Prof Jonathan Turley: Being mad is no basis for an impeachment.

1. 0

   The Minstrelposted 5 years ago

   Prof Jonathan Turley who is not a Trump supporter gave a very reasoned and impassioned message to the house judiciary. In essence, he criticized the impeachment hearings as rushed, improperly conducted, and based on shoddy evidence. It will do more damage to our country as a whole than to just one individual. Do you think these impeachment hearings are being done in a fair way? Do you think that being mad constitutes the right to impeach someone? Do you think this is damaging our country?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I believe they are as good as can be with Trump obstructing justice and acting as though Congress doesn't have oversight over him. Which, unfortunately for him and his followers, they do.

      replyreport
   2. 69

      Ken Burgessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Two years of investigating, in the end, Mueller's investigation was a dud.
      
      From that to an Impeachment over a bunch of malarkey that 'mainstream America' could care less about, with no discernable proof, just hearsay.
      
      Still nothing.
      
      The damage done will fall squarely on the Democrats, on Congress, and on D.C.
      
      The very reasons most of the 63 million people voted for Trump are on display in this debacle of 'justice'.
      
      The amount of Americans fed up with the idiocy and corruption in D.C. only grows because of this type of stupidity.
      
      We've seen this before, when the Republicans were determined to Impeach Clinton over what they thought was legitimate reasons... but 60% of America (more or less) disagreed with them, as was evidenced in the next election.
      
      This time its the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot in their obsession to destroy Trump.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, only about a dozen obstruction of justice violations in that report, Ken. How many does it take to be wrong? If you dare answer....

         replyreport
      2. 83

         GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Ken, do you think Pres. Trump was looking for personal gain in his request to Ukrainian Pres. Zelensky?
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Ken Burgessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Do I think I know what Trump was looking for and why?
            
            No, I do not.
            
            Do I think this is a clear case of him demanding something in return for something else?
            
            No, I do not.
            
            Do I think this is all about what people inferred, what people opined?
            
            Yes, I absolutely do.
            
            Do I think those people are presenting their opinions and inferences based purely on political bias and for political gain?
            
            Yes, I absolutely do.
            
            Do I think that because these people are acting on their political biases that it throws into question everything they put forth?
            
            Yes, I certainly do.
            
            I am not an expert in Trump's nuances of speech and communication, but I know enough to recognize that he can ramble in and out of almost any topic, for any reason, without any concrete reasoning or expectations.
            
            Is he a brilliant man playing the fool, or a fool playing at being something more... I don't know, and that perhaps speaks to him being more the former than the latter.
            
            Maybe he intended nothing more, than to bring to light the questionability of Joe and Hunter's dealings... … or maybe he wanted the Democrats to take this bait, and Impeach him, knowing he would reap a windfall of political support with their doing so.
            
            What do you think?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Maybe BS, Ken. Do you actually believe he wasn't out for personal gain? We're talking about the king of "self" here you know. Or are you completely ignorant of Donald's past? I do hope it's the latter...

               replyreport
            2. 0

               The Minstrelposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Ken, I appreciate your insight on other forum topics. Thank you for the break down. I personally think people have under estimated Trump and his political acumen. He comes across as a brash, overly sensitive, bull-in-a-china-shop type of person, but I think he is a genius. He knew people were listening in on his call to Zelensky. This is a trap to ensnare the big fish in the deep state along with the little ones. I believe it will be a huge haul. With the IG report, Durham report, and the Senate coming into play, some or many dark things will get exposed. Pelosi, Schiff, Clinton, Brennan, Page, Biden, and others are all reacting very strongly at this time. Why? Why was Prof Turley targeted by hate e-mail, calls, and texts after his profound testimony yesterday? They are feeling the heat and fighting hard. Yes, I believe he sees a political windfall, but the bigger motivation is to expose the big fish behind all the corruption in our government. That's just my opinion.

               replyreport
            3. 83

               GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               I think that I have found no "proof" either way. But, my impression of Trump's character and the known details of this issue lead me to think that Pres. Trump was looking for personal political gain.
               
               GA

               replyreport
      3. 0

         The Minstrelposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Yup!

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Birds of a feather....

            replyreport
   3. 86

      Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Turley did a wonderful eloquent job of explaining why there is no basis for the impeachment of President Trump. The other solars showed such as you could hear it in their voices, and see it in their faces as the spoke.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Turley wasn't saying the impeachment was wrong, he said they were going too fast because they hadn't heard from Mulvaney, Bolton, and several other witnesses. Of course, he neglected to mention congress wanted them to testify, but Trump told them not to.  Wonder why? Do you know, Shar?

