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

[JustHanging]

Thats what the Left does, Agree with me/us or VIOLENCE!

That's what the Right does, project their beliefs onto others. Christian groups like these are the ones openly calling for violence.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I am not OK with bribery, and I'm not OK with taking the country to war under fraud, and I'm not OK with the Global War Of Terror we have been waging under fraud, and I'm not OK with the Patriot Act and many other things the government has done.

But I'm pragmatic, and I've known for 50 years or more that my thoughts and opinions on government policy and actions means absolutely nothing. Life goes on, no matter what my thoughts and opinions are, and no matter what your thoughts and opinions are.

Trump is an idiot, and I've known that since the 70's. I don't lose any sleep or suffer anxiety over things I cannot control.

I think one of the things people have to come to terms with eventually, through the course of their political life or their time involved in politics, even at the smallest scales, is that in a Republic of 327 million people you are not always going to get what you want. I agree with you and I am also angry that the U.S. launched wars under false pretenses, and I also don't agree with the Patriot Act. That doesn't mean we should simply refrain from holding Trump to account for his corrupt actions. That doesn't make any sense to me. I think you should fight where you can, when you can, with what you can. What I know is that if you want justice in this world you have to fight for it, even if it means the risk of personal harm, and even if such a fight brings with it the risk of failing. You think it doesn't matter what you do or say, but you're wrong. Our Republic depends on adherence to the Rule of Law. And if enough people just throw up your hands and say, "I quit. What's the point?" then our Republic will certainly fail.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Keep promoting the Democratic Lies that aren't resonating with the American electorate as there is "NO COMPELLING" Evidence according to Turley that any bribery occurred.

I don't really care that half the population is too brainwashed and too uneducated and too immoral and too short-sighted to understand that what the President is doing is wrong and will have profound, long-term, negative consequences on our Republic.

That's not going to stop me from voicing my opinion and acting against a corrupt President.

I have not arrived at the conclusions I have because of what other people believe. I have used logic and facts and the general belief that the system the founding fathers put in place is valuable and worthy of my support.

You really have a passion for this issue, too bad you don't have much passion for your own party's inability to create a compelling argument or offer a compelling alternative to the Trump policies.

I don't care as much about policy as I do about the system as a whole.

What's happening with Trump, Trump supporters, and the Republican Party is that they have made the collective decision to ignore the Constitution, ignore corruption, and support Trump 100% no matter how badly Trump damages the Republic and destroys its institutions.

 

[Vadinho]

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

Jonathan Turley, the sole Republican witness during the House Judiciary Committee's first public impeachment hearing Wednesday, said he was "inundated with threatening messages" after his testimony, which argued that Democrats do not have enough evidence to support articles of impeachment against President Trump.

"Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with threatening messages and demands that I be fired from George Washington University for arguing that, while a case for impeachment can be made, it has not been made on this record," Turley wrote in an op-ed for The Hill on Thursday.

The tolerant, open minded Democrats showing us what they are really about. We've seen it over and over. Threats of violence, destroy lives, if they don't get their way. You will think correctly, or be dealt with. Old East Germany, anyone?

And yet, any reading of the comments sections on right wing blogs shows post after post discussing Civil War, killing liberals, buying guns and ammo, bla bla bla.

 

[Conservative]

I don't really care that half the population is too brainwashed and too uneducated and too immoral and too short-sighted to understand that what the President is doing is wrong and will have profound, long-term, negative consequences on our Republic.

That's not going to stop me from voicing my opinion and acting against a corrupt President.

I have not arrived at the conclusions I have because of what other people believe. I have used logic and facts and the general belief that the system the founding fathers put in place is valuable and worthy of my support.



I don't care as much about policy as I do about the system as a whole.

What's happening with Trump, Trump supporters, and the Republican Party is that they have made the collective decision to ignore the Constitution, ignore corruption, and support Trump 100% no matter how badly Trump damages the Republic and destroys its institutions.

Have you ever considered the reality that liberalism is nothing but a bunch of arrogant people who believe they are right on every issue when the results show that to be a lie?

