• 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!

Impeachment...

Lib Constitutional expert Turley claimed Leftists have no case. Is that true?

  • Total voters
    11
  • Poll closed .
zimmer

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Before I continue...

I’ve had multiple Leftists here claim “Trump is the most corrupt President the country has ever had”.

OK... let us assume for a moment this is true.

Then, shouldn’t the Left have made a case already to impeach Trump on said corruption? If he is “the most corrupt President ever”, there must be overwhelming evidence of impeachable transgressions... No?

If the Leftists have such an easy mark, why are they trying to impeach a guy on a phone call where the transcript illustrates no criminality, where the charges are based on hearsay and the Democrat Party is railroading the process?

If the case is so solid... shouldn’t the Leftists invite a robust defense from the R’s and President, and shouldn’t the Weasel-Leaker appear... as Schiff said he would?

And because then Weasel-Leaker contacted Schiff’s office, shouldn’t Schiff and his staff be testifying as witnesses?

If Trump is the most corrupt President ever, you would think the Left would be eager to have the opposition wage a robust defense... So they can destroy him on a level playing field... but they haven’t. In fact they have done the opposite.

Leftists are running a sham because they have no case... as Jonathan Turley noted, This would be the first impeachment without a crime!!!

Lib Constitutional expert Turley claimed Leftists have no case. Is that true?

 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Before I continue...

I’ve had multiple Leftists here claim “Trump is the most corrupt President the country has ever had”.

OK... let us assume for a moment this is true.

Then, shouldn’t the Left have made a case already to impeach Trump on said corruption? If he is “the most corrupt President ever”, there must be overwhelming evidence of these impeachable transgressions... No?

If the Leftists have such an easy mark, why are they trying to impeach a guy on a phone call where the transcript illustrates no criminality, where the charges are based on hearsay and the Democrat Party is railroading the process?

If the case is so solid... shouldn’t the Leftists invite a robust defense from the R’s and President, and shouldn’t the Weasel-Leaker appear... as Schiff said he would?

And because then Weasel-Leaker contacted Schiff’s office, shouldn’t Schiff and his staff be testifying as witnesses?

If Trump is the most corrupt President ever, you would think the Left would be eager to have the opposition wage a robust defense... but they haven’t. In fact they have done the opposite.

Leftists are running a sham because they have no case... as Jonathan Turley noted, This would be the first impeachment without a crime!!!

Lib Constitutional expert Turley claimed Leftists have no case. Is that true?
Click to expand...

Turley was the R witness, and if you think he is so great you should listen to him testify at Clinton's impeachment hearings. If you are so confident there is no case, how do you feel about Mulvaney, Pompeo, and Barr testifying under oath?
 
mrjurrs said:
Turley was the R witness, and if you think he is so great you should listen to him testify at Clinton's impeachment hearings. If you are so confident there is no case, how do you feel about Mulvaney, Pompeo, and Barr testifying under oath?
Click to expand...

Turley is a Lib.

Dershowitz is a Lib.

Both Libs see this as a total sham... a disgrace.
 
mrjurrs said:
Turley was the R witness, and if you think he is so great you should listen to him testify at Clinton's impeachment hearings. If you are so confident there is no case, how do you feel about Mulvaney, Pompeo, and Barr testifying under oath?
Click to expand...

Turley addressed that.

There are 3 branches of government. The executive does not bow to the legislative for obvious reasons.

If the legislative believes they have a case to make, follow the law and go to the courts.

They cannot claim obstruction, for doing so, they are themselves usurping the law of the land. But Leftists don’t care... they don’t like the Constitution... it gets in the way of wielding raw power.
 
zimmer said:
Turley is a Lib.

Dershowitz is a Lib.

Both Libs see this as a total sham... a disgrace.
Click to expand...

You have presidential qualifications, you can take a fact and completely ignore it. Do you think all lawyers are liberal? And if Turley is liberal, why did the R's choose him to represent them in the hearing?
 
zimmer said:
Turley addressed that.

There are 3 branches of government. The executive does not bow to the legislative for obvious reasons.

If the legislative believes they have a case to make, follow the law and go to the courts.

They cannot claim obstruction, for doing so, they are themselves usurping the law of the land. But Leftists don’t care... they don’t like the Constitution... it gets in the way of wielding raw power.
Click to expand...

