world

Legal experts summoned by Democrats call Trump actions impeachable

56 Comments
By David Morgan and Patricia Zengerle

Three legal experts told U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday that President Donald Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate a political rival amounted to impeachable offenses, in a hearing that laid the groundwork for formal charges to be filed against the president.

Democrats on the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee said they may look beyond Trump's relations with Ukraine as they draw up articles of impeachment, to include his earlier efforts to impede former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of his campaign's relations with Russia

"The president's alleged offenses represent a direct threat to the constitutional order," Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said.

The impeachment inquiry, launched in September, focuses on Trump's request that Ukraine conduct investigations that could harm political rival Joe Biden, a leading contender for the Democratic 2020 presidential nomination.

The hearing on Wednesday was the committee's first to examine whether Trump's actions qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" punishable by impeachment under the U.S. Constitution.

Three law professors chosen by the Democrats made clear during the lengthy session that they believed Trump's actions constituted impeachable offenses.

"If what we're talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable," said University of North Carolina law professor Michael Gerhardt.

But George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who was invited by the Republicans, said he did not see clear evidence of illegal conduct. He said the inquiry was moving too quickly and lacked testimony from people with direct knowledge of the relevant events.

"One can oppose President Trump's policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president," said Turley, who added that he did not vote for Trump.

Trump has denied wrongdoing.

In London for a NATO meeting, he called a report by House Democrats released on Tuesday that laid out possible grounds for impeachment a "joke" and appeared to question the patriotism of the Democrats, asking: "Do they in fact love our country?"

Democrats who control the House may vote by the end of the year on impeachment charges that could include abuse of power, bribery, obstruction of Congress and obstruction of justice. Lawmakers say no decision has been made at this point.

Democratic aides said Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine echoed his attempts to impede Mueller's investigation. Both episodes, they said, demonstrated a pattern of behavior by which Trump invited foreign governments to interfere in U.S. elections and obstructed investigations into his actions.

But they stopped short of saying it could form the basis for a separate article of impeachment.

Moderate Democrats might not back that approach. "We have been taking the country down this road on this very targeted issue of Ukraine," said Democratic Representative Elissa Slotkin, who won a Republican-controlled seat in Michigan last year. "And that's what I think we should focus on."

If the House votes to impeach Trump, the Republican-controlled Senate would have to vote on whether to remove him from power. Republicans in both chambers have stuck with the president, blasting the impeachment effort as an attempt to undo his surprise victory in the 2016 election.

"The evidence against the president is really about policy differences," said Representative Doug Collins, the committee's top Republican.

The inquiry's focus is a July 25 telephone call in which Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to open an investigation into Biden and his son Hunter Biden and into a discredited theory that Ukraine, not Russia, meddled in the 2016 U.S. election.

Hunter Biden had joined the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma while his father was U.S. vice president. Trump has accused the Bidens of corruption without offering evidence. They have denied wrongdoing.

Democrats have accused Trump of abusing his power by withholding $391 million in security aid to Ukraine - a U.S. ally facing Russian aggression - to pressure Zelenskiy to announce that he was investigating Biden and the 2016 election.

Trump has instructed current and former members of his administration not to testify or produce documents, leading senior officials like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to defy House subpoenas.

Republicans focused their questions on Turley, who largely backed up their view that Democrats had not made the case for impeachment - although he did say that leveraging U.S. military aid to investigate a political opponent "if proven, can be an impeachable offense."

Democrats sought to buttress their case by focusing their questions on the other three experts - Gerhardt, Harvard University law professor Noah Feldman and Stanford University law professor Pam Karlan - who said impeachment was justified.

Karlan drew a sharp response from Republicans for a remark about how Trump did not enjoy the unlimited power of a king.

"While the president can name his son Barron, he can't make him a baron," she said.

White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham on Twitter called Karlan "classless," and first lady Melania Trump said Karlan should be "ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering" for mentioning her 13-year-old son.

Karlan later apologized for the remark.

No president has ever been removed from office through impeachment, although Republican Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 after the House began the impeachment process in the Watergate corruption scandal. Two other presidents - Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton - were impeached by the House but acquitted by the Senate.