What's happening to you and others is you are the ones helping Russia, not Trump, and people like you simply need an American idol President that you can like as results don't matter nearly as much as your perceptions.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The way I heard it bribery is also a crime of intent, which needs to be proven in order for the charge to stick.

I am operating under the assumption that when Trump said, "I would like you to do us a favor though...", he was actually asking for a favor.

Also interesting that the Democrats of the House dropped their original bribery charge, and it wouldn't be a bad guess that they couldn't meet the legal standard of a bribery charge. :shrug:

It is true that bribery is harder to prove than abuse of office. It's true that House did not acquire as much evidence as it needs. It's also true that Trump and his allies in Congress have obstructed the investigation.

Per Sondland'd testimony of his conversation with Trump 'I want nothing' and 'I want Zelenski to do the right thing', or words to that effect.

Sondland also testified that despite this statement by Trump he continued to believe a quid pro quo was desired.

Also, given the testimony of the others, it's more likely than not that there was only one phone call, and in the phone call where Trump.

Here's the Proof that Trump's "No Quid Pro Quo" Call Never Happened

"follows the rules of a particular bureaucracy" Of which some in the diplomatic corp apparently haven't. The president has a free hand to conduct foreign relations, and is not constrained by what the diplomatic corp bureaucracy demands or deems. They have an option, which is the door, should be not be able to fulfill their diplomatic corp duties, which is to implement the president's foreign policies and positions.

I don't agree with this. The President is not a dictator. The President is bound by his oath to pursue the interests of our Republic, even at the expense of his own interests.

It's just like in the military. Soldiers don't have to obey unlawful orders. The same principle applies to the diplomatic corp by virtue of their oath to the Constitution.

This is the oath that each foreign service officer takes:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That I take this obligation freely and without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. That I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me, God."

I know these words ring hollow in the ears of Republicans and Trump supporters. I know Republicans and Trump supporters no longer believe in Duty, Honor, and Country. That is why I left the Republican Party.

You notice in the oath above is to the CONSTITUTION...NOT THE PRESIDENT!

And when the President -- because he is NOT above the law -- breaks the law, violates the Constitution, or violates his oath of office he then must be held to account. And our foreign service officers would not be doing their duty, if they did not raise objections to what the President is doing.

Rooting out corruption committed by US citizens / politicians and foreign 2016 election influence are 'his own selfish interests'?

Well, I am operating under the assumption that the thug-in-chief, who obstructed justice during the Mueller investigation, committed massive tax fraud in the 1980s and 1990s, who screwed over his subcontractors, and has lied, mislead, or exaggerated over 13,000 times since assuming office, does not care one bit about corruption and cares about the involvement of the Bidens in Ukraine only insofar as it helps him win in 2020.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Congress should have gone to court with their subpoenas, but they are in too much of a hurry for that proper procedure, it seems.

They are already fighting the issue via the McGahn case.

And the Republicans have helped to shield the WH from these subpoenas by providing the WH political cover. If the Republicans wanted to they could do a lot to force Trump to comply, by publicly stating they support the inquiry, and that Trump must hand over the documents. The unwillingness of Republicans to participate in the process has made it much easier for Trump to refuse to comply.

Also, Trump could do his DUTY, as he agreed to when he took the oath of office, and comply with the requests by Congress.

Between Rudy and Trump, who overrules whom?

It's more likely than not that there was one phone call between Trump and Sondland where Trump said "no quid pro quo" and in that one phone call he followed up his "no quid pro quo" line with an actual request for a quid pro quo:

Please read:

Here's the Proof that Trump's "No Quid Pro Quo" Call Never Happened

"The idea that the President can do whatever the hell he wants is pure fiction." That's not the position I was describing.

You did not explicitly use these words, but that's what "absolute immunity" would entail if allowed to exist as a thing.

Do you agree with Trump's assertions of absolute immunity? If you do not agree then why aren't you criticizing him for making such an outrageous claim?

Based on Trump's fixation and focus being on the 2016 election and vindicating himself and his victory would appear to be far higher in his priorities than the challenge that Biden would or would not present (more likely not to Trump anyway) in the 2020 election.