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Randy, Perhaps you should have watched the entire proceedings. He certainly voices that as of now there is no plausible reason to impeach the president. He certainly did say to slow it down and look for facts, due to they have nothing at this point.

            replyreport
   4. 86

      Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Do you think these impeachment hearings are being done in a fair way? No.
      
      Do you think that being mad constitutes the right to impeach someone? No
      
      Do you think this is damaging our country? It is damaging the democratic party.  As if they needed more damage?

      replyreport
2. 70

   abwilliamsposted 5 years ago

   I am at work right now, not watching the hearing, but listening to Rush. Rush was just saying that Turley, not a fan of Trump, as you stated, is the lone voice of reason...
   To answer your questions. NO, "being mad" and I'd add; being mad and full of hate are not reason(s) to impeach. YES, the harm to this Country, has already been done. Whomever the next President is, better be prepared, because a new precedent has been set!
   
   In these so-called hearings, we have gone from a Quid Pro Quo to bribery to abuse of power...what's left when this too fails? They'll have to go back to dissing Trump's hairstyle.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      The Minstrelposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Well said. Thank you for your response. I am in complete shock at how brazen the Democrats have become. They are flat out running rough shod over our laws in order to win an election.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Which laws have the Dems ran rough-shod over, Minnie? Trump has had every opportunity to put up a defense of the charges against him, and he has deferred.
         
         Let me ask you this, does the House have oversight into a POTUS's actions or not? Easy peasy….

         replyreport
         1. 89

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Every opportunity?  How many witnesses have Republicans been allowed to call?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Trump chose to ignore the equal power of Congress and therefore gave up his right to take part in the impeachment proceedings. You do realize if Barr had been doing his job and not ignoring Trump's wrongdoing, he would have appointed a Special Prosecutor as in the Nixon and Clinton impeachments.
               
               This caused the House to have to do their own investigations as they were being attacked--and still are--by Trump's yes men on the republican side. And now they're bitching about the only process the House has left.
               
               Why do you think Trump had to ignore all subpoenas, Dan? Is that what you would do if served one? Is Trump better than you and above the law? Why is he being so reluctant to abide by the law if he's squeaky clean?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  The Minstrelposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Randy, there is no crime here. Hello out there. Again, no crime was committed. If this goes to the senate, it's going to get real entertaining with both sides bringing in their witnesses, not just this one sided stacked deck that the Democrats have conjurred up. Moreover, Barr didn't have to appoint a special prosecutor for a non-crime. Why do you think they have gone from quid pro quo to extortion to bribery to abuse of power and now back to the failed Mueller report? They do not know what to pin Trump on because they are literally searching for something. They are panicking. Soon, they will start to accuse him of illegally promoting McDonalds because he eats too many chicken McNuggets. It's pathetic. Randy, word of advice, get off this sinking ship. It's going down fast!

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Minnie, if you're subpoenaed by Congress, would you go? Or would you act like Trump and ignore the subpoena? Is he above the law and you're not? Do tell....

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        The Minstrelposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        I wouldn't go to a sham impeachment hearing. Why do you think they have not taken legal action against Trump and others who have ignored their subpoenas? They have no legal grounds to summon them. They know it, too. Randy, get off the ship before it sinks.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           So you think Congress doesn't have the power to impeach Trump? Get off that gut wagon before  you're covered in it.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              The Minstrelposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              Randy, no crime was committed. It's all smoke and mirrors. For the sake of our nation I hope everything gets exposed.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 Me too. OJ is against the Constitution and Congress has oversight. This much is crystal clear.
                                 
                                 If Trump has done nothing wrong then why is he preventing key witnesses from testifying? Easy question.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 69

                                    Ken Burgessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                    There is nothing crystal clear, other than a baised, party driven attack on the President has been ongoing for 3 years.
                                    
                                    I made you a list of Obama's obstruction of justice, and snubbing of Congress in the other thread, do I need to put it here as well?
                                    
                                    You ignore facts that don't fit your political perspective anyways, so I really don't see the point.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       So why is Trump preventing witnesses from testifying, Ken? He as done no wrong according to you, so why not let them speak? Because you know he's hiding things....

                                       report
                                 2. 89

                                    wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                    If it is an easy question you already have the answer.  Pray tell, what is it, but without your own opinion and bias included?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       Because he has something to hide or otherwise he'd allow them to testify. What's your spin on it, Dan?

