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.
