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

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.

OscarLevant said:

"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".

Click to expand...

What you actually have is evidence on the ground that it snowed. There isn't even a shred of evidence on the ground in this impeachment nonsense.

A better analogy is this: You woke up bleary eyed, thought you saw snow on the ground when there wasn't any and presumed that God made it snow because he hates you.

That pretty much covers all of the witness testimony.

OscarLevant said:

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.

Click to expand...

You forgot to add a link where the reader could actually read Turley's 53 page impeachment inquiry testimony?
Read: Jonathan Turley impeachment inquiry testimony | Fox News

The heart of Turley's argument is that the "angry" Democrats have not met the impeachment standard. What's to argue?

Page 12:
"the record is facially insufficient. The problem is not simply that the record does not contain direct evidence of the President stating a quid pro quo, as Chairman Schiff has suggested. The problem is that the House has not bothered to subpoena the key witnesses who would have such direct knowledge. This alone sets a dangerous precedent."

OscarLevant said:

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.

Click to expand...

Too late for an edit to my post above.

Disagree with your bolded statement above. Read pp. 35 and on....but specifically page 38.

OscarLevant said:

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.

...

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.

Click to expand...

I just finished reading a lot of his testimony and he did address what you said he didn't.
Regarding the obstruction charge he reasoned that ...
" There is no evidence that President Trump acted with the corrupt intent requiredfor obstruction of justice on the record created by the House Intelligence Committee. Letus start with the transfer of the file. The transfer of the transcript of the file was raised asa possible act of obstruction to hide evidence of a quid pro quo. However, the nefariousallegations behind the transfer were directly contradicted by Tim Morrison, the formerDeputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Europe and Russia onthe National Security Council. Morrison testified that he was the one who recommendedthat the transcript be restricted after questions were raised about President Trump’srequest for investigations. He said that he did so solely to protect against leaks and that hespoke to senior NSC lawyer John Eisenberg. When Morrison learned the transcript wastransferred to a classified server, he asked Eisenberg about the move. He indicated thatEisenberg was surprised and told him it was a mistake. He described it as an“administrative error.” Absent additional testimony or proof that Morrison has perjuredhimself, the allegation concerning the transfer of the transcript would seem entirelywithout factual support, let alone legal support, as a criminal obstructive act."
"If the House moves forward with this impeachment basis, it would be repeatingthe very same abusive tactics used against President Andrew Johnson. As discussedearlier, the House literally manufactured a crime upon which to impeach Johnson in theTenure in Office Act.
...
If this Committee elects to seek impeachment on the failure to yield tocongressional demands in an oversight or impeachment investigation, it will have todistinguish a long line of cases where prior presidents sought the very same review whilewithholding witnesses and documents.
...
Basing impeachment on this obstruction theory would itself be an abuse of power. . . by Congress. It would be an extremely dangerous precedent to set for future presidents and Congresses in making an appeal to the Judiciary into “high crime andmisdemeanor.”

Overall, his comments were that the impeachment charges were broad, had no legal or historic basis, and the evidence that was alleged to support them was thin.

bubbabgone said:

I just finished reading a lot of his testimony and he did address what you said he didn't.
Regarding the obstruction charge he reasoned that ...
" There is no evidence that President Trump acted with the corrupt intent requiredfor obstruction of justice on the record created by the House Intelligence Committee. Letus start with the transfer of the file. The transfer of the transcript of the file was raised asa possible act of obstruction to hide evidence of a quid pro quo. However, the nefariousallegations behind the transfer were directly contradicted by Tim Morrison, the formerDeputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Europe and Russia onthe National Security Council. Morrison testified that he was the one who recommendedthat the transcript be restricted after questions were raised about President Trump’srequest for investigations. He said that he did so solely to protect against leaks and that hespoke to senior NSC lawyer John Eisenberg. When Morrison learned the transcript wastransferred to a classified server, he asked Eisenberg about the move. He indicated thatEisenberg was surprised and told him it was a mistake. He described it as an“administrative error.” Absent additional testimony or proof that Morrison has perjuredhimself, the allegation concerning the transfer of the transcript would seem entirelywithout factual support, let alone legal support, as a criminal obstructive act."
"If the House moves forward with this impeachment basis, it would be repeatingthe very same abusive tactics used against President Andrew Johnson. As discussedearlier, the House literally manufactured a crime upon which to impeach Johnson in theTenure in Office Act.
...
If this Committee elects to seek impeachment on the failure to yield tocongressional demands in an oversight or impeachment investigation, it will have todistinguish a long line of cases where prior presidents sought the very same review whilewithholding witnesses and documents.
...
Basing impeachment on this obstruction theory would itself be an abuse of power. . . by Congress. It would be an extremely dangerous precedent to set for future presidents and Congresses in making an appeal to the Judiciary into “high crime andmisdemeanor.”