The committee could soon recommend articles of impeachment against Trump, setting up a possible vote by the full House before Christmas, followed by a Senate trial in January.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

56 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

The usual suspect that do not have law degrees will be along shortly to disparage these legal experts. Of course, these laypeople are to be taken seriously and not the legal scholars.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

 current evidence does not show Trump committed "a clear criminal act."

So are they admitting that it is probably he did commit some type of act that could be considered criminal?

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Anybody can cherry pick “experts” to peddle a theory.

What a desperate move.

-14 ( +3 / -17 )

Well it's obvious he broke his oath to the country. It's not like we need a Harvard Law School professor to tell us that. He put his own gains before country to benefit himself personally because that's the type of man he is.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

Anybody can cherry pick “experts” to peddle a theory.

As we see with the republicans’ experts. Glad your not disparaging either set of experts too much.

What a desperate move.

Getting input from experts is a desperate move? In what reality?

2 ( +8 / -6 )

So are they admitting that it is probably he did commit some type of act that could be considered criminal?

No. They are saying it needs to be investigated further and put to a trial.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

But, that statement is not a ringing endorsement of innocence.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Not fact witnesses so it’s just an opinion exercise by a bunch of Trump haters.

Biden and Warren’s adult children are totally off limits. A 13 year old son of Trump? Make fun of him it you want. Disgusting hypocritical liberals.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Trump is sooooo stupid, claim liberals.

But now when he said “us” he really meant “me” because he was invoking some made up “royal we that means me” concept? Yeah he is now super smart and fiendishly clever, when it matches your ludicrous narrative, huh?

we know what the word “us” means.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

Not fact witnesses so it’s just an opinion exercise by a bunch of Trump haters.

Except the fact witnesses from the public hearings that were previously held.

Biden and Warren’s adult children are totally off limits. A 13 year old son of Trump? Make fun of him it you want. Disgusting hypocritical liberals

It’s disgusting when people twist the truth for partisan reasons. Barron was not being made fun of; let’s have a little intellectual dishonesty.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Trump is sooooo stupid, claim liberals.

And every rational adult.

But now when he said “us” he really meant “me” because he was invoking some made up “royal we that means me” concept? Yeah he is now super smart and fiendishly clever, when it matches your ludicrous narrative, huh? 

we know what the word “us” means.

Yes, Donny meant his team.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

What a desperate move.

When will liberals stop worrying and learn to love the fact that the United States and its constitution serve at the pleasure of this president?

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, urged House lawmakers to look to history before they try to impeach President Donald Trump. Oh my...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeeZxiPWl8c

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Chip:. Except the fact witnesses from the public hearings that were previously held.

Schiff and the witnesses did such an amazing job it forced Trump and his fans to abandon reality. They couldn't counter articulate patriots, couldn't smear them, couldn't call them Trump haters....so they just entered s state of psychosis where Trump was suddenly exonerated by their testimony.

The GOP. Party before country.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley - the only witness chosen by the Republicans, though he said he voted against Trump in 2016 - disagreed that the president's actions constituted bribery and said the evidence does not adequately support the Democrats' allegations.

This is the same little worm who excitedly appeared on TV during the Clinton impeachment hearings arguing FOR impeachment.

So let's see, impeach for lying to cover up a *****. Don't impeach for withholding congressionally-approved and badly needed aid while trying to pressure another country to investigate a domestic political rival.

Sure, sparky. lol

3 ( +7 / -4 )

@serranoJonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, urged House lawmakers to look to history

That's his perspective, one no doubt influenced by the Koch brother's (US ultra right wing plutocrats) financial contributions to George Washington Law.

https://www.google.com/search?q=george+washington+law+koch&oq=george+washington+law+koch&aqs=chrome..69i57j33.9169j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Can’t bring up grown men in a phone call.

can’t bring up adult children when Warren lies about her long ago kid going public school.

make fun of a 13 year olds name in Congress? Yep go for it!

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Turley said basically what most of us on this side saying. Prove it, then you may have something. You think your proof is “good enough”. We don’t impeach on that.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

We don’t impeach on that.