Heck, the primary candidate hasn't even been determined yet.

So, no, I don't think the possible 2020 race against Biden was on Trump's mind at the time of the call. I don't think that Trump worries at all about Biden as an election competitor.

Thank you for answering. Few people would answer this question.

There might even be something to that.

It has been known since Jan 2018 that Biden would likely run:

Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign - Wikipedia

Time for Biden, a political action committee, was formed in January 2018, seeking Biden's entry into the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries.[24][25] In February 2018, Biden informed a group of longtime foreign policy aides that he was "keeping his 2020 options open".[26]

 

[W_Heisenberg]

"You wrote the president is the sole arbitrator of how he wants to conduct foreign relations."

That obviously does not denote nor condone illegal activities. Aw come on!

I am glad you agree.

So, now do you oppose Trump's refusal to cooperate in any and all investigations, and do you also oppose his blanket refusal to comply with any and all subpoenas, so we can figure out for sure whether or not Trump committed an impeachable or criminal offense?

Certainly, if you believe that the President should be held to account for unlawful or impeachable offenses you would also agree that an investigation is necessary to establish if such a thing occurred?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Have you ever considered the reality that liberalism is nothing but a bunch of arrogant people who believe they are right on every issue when the results show that to be a lie?

Whatever you think about Liberals or Democrats they still have the right to participate in our legal and political processes.

You and others are basically asserting they have no right to participate, and I do not agree with that.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Weasel. They are not Trump's policies.

AP FACT CHECK: Trump tries to pin child separations on Obama

THE FACTS: This is false. Trump did not achieve any change in the law.

Operating under the same immigration laws as Barack Obama, Trump instituted a zero-tolerance policy aimed at detaining everyone who was caught crossing the border illegally and criminally prosecuting all the adults.

The policy meant adults were taken to court for criminal proceedings and their children were separated and sent into the care of the Health and Human Services Department. In the face of a public uproar, Trump suspended most separations in June. About 2,400 children were taken from parents at the height of the separations. During the Obama administration and before Trump’s zero-tolerance policy was introduced, migrant families caught illegally entering the U.S. were usually referred for civil deportation proceedings, not requiring separation, unless they were known to have a criminal record.

Trump repeatedly but without specifics rails against a “Democrat” law that he wrongly claims to have changed. He appears to be referring to one that passed unanimously in Congress and was signed by Republican President George W. Bush. It was focused on freeing and otherwise helping children who come to the border without a parent or guardian and does not call for family separation.

___

TRUMP: “Just so you understand, President Obama separated the children.”

THE FACTS: Not in widespread fashion. Then and now, immigration officials may take a child from a parent in certain cases, such as serious criminal charges against a parent, concerns over the health and welfare of a child or medical concerns. The Obama administration also contended with a surge of minors who came to the border without parents and were held in short-term Border Patrol detention.

It did not seek to criminally prosecute all who crossed the border illegally, without regard to whether those who were caught had committed crimes other than illegal entry.

Family separations were the exception before Trump made them the rule.

___

TRUMP on family separations: “Once you don’t have it, that’s why you see many more people coming. They’re coming like it’s a picnic, because ‘let’s go to Disneyland.’”

THE FACTS: It’s not been proved that people are discouraged from coming to the U.S. when they know their children will be taken from them if they are caught.

Apprehensions did fall last summer, after the June suspension of separations, but they decline most summers because of the extreme heat in much of Mexico and the border region.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials announced on Tuesday that they apprehended about 53,000 parents and children at the southern border in March. The officials declined to answer a question about whether they believed family separation was an effective deterrent

Trump again falsely says Obama started family separation policy

But, according to FactCheck.org, "previous administrations did not have a blanket policy to prosecute parents and separate them from their children." It was after the Trump administration announced its "zero-tolerance" immigration policy in April 2018, in which everyone who illegally entered the U.S. was referred for criminal prosecution, that thousands of migrant children were separated from their parents.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I am reading your comments and you are trying to justify disregarding an election.