Overall, his comments were that the impeachment charges were broad, had no legal or historic basis, and the evidence that was alleged to support them was thin.

Click to expand...

LOL If the evidence is "thin" it is because Trump has instructed his co-conspirators not to testify and they have not. This is exactly the reason we have laws against obstruction of justice. It appears that the laws against perjury are more important to the Whitehouse than obstruction. Not surprising considering Trump got away clean on the obstruction outlined in the Mueller report. This is why we cannot let this crime stand unanswered.

trixare4kids said:

Too late for an edit to my post above.

Disagree with your bolded statement above. Read pp. 35 and on....but specifically page 38.

Click to expand...

Turley says they haven't established obstruction.

Which is completely false.

There is documented evidence of obstruction.

trixare4kids said:

You forgot to add a link where the reader could actually read Turley's 53 page impeachment inquiry testimony?
Read: Jonathan Turley impeachment inquiry testimony | Fox News

The heart of Turley's argument is that the "angry" Democrats have not met the impeachment standard. What's to argue?

Page 12:
"the record is facially insufficient. The problem is not simply that the record does not contain direct evidence of the President stating a quid pro quo, as Chairman Schiff has suggested. The problem is that the House has not bothered to subpoena the key witnesses who would have such direct knowledge. This alone sets a dangerous precedent."

Click to expand...

He very politely but firmly let Schiff know what he thought of his case ...
"The reference to the Hunter Biden deal with Burisma should never have occurredand is worthy of the criticism of President Trump that it has unleashed. However, it is nota case of bribery, whether you are adopting the view of an eighteenth century, or of atwenty-first century prosecutor. As a criminal defense attorney, I would view such anallegation from a prosecutor to be dubious to the point of being meritless"
And the other charges fared no better.

iguanaman said:

LOL If the evidence is "thin" it is because Trump has instructed his co-conspirators not to testify and they have not. This is exactly the reason we have laws against obstruction of justice.

Click to expand...

Turley addressed that too.
He said if Schiff needed more witnesses to make his case he could have appealed to the Courts.
Schiff decided not to and he can't claim obstruction because of his own failure.

OscarLevant said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree with Turleys argument which is essentially that its not really obstruction unless the requests carry the authority of the courts and then its still defied. If Democrats want to make obstruction stick they need to challenge his refusals in court.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Obscurity said:

Turley says they haven't established obstruction.

Which is completely false.

There is documented evidence of obstruction.

Click to expand...

Trump had 10 instances of Obstruction documented in the Mueller report and got away clean. Turley has apparently determined like Barr that a President is incapable of committing obstruction and is above the law.

trouble13 said:

I agree with Turleys argument which is essentially that its not really obstruction unless the requests carry the authority of the courts and then its still defied. If Democrats want to make obstruction stick they need to challenge his refusals in court.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

LOL Trump has lost every single court decision pertaining to his obstruction charges. What more can you want?

iguanaman said:

LOL If the evidence is "thin" it is because Trump has instructed his co-conspirators not to testify and they have not. This is exactly the reason we have laws against obstruction of justice. It appears that the laws against perjury are more important to the Whitehouse than obstruction. Not surprising considering Trump got away clean on the obstruction outlined in the Mueller report. This is why we cannot let this crime stand unanswered.

Click to expand...

Regarding obstruction and the Mueller report Turley said ...
"I believean obstruction claim based on the Mueller Report would equally at odds with the recordand the controlling case law.
The use of an obstruction theory from the Mueller Report would be unsupportable in the House and unsustainable in the Senate. Once again, thelack of information (just weeks before an expected impeachment vote) on the grounds forimpeachment is both concerning and challenging. It is akin to being asked to diagnose a patient’s survivability without knowing his specific illness."

Mycroft said:

What you actually have is evidence on the ground that it snowed. There isn't even a shred of evidence on the ground in this impeachment nonsense.

A better analogy is this: You woke up bleary eyed, thought you saw snow on the ground when there wasn't any and presumed that God made it snow because he hates you.

That pretty much covers all of the witness testimony.

Click to expand...

Let the voters take a poll next November to see who is right.

Turley's conclusion is compelling.

