Turley drops giant bomb in midst of Judiciary hearing

[llovejim]

I feel like you're confusing me with somebody else. I think you ought to work on that. Nice screed.

it is unfortunate that there is no balance in these proceedings. I'm sure a full Senate trial will remedy that

there was even less fairness in the House Impeachment of Clinton. get it? why cry now if you did not cry then? clinton is 5000 times the man trump is, and his "crime" was lying about consensual sex in CIVIL SUIT, THAT WAS LATER DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT FILED ON TIME!! no crime was broken, perjury only applies it if can be proven intentional, and if it has a bearing on the outcome of the case- this case was dismissed and it was not even a criminal case!! Turley testified that what Trump did was awful, there needs to be more subpoenas and certainly the impeachment trial is justified, he believes it is not impeachable unless it can be proven a crime was broken. when he testified against Clinton he said it does not matter if a crime was broken, he still misused the people's trust, or some bullshit.


But 20 years ago, Turley made the opposite case. At the time, he was one of several GOP legal analysts pushing for President Bill Clinton to be impeached and removed from office.

"If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct," Turley testified in 1998 during Clinton's impeachment hearings. He added that Clinton's actions didn't need to break any laws in order to be considered impeachable conduct.

"While there's a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable," Turley wrote in a 2014 op-ed for the Washington Post. "Serious misconduct or a violation of public trust is enough. And the founders emphasized that impeachments were about what happened in the political arena: involving 'political crimes and misdemeanors' and resulting in 'political punishments.'"

On Wednesday, Turley argued that the mountain of evidence against Trump in the Ukraine scandal didn't matter because it doesn't meet statutory elements for criminal bribery. But the other witnesses pushed back forcefully on his claim.

"Bribery had a clear meaning to the framers," said Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School. "It was when the president, using the power of his office, solicits or receives something of personal value from someone affected by his official powers."

https://www.businessinsider.com/republican-witness-jonathan-turley-contradicted-impeachment-testimony-2019-12

 

[Nutty Cortez]

every real expert on law said turley sucked, even two fox legal experts, including Judge Nappy. the old hag, you spew about, kicked ass up one side and down the other. and Turley is not a democrat, as far as anyone knows. he testified against clinton during his impeachment, he has represented both democratic and republicans in different hearings and testimony....there is no proof one way or the other I could find....show me where you found turley is a democrat. Turley is not all bad, he is right about a lot of things, but he is wrong about this and lied about some facts.

FROM THE INCREDIBLY RIGHT WING MEDIA NEWSMAX-

Law Expert: Congress Doesn't Need Courts to Impeach

https://www.newsmax.com › politics › 2019/12/04
16 hours ago - Law expert Jonathan Turley's argument that going to the courts to fight a ... cannot be obstruction was rejected by two Fox News legal analysts Wednesday. ... "Where I disagree with my dear friend — I've worked with him and ...

AND EVEN BREITBART-

FNC's Napolitano, McCarthy Push Back on Turley's ... - Breitbart

https://www.breitbart.com › clips › 2019/12/04 › fncs-napolitano-mccarth...
15 hours ago - On Wednesday, during Fox News Channel's special coverage of the Judiciary Committee ... FNC's Napolitano, McCarthy Push Back on Turley's ... Napolitano said, “Where I disagree with my dear friend, I've worked with him ...

You are quoting 2 stories about the same person- quoting the same thing. The Love of your life - The Butthurt Judge Nap lol. (That sure took a lot of effort)
Again, Judge Nap is mad Trump didn't hire him.

You must be used to media outlets kowtowing to a certain line and order.

The old women was a scripted old bag of bias. And America saw it in full tilt. Thankfully Gaetz and Jordan put her in her place.


And Turley. You can Google Search. Oh wait- I'll do it for you.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/jonathan-turley.html

-he has also offered advice to Democrats on how to proceed on impeachment-

He was a liberal Democrat who voted for Mr. Clinton in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 1996 — appalling his solidly Democratic family.

Mr. Turley was also sharply critical of President George W. Bush, a Republican, for his expansive view of his executive powers on issues like surveillance and torture. But Mr. Turley became an iconoclastic fixture again during the Obama years.

In 2011, he represented two lawmakers at the time — Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, a very liberal Democrat


It's Over.

 

[SW48]

Dude, we're all constitutional scholars.

Is there not direct evidence that Trump obstructed congress? you know... with the continual flouting of their subpoenas?

So now the impeachment is because of obstruction of congress? Seems like it was a fishing expedition from the beginning. They got their foot in the door because of a whistle blower they colluded with, got weeks of hearings so they could find more evidence they knew they needed to impeach, and finally settle on obstruction. This is the same play book as the Russian Collusion hoax. Claim he did something wrong and use the investigation to find other unrelated things. The next president that comes in, they may as well just open a random investigation on day 1 and wait for them to do something in the grey (which presidents are elected to do) and then impeach them.

I want Trump gone but I don't want open ended investigations of a president just because I don't like him. That is what these two nothingburgers are.

 

[SW48]

there was even less fairness in the House Impeachment of Clinton. get it? why cry now if you did not cry then? clinton is 5000 times the man trump is, and his "crime" was lying about consensual sex in CIVIL SUIT, THAT WAS LATER DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT FILED ON TIME!! no crime was broken, perjury only applies it if can be proven intentional, and if it has a bearing on the outcome of the case- this case was dismissed and it was not even a criminal case!! Turley testified that what Trump did was awful, there needs to be more subpoenas and certainly the impeachment trial is justified, he believes it is not impeachable unless it can be proven a crime was broken. when he testified against Clinton he said it does not matter if a crime was broken, he still misused the people's trust, or some bullshit.


But 20 years ago, Turley made the opposite case. At the time, he was one of several GOP legal analysts pushing for President Bill Clinton to be impeached and removed from office.

"If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct," Turley testified in 1998 during Clinton's impeachment hearings. He added that Clinton's actions didn't need to break any laws in order to be considered impeachable conduct.

"While there's a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable," Turley wrote in a 2014 op-ed for the Washington Post. "Serious misconduct or a violation of public trust is enough. And the founders emphasized that impeachments were about what happened in the political arena: involving 'political crimes and misdemeanors' and resulting in 'political punishments.'"

On Wednesday, Turley argued that the mountain of evidence against Trump in the Ukraine scandal didn't matter because it doesn't meet statutory elements for criminal bribery. But the other witnesses pushed back forcefully on his claim.

"Bribery had a clear meaning to the framers," said Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School. "It was when the president, using the power of his office, solicits or receives something of personal value from someone affected by his official powers."

https://www.businessinsider.com/republican-witness-jonathan-turley-contradicted-impeachment-testimony-2019-12

So two wrongs make a right?

 

[llovejim]

That's a good degree. Obstreperous pomposity will get you a job passing items over a barcode scanner at the Walmart, but at least you'll know how to demand twice the salary for it

it is funny for trump voters and other generally not very educated or successful people on the internet to try and diss people who tower over them by such huge margins...this so called pompous person who is only qualified to work at Walmart but get twice the salary is in reality a Yale law graduate and probably makes more dough in a day than her trump voter detractors make in several years, if you believe making dough somehow defines a person. but having a law degree versus the education of the average Trump voter!! not even in the same universe.

Pamela Susan Karlan is a professor of law at Stanford Law School. A leading legal scholar on voting rights and political process, she served as U.S. Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Voting Rights in the United States Department of Justice Civil Division from 2014 to 2015. Wikipedia

Party: Democratic Party
Born: February 1959 (age 60 years), United States
Education: Yale Law School (1984), Yale College (1980), Yale University


and speaking of dumbass trump stooges lying and spewing silly bullshit, what about the fake outrage trump ass kisser fatfaced Gaetz displayed because Professor Karlan dared mention Trump's kid's name-

Karlan, a Stanford Law School professor, was making the point that the Constitution doesn’t give the president the power to do whatever he wants, such as give someone a title of nobility. “So, while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron,” she said.

The mention of the president’s 13-year-old son prompted outrage from Republicans on the panel, including Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, and the Trump campaign. (god, what bullshit)

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-04/trump-impeachment-hearing-house-judiciary-live-updates

 

[Nutty Cortez]

it is funny for trump voters and other generally not very educated or successful people on the internet to try and diss people who tower over them by such huge margins...this so called pompous person who is only qualified to work at Walmart but get twice the salary is in reality a Yale law graduate and probably makes more dough in a day than her trump voter detractors make in several years, if you believe making dough somehow defines a person. but having a law degree versus the education of the average Trump voter!! not even in the same universe.

Pamela Susan Karlan is a professor of law at Stanford Law School. A leading legal scholar on voting rights and political process, she served as U.S. Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Voting Rights in the United States Department of Justice Civil Division from 2014 to 2015. Wikipedia

Party: Democratic Party
Born: February 1959 (age 60 years), United States
Education: Yale Law School (1984), Yale College (1980), Yale University


and speaking of dumbass trump stooges lying and spewing silly bullshit, what about the fake outrage trump ass kisser fatfaced Gaetz displayed because Professor Karlan dared mention Trump's kid's name-

Karlan, a Stanford Law School professor, was making the point that the Constitution doesn’t give the president the power to do whatever he wants, such as give someone a title of nobility. “So, while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron,” she said.

The mention of the president’s 13-year-old son prompted outrage from Republicans on the panel, including Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, and the Trump campaign. (god, what bullshit)

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-04/trump-impeachment-hearing-house-judiciary-live-updates

Who cares what degrees she paid for in academia. But- you are all so easily swooned by what 'degrees' someone has. Must be a personal shortcoming you had.

Academics does not make one 'better' than someone else. Learn that.

She was vile, bitter and biased. And America saw it.

 

[Nutty Cortez]

So now the impeachment is because of obstruction of congress? Seems like it was a fishing expedition from the beginning. They got their foot in the door because of a whistle blower they colluded with, got weeks of hearings so they could find more evidence they knew they needed to impeach, and finally settle on obstruction. This is the same play book as the Russian Collusion hoax. Claim he did something wrong and use the investigation to find other unrelated things. The next president that comes in, they may as well just open a random investigation on day 1 and wait for them to do something in the grey (which presidents are elected to do) and then impeach them.

I want Trump gone but I don't want open ended investigations of a president just because I don't like him. That is what these two nothingburgers are.

Pelosi has, on purpose or not, degraded her power with this stunt.

She was sold a bill of goods by Schiff and she may be the one who pays the price.

In the weird world of politics- Trump himself may be the only one who can save her with some landmark legislation that wipes this made for TV Soap Opera fiction off the pages.

 

[ObamacareForever]

So now the impeachment is because of obstruction of congress?

Amongst other things

Seems like it was a fishing expedition from the beginning. They got their foot in the door because of a whistle blower they colluded with, got weeks of hearings so they could find more evidence they knew they needed to impeach, and finally settle on obstruction.

They have him in on The quid pro quo stuff too.

This is the same play book as the Russian Collusion hoax. Claim he did something wrong and use the investigation to find other unrelated things.

So you think the Mueller investigation wasn't necessary?

The next president that comes in, they may as well just open a random investigation on day 1 and wait for them to do something in the grey (which presidents are elected to do) and then impeach them.

Yes, that's the way it works. Part of congress's job is oversight and accountability of the executive.

I want Trump gone but I don't want open ended investigations of a president just because I don't like him. That is what these two nothingburgers are.

Then you should have spoke up at the second Benghazi investigation.

 

[llovejim]

So two wrongs make a right?

why is it wrong? according to whom? not the constitution, it gives no instruction, except two certain crimes should result in impeachment and removal, bribery and treason, and we know trump is guilty of bribery. at least those of us who can read and make fair decisions based on facts. were you as incensed when clinton got no legal counsel in the House when he was impeached for lying about consensual sex?

How the Trump administration uses its protections, of course, remains to be seen. Nixon’s lawyer was integrally involved in the House Judiciary Committee’s investigations in 1974, although Clinton’s lawyer’s main appearance in Congress happened toward the end of the process, when the articles of impeachment had already been drafted. The Trump White House, to be sure, is still insisting the entire process is unconstitutional, and it’s hard to imagine them changing their tune anytime soon.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-rights-does-trump-have-in-the-impeachment-process/

 

[Nutty Cortez]

Yes, that's the way it works. Part of congress's job is oversight and accountability of the executive.

Which is where this is headed. What started this mess- and what nefarious ways were used. From the CIA to the FBI to fake whistleblowers.

It's a show, it's all been fake. You didn't know this ?

 

[Nutty Cortez]

why is it wrong? according to whom? not the constitution, it gives no instruction, except two certain crimes should result in impeachment and removal, bribery and treason, and we know trump is guilty of bribery. at least those of us who can read and make fair decisions based on facts. were you as incensed when clinton got no legal counsel in the House when he was impeached for lying about consensual sex?

How the Trump administration uses its protections, of course, remains to be seen. Nixon’s lawyer was integrally involved in the House Judiciary Committee’s investigations in 1974, although Clinton’s lawyer’s main appearance in Congress happened toward the end of the process, when the articles of impeachment had already been drafted. The Trump White House, to be sure, is still insisting the entire process is unconstitutional, and it’s hard to imagine them changing their tune anytime soon.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-rights-does-trump-have-in-the-impeachment-process/

LOL

They destroyed the 'bribery' talking point yesterday.

And again. Clinton was impeached for perjury.