This is the truth you cannot seem to accept: the framers of our constitution put impeachment in place for the precise reason to annul an election of a CORRUPT individual to the office of the President.

One of the other posters even said that the election did not signify the will of the people.

He was probably referring to popular vote v. electoral college, but I think people should accept the system in place or change it. Trump was elected legitimately, and the fact is our system allows for someone to win a presidential election without capturing all of the popular votes.

Supposedly, actions speak louder than words. Your actions show that you do not want Republicans having a voice in the election.

I do not agree with this at all. But elections don't make the impeachment clauses in the Constitution void. Our Republic is based on the Constitution, and elections represent ASPECTS of the Constitution.

I would encourage you to read the Constitution.

Again, you are putting your words in my mouth. You are saying that Republicans can come along as long as they don't disrupt your plans. We know this is true, because you are still trying to undo the 2016 election.

I don't agree with this. I think Republicans should have an EQUAL say in the affairs of our Republic.

However, I do agree that the Constitution allows for the removal of a President in cases of bribery, treason, and high crimes and misdemeanors.

If you don't like it, then we can amend the Constitution and remove the clauses related to impeachment.

Otherwise, snowflake Trump supporters are just going to have to put up with it. We operate on the basis of laws in this country.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I’m a fascist because I want the courts to do what they’re supposed to?

Yes.

The courts are being forced to intervene because Trump is violating the Constitution.

If you supported the Constitution, and if Republicans supported the Constitution, and fake Conservatives supported the Constitution, they would immediately demand Trump comply with the Congressional subpoenas. This would make it more likely that Trump would comply and make it less likely a lengthy court battle would be necessary to force him to comply.

You’ve just lost any credibility you might have had. If you ever get around to wanting to have a serious discussion about something and think you can do it without making me or my chosen political lean the topic, let me know.

You need to know what you're doing is wrong and has no basis in traditional American conservative political philosophy. It has no basis in the Constitution. It has no basis in our laws. It has no basis in our history. It has no basis in the political philosophy which inspired the Founding Fathers.

Pure, venal, political interest is "trumping" political ideology, and it is for that reason fake conservatives should be called out and described by their actions.

--

Do you or do you not support Trump's claims of ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

If you do not support his legal arguments why aren't you standing up and voicing your opposition to them instead of lending your tacit support?

THAT is why I am criticizing you.

 

[Jay59]

AP FACT CHECK: Trump tries to pin child separations on Obama
Trump again falsely says Obama started family separation policy

They say a picture is worth 1000 words. In this case the picture is of a girl on the other side of a fence--from 2014. Both your articles are garbage.

 

[Jay59]

This is the truth you cannot seem to accept: the framers of our constitution put impeachment in place for the precise reason to annul an election of a CORRUPT individual to the office of the President.

He was probably referring to popular vote v. electoral college, but I think people should accept the system in place or change it. Trump was elected legitimately, and the fact is our system allows for someone to win a presidential election without capturing all of the popular votes.

I do not agree with this at all. But elections don't make the impeachment clauses in the Constitution void. Our Republic is based on the Constitution, and elections represent ASPECTS of the Constitution.

I would encourage you to read the Constitution.
I don't agree with this. I think Republicans should have an EQUAL say in the affairs of our Republic.
However, I do agree that the Constitution allows for the removal of a President in cases of bribery, treason, and high crimes and misdemeanors.
If you don't like it, then we can amend the Constitution and remove the clauses related to impeachment.
Otherwise, snowflake Trump supporters are just going to have to put up with it. We operate on the basis of laws in this country.

If there were a corrupt President in the White House, the articles of impeachment would not read obstruction of Congress and abuse of office. There would be specific dates, names, places, amounts, etc. There would be evidence that would stand up in a regular court. You would not have the chair on the witness list.

I understand you have to stick by the BS story, but it is long past the time where you can reasonably pretend to have the Constitution behind you. You don't even have your whole party. Everyone can see that Empress Nancy's new wardrobe is a tad thin.

