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

[Moon]

I guess if Bubba Clinton had ordered "HIS" (in quotes because they are NOT HIS) Attorney General to prohibit turning over the semen stained blue dress, and refused to supply his own DNA, Turley would have rose up and given the same spirited defense of President Clinton?

When did Clinton’s AG have the dress in his possession? I thought it was given to Ken Starr’s team by either Monica Lewinsky or Linda Tripp.

 

[trixare4kids]

What are you talking about? Trump's DOJ is appealing the ruling to the SC. There is nothing more that Congress can do.

So why do you keep on with it's an impeachable offense, an "obstruction of justice" then?

 

[iguanaman]

Yes and its being appealed. It has to go through the process before its obstruction of anything. Thats how the system works.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

LOL So you think there is some question about what the Judge said and the SC will rule that a President is above the law? You will give up our Republic for Trump?

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 .

 

[trouble13]

What are you talking about? Trump's DOJ is appealing the ruling to the SC. There is nothing more that Congress can do.

Of course there is more they can do. They can argue their case in front of the next judge.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[ludin]

Epic. This and Turley's doodle make my day:2wave:

what i find it amazing is that nadler expect any rational thinking person to take what he hack lawyers have to say seriously.
everyone heard all of the testimony and it takes one of the most dishonest scummiest lawyers out there to say a person is guilty of something
when none of the witnesses could offer evidence to support it.

I find it 100% interesting that they say they read it but glossed over the fact that ol yea NO ONE HAD EVIDENCE.
all it goes it continue to be a **** show for democrats, but the leftist propaganda media will never report the truth or the facts.

it will take the senate to clear trump of all these charges and then once he has been vindicated the coup is going to have their hands full.

 

[haymarket]

Ultimately, Turley is NOT basing his arguments on what the US Constitution actually says but rather is basing his arguments on the way he thinks the Constitution should work if he had his way.

He over and over again DOES NOT talk about the current facts with the President but talks in generalities other than the current situation in the real world.

His arguments on felonies and time are but two examples.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

What are you talking about? Trump's DOJ is appealing the ruling to the SC. There is nothing more that Congress can do.

I guess trix and trouble13 are both now in favor of arresting all the folks who defied their Congressional subpoenas, then.
Am I right, you guys?

 

[ludin]

The Constitution is indifferent as to who the next president is going to be, whether they are Republican or Democrat or whatever.
The Constitution is concerned, however, about whether or not our elections are free and fair, and unencumbered by weaponized interference by hostile foreign powers.
Enabling said hostile foreign powers in their quest to do so constitutes an act of war upon democracy, and upon the very cornerstone of the Constitution itself.


In fact, even ACCIDENTALLY enabling such foreign powers in their quest by sheer dint of INCOMPETENCE is STILL an act of war upon our democracy and the Constitution.
Just because you did not KNOW that what you were doing was endangering our national security does not relieve you of the consequences of your actions.

which is why clinton and the DNC should have had their asses hung out to dry glad you agree.
there was no evidence the trump or his campaign had anything to do with russia.

clinton on the other hand was deep up to the neck.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

When did Clinton’s AG have the dress in his possession? I thought it was given to Ken Starr’s team by either Monica Lewinsky or Linda Tripp.

Same deal anyway...I guess one now has to believe that Clinton should have given the order to take the dress "into custody"...for safekeeping, of course. After all, if he had directed the AG to go and seize the dress...no evidence, no crime, no case, no impeachment.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

which is why clinton and the DNC should have had their asses hung out to dry glad you agree.
there was no evidence the trump or his campaign had anything to do with russia.

clinton on the other hand was deep up to the neck.

No evidence that you are aware of.

As I just said:

I guess one now has to believe that Clinton should have given the order to take the dress "into custody"...for safekeeping, of course. After all, if he had directed the AG to go and seize the dress...no evidence, no crime, no case, no impeachment.

 

[Moon]

Same deal anyway...I guess one now has to believe that Clinton should have given the order to take the dress "into custody"...for safekeeping, of course. After all, if he had directed the AG to go and seize the dress...no evidence, no crime, no case, no impeachment.

He would have no authority to seize evidence against him.

 

[trouble13]

LOL So you think there is some question about what the Judge said and the SC will rule that a President is above the law? You will give up our Republic for Trump?

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 .

Thats her opinion but its not the final opinion. Until you have that, you dont have an obstruction charge. What about that don't you understand???

On a side note its interesting that the Democrats are now focused on obstruction instead of bribery. I guess bribery isnt testing as well as obstruction.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trixare4kids]

these people are not concerned with facts or evidence.
they do not care about facts or evidence.

they simply hand wave, ignore it or deny it.
frankly it is sad.

Turley said it's the congressional Democrats who are abusing their power.

 

[less right]

which is why clinton and the DNC should have had their asses hung out to dry glad you agree.
there was no evidence the trump or his campaign had anything to do with russia.

clinton on the other hand was deep up to the neck.

And Manafort didn't share sensitive campaign data with a Russian.

 

[trouble13]

I guess trix and trouble13 are both now in favor of arresting all the folks who defied their Congressional subpoenas, then.
Am I right, you guys?

What do you mean by defing?
I support everyones right to not voluntarily cooperate with all investigations. If a court orders it; they must comply.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trixare4kids]

I guess trix and trouble13 are both now in favor of arresting all the folks who defied their Congressional subpoenas, then.
Am I right, you guys?

I won't dignify the above silliness.

There's your answer.

 

[iguanaman]

Thats her opinion but its not the final opinion. Until you have that, you dont have an obstruction charge. What about that don't you understand???

On a side note its interesting that the Democrats are now focused on obstruction instead of bribery. I guess bribery isnt testing as well as obstruction.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

No that is not the case. Both charges are included in the impeachment document. What is more interesting is that you feel that Trump may be crowned king by the SC and you are fine with that. You will throw out our "great experiment" for one man. That makes you no longer an American and I am sorry for you.

 

[humbolt]

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.

Ler's see...you've been through collusion, obstruction, quid pro quos, extortion, bribery, abuse of power, and now you're back to collusion and obstruction. Is that about right? It's circular, and you're back to the start again?

 

[iguanaman]

What do you mean by defing?
I support everyones right to not voluntarily cooperate with all investigations. If a court orders it; they must comply.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Violating a legal subpoena is against the law. Can you imagine if everyone acted like Trump's cronies and appealed every subpoena all the way to the SC?

 

[iguanaman]

Ler's see...you've been through collusion, obstruction, quid pro quos, extortion, bribery, abuse of power, and now you're back to collusion and obstruction. Is that about right? It's circular, and you're back to the start again?

Yes the width and breadth of Trump's criminal behaviors are mind boggling. Are you saying that the sheer numbers of his criminal acts makes it futile to oppose him? Don't worry, we can handle them all. We are big boys now.

 

[iguanaman]

Turley said it's the congressional Democrats who are abusing their power.

Actually he is saying they have no power and Trump is king. This judge disagreed...

Presidents are not kings," she added.
"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 .

 

[ludin]

No evidence that you are aware of.

As I just said:

I guess one now has to believe that Clinton should have given the order to take the dress "into custody"...for safekeeping, of course. After all, if he had directed the AG to go and seize the dress...no evidence, no crime, no case, no impeachment.

2 year investigation is all the evidence i need.
trump had nothing to do with russia.

HIllary and the DNC was neck deep in russia.

 

[ludin]

Turley said it's the congressional Democrats who are abusing their power.

they are very much so. this is the worst abuse of power i have ever witnessed in my life.
an utter coup of our government.

an attempt to thwart the will of the people even though there is not even a majority support for impeachment in the public,
and there is no bipartisan support for it.

PS these are the standards that nadler set for impeachment which shows just how much of a liar and hack that nadler is.

 

[Acadia]

what i find it amazing is that nadler expect any rational thinking person to take what he hack lawyers have to say seriously.
everyone heard all of the testimony and it takes one of the most dishonest scummiest lawyers out there to say a person is guilty of something
when none of the witnesses could offer evidence to support it.

I find it 100% interesting that they say they read it but glossed over the fact that ol yea NO ONE HAD EVIDENCE.
all it goes it continue to be a **** show for democrats, but the leftist propaganda media will never report the truth or the facts.

it will take the senate to clear trump of all these charges and then once he has been vindicated the coup is going to have their hands full.

The leftist academics are so very pleased with themselves, stroking away and utterly convinced of their righteousness.

 

[ludin]

Actually he is saying they have no power and Trump is king. This judge disagreed...

and yet her ruling is under appeal and will probably be tossed.
there is a thing called executive privilege.

i do believe that holder did the same thing to not comply with a congressional subpoena.