V. CONCLUSION

Allow me to be candid in my closing remarks.I get it. You are mad. The President is mad. My Democratic friends are mad. My Republican friends are mad. My wife is mad. My kids are mad. Even my dog is mad . . .and Luna is a golden doodle and they are never mad. We are all mad and where has it taken us? Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad or will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration?That is why this is wrong. It is not wrong because President Trump is right. His call was anything but “perfect” and his reference to the Bidens was highly inappropriate.It is not wrong because the House has no legitimate reason to investigate the Ukrainian controversy. The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.It is not wrong because we are in an election year. There is no good time for an impeachment, but this process concerns the constitutional right to hold office in this term,not the next. No, it is wrong because this is not how an American president should be impeached. For two years, members of this Committee have declared that criminal and impeachable acts were established for everything from treason to conspiracy to obstruction. However, no action was taken to impeach. Suddenly, just a few weeks ago,the House announced it would begin an impeachment inquiry and push for a final vote in just a matter of weeks. To do so, the House Intelligence Committee declared that it would

not subpoena a host of witnesses who have direct knowledge of any quid pro quo. Instead, it will proceed on a record composed of a relatively small number of witnesses with largely second-hand knowledge of the position. The only three direct conversations with President Trump do not contain a statement of a quid pro quo and two expressly deny such a pre-condition. The House has offered compelling arguments why those two calls can be discounted by the fact that President Trump had knowledge of the underlying whistleblower complaint. However, this does not change the fact that it is moving forward based on conjecture, assuming what the evidence would show if there existed the time or inclination to establish it. The military aid was released after a delay that the witnesses described as “not uncommon” for this or prior Administrations. This is not a case of the unknowable. It is a case of the peripheral. The House testimony is replete with references to witnesses like John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Mulvaney who clearly hold material information. To impeach a president on such a record would be to expose every future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment.Principle often takes us to a place where we would prefer not to be. That was the place the “Republican Recusants” found themselves in 1868 when sitting in judgment of a president they loathed and despised. However, they took an oath not to Andrew Johnson, but to the Constitution. One of the greatest among them, Lyman Trumbull (R-Ill.) explained his fateful decision to vote against Johnson’s impeachment charges even at the cost of his own career:“Once set the example of impeaching a President for what, when the excitement of the hour shall have subsided, will be regarded as insufficient causes … no future President will be safe who happens to differ with the majority of the House and two-thirds of the Senate …I tremble for the future of my country. I cannot be an instrument to produce such a result; and at the hazard of the ties even of friendship and affection,till calmer times shall do justice to my motives, no alternative is left me…”

Turley conclusion continued:

Trumbull acted in the same type of age of rage that we have today. He knew that raising a question about the underlying crime or the supporting evidence would instantly be condemned as approving of the underlying conduct of a president. In an age of rage, there seems to be no room for nuance or reservation. Yet, that is what the Constitution expects of us. Expects of you.For generations, the seven Republicans who defected to save President Johnson from removal have been heralded as profiles of courage. In recalling the moment he was called to vote, Senator Edmund Ross of Kansas said he “almost literally looked down into my open grave.” He jumped because the price was too great not to. Such moments are easy to celebrate from a distance of time and circumstance. However, that is precisely the moment in which you now find yourself. “When the excitement of the hour [has]

subsided” and “calmer times” prevail, I do not believe that this impeachment will be viewed as bringing credit upon this body. It is possible that a case for impeachment could be made, but it cannot be made on this record. To return to Wordsworth, the Constitution is not a call to arms for the “Happy Warriors.” The Constitution calls for circumspection, not celebration, at the prospect of the removal of an American president. It is easy to allow one’s “judgment [to be] affected by your moral approval of the lines” in an impeachment narrative. But your oath demands more, even personal and political sacrifice, in deciding whether to impeach a president for only the third time in the history of this Republic. In this age of rage, many are appealing for us to simply put the law aside and “just do it” like this is some impulse-buy Nike sneaker. You can certainly do that. You can declare the definitions of crimes alleged are immaterial and this is an exercise of politics,not law. However, the legal definitions and standards that I have addressed in my testimony are the very thing dividing rage from reason. Listening to these calls to dispense with such legal niceties, brings to mind a famous scene with Sir Thomas More in “A Man For All Seasons.” In a critical exchange, More is accused by his son-in-law William Roper of putting the law before morality and that More would “give the Devil the benefit of law!” When More asks if Roper would instead “cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?,” Roper proudly declares “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!” More responds by saying “And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”Both sides in this controversy have demonized the other to justify any measure in defense much like Roper. Perhaps that is the saddest part of all of this. We have forgotten the common article of faith that binds each of us to each other in our Constitution.However, before we cut down the trees so carefully planted by the Framers, I hope you consider what you will do when the wind blows again . . . perhaps for a Democratic president. Where will you stand then “the laws all being flat?”

iguanaman said:

LOL Trump has lost every single court decision pertaining to his obstruction charges. What more can you want?