Yeah we do. Lol Can't wait for the inarticulate idiot, Donny, to testify.

Not fact witnesses so it’s just an opinion exercise by a bunch of Trump haters.

Lolololol Yeah, the opinion of some of the US' pre-eminent constitutional lawyers. What would they know about the law that we don't from watching Hannity, right?;)

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Democrat donor law professors. Who supported impeachment years before the phone call and who donated money to his opponent. Yeah sure.

what happened to that vote by Christmas?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Blacklabel:. make fun of a 13 year olds name in Congress? Yep go for it!

I seem to remember quite a few high 5s and fist pumping when we learned Trump cheated on his wife while Baron was an infant, all because "she was hot ". But I'm sure Baron will be scarred by having his name used as a pun.

Prove it, then you may have something.

But to confirm, you agree that Trump put himself before country, right? You can argue like a paid lawyer to get your guy off, but it doesn't mean you think he's innocent.

And may I ask where your standards of proof go when you are talking about things like birtherism, Seth Rich, deep state, MSM collision, voter fraud, and spying on Trump? I believe you said accusations stand until disproven in those cases.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Deep state there is one. “Thank god for the deep state” was said. We saw “the deep state” testifying few weeks ago.

MSM collusion definitely. All leaks are Trump negative.

Voter fraud, yes there are people found guilty of that. Spying on Trump? Definitely, through Carter Page and the “two hops” from him.

Trump is innocent until proven guilty, as he is a person not a concept like all these others.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

And no, he did not put himself before country. What did he get from Ukraine? Nothing. What did they get? What Congress authorized then to have, 3 weeks early.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

What did he get from Ukraine? 

If you try to rob a bank, but failed because you were too dumb, doesn't mean you are not a criminal.

The 'I am too dumb to be a criminal' defense is for the dumb.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

What did he get from Ukraine? Nothing. 

Cuz bribing a cop is only a crime if they accept the bribe. lololololol

What did they get?

After Donny got caught. You constantly leave that part out. Donny released the aid after he got bribing/extorting the president of Ukraine; Donny has clear cognition of guilt.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Blacklabel: And no, he did not put himself before country. 

Alrighty.

3 weeks early.

No.

By reading the written statements of the witnesses, which you said you did, it was brought up that there was great concern about losing the money because if it hadn't been paid by September 30 it would be lost from the budget and gone forever. That was the last day it could possibly be sent, not the due date, and certainly not the date where anything before that is early.

The money had been cleared to be sent and Trump personally held it up and gave no explanation as to why to anyone, not even the Pentagon. He was even advised that he could potentially be sued if he didn't send the money since it would be essentially ignoring Congress' ability to authorize spending. The story broke, and Trump sent the money. Not early, but much later than necessary, narrowly missing the expiration date which you refer to as the "due date."

Can you share with me the link to the article where you got your misinformation?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Legal experts summoned by Democrats call Trump actions impeachable

This is quite shocking. Witnesses hand picked by Dems who have publicly advocated for Trumps impeachment right after the 2016 election are in favor of impeaching President Trump! Now that’s a bombshell.

Dems were stupid to pick those witnesses. Some even contributed thousands of dollars to Hillary’s campaign. Watching some of their testimony you could easily sense the animosity and hatred in their voices. Another big fail for the Dems in their impeachment crusade.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Deep state there is one. “Thank god for the deep state” was said. We saw “the deep state” testifying few weeks ago.

You mean all the people who are currently or were in the Trump administration? The one's Trump or Pompeo personally chose? Trump must like the Deep State if he keeps choosing them for positions in his administration, right?

In London for a NATO meeting, Trump called a report by House Democrats released on Tuesday that laid out possible grounds for impeachment a "joke" and appeared to question the patriotism of the Democrats, asking, "Do they in fact love our country?"

Now that was funny, even for the Dimwit. He asks if Dems love their country while he is trying to destroy NATO acting on orders from his Master Putin.

"If we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy. We live in a monarchy or we live under a dictatorship," Feldman added.