And one of the articles of impeachment against Nixon was obstruction of Congress (ignoring lawful subpoenas). Why don't you tell the executive to respect the other branches? They don't bow to Congress, but they are not above them either.
 
mrjurrs said:
And one of the articles of impeachment against Nixon was obstruction of Congress (ignoring lawful subpoenas). Why don't you tell the executive to respect the other branches? They don't bow to Congress, but they are not above them either.
Click to expand...

You do not understand the law and separation of powers.

Turley addressed this yesterday, and I did too.

If they believe they have a right to what they want from the Executive branch.. then go to court.

 
zimmer said:
Turley is a Lib.

Dershowitz is a Lib.

Both Libs see this as a total sham... a disgrace.
Click to expand...

Fox News Judge Debunks Turley's Anti-Trump Impeachment Argument, Says 'House Has Sole Power of Impeachment'

Fox News Judge Debunks Turley's Anti-Trump Impeachment Argument, Says 'House Has Sole Power of Impeachment'

While Napolitano mentioned his friendship with Turley, he said that Turley was "forgetting" that the House has sole—"s-o-l-e"—power of impeachment.
Ads by scrollerads.com

"It doesn't need to go to a court for approval, it doesn't need to go to court to get its subpoenas enforced." Napolitano continued. "When the president receives a subpoena—or in this case, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo receive a subpoena—and they throw it in a drawer, they don't comply or challenge because the president told them to, that is the act of obstruction."

He concluded that Turley's argument that the House needs to go to court to have their subpoenas enforced was a "misreading" of the Supreme Court ruling.

Screenshot-2019-12-05-Fox-News-judge-debunks-Turley-s-anti-Trump.png
 
zimmer said:
You do not understand the law and separation of powers.

Turley addressed this yesterday, and I did too.

If they believe they have a right to what they want from the Executive branch.. then go to court.

Click to expand...


They are in court. The absence of evidence because the executive prevents it from being disclosed does not mean there is no evidence. I'm going to challenge your knowledge of separation of powers. If the Article 1 branch approves a constitutionally acceptable law and it is signed by the Article 2 branch, what gives them the power to withhold the processing of said benefit?
 
HumblePi said:
Fox News Judge Debunks Turley's Anti-Trump Impeachment Argument, Says 'House Has Sole Power of Impeachment'

Fox News Judge Debunks Turley's Anti-Trump Impeachment Argument, Says 'House Has Sole Power of Impeachment'

While Napolitano mentioned his friendship with Turley, he said that Turley was "forgetting" that the House has sole—"s-o-l-e"—power of impeachment.
Ads by scrollerads.com

"It doesn't need to go to a court for approval, it doesn't need to go to court to get its subpoenas enforced." Napolitano continued. "When the president receives a subpoena—or in this case, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo receive a subpoena—and they throw it in a drawer, they don't comply or challenge because the president told them to, that is the act of obstruction."

He concluded that Turley's argument that the House needs to go to court to have their subpoenas enforced was a "misreading" of the Supreme Court ruling.

Screenshot-2019-12-05-Fox-News-judge-debunks-Turley-s-anti-Trump.png
Click to expand...

To get documents from the executive branch... they do.

The House has no power over the executive branch.

They have to do what they did with Nixon to get documents.. and that is go to court.

Napolitano has been wrong often. Wrong on Russia, wrong on non-disclosure agreements... repeatedly wrong.
 
From the Dem's point of view, it doesn't matter if they succeed. They'll just keep trying.

 
mrjurrs said:
They are in court. The absence of evidence because the executive prevents it from being disclosed does not mean there is no evidence. I'm going to challenge your knowledge of separation of powers. If the Article 1 branch approves a constitutionally acceptable law and it is signed by the Article 2 branch, what gives them the power to withhold the processing of said benefit?
Click to expand...

Turley addresses this... the legislative cannot force the executive to produce documents. That would create mayhem... with the legislative harassing the executive ceaselessly.

If there are problems, they’re resolved in the courts. The problem is it’s too slow for Pelosi... she needs this done fast.

Why the rush?
 
zimmer said:
Turley addressed that.

There are 3 branches of government. The executive does not bow to the legislative for obvious reasons.

If the legislative believes they have a case to make, follow the law and go to the courts.

They cannot claim obstruction, for doing so, they are themselves usurping the law of the land. But Leftists don’t care... they don’t like the Constitution... it gets in the way of wielding raw power.
Click to expand...

Weird how you think you get to just declare Democrats are "usurping the law," that's not how our system of laws works. Sorry.
 
zimmer said:
They cannot claim obstruction, for doing so, they are themselves usurping the law of the land. But Leftists don’t care... they don’t like the Constitution... it gets in the way of wielding raw power.
Click to expand...