Click to expand...

Has he defied any court rulings?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

bubbabgone said:

Turley addressed that too.
He said if Schiff needed more witnesses to make his case he could have appealed to the Courts.
Schiff decided not to and he can't claim obstruction because of his own failure.

Click to expand...

LOL So you are under the impression that all subpoenaed witnesses have testified? Trump has obstructed Congress and that is your reason not to impeach him?

not subpoena a host of witnesses who have direct knowledge of any quid pro quo.Instead, it will proceed on a record composed of a relatively small number of witnesseswith largely second-hand knowledge of the position. The only three direct conversationswith President Trump do not contain a statement of a quid pro quo and two expresslydeny such a pre-condition. The House has offered compelling arguments why those twocalls can be discounted by the fact that President Trump had knowledge of the underlyingwhistleblower complaint. However, this does not change the fact that it is movingforward based on conjecture, assuming what the evidence would show if there existed thetime or inclination to establish it. The military aid was released after a delay that thewitnesses described as “not uncommon” for this or prior Administrations. This is not acase of the unknowable. It is a case of the peripheral. The House testimony is replete withreferences to witnesses like John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Mulvaney who clearlyhold material information. To impeach a president on such a record would be to exposeevery future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment.

trouble13 said:

Has he defied any court rulings?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Has Mcgahn testified? He has defied all of them.

bubbabgone said:

not subpoena a host of witnesses who have direct knowledge of any quid pro quo.Instead, it will proceed on a record composed of a relatively small number of witnesseswith largely second-hand knowledge of the position. The only three direct conversationswith President Trump do not contain a statement of a quid pro quo and two expresslydeny such a pre-condition. The House has offered compelling arguments why those twocalls can be discounted by the fact that President Trump had knowledge of the underlyingwhistleblower complaint. However, this does not change the fact that it is movingforward based on conjecture, assuming what the evidence would show if there existed thetime or inclination to establish it. The military aid was released after a delay that thewitnesses described as “not uncommon” for this or prior Administrations. This is not acase of the unknowable. It is a case of the peripheral. The House testimony is replete withreferences to witnesses like John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Mulvaney who clearlyhold material information. To impeach a president on such a record would be to exposeevery future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment.

Click to expand...

Why have John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Pompeo and Mike Mulvaney not testified and defied legal subpoenas? It appears you want to reward Trump's obstruction of Congress and leave them without their Constitutional power of oversight. That "precedent" will be the end of this Republic.

iguanaman said:

LOL So you are under the impression that all subpoenaed witnesses have testified? Trump has obstructed Congress and that is your reason not to impeach him?

Click to expand...

1) You can drop the repeated LOLs. It makes you look uninformed and what you say look trivial.
2) You can read what I wrote to see the impression I'm under and it's not what you said.

trixare4kids said:

You forgot to add a link where the reader could actually read Turley's 53 page impeachment inquiry testimony?
Read: Jonathan Turley impeachment inquiry testimony | Fox News

The heart of Turley's argument is that the "angry" Democrats have not met the impeachment standard. What's to argue?

Page 12:
"the record is facially insufficient. The problem is not simply that the record does not contain direct evidence of the President stating a quid pro quo, as Chairman Schiff has suggested. The problem is that the House has not bothered to subpoena the key witnesses who would have such direct knowledge. This alone sets a dangerous precedent."

Click to expand...

Aren’t there multiple subpoenas that have been ignored?:


Trump impeachment inquiry: Who has been subpoenaed?

bubbabgone said:

1) You can drop the repeated LOLs. It makes you look uninformed and what you say look trivial.
2) You can read what I wrote to see the impression I'm under and it's not what you said.

Click to expand...

So no rebuttal I see . Just like the rest of the Republicans, you have nothing.

bubbabgone said:

Regarding obstruction and the Mueller report Turley said ...
"I believean obstruction claim based on the Mueller Report would equally at odds with the recordand the controlling case law.
The use of an obstruction theory from the Mueller Report would be unsupportable in the House and unsustainable in the Senate. Once again, thelack of information (just weeks before an expected impeachment vote) on the grounds forimpeachment is both concerning and challenging. It is akin to being asked to diagnose a patient’s survivability without knowing his specific illness."

Click to expand...

So like Turley you believe that Trump's obstruction is his best defense. The problem with that is that it makes the President above Congress AND the law and makes a mockery of the very reason for the laws against obstruction.