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

Jump to Last Post 1-8 of 8 discussions (53 posts)
  1. The Minstrel profile image83
    The Minstrelposted 3 months 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?

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 3 months 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.

    2. Ken Burgess profile image91
      Ken Burgessposted 3 months 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.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 3 months 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....

      2. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

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

        GA

        1. Ken Burgess profile image91
          Ken Burgessposted 3 months 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?

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 3 months 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...

          2. The Minstrel profile image83
            The Minstrelposted 3 months 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.

          3. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 3 months 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

      3. The Minstrel profile image83
        The Minstrelposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Yup!

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Birds of a feather....

    3. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 3 months 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.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 3 months 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? tongue

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 3 months 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.

    4. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 3 months 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?

  2. abwilliams profile image52
    abwilliamsposted 3 months 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.

    1. The Minstrel profile image83
      The Minstrelposted 3 months 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.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 3 months 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….

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

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

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 3 months 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?

            1. The Minstrel profile image83
              The Minstrelposted 3 months 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!

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 3 months 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....

                1. The Minstrel profile image83
                  The Minstrelposted 3 months 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.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 3 months 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.

    2. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

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

      1. abwilliams profile image52
        abwilliamsposted 3 months 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?

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 3 months 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.

          1. abwilliams profile image52
            abwilliamsposted 3 months 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.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

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

        2. GA Anderson profile image91
          GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          ^5

          GA

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

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

            1. GA Anderson profile image91
              GA Andersonposted 3 months 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

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 3 months 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? tongue

                1. GA Anderson profile image91
                  GA Andersonposted 3 months 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

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 3 months 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.

              2. abwilliams profile image52
                abwilliamsposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                ^5 back atcha GA

  3. The Minstrel profile image83
    The Minstrelposted 3 months 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,

  4. Live to Learn profile image78
    Live to Learnposted 3 months ago

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

  5. abwilliams profile image52
    abwilliamsposted 3 months ago

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

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 3 months 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.

  6. abwilliams profile image52
    abwilliamsposted 3 months ago

    Are you done?

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 3 months agoin reply to this

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

      1. The Minstrel profile image83
        The Minstrelposted 3 months 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.

  7. GA Anderson profile image91
    GA Andersonposted 3 months 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

  8. IslandBites profile image87
    IslandBitesposted 3 months ago

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

    lol

    1. Live to Learn profile image78
      Live to Learnposted 3 months agoin reply to this

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

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)