Oh yes and the 'Nixon' equivalency. That as destroyed yesterday too. Embarrassingly to leftists nationwide.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

So now the impeachment is because of obstruction of congress? Seems like it was a fishing expedition from the beginning. They got their foot in the door because of a whistle blower they colluded with, got weeks of hearings so they could find more evidence they knew they needed to impeach, and finally settle on obstruction. This is the same play book as the Russian Collusion hoax. Claim he did something wrong and use the investigation to find other unrelated things. The next president that comes in, they may as well just open a random investigation on day 1 and wait for them to do something in the grey (which presidents are elected to do) and then impeach them.

I want Trump gone but I don't want open ended investigations of a president just because I don't like him. That is what these two nothingburgers are.

Open ended “random”investigations from Day 1? No. Congressional oversight from Day 1? You betcha. That is constitutionally and statutorily the right (and obligation) of Congress.

But Trump doesn’t recognize that congressional right - he routinely stonewalls Congress on oversight matters. Even worse, he now does it with impeachment inquiries, ordering his people to defy congressional impeachment inquiry subpoenas seeking documents and testimony. And when he does so his enablers claim he can’t be impeached because there are supposedly gaps in the evidence resulting from Trump’s obstruction.

Make no mistake - the constitutional framework of the nation hangs in the balance - we either have the constitutional system of checks and balances, or we have authoritarianism. We can’t have both. Complete lawlessness or the rule of law. We can’t have both.

 

[ObamacareForever]

Which is where this is headed. What started this mess- and what nefarious ways were used. From the CIA to the FBI to fake whistleblowers.

It's a show, it's all been fake. You didn't know this ?

I hate to break it to you but this is all very real.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

I hate to break it to you but this is all very real.

Trump has gaslighted his victims into using the word “fake” to describe all news they don’t like. They oblige.

 

[Nutty Cortez]

I hate to break it to you but this is all very real.

Oh it is. A real abuse of power of the House Majority and players in the CIA and FBI.

And it's falling on them- quickly.

 

[Nutty Cortez]

Trump has gaslighted his victims into using the word “fake” to describe all news they don’t like. They oblige.

'gaslight' must be your new word of the week. lol

Little hint. When you learn a new word, no need to use it in every post.

It's cute you like new words- but it's embarrassing for you.

 

[ObamacareForever]

Oh it is. A real abuse of power of the House Majority and players in the CIA and FBI.

And it's falling on them- quickly.

The real abuse of power is Trump withholding aid in exchange for political favors.

 

[Boca]

Trump posting a memo telling staff not to cooperate with congress is more than just "documents".

When did they quit teaching Civics? Or did you just fail it.

Justice, or the obstruction of it is for courts to decide, as they did in the Nixon case. It's a process reserved for -guess who- the Department of Justice, and the courts, not partisan lackeys in Congress.

The process would begin with filing suit for the documents. Next would be an appeal from the defendant and so on until a court ruling, sometimes the Supreme Court, was issued.... that's the"process" and has been for a century or more. The lawyers on the committee know that but chose not to. Ironically, by not doing that they obstructed the justice they sought.

Neither did Republicans when they sought documents related to Fast & Furious and were rebuffed by Obama.

That doesn't mean they can't go forward with Articles of Impeachment, it means they have to once again find yet another reason for removing the President. collusion didn't work, and they've apparently given up on bribery. And Trump calling the media the Public Enemy is a non-starter even as one of the distinguished legal "scholars" insists it is.

 

[Nutty Cortez]

When did they quit teaching Civics? Or did you just fail it.

Justice, or the obstruction of it is for courts to decide, as they did in the Nixon case. It's a process reserved for -guess who- the Department of Justice and the courts, not partisan lackeys in Congress.

The process would begin with filing suit for the documents. Next would be an appeal from the defendant and so on until a court ruling, sometimes the Supreme Court, was issued.... that's the"process" and has been for a century or more. The lawyers on the committee know that but chose not to. Ironically, by not doing that they obstructed the justice they sought.

Class is over.

Correct. Which is how Eric Holder did it. And Ignored a subpoena for 7 years.
Not 7 days- Weeks or Months. YEARS.

And why ? Because Obama told him to.

 

[llovejim]

Pelosi has, on purpose or not, degraded her power with this stunt.

She was sold a bill of goods by Schiff and she may be the one who pays the price.

In the weird world of politics- Trump himself may be the only one who can save her with some landmark legislation that wipes this made for TV Soap Opera fiction off the pages.

good god. you keep repeating silly bullshit!! even turley admitted the impeachment inquiry was justified, he just did not believe that a crime was committed and therefore impeachment was not warranted. and judge napolitano was convinced trump should have been impeached and removed based on the Mueller Report, and you claim there is nothing here? why do you lie so much?