                                       report
                                       1. 61

                                          Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                          Once the House circus has dropped the tent and passes this to the Senate,which will have an open and honest process....if the White House doesn't cooperate I'll see a validpoint there.
                                          
                                          Until then

                                          report
   2. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Rush said....what office has he ever held or journalistic degree he's obtained, for that matter? No wonder....

      replyreport
      1. 70

         abwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         The number one radio show host in the Nation...for decades, shared his observations of the hearing.
         Randy, when did you come to the conclusion that a journalist, a person that has held office or a degreed individual are the only ones entitled to an opinion or an observation?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Rush has always been a nut job, even during his oxycontin doctor shopping days. He's a paid opinion guy who's never held office and has no journalistic credentials. Just the sort of person Trump supports admire.
            
            I didn't make a claim as to how many listened to his nonsense, but Germany found out just because a person has many followers, doesn't ensure integrity in the person speaking.

            replyreport
            1. 70

               abwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               It is funny and odd to me that your reaction is to mock addiction and bring up Hitler, but then.....I'm not you.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, like Rush never mocks anyone on his show.  That's funny....

                  replyreport
         2. 83

            GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            ^5
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               There's difference in an opinion and a learned opinion, GA.. Or do you disagree?

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Nope, I agree there is a difference Randy. What I was 'high-fiving' was this:
                  
                  "Randy, when did you come to the conclusion that a journalist, a person that has held office or a degreed individual are the only ones entitled to an opinion or an observation?"
                  
                  Without going back and looking for specific instances, I feel confident that I could say you have supported such 'talk show hosts' opinions yourself. But because Rush Limbaugh is a conservative talk show host you immediately discount what he says—simply because he is a Conservative mouthpiece.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     You'd be wrong again, GA. I put no stock in opinions from non-journalists or political talking heads. Limbaugh is paid scum. That's my non-political opinion....do you trust my judgement?

                     replyreport
                     1. 83

                        GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Hmm . . . ". . . do you trust my judgment?"
                        
                        You nailed with a hard one Randy. Even though I must qualify my answer, I also must admit that your political judgment, although biased, is not to be dismissed as nonsensical.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           As the topic of this thread is Turley, I must point out, his observation of this being a speedy impeachment proceeding is blatantly false. The Johnson Impeachment lasted three days.

                           replyreport
                  2. 70

                     abwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     ^5 back atcha GA

                     replyreport
3. 0

   The Minstrelposted 5 years ago

   What's the sense. You bought into their circus impeachment. Just listen to Professor Jonathan Turleys opening statement. It just might drive some sense into you,

   replyreport
4. 61

   Live to Learnposted 5 years ago

   I don't think any rational person is hoodwinked by the democrats shenanigans at this point.

   replyreport
5. 70

   abwilliamsposted 5 years ago

   He is pretty funny actually. Guess that's why he's the best.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I find him ridiculous as he mocks everyone on the left. His silly little voices remind me of a child protesting he didn't get enough candy. 
      
      But I can understand why you admire him.

      replyreport
6. 70

   abwilliamsposted 5 years ago

   Are you done?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Not in the least. as you probably consider me 'half baked'.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         The Minstrelposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         You are not half baked, but more like over baked with TDS. Again, Randy, no crime was committed. To go from quid pro quo to extortion to bribery to abuse of power and now back to the failed Mueller report shows the world that Schiff and company do not have any proof for impeachment. It's pathetic. Get off the Titanic, Randy. It's going down fast. The Democrats staged this whole impeachment initiative and it's crashing down on them with serious repercussions! The problem is this. They cannot get out. They have to go all the way and bring this thing to the Senate.

         replyreport
7. 83

   GA Andersonposted 5 years ago

   You bring up an often mentioned point Wilderness, but it is one I find hard to support.
   
   If it can be understood that the Democrat investigative process—so far—would equate to the special investigators of previous impeachment processes, and, that the Republicans can present all the witnesses and exculpatory evidence they want/have in the Senate trial process, then what is the a beef?
   
   The accused don't get to do what you are complaining about in the Special Counsel investigations. They investigate, they present their results, and the process continues from there. Isn't that what the Democrat process has followed so far?
   
   I will agree that in the court of public opinion your argument may hold some water, but in the reality of the process and precedents of previous impeachments, it rings hollow.
   
   I expect and am hopeful, that the Republicans will present all their witnesses and evidence, that they claim they are being denied now, in the Senate trial. But, the folks that matter in the determination—the Senators—are not the folks being affected by that lack of opportunity now.
   
   Would you expect those Senators that must make a decision to be guided by a public perception of the events?
   
   I am sure you can guess that I would want to agree that this is a Democrat-driven political process, (and I do think it is), but this repeated point about a lack of opportunity just doesn't carry any weight to my mind.
   
   GA

   replyreport
8. 93

   IslandBitesposted 5 years ago

   "the Senate,which will have an open and honest process"
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Couldn't be more secretive and partisan than the House show was.

      replyreport