White House tells Democrats it will not participate in Trump impeachment hearing

[RideJocky]

2 hours ago, candide said:

Imprecise account

 

His point was very precise. He was not talking about the whole process, he was talking only about impeaching Trump for obstruction. According to him, obstruction can only be established after the SC verdict. That can discussed.

It's clearly explained here

"Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and the sole Republican witness at Wednesday's impeachment hearing, cautioned against impeaching President Trump for obstruction and said that Democrats would be abusing their power by not allowing the courts to rule on subpoenas."

https://www.axios.com/jonathan-turley-impeachment-democrats-01a2f2f7-834f-4d90-bd01-3932cca63383.html

So one opinion piece is more credible than another? 
 

Why?

[Sujo]

12 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

So one opinion piece is more credible than another? 
 

Why?

Because one opinion was wrong on the point it was trying to make. And one opinion told the actual facts in context. Im not sure you will know which is which.

[Sujo]

Rudy at it again. Now a fake documentary. Im sure some will take it as gospel.

 

Thats why trump does these things. His followers will lap it up regardless of facts.

 

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/giuliani-caused-shock-among-ukrainians-for-working-with-expelled-politician-who-proposed-leasing-crimea-to-russia/

[JAG]

In fairness, I imagine that The White House are fully occupied preparing to release Mr Trump's tax returns, reviewing various Court Martial verdicts, and working out how to get Mexico to pay for that wall!

 

Besides, this is likely to go on for a couple of months, and it seems that most senior White House staff only seem to manage to stay "in post" for a couple of weeks! 

[candide]

1 hour ago, RideJocky said:

So one opinion piece is more credible than another? 
 

Why?

You are in some way right, I should have directly quoted Turley, here it is

"Recently there are some rulings against President Trump, including a ruling involving Don McGahn. ... That's an example of what can happen if you actually subpoena witnesses and go to court. Then you have an obstruction case because a court issues an order. And unless they stay that order by a higher court, you have obstruction. But I can't emphasize this enough and I'll say it just one more time. If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power. You're doing precisely what you're criticizing the president for doing."

[NanLaew]

On 12/7/2019 at 7:56 AM, mogandave said:

How hard do you think it is to get 500 tenured collage professors with no accountability to come out against Trump?

Since this stunning non-news is being reported on CNN, it's probably just as hard as it would be for Fox News "to get 500 tenured collage professors with no accountability to come out against for Trump."

 

You see what I did there?

[Sujo]

13 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Since this stunning non-news is being reported on CNN, it's probably just as hard as it would be for Fox News "to get 500 tenured collage professors with no accountability to come out against for Trump."

 

You see what I did there?

Oh stop it. I only have one side to split. Facts ate not good for trump.

[RideJocky]

23 minutes ago, candide said:

You are in some way right, I should have directly quoted Turley, here it is

"Recently there are some rulings against President Trump, including a ruling involving Don McGahn. ... That's an example of what can happen if you actually subpoena witnesses and go to court. Then you have an obstruction case because a court issues an order. And unless they stay that order by a higher court, you have obstruction. But I can't emphasize this enough and I'll say it just one more time. If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power. You're doing precisely what you're criticizing the president for doing."

What was cut out of the middle of the quote?

 

[candide]

11 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

What was cut out of the middle of the quote?

 

Do you know?

[RideJocky]

1 hour ago, NanLaew said:

Since this stunning non-news is being reported on CNN, it's probably just as hard as it would be for Fox News "to get 500 tenured collage professors with no accountability to come out against for Trump."

 

You see what I did there?

No, what did you do? 
 

In I’m guessing that given the percentage of professors that are leftists I think Fox would have a pretty hard time.

 

 

 

 

[RideJocky]

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

Because one opinion was wrong on the point it was trying to make. And one opinion told the actual facts in context. Im not sure you will know which is which.

I’m always amused when people like you condescend. 

[NanLaew]

27 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

No, what did you do? 
 

In I’m guessing that given the percentage of professors that are leftists I think Fox would have a pretty hard time.

 

Is this the percentage of professors that are actually leftists or the percentage of professors that the right wing media claims are leftists?

 

But you have one thing almost right in that Fox, with their revolving door of right wing hacks and sycophants, would have a pretty hard time proving anything except their 'alternate facts'.

[riclag]

6 hours ago, candide said:

Imprecise account

 

His point was very precise. He was not talking about the whole process, he was talking only about impeaching Trump for obstruction. According to him, obstruction can only be established after the SC verdict. That can discussed.