One of the articles of Impeachment against Nixon was obstruction for ignoring Congressional subpoenas. So clearly you are wrong.
 
zimmer said:
Turley addresses this... the legislative cannot force the executive to produce documents. That would create mayhem... with the legislative harassing the executive ceaselessly.

If there are problems, they’re resolved in the courts. The problem is it’s too slow for Pelosi... she needs this done fast.

Why the rush?
Click to expand...

Oh, so you're saying that the executive can ignore the judiciary? And that Congressional oversight is a made up thing? Nope, looks to me like you believe in separation of powers when it suits your political aims.
 
Ikari said:
One of the articles of Impeachment against Nixon was obstruction for ignoring Congressional subpoenas. So clearly you are wrong.
Click to expand...

They went to court over that... because the President can exercise Executive privilege.

Congress just can’t fish all day long... and I don’t think you’d want the next Democrat president to be subjected to subpoenas 24/7/365.

These issues are resolved in the judicial branch... but that’s too slow for Nancy.

Pelosi’s Need for Speed on Impeachment Makes Court Help Unlikely
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Why the rush?

And if Trump is so corrupt, you’d think they have a plethora of crimes to hang around his neck.

They don’t.

In fact, this is going to be the first impeachment with no underlying crime.

Seeing as that’s the NEW STANDARD... Republicans should have a fill-in-the-blank form ready to impeach the next Democrat president.

You want a 3rd World country... your Party is creating the foundations for it.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Before I continue...

I’ve had multiple Leftists here claim “Trump is the most corrupt President the country has ever had”.

OK... let us assume for a moment this is true.

Then, shouldn’t the Left have made a case already to impeach Trump on said corruption? If he is “the most corrupt President ever”, there must be overwhelming evidence of impeachable transgressions... No?

If the Leftists have such an easy mark, why are they trying to impeach a guy on a phone call where the transcript illustrates no criminality, where the charges are based on hearsay and the Democrat Party is railroading the process?

If the case is so solid... shouldn’t the Leftists invite a robust defense from the R’s and President, and shouldn’t the Weasel-Leaker appear... as Schiff said he would?

And because then Weasel-Leaker contacted Schiff’s office, shouldn’t Schiff and his staff be testifying as witnesses?

If Trump is the most corrupt President ever, you would think the Left would be eager to have the opposition wage a robust defense... So they can destroy him on a level playing field... but they haven’t. In fact they have done the opposite.

Leftists are running a sham because they have no case... as Jonathan Turley noted, This would be the first impeachment without a crime!!!

Lib Constitutional expert Turley claimed Leftists have no case. Is that true?
Click to expand...

Didn't Faux News conservative legal expert Napolitano disagree with Turley? Haven't other legal scholars disagreed with Turley? 5 deferment cadet fake bone spurs abused his power and has tried to cover it up ever since. When that didn't work he has tried to discredit anyone related to his abuse of power. I mean every president has their personal lawyer conduct foreign policy. What a crappy bagman. The only thing more disappointing are his crazy feeble minded followers who really don't care what the narcissist scumbag does as long as he appoints wingnut judges.
 
zimmer said:
To get documents from the executive branch... they do.

The House has no power over the executive branch.

They have to do what they did with Nixon to get documents.. and that is go to court.

Napolitano has been wrong often. Wrong on Russia, wrong on non-disclosure agreements... repeatedly wrong.
Click to expand...

I think you're a little confused as to how this works.

The House subpoenaed documents from Nixon's Whitehouse. Nixon refused. The House took him to court, and won.

The Court ruled that the Executive cannot just ignore Congressional subpoenas.

That ruling still stands. There's no need to go back to the Court.
 
Hari Seldon said:
Didn't Faux News conservative legal expert Napolitano disagree with Turley? Haven't other legal scholars disagreed with Turley? 5 deferment cadet fake bone spurs abused his power and has tried to cover it up ever since. When that didn't work he has tried to discredit anyone related to his abuse of power. I mean every president has their personal lawyer conduct foreign policy. What a crappy bagman. The only thing more disappointing are his crazy feeble minded followers who really don't care what the narcissist scumbag does as long as he appoints wingnut judges.
Click to expand...

Napolitano’ s record has been rather poor. If you want to hang your hat on him and ignore Dershowitz and Turley... OK.