Well, that pretty much sums up where Donnie and his supporters want to take us - just like Russia....hey, even Tucker Carlson thinks so...

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/26/tucker-carlson-rooting-for-russia-fox-news

But come on Donnie, you could end the "witch hunt" today if you wanted to - just send Pence, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Perry, and Rudy over to testify! They could all say you knew nothing of the Ukraine shakedown, right? Case closed - end of impeachment. But you keep blocking them - why?

Have something to hide?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

But come on Donnie, you could end the "witch hunt" today if you wanted to - just send Pence, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Perry, and Rudy over to testify! 

We can end this today if the Dems send Hunter Biden, Eric Ciaramella, Christopher Steele, and John Brennan over to testify. But Pelosi won’t because that’s not what is done when a partisan coup is done.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

But come on Donnie, you could end the "witch hunt" today if you wanted to - just send Pence, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Perry, and Rudy over to testify! 

We can end this today if the Dems send Hunter Biden, Eric Ciaramella, Christopher Steele, and John Brennan over to testify. But Pelosi won’t because that’s not what is done when a partisan coup is done.

Best laugh of the day.... And how can any of those folks prove Donnie had nothing to do with the shakedown Crazy Rudy was running in Ukraine? Which begs again the questions below that the Trumpers here all run away from...

1) The 2 week testimony proved one thing - Giuliani was point-man for the shakedown of the Ukrainians to get made-up dirt on Biden. Everyone testified that Rudy was the main facilitator and leader of that effort. Trumpers here say that there was no evidence tying Trump to that effort. OK, so we're left with two possible conclusions - either Rudy was acting under Trump's direction, or he was freelancing and Trump knew nothing about it.

Which is it?

2) Trump is saying (again) the Ukraine probe is a witch hunt. If so, he could end the witch hunt right now if he wanted to - he could direct Pence, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Perry, and Giuliani to testify; either now or once the Senate trial begins. They could all testify that Trump knew nothing of the shakedown and was totally innocent - case closed. He could also authorize release of State Dept documents that could prove his story. But he's prevented these officials from testifying and the release of State Dept documents...

Why won't he allow these folks to testify or the release of documents if they could prove his innocence?

Any takers today or can't you defend your Sainted Leader?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, urged House lawmakers to look to history before they try to impeach President Donald Trump. Oh my...

The only Law Professor with the legal skills experience and deep intelligence and calmness to tell the Democrats: you guys are idiots and you are all digging a hole for yourselves that you won’t be able to climb out of.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

BlacklabelToday  08:50 am JST

What did he get from Ukraine? Nothing.

So much for "the art of the deal."

3 ( +4 / -1 )

But to confirm, you agree that Trump put himself before country, right?

Precisely what the idiot Democrats are doing right now as Turley explained.

You can argue like a paid lawyer to get your guy off, but it doesn't mean you think he's innocent.

What was that Holder said again about being Obama’s wingman?

And may I ask where your standards of proof go when you are talking about things like birtherism, Seth Rich, deep state, MSM collision, voter fraud, and spying on Trump? I believe you said accusations stand until disproven in those cases.

Interesting, liberals talk about collusion, obstruction, extortion and bribery of something that isn’t impeachable, but spying on Trump and gathering information from a foreign spy to derail Trump’s Presidential run is somehow now legitimate, but making a phone call to a Ukrainian leader to find out information about his potential rival and son who gets 50k with zero experience is an impeachable crime...Based on that inquiry he needs to be executed and in the worst possible way.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

So much for "the art of the deal."

But at least they didn’t get blankets. Lol

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Whatever.  Utter waste of time and money.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

A more accurate title would be:

Legal experts calling Trump actions impeachable summoned by Democrats.

They are saying it needs to be investigated further and put to a trial.

Trump has been asking for a trial. This way his side can call their own witnesses and get to the bottom of this mess.

The last thing the swamp wants is a real trial.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Here go the "Dump"sters, with "we know more than professors of law". Your beloved megalomaniac needs to be shown and put in his place.

"But at least they didn’t get blankets"... No, dump likes to throw paper towels at people in dire need.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

make fun of a 13 year olds name in Congress? Yep go for it!