 

[Conservative]

Whatever you think about Liberals or Democrats they still have the right to participate in our legal and political processes.

You and others are basically asserting they have no right to participate, and I do not agree with that.

The have the right but when you make impeachment political you lose support from the American people which is happening. Any party with Nadler, Pelosi, Schiff, Waters, Warren, Sanders has zero credibility when it comes to determining a high crime and misdemeanor as that is what it is going to take to overturn election results

 

[W_Heisenberg]

They say a picture is worth 1000 words. In this case the picture is of a girl on the other side of a fence--from 2014.

I do not know which image you are referring to, but it doesn't really matter.

No one has EVER argued that NO family has EVER been separated during Obama's administration.

The argument is that Trump's policies resulted in a change of at least two orders of magnitude in terms of the families impacted. Trump's policies resulted in THOUSANDS of children being separated whereas Obama's policies resulted only in a handful of children being separated from their families.

Both your articles are garbage.

Be specific. Which aspects of the article do you think are garbage? And what do you mean by "garbage"? Do you mean there are aspects of the article that you do not think are accurate? If so, be accurate, provide references, make an argument. Right now you are just vomiting up Hannity-style propaganda because you cannot accept the fact that the Trump administration has hired corrupt, racist individuals to manage its immigration policies.

You want to continue the fiction, in your mind, that Trump and his policies are good and righteous. They are not. Trump is a bad person. People like Stephen Miller are bad people. And Trump supporters who would insist on supporting Trump's policies in this regard, are bad people too.

Just imagine if someone did that to YOUR family.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

If there were a corrupt President in the White House, the articles of impeachment would not read obstruction of Congress and abuse of office. There would be specific dates, names, places, amounts, etc. There would be evidence that would stand up in a regular court.

Investigators all over the country -- on a daily basis -- proceed forward on the basis of the same kinds of evidence which were submitted to the intelligence committee. The House's participation in the impeachment process represented an investigation, NOT a trial. The trial takes place in the Senate.

And there is a lot of evidence to suggest Trump did something wrong. I would agree that there is not yet enough. But part of the reason for this is that you and other Trump supporters have refused to criticize Trump from obstructing Congress in its acquisition of the evidence. You and other Trump supporters, in doing so, are trying to place Trump ABOVE the law.

You would not have the chair on the witness list.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. More idiotic conspiracy theories in support of Trump. Schiff shouldn't be on the witness list, Nunes should be on the witness list.

I understand you have to stick by the BS story, but it is long past the time where you can reasonably pretend to have the Constitution behind you. You don't even have your whole party. Everyone can see that Empress Nancy's new wardrobe is a tad thin.

Be specific then.

Why do you think the arguments I am making do not have a Constitutional basis.

Why do you think it's okay for Trump to assert bogus claims of absolute immunity. Do you agree the President has absolute immunity and you can put forward any sort of constitutionally based argument in support of that claim?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The have the right but when you make impeachment political you lose support from the American people which is happening.

I don't think it is the fault of Democrats that Republicans and Trump supporters refuse to accept the possibility that Trump may have done something wrong.

That's on them, not the Democrats.

Any party with Nadler, Pelosi, Schiff, Waters, Warren, Sanders has zero credibility when it comes to determining a high crime and misdemeanor as that is what it is going to take to overturn election results

Why?

 

[Jay59]

I do not know which image you are referring to, but it doesn't really matter.

No one has EVER argued that NO family has EVER been separated during Obama's administration.

The argument is that Trump's policies resulted in a change of at least two orders of magnitude in terms of the families impacted. Trump's policies resulted in THOUSANDS of children being separated whereas Obama's policies resulted only in a handful of children being separated from their families.



Be specific. Which aspects of the article do you think are garbage? And what do you mean by "garbage"? Do you mean there are aspects of the article that you do not think are accurate? If so, be accurate, provide references, make an argument. Right now you are just vomiting up Hannity-style propaganda because you cannot accept the fact that the Trump administration has hired corrupt, racist individuals to manage its immigration policies.

You want to continue the fiction, in your mind, that Trump and his policies are good and righteous. They are not. Trump is a bad person. People like Stephen Miller are bad people. And Trump supporters who would insist on supporting Trump's policies in this regard, are bad people too.

Just imagine if someone did that to YOUR family.

That is the substance of your position. You have repeatedly blamed it entirely on the current administration. Disingenuous is one thing, but now you are lying.

 

[Jay59]

Investigators all over the country -- on a daily basis -- proceed forward on the basis of the same kinds of evidence which were submitted to the intelligence committee. The House's participation in the impeachment process represented an investigation, NOT a trial. The trial takes place in the Senate.

And there is a lot of evidence to suggest Trump did something wrong. I would agree that there is not yet enough. But part of the reason for this is that you and other Trump supporters have refused to criticize Trump from obstructing Congress in its acquisition of the evidence. You and other Trump supporters, in doing so, are trying to place Trump ABOVE the law.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. More idiotic conspiracy theories in support of Trump. Schiff shouldn't be on the witness list, Nunes should be on the witness list.

Be specific then. Why do you think the arguments I am making do not have a Constitutional basis. Why do you think it's okay for Trump to assert bogus claims of absolute immunity. Do you agree the President has absolute immunity and you can put forward any sort of constitutionally based argument in support of that claim?

Be specific about what? That you never accepted and are still trying to overturn the 2016 election. That you are using the Constitution to wipe your south side? That you are embracing a double standard where only Republicans are accountable to the law and where Democrats can violate with impunity? Those sort of specifics?

Not only is Trump innocent of the impeachment charges, the existence of the articles constitutes contempt for the Constitution.

You are in the wrong and you have been in the wrong for years.

 

[eohrnberger]

I am operating under the assumption that when Trump said, "I would like you to do us a favor though...", he was actually asking for a favor.

How does asking for a favor equate to extortion or bribery? I don't think it does at all.

It is true that bribery is harder to prove than abuse of office. It's true that House did not acquire as much evidence as it needs. It's also true that Trump and his allies in Congress have obstructed the investigation.



Sondland also testified that despite this statement by Trump he continued to believe a quid pro quo was desired.

Also, given the testimony of the others, it's more likely than not that there was only one phone call, and in the phone call where Trump.

Here's the Proof that Trump's "No Quid Pro Quo" Call Never Happened[/quote]



I don't agree with this. The President is not a dictator. The President is bound by his oath to pursue the interests of our Republic, even at the expense of his own interests.

It's just like in the military. Soldiers don't have to obey unlawful orders. The same principle applies to the diplomatic corp by virtue of their oath to the Constitution. [/quote]

There's a difference between an unlawful order (which is shown where exactly in this case?) and insubordination against the executive branch direction, a unitary power in the executive branch. Complying with lawful orders and direction of the president is their role, being part of the executive branch which the president heads. It's that or resign. Pretty cut and dry, and the only way such conflicts and confrontations are resolved.

This is the oath that each foreign service officer takes:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That I take this obligation freely and without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. That I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me, God."

I know these words ring hollow in the ears of Republicans and Trump supporters. I know Republicans and Trump supporters no longer believe in Duty, Honor, and Country. That is why I left the Republican Party.

You can believe whatever cheap shots you want to believe in. Suffice it to say, it is not the case, as you characterize it.

You notice in the oath above is to the CONSTITUTION...NOT THE PRESIDENT!

And when the President -- because he is NOT above the law -- breaks the law, violates the Constitution, or violates his oath of office he then must be held to account. And our foreign service officers would not be doing their duty, if they did not raise objections to what the President is doing.

Again, not proven by what was presented.

Well, I am operating under the assumption that the thug-in-chief, who obstructed justice during the Mueller investigation, committed massive tax fraud in the 1980s and 1990s, who screwed over his subcontractors, and has lied, mislead, or exaggerated over 13,000 times since assuming office, does not care one bit about corruption and cares about the involvement of the Bidens in Ukraine only insofar as it helps him win in 2020.

But of course you are. Very little surprise in that in the least.

The Democrats have been planning on, and working on, impeachment since the word 'go!' Video of her saying impeachment has been going on for 2+ years.



It's all politics and little else, clearly.

 

[eohrnberger]

They are already fighting the issue via the McGahn case.

And the Republicans have helped to shield the WH from these subpoenas by providing the WH political cover.

How are the Republicans shielding the WH from law suits in federal court? I don't think that's possible, the legislative branch thwarting legitimate law suits submitted to the judicial branch. Please explain and cite how Republicans are doing this.

If the Republicans wanted to they could do a lot to force Trump to comply, by publicly stating they support the inquiry, and that Trump must hand over the documents. The unwillingness of Republicans to participate in the process has made it much easier for Trump to refuse to comply.

Why, when the case is as flimsy and largely fabricated, suitable only as political theater?

Also, Trump could do his DUTY, as he agreed to when he took the oath of office, and comply with the requests by Congress.

Co-equal doesn't mean subjugated. In a dispute between two co-equal branches of the federal government, the third branch, in this case the judiciary, is employed to settle the dispute. That's how its supposed to work. Why is it that the Democrats aren't doing their duty, as the Constitution outlines, and submit their law suits? Have they so little confidence in their subpoenas?

It's more likely than not that there was one phone call between Trump and Sondland where Trump said "no quid pro quo" and in that one phone call he followed up his "no quid pro quo" line with an actual request for a quid pro quo:

Please read:

Here's the Proof that Trump's "No Quid Pro Quo" Call Never Happened



You did not explicitly use these words, but that's what "absolute immunity" would entail if allowed to exist as a thing.

Do you agree with Trump's assertions of absolute immunity? If you do not agree then why aren't you criticizing him for making such an outrageous claim?



Thank you for answering. Few people would answer this question.

You are welcome. We are having an interesting exchange here, with minimal name calling. It's refreshing, actually.

It has been known since Jan 2018 that Biden would likely run:

Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign - Wikipedia

Well known he was going to run?
Or when he officially announced that he was going to run?
:shrug:

The bottom line still is that I don't think that Trump is worried much about Democrat presidential candidate Biden.

Not an incumbent president, with a roaring economy, and progress on promises campaigned on, and, yes, even in spite of his foibles, which, in the larger scheme of things, isn't nearly as impactful or important as some would make them out to be. NATO hasn't fallen apart, and is actually stronger now, for example.

 

[eohrnberger]

I am glad you agree.

So, now do you oppose Trump's refusal to cooperate in any and all investigations, and do you also oppose his blanket refusal to comply with any and all subpoenas, so we can figure out for sure whether or not Trump committed an impeachable or criminal offense?

He did comply with anything and everything during the Mueller investigation, which ended up being little more than a hoax.

Old saying:
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

The Democrats had the required level of evidence raised, but their evidence has not, at least to a great many - according to the polls - especially in swing / battle ground states. :shrug: Try harder. Do better.

Certainly, if you believe that the President should be held to account for unlawful or impeachable offenses you would also agree that an investigation is necessary to establish if such a thing occurred?

Not justified based on the evidence presented at this point. Try harder. Do better.

 

[Anthony60]

And yet, any reading of the comments sections on right wing blogs shows post after post discussing Civil War, killing liberals, buying guns and ammo, bla bla bla.

Well, I don't consider a post in a forum the same as what the left has been doing to silence speakers on campuses and generally harass public figures minding their own business while out to eat and such.

 

[Anthony60]

I am glad you agree.

So, now do you oppose Trump's refusal to cooperate in any and all investigations, and do you also oppose his blanket refusal to comply with any and all subpoenas, so we can figure out for sure whether or not Trump committed an impeachable or criminal offense?

Certainly, if you believe that the President should be held to account for unlawful or impeachable offenses you would also agree that an investigation is necessary to establish if such a thing occurred?

Hmm... sounds like you oppose the separation of powers and the way the federal government is set up in the Constitution, if you believe that the Executive branch does not have the privileges of a coequal branch of government. Unless, of course, you believe that Congress would have to turn over any and all documents on their private communications to the Executive branch, if requested.