Puur, puur Shep Smith seems to have fled FOX because his favorite muse’s failings were made fun of by DiGenova.

Turley explained succinctly why this sham with no underlying crime isn’t impeachment.

But hey... it’s the 3rd World ****hole party at work. It’s their version of necklacing...
 
zimmer said:
They went to court over that... because the President can exercise Executive privilege.

Congress just can’t fish all day long... and I don’t think you’d want the next Democrat president to be subjected to subpoenas 24/7/365.

These issues are resolved in the judicial branch... but that’s too slow for Nancy.

Pelosi’s Need for Speed on Impeachment Makes Court Help Unlikely
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Why the rush?

And if Trump is so corrupt, you’d think they have a plethora of crimes to hang around his neck.

They don’t.

In fact, this is going to be the first impeachment with no underlying crime.

Seeing as that’s the NEW STANDARD... Republicans should have a fill-in-the-blank form ready to impeach the next Democrat president.

You want a 3rd World country... your Party is creating the foundations for it.
Click to expand...

Democrats being subpoena'd for crimes they commit doesn't bother me.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
I think you're a little confused as to how this works.

The House subpoenaed documents from Nixon's Whitehouse. Nixon refused. The House took him to court, and won.

The Court ruled that the Executive cannot just ignore Congressional subpoenas.

That ruling still stands. There's no need to go back to the Court.
Click to expand...

Bolded... exactly the procedure I stated.

Fact: You don’t always win. The executive has their privileges.

I said...take it to court... that’s where disputes are resolved... because the executive and legislative are co-equal. The executive does not bend to the whim of the legislative.

Can you imagine if that were the case? With Corruptniks like Schumer, Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi... there would be subpoenas 24/7/365.

Pelosi doesn’t want to go to court... why? And why the rush?

Pelosi’s Need for Speed on Impeachment Makes Court Help Unlikely
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Bolded... exactly the procedure I stated.

Fact: You don’t always win. The executive has their privileges.

I said...take it to court... that’s where disputes are resolved.

Pelosi doesn’t want to... why? And why the rush?
Click to expand...

Why would they need to go back to the Court, when the Court has already ruled on this exact issue?
 
zimmer said:
Napolitano’ s record has been rather poor. If you want to hang your hat on him and ignore Dershowitz and Turley... OK.

Puur, puur Shep Smith seems to have fled FOX because his favorite muse’s failings were made fun of by DiGenova.

Turley explained succinctly why this sham with no underlying crime isn’t impeachment.

But hey... it’s the 3rd World ****hole party at work. It’s their version of necklacing...
Click to expand...

Funny the cons usually hate Turley. I'm not hanging my hat on anything. Your boy is a giant crybaby who can't stand the slightest criticism. He abused his power and tried to cover it up. Abuse of power. Why is his personal attorney involved in foreign policy again? Oh right you have no answer for that or for the fact most of the witnesses against him were republican. He is a joke like most of his supporters.
 
Deuce said:
Democrats being subpoena'd for crimes they commit doesn't bother me.
Click to expand...

ROTFLOL...

Funniest post of the year!!!

Also most disingenuous.
 
Hari Seldon said:
Funny the cons usually hate Turley. I'm not hanging my hat on anything. Your boy is a giant crybaby who can't stand the slightest criticism. He abused his power and tried to cover it up. Abuse of power. Why is his personal attorney involved in foreign policy again? Oh right you have no answer for that or for the fact most of the witnesses against him were republican. He is a joke like most of his supporters.
Click to expand...

He didn’t abuse power. There is no crime.

Tell me, can a President assasinate Americans overseas without due process at home?

He can send anyone he likes. There is a history of this you seem unfamiliar with. FDR sent a personal emissary to England and had him handle affairs there... Harry Hopkins.

Rudy is digging up information on behalf of the President... Harry actually was doing a lot of diplomatic work without going through congressional approval... far different from Rudy.

Isn’t history fun? :)

Seems you’re concerned about Biden. Why? You afraid a guy who dealt the mafia a blow is going to do the job the Goebbels Media is failing to do?

And shouldn’t corruption by a VP be investigated? Or do Democrats running for the no,inaction of their party or POTUS ... like Joe and Hillary get a pass?

PS. The Goebbels Media has been after Trump 24/7/365... I realize you’re used to R’s lying down and retreating, but this is what pushback against a corrupt media looks like. Why do you cry so?

And did you see Biden and Pelosi today? Two simple questions and both lost it. They wouldn’t last long should the media stop fawning over and licking them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom