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

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Take him to Court.

Have you been ignoring the news or something?

 

[bubbabgone]

Now I understand your motivation better.
I did not realize that you actually subscribed to the notion that claims that "Democrats are upset because: Hillary"

I honestly thought more highly of your thought processes, and I don't say that as a snipe.
I really didn't think you actually gave that real credence.

So, to you, this...all of this, is just cover because you actually believe this just amounts to "Democrats trying to overturn an election".

Wow, just wow.

Hillary? Explain.

 

[bubbabgone]

Have you been ignoring the news or something?

I haven't ignored the news or anything.

 

[Athanasius68]

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?

Congress is free to go to court to challenge the legitimacy of Trump's executive privilege claims.
Turley argued that Congress shouldn't impeach without first going that route.
It seems quite reasonable.

 

[Moot]

Congress isn't a substitute for, or takes precedence over, the Judiciary. Where are you getting this notion?

The Constitution gives congress the sole power to impeach. How come you don't know this, bubba?

 

[Moot]

It has been the Democrats over the last three years who have gone all tribal.

Nah, democrats have too many factions to be considered tribal. Whereas anyone who speaks against Trump can't be a republican or the tribe will eat them alive.

 

[iguanaman]

Congress is free to go to court to challenge the legitimacy of Trump's executive privilege claims.
Turley argued that Congress shouldn't impeach without first going that route.
It seems quite reasonable.

Trump's claims are illegitimate and amount to claiming he is king. He has lost every court battle and waiting for all of them to go to the SC is nuts. It is nothing but a rope a dope strategy and you know it. Here is what one Federal Judge said about his claim that he can prevent everyone who ever worked in his administration from testifying before Congress...

"Presidents are not kings. This means that they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control," Jackson said. "Rather, in this land of liberty, it is indisputable that current and former employees of the White House work for the people of the United States ... "

 

[bubbabgone]

The Constitution gives congress the sole power to impeach. How come you don't know this, bubba?

Yeah. So?

 

[Moot]

Yeah. So?

So how come you didn't know that?

 

[Athanasius68]

Trump's claims are illegitimate and amount to claiming he is king. He has lost every court battle and waiting for all of them to go to the SC is nuts. It is nothing but a rope a dope strategy and you know it. Here is what one Federal Judge said about his claim that he can prevent everyone who ever worked in his administration from testifying before Congress...

"Presidents are not kings. This means that they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control," Jackson said. "Rather, in this land of liberty, it is indisputable that current and former employees of the White House work for the people of the United States ... "

Then Congress is free to go to the SCOTUS and argue that they are entitled, upon their demand, to everything the Executive Department produces.

The strategy of the Democrats is to use impeachment to politcally damage the president. I do not know why you are aghast that the president responds politically.

 

[iguanaman]

Then Congress is free to go to the SCOTUS and argue that they are entitled, upon their demand, to everything the Executive Department produces.

The strategy of the Democrats is to use impeachment to politcally damage the president. I do not know why you are aghast that the president responds politically.

Because Trump is defying the Constitution and the oversight powers granted to Congress in it.

 

[Napoleon]

Because Trump is defying the Constitution and the oversight powers granted to Congress in it.

The Constitution does not grant Congress unlimited oversight powers.

 

[Athanasius68]

Because Trump is defying the Constitution and the oversight powers granted to Congress in it.

This isn't an oversight issue. Congress is proposing to remove the president.
.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

This isn't an oversight issue. Congress is proposing to remove the president.
.

Yes. I'm pretty sure there's something about "impeachment" in the Constitution as well.

I seem to remember something about Congress being granted that power.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Then Congress is free to go to the SCOTUS and argue that they are entitled, upon their demand, to everything the Executive Department produces.

The strategy of the Democrats is to use impeachment to politcally damage the president. I do not know why you are aghast that the president responds politically.

The President has shown no sign that he is responding "politically".

He is responding emotionally.

 

[iguanaman]

This isn't an oversight issue. Congress is proposing to remove the president.
.

Congress has even greater power in an impeachment. The SC court has ruled over and over that executive privilege does not apply to hiding wrongdoing.

 

[Moon]

Since when is a subpoena supposed to be enforced by a court?

That could take months. There is nothing in the constitution that says subpoenas must be enforced by the courts.

No, you defy a Congressional subpoena, you just committed an impeachable act.

When? When there’s a dispute between two co-equal branches of government. It’s funny you claim Trump is trying to be king, yet you want to give that exact authority to Pelosi. I guess it’s okay when it’s your team wearing the crown?

 

[Athanasius68]

Congress has even greater power in an impeachment. The SC court has ruled over and over that executive privilege does not apply to hiding wrongdoing.

Then they can go to court to enforce it.

 

[Trump]

Since when is a subpoena supposed to be enforced by a court?

That could take months. There is nothing in the constitution that says subpoenas must be enforced by the courts.

No, you defy a Congressional subpoena, you just committed an impeachable act.

try the shoe on the other foot....imagine what the future looks like in your new world when a Dem is in the WH and GOP controls the house

 

[iguanaman]

try the shoe on the other foot....imagine what the future looks like in your new world when a Dem is in the WH and GOP controls the house

LOL You mean like in 2010 to 2015? When Obama was subjected to one unsuccessful investigation after another and it seemed like it would never end? Yea that's not happening anytime soon. The House is firmly in Democratic hands for the foreseeable future. The Senate will be ours in 2020 also.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

try the shoe on the other foot....imagine what the future looks like in your new world when a Dem is in the WH and GOP controls the house

We've already been there.

It's amazing how you guys seem to have forgotten the very recent past.

 

[Trump]

We've already been there.

It's amazing how you guys seem to have forgotten the very recent past.

Clinton felonies don't compare....try harder

 

[American]

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.

You'll ignore any argument that doesn't agree 100% with you, so let's get that out of the way. You missed the more important part of Turley's testimony, and wasted a lot of time typing the malarkey above.

Turley give the Democrats a lecture about how they could have gotten the results wanted, had they not moved with such haste. He asked them why they were trying to vie for the fastest impeachment in history. The bottom line is that he made Nadler look like a bumbling fool, and ripped him a new asshole large enough to drive a freight train through it.

 

[American]

Because Trump is defying the Constitution and the oversight powers granted to Congress in it.

Congress will be remembered for their magnificent failure in carrying out their duties. The impeachment hearings thus far have been boring to say the least, void of factual information, and run like a 3 ring circus. It's been a total amateur hour. :lol: You guys need help.

 

[iguanaman]

Congress will be remembered for their magnificent failure in carrying out their duties. The impeachment hearings thus far have been boring to say the least, void of factual information, and run like a 3 ring circus. It's been a total amateur hour. :lol: You guys need help.

In other words the evidence against Trump in the testimonies was overwhelming and you have nothing to say but worthless drivel in his defense. There is no helping you guys. You are too far up Trump's ass to see daylight.