Page 32 of 32 FirstFirst ... 22303132
Results 311 to 318 of 318

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

  1. #311
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:56 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,399

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarLevant View Post
    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.

  2. #312
    Sage
    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    36,433

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarLevant View Post
    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?
    Nancy Pelosi: March, 2019
    "Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless theres something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I dont think we should go down that path, because it divides the country,

  3. #313
    Sage


    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,818

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    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.
    Hes [Chinese President Xi Jinping] now president for life. President for life. And hes great, Trump said. I think its great. Maybe well give that a shot someday. ---Donald J. Trump

  4. #314
    Sage


    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,818

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mrdeltoid View Post
    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 by OscarLevant; 12-07-19 at 03:41 AM.
    Hes [Chinese President Xi Jinping] now president for life. President for life. And hes great, Trump said. I think its great. Maybe well give that a shot someday. ---Donald J. Trump

  5. #315
    Sage
    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    36,433

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarLevant View Post
    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.
    Nancy Pelosi: March, 2019
    "Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless theres something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I dont think we should go down that path, because it divides the country,

  6. #316
    Sage


    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,818

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    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.
    Hes [Chinese President Xi Jinping] now president for life. President for life. And hes great, Trump said. I think its great. Maybe well give that a shot someday. ---Donald J. Trump

  7. #317
    Sage
    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    36,433

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarLevant View Post
    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.
    Nancy Pelosi: March, 2019
    "Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless theres something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I dont think we should go down that path, because it divides the country,

  8. #318
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:56 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,399

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarLevant View Post
    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

Page 32 of 32 FirstFirst ... 22303132

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •