level requiring removal of office. I believe the relevant fact is, if we do not impeach, what are the probable consequences? As to whether or not an offense rises to an impeachable act worthy of conviction depends entirely on the gravity of the offense, as determined by a plethora of the evidence provided, which can include, but not limited to, direct, indirect, observations, communications, records, recollections, and the body of evidence, considered as a whole.

I've heard the argument presented on this forum that those testifying who used the term "presume", that it doesn't rise to "impeachable". That false argument can easily be refuted, as follows;

"If I wake up in the morning and there is snow all over the grown, and all over everything in sight, I can correctly 'presume' it snowed the night before".

Moving on...

It is true that prior presidents have committed contempt of congress and obstruction, or allowed a subordinate to commit same, who were not impeached, but no prior president has done it in the blanket, en masse, without consideration to circumstance, as this president has done. That, in my view, rises to a level that is impeachable, for the following reason, which has to do with the consequences if we do not impeach;

If this president is not impeached for these offenses, it will destroy Congress's power to conduct oversight of the executive branch as such powers have been vested to Congress by the Constitution, offenses which this president has committed in plain view, which is therefore indisputable, noting that the primary arbiter of that power is Congress. Sure, challenges can be made, but courts have traditionally sided with Congress on such matters, because it's inescapably clear as expressed by the Constitution and is no doubt derived on the concept that the arbiter of that power is a body of men and women who were elected.

If we do not impeach and convict this president for these offenses he will be emboldened, including future presidents of his mold, to do more of the same, which have have the absolute effect of destroying the constitutional concept of separation of powers, and will march AMerica towards a president who is above the law, which is what the term, "dictator" means and seeds of tyranny can only grow from there.

I welcome reasoned counter arguments. Those that go something like "TDS" "Quit whining, you lost the election", "yawn" name calling, flaming, etc., or other incompetent rebuttals having nothing to do with contributing to this discourse, will be ignored.


Note that "incompetent rebuttal" doesn't mean "disagreement", it's a rebuttal that offers nothing to the discourse, as described above.

Please abstain from weasel words ( 'everyone knows' etc ) , ad hominems (including ad homimen embedded nouns, like 'shillery' or 'Obummer' etc ) , flaming, artificial constructs ( TDS ) created for want of a stronger argument, etc.

I heard last night on one of the shows that the Democrats may not follow through and send the impeachment to the Senate. They will do everything needed to show the American people what Trump is in an official and complete-as-possible-way but knowing that the Senate will not confirm the impeachment of Trump, they may stop at actually sending it to the Senate.

I believe this is the wise thing to do, given that they will have shown the public how Trump has done impeachable actions against them but then not send it to the Senate for them to find "not enough reason to impeach.
 
Weird. Biden actually clearly admitted extortion on television, and none of you folks believe it. So why don't you show us all where Trump admitted this thing. Unlike the left here, if you have this proof, I'll accept it. It's also pretty strange that this admission hasn't been presented in congress, so while you're at it, maybe you could explain that too.

Lol. No thanks. Waste of time.
 
I agree. We could have a battle of links, though. We could denigrate each other's. That's always a favorite here.

If the whole thing happening multiple times on live TV isn't enough to convince you, nothing will. Also, I don't do alt reality.
 
If the whole thing happening multiple times on live TV isn't enough to convince you, nothing will. Also, I don't do alt reality.

I don't watch much TV. Weather and football is about it for me. And hockey. College basketball. The View. Dancing with the Cars. Jeopardy. The Simsons. SNL. Jerry Springer. Laurel and Hardy. Andy Griffith. NCIS. CSPAN. Spam for Your Health. That's it.
 
The Mueller report gives us at least for open and shut cases of obstruction of justice moreover the president has obstructed Congress and committed contempt of congress in Plainview. These two acts of lawlessness are very serious in that theystrike at the heart of the separation of powers. Your argument seems to be that the president can do whatever the hell he wants and is above the law I'm sorry that's just isn't true.

Unfortunately for all the naysayers the Constitution vest in Congress the sole power of impeachment and to no other Branch or person. Congress does not need permission from the Supreme Court to impeach. No judge will counter that fact because it's plain as day in the Constitution

Your characterization of curiosity is absurd

The plain fact of the matter is that the President IS above the law, has been since 1973, and will continue to be for as long as the Supreme Court allows the DOJ OLC opinion to stand. That is why you have to turn to a purely political rather than criminal course of action. The Executive Branch has the right to tell the Congress to pound sand to the extent that the Supreme Court allows it. To impeach on the grounds that the Judiciary is being used for its intended purpose is an abuse of power and it’s constitutionally baseless.
 
The Constitution vests in Congress the sole power of impeachment and to none other

Please show me where the Constitution says that the Arbiter of impeachment is some other branch of government
Sure, right after you show me was I said that.
 
The Constitution vests in Congress the sole power of impeachment and to none other

Please show me where the Constitution says that the Arbiter of impeachment is some other branch of government
!'d be glad to, right after you point out where I said any like that.
 
Oh I knew you what you didn't grasp long ago so I tried to help.

GreenAccurateBurro-size_restricted.gif
 
Given who Trump is, I can understand why anyone loathes him. He's such a despicable human being, well, a number of republicans can't stand him, either, so it's not really a partisan thing, when the rubber hits the road.

There is plenty of emotion on both sides, so, you are complaining about emotion on one side, then you must complain about the other side, as well, unless, of course, you are just being partisan.

Now, that wouldn't he the case here, would it?

The issue is using constitutional "scholars" to give guidance and advice in an impeachment inquiry. No matter what their personal beliefs, they are called upon to help the committee decide whether or not to move forward with impeachment. The impact that removing a sitting president would have on the country would be heavy. It is so important, it has only happened once in our lifetime, with Nixon resigning before he would have surely became the 3rd president in history to be impeached. This being the case, don't you believe someone with such visceral hate for the person in question should be objective? I mean she is even on record as hating Trump so much, she was walking down the street, came to Trumps hotel, and crossed over so she didn't have to walk in front of it? Seriously? I agree, there is much emotion on both sides, but if you appear so unhinged you can't make it through a hearing without giving yourself away, there's little doubt as to which way she would decide. As for "the other side", the lone wittiness the pubbies were allowed to choose, Turley, is a liberal democrat, who didn't vote for Trump, but he didn't bristle at the mention of his name. So I'm not complaining. I was pointing out that the dems could've at least picked someone who could at least fake being objective. Of course they vetted them before they put them out there. I have no problem with that. Now, if this was a real impeachment hearing, that counted, that would be different.
 
No we have set the stage for impeachment and justly so. Turley has been exposed for his flip-flopping on matters of impeachment.

No he hasn't. That's just your masters trying to destroy a guy who didn't toe the line.

The left is so predictable. Anyone who doesn't comply must be destroyed.

Do you have any idea how that looks to everyday Americans?

Think you can win control of the US government with that kind of agenda?
 
No he hasn't. That's just your masters trying to destroy a guy who didn't toe the line.

The left is so predictable. Anyone who doesn't comply must be destroyed.

Apparently you haven't noticed that Trump predictably attempts to destroy anyone who doesn't agree with him or "toe the line" as you put it.


So, we can conclude, therefore, you don't have a problem, per se, with attempts to destroy because of not toeing the line, only when it's the other side.
 
The issue is using constitutional "scholars" to give guidance and advice in an impeachment inquiry. No matter what their personal beliefs, they are called upon to help the committee decide whether or not to move forward with impeachment. The impact that removing a sitting president would have on the country would be heavy. It is so important, it has only happened once in our lifetime, with Nixon resigning before he would have surely became the 3rd president in history to be impeached. This being the case, don't you believe someone with such visceral hate for the person in question should be objective? I mean she is even on record as hating Trump so much, she was walking down the street, came to Trumps hotel, and crossed over so she didn't have to walk in front of it? Seriously? I agree, there is much emotion on both sides, but if you appear so unhinged you can't make it through a hearing without giving yourself away, there's little doubt as to which way she would decide. As for "the other side", the lone wittiness the pubbies were allowed to choose, Turley, is a liberal democrat, who didn't vote for Trump, but he didn't bristle at the mention of his name. So I'm not complaining. I was pointing out that the dems could've at least picked someone who could at least fake being objective. Of course they vetted them before they put them out there. I have no problem with that. Now, if this was a real impeachment hearing, that counted, that would be different.


Your assertion rises or falls on the assumption that the scholars were "faking objectivity". I don't agree with that contention. I don't doubt they were chosen for their concurrent views, but I can't imagine they would pick someone who disagrees. From where I sit, those that disagree do not appear to speak from as high of ground as those that do, that is my observation. Turley is a pop legal journalist, and by 'pop' I mean, he's famous because he appears as a pundit on many of the news shows, has many followers on twitter and writes a popular blog ( even I follow him on twitter ). The others were not, they were just scholars known amongst peers.

As a TV pundit, and similarly with Alan Dershowitz, these guys tend to go too far, in my view, to appear non partisan, so much so they come off as rather wishy washy, as if they can't be seen coming out too much for one side or the other in an attempt to seem "objective". I disagree with that point of view. In my view, one can be objective and side with Democrats, as I believe democrats are more objective, overall, than republicans, who tend to be more ideological, emotional ( which I would attribute to the call of neoliberalism ).

Moreover, Turley didn't disagree on the fact that dems had it right on articles of impeachment, his only contention was that dems should take more time, uncover more facts before impeaching.

That's rather odd, since the Mueller investigation took over 2 years, when repubs were complaining that it was taking too long, and now, all of the sudden, it's being rushed?

Moreover, in a list of articles of impeachment, which surely will include Obstruction of Congress, and Contempt of Congress, so at trial, Congress only has to hit the target on one of them to convict. Note that Trump committed Obstruction/Contempt of Congress when he directed all of his entire staff to defy, in blanket fashion, without regard to circumstance, in plain view, all subpoenas, a glaring and egregious ommission by Turley, which is sad, one wonders how he missed? From the standpoint of his peers, he had a bad day, as Judge Napolitano pointed out.
 
Last edited:
Apparently you haven't noticed that Trump predictably attempts to destroy anyone who doesn't agree with him or "toe the line" as you put it.


So, we can conclude, therefore, you don't have a problem, per se, with attempts to destroy because of not toeing the line, only when it's the other side.

The President responds to attacks. Perhaps you are too busy attacking to notice who keeps firing the first rounds.
 
The President responds to attacks. Perhaps you are too busy attacking to notice who keeps firing the first rounds.

Wrong.

Yovanovich never said, tweeted, or ever spoke badly of Trump. She is one example of many, and he went out of his way to besmirch her reputation which was wholly unnecessary.

It is also "conduct unbecoming of a President" ( not that Trumpsters care, as he panders to their troll loving instincts, not realizing that Trump is dividing America, not noticing that a good president seeks to unite America).


Trump doesn't respond, he initiates, he attacks, his clear intent is to defame, to destroy those that do not kiss his ass.

Trump tosses weighty words like "treason" cavalierly, and cheapens their meaning, and the clear objective is to shame, to belittle, to dehumanize.


Perhaps you are too mired in right wing frenzy to notice.
 
Wrong.

Yovanovich never said, tweeted, or ever spoke badly of Trump. She is one example of many, and he went out of his way to besmirch her reputation which was wholly unnecessary.

It is also "conduct unbecoming of a President" ( not that Trumpsters care, as he panders to their troll loving instincts, not realizing that Trump is dividing America, not noticing that a good president seeks to unite America).


Trump doesn't respond, he initiates, he attacks, his clear intent is to defame, to destroy those that do not kiss his ass.

Trump tosses weighty words like "treason" cavalierly, and cheapens their meaning, and the clear objective is to shame, to belittle, to dehumanize.


Perhaps you are too mired in right wing frenzy to notice.

You are wrong. Yovanovitch was clearly working against her boss. That has been proven in testimony. Fire the first shot, expect a response.
 
Your assertion rises or falls on the assumption that the scholars were "faking objectivity". I don't agree with that contention. I don't doubt they were chosen for their concurrent views, but I can't imagine they would pick someone who disagrees. From where I sit, those that disagree do not appear to speak from as high of ground as those that do, that is my observation. Turley is a pop legal journalist, and by 'pop' I mean, he's famous because he appears as a pundit on many of the news shows, has many followers on twitter and writes a popular blog ( even I follow him on twitter ). The others were not, they were just scholars known amongst peers.

As a TV pundit, and similarly with Alan Dershowitz, these guys tend to go too far, in my view, to appear non partisan, so much so they come off as rather wishy washy, as if they can't be seen coming out too much for one side or the other in an attempt to seem "objective". I disagree with that point of view. In my view, one can be objective and side with Democrats, as I believe democrats are more objective, overall, than republicans, who tend to be more ideological, emotional ( which I would attribute to the call of neoliberalism ).

Moreover, Turley didn't disagree on the fact that dems had it right on articles of impeachment, his only contention was that dems should take more time, uncover more facts before impeaching.

That's rather odd, since the Mueller investigation took over 2 years, when repubs were complaining that it was taking too long, and now, all of the sudden, it's being rushed?

Moreover, in a list of articles of impeachment, which surely will include Obstruction of Congress, and Contempt of Congress, so at trial, Congress only has to hit the target on one of them to convict. Note that Trump committed Obstruction/Contempt of Congress when he directed all of his entire staff to defy, in blanket fashion, without regard to circumstance, in plain view, all subpoenas, a glaring and egregious ommission by Turley, which is sad, one wonders how he missed? From the standpoint of his peers, he had a bad day, as Judge Napolitano pointed out.

At least I know your thought process ( bolded), and you articulate your position well. As for Turley "having a bad day", he did point out, past accepted proceedures as used in the Clinton and Nixon cases, there was a demonstrable crime committed. Also, the pubbies complaining that the process being "too long, or too short", they felt aggrieved because the process was to search for a crime, and not investigating a crime. And if you'll notice, Pelosi said they were going forward with the impeachment, before the "expert" testimony. She also said it started with the phone call in July, yet when questioned by a reporter, she said it has been going on for 2 and a half years. My belief is the democrat party was upended when Trump won, and has been trying everything in their power to bring him down. I think it will all be made clear upon the completion of the Durham criminal investigation. And there's nobody leaning on him to call the investigation a "matter".;) Anyway, if it is proven that Trump committed a crime that would damage the country, I have no problem with impeachment and removal from office. If all there is, is assumptions, inference and innuendo, that he held up aid to the Ukraine until he was sure that Z was investigating Burisima and Bidens part in it, sorry, that is not enough to remove a sitting president 11 months before the election. JMHO:peace
 
Back
Top Bottom