It's clearly explained here

"Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and the sole Republican witness at Wednesday's impeachment hearing, cautioned against impeaching President Trump for obstruction and said that Democrats would be abusing their power by not allowing the courts to rule on subpoenas."

https://www.axios.com/jonathan-turley-impeachment-democrats-01a2f2f7-834f-4d90-bd01-3932cca63383.html

except for the dems are not allowing the courts to rule on subpoenas ,which is a abuse of power,which is imop intolerant to the laws and past precedence! True to radicalism and their MO 

[Tug]

11 minutes ago, riclag said:

except for the dems are not allowing the courts to rule on subpoenas ,which is a abuse of power,which is imop intolerant to the laws and past precedence! True to radicalism and their MO 

Huuuuh??? Can you direct me to proof of this?not britebart or some opinion piece something factual ?

[Jingthing]

19 minutes ago, Tug said:

Huuuuh??? Can you direct me to proof of this?not britebart or some opinion piece something factual ?

It's propaganda spin. The democrats decided they were not OK with waiting months and months for court rulings. So they have decided to go ahead with impeachment without hearing from all the witnesses they'd like such as Bolton. 

 

 

But those witnesses might be called later in the senate by SCOTUS chief Justice. 

[candide]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

except for the dems are not allowing the courts to rule on subpoenas ,which is a abuse of power,which is imop intolerant to the laws and past precedence! True to radicalism and their MO 

Actually, I would tend to agree with Turley on the obstruction issue.

 

From what I read, the Dems may not invoke obstruction of justice any more as article of impeachment. If true, that would solve this problem.

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, candide said:

Actually, I would tend to agree with Turley on the obstruction issue.

 

From what I read, the Dems may not invoke obstruction of justice any more as article of impeachment. If true, that would solve this problem.

No president in history has stonewalled an Impeachment investigation to the total extent that 45 has. If they don't have an obstruction article might as well erase impeachment powers from the constitution. 

[candide]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

No president in history has stonewalled an Impeachment investigation to the total extent that 45 has. If they don't have an obstruction article might as well erase impeachment powers from the constitution. 

I agree Trump has stonewalled as much as he could and I also agree with you on why he obviously did that. I also agree that his appeal has likely no other objective than to delay the impeachment vote.

However from a technical point of view, I guess it may be discussed. For example, imagine that the SC may come to the very unlikely conclusion that Trump is allowed to stonewall.... OK, it's not a trial so it may not really matter in this case.

[simple1]

6 hours ago, candide said:

I agree Trump has stonewalled as much as he could and I also agree with you on why he obviously did that. I also agree that his appeal has likely no other objective than to delay the impeachment vote.

However from a technical point of view, I guess it may be discussed. For example, imagine that the SC may come to the very unlikely conclusion that Trump is allowed to stonewall.... OK, it's not a trial so it may not really matter in this case.

From a non US citizen POV it appears to me that the trump Presidency has made a farce of the Constitution. IMO Constitution should be amended to address trump's 'king' behaviour. 

[Sujo]

7 hours ago, candide said:

I agree Trump has stonewalled as much as he could and I also agree with you on why he obviously did that. I also agree that his appeal has likely no other objective than to delay the impeachment vote.

However from a technical point of view, I guess it may be discussed. For example, imagine that the SC may come to the very unlikely conclusion that Trump is allowed to stonewall.... OK, it's not a trial so it may not really matter in this case.

Catch 22. Impeachment is to oust a president as a matter of urgency because it cannot wait for an election.

 

But with trump delaying and obstructing at every move his purpose is to get to an electiin before evidence comes out.

[Saint Nick]

On 12/7/2019 at 1:22 PM, Boon Mee said:

And one of those highly esteemed "experts" had to resort to a sick joke about Trump's 13 year old boy 

Cry me a river!

 

[Saint Nick]

21 hours ago, riclag said:

 Nonsense! I'm American, I think that America should hold the dems accountable, for abusing and not respecting the separation of powers,according to the most popular and definitely more prestigious Constitutional law Prof., other then A. Durshowitz.

When the 2 branches can't come to a agreement they go through the courts,if necessary, the highest one, that's been going on for nearly 250 years. The radical dems are proving that they are  intolerant to the laws and past precedence 

 

"Constitutional scholar and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told lawmakers on Wednesday during the Trump impeachment inquiry hearing that it would be an abuse of their power to impeach President Trump.

Appearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Turley accused lawmakers of doing “precisely” what they’re condemning Trump for doing and urged the committee to respect the separation of powers during the process or risk abusing their positions".

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/turley-lawmakers-impeach-trump-abuse-of-power

Citing Turley and Fox News!

Classic!

Too damn funny!

[RideJocky]

12 hours ago, Jingthing said:

It's propaganda spin. The democrats decided they were not OK with waiting months and months for court rulings. So they have decided to go ahead with impeachment without hearing from all the witnesses they'd like such as Bolton. 

 

 

But those witnesses might be called later in the senate by SCOTUS chief Justice. 

So the left is choosing to not hear the  witnesses. 
 

The Republicans will likely call them as well if it goes to trial in the Senate. 
 

I believe the only way it goes to trial in the Senate is if it looks like a slam-dunk for Trump.

[RideJocky]

11 hours ago, Jingthing said:

No president in history has stonewalled an Impeachment investigation to the total extent that 45 has. If they don't have an obstruction article might as well erase impeachment powers from the constitution. 

Given only two Presidents have been impeached it’s really not much of a history. 
 

Any President would be a fool to cooperate with the people trying to impeach him guilty or otherwise. 
 

They would still have the obstruction charge from the Mueller investigation as well as all the other charges, yes? 
 

 

[RideJocky]

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

From a non US citizen POV it appears to me that the trump Presidency has made a farce of the Constitution. IMO Constitution should be amended to address trump's 'king' behaviour. 

What has Trump done that would be considered “king” behavior? 
 

How would you change the Constitution to address whatever you think he is doing? 

 

 

[Eric Loh]

10 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Given only two Presidents have been impeached it’s really not much of a history. 
 

Any President would be a fool to cooperate with the people trying to impeach him guilty or otherwise. 
 

They would still have the obstruction charge from the Mueller investigation as well as all the other charges, yes? 
 

 

They are considering the Muller report that laid out 11 possible instances of obstruction of justice which include threats of force or threatening communication, tampering with witness, victim and informant and retaliating against witness, victim or informant. He started his obstruction just 7 days of his administration to have Flynn lie to the FBI. He should be indicted if not for the DOJ ruling on sitting President. Now is the right moment for the Dems to include Russia obstruction of justice in the impeachment articles. I hope they do that. 

[RideJocky]

6 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

They are considering the Muller report that laid out 11 possible instances of obstruction of justice which include threats of force or threatening communication, tampering with witness, victim and informant and retaliating against witness, victim or informant. He started his obstruction just 7 days of his administration to have Flynn lie to the FBI. He should be indicted if not for the DOJ ruling on sitting President. Now is the right moment for the Dems to include Russia obstruction of justice in the impeachment articles. I hope they do that. 

Exactly, so the fact that Trump has disallowed a few witnesses to testify on the bribery charge should really not be much of an issue. 

[Eric Loh]

7 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Exactly, so the fact that Trump has disallowed a few witnesses to testify on the bribery charge should really not be much of an issue. 

Not much of an issue for banana republic and if he is King Trump. But alas he is none of that and he committed serious breach of the constitution as a President and serious crime as a citizen. Slammer awaits. 

[simple1]

4 hours ago, RideJocky said:

What has Trump done that would be considered “king” behavior? 
 

How would you change the Constitution to address whatever you think he is doing? 

 

 

As an example refusing to permit WH staff to testify, 

 

Examples -

Disallowing trolls to be President.

Those known to be affiliated to extremist political messaging e.g. trump's long association with Brennon prior to his candidacy

Making it illegal for Presidents to support proven conspiracy theories.

Making it illegal for Presidents to repeat lies once proven to be false

Making illegal for Presidents to use their Office for personal gain 

Get rid of Electoral College.

Gerrymandering to be Federal criminal offence with mandatory sentencing

Full financial audited disclosure of all Presidential candidates prior to nomination for elections etc etc 

 

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, RideJocky said:

So the left is choosing to not hear the  witnesses. 
 

The Republicans will likely call them as well if it goes to trial in the Senate. 
 

I believe the only way it goes to trial in the Senate is if it looks like a slam-dunk for Trump.

Trump is doing his best to prevent these witnesses from testifying, while calling for a speedy trial. 

 

The House can either proceed without the testimony of these witnesses while the legal process to force them to testify work their ways through court, or put the investigation on hold and wait for the outcome of the court rulings. The House has chosen to proceed (I'm not at all convinced that is the correct choice).

 

As I noted earlier, all Trump has to do to speed things up is let administration officials testify.