This did not happen. Please stop pushing a blatant falsehood.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Democrat donor law professors. Who supported impeachment years before the phone call and who donated money to his opponent.

The republican witnesses are Republican donor law professors, who have slavishly supported Donny for years. See how that argument fails?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Voter fraud, yes there are people found guilty of that.

Yes, republicans.

Spying on Trump? Definitely, through Carter Page and the “two hops” from him.

Never mind the IG report that you were assuring us would demonstrate conclusively that there was spying.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Here go the "Dump"sters, with "we know more than professors of law".

See the very first post on this thread.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

bass4funk: The only Law Professor with the legal skills experience and deep intelligence and calmness to tell the Democrats: you guys are idiots and you are all digging a hole for yourselves that you won’t be able to climb out of.

Well even you said Trump acted improperly and showed poor judgement. It's not all that shocking that an investigation would happen under those circumstances, is it? Obviously you thought he did something wrong.

You might have the numbers to win, but it doesn't mean you're on the right side of the law or history. You just see an opportunity to get away with it.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Well even you said Trump acted improperly and showed poor judgement.

Yes, but it doesn’t mean, it’s an impeachable offense and these lame partisan professors know it.

It's not all that shocking that an investigation would happen under those circumstances, is it? Obviously you thought he did something wrong. 

Yes, investigate and now that all the evidence shows he made a bad judgment, he’s made aware of that, let it go and move forward.

You might have the numbers to win, but it doesn't mean you're on the right side of the law or history.

Doesn’t mean that we’re on the wrong side either

You just see an opportunity to get away with it.

I said the same thing about the previous 8 years as well.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

make fun of a 13 year olds name in Congress? Yep go for it!

This didn't happen, though. Karlan used an analogy. This is what she said:

The constitution says there can be no titles of nobility, so while the President can name his son Barron, he can't make him a baron.

I do think the kids should be kept out of politics, though. No matter what party their parents are in.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

This did not happen.

Yes, it did, that’s why that idiot apologized, she knew she was wrong and stepped over the line.

Professor Pamela Harlan — she a professor who is testifying and democratic witness — she said that president trump could name his son Barron but could not make him a baron. She was referring to the fact she thinks President Trump at times can act like a king because he's abusing power but she was also making a joke about the fact that the President’s 13 year old son is named baron and Barron, of course, is a noble title and she was basically making the case that he cannot be made into nobility and he won’t inherit essentially the presidency. 

Please stop pushing a blatant falsehood.

Well, Killed that theory.

But Just in case....

https://youtu.be/VtHRKk8qYKw

I was just happy the woman apologized for the error of her misguided ways.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Yes, it did,

No it didn't. She used an analogy as I have shown you.

that’s why that idiot apologized, she knew she was wrong and stepped over the line.

I thought you were against name-calling?

*Professor Pamela Harlan — she a professor who is testifying and democratic witness — she said that president trump could name his son Barron but could not make him a baron. She was referring to the fact she thinks President Trump at times can act like a king because he's abusing power but she was also making a joke about the fact that the President’s 13 year old son is named baron and Barron, of course, is a noble title and she was basically making the case that he cannot be made into nobility and he won’t inherit essentially the presidency. *

This is the analogy I mentioned. Your quote even makes light of the remark you're so fired up about! Also, why don't you give credit to where you took this c&p from?

Astounding stuff.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

*No it didn't. She used an analogy as I have shown you.*

Then if it is true and it was as you say an analogy then there would be no need or reason to apologize, in doing so, you are admitting guilt and an error. I certainly would not have, but she did because she knew it was insulting and “she apologized” for it and I’m glad she did, that’s the ONLY that matters, because she knew she was way out of line and she did the right thing.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Then if it is true and it was as you say an analogy then there would be no need or reason to apologize, in doing so, you are admitting guilt and an error. I certainly would not have, but she did because she knew it was insulting and “she apologized” for it and I’m glad she did, that’s the ONLY that matters, because she knew she was way out of line and she did the right thing.

She apologized for it because it was out of order, bringing the kid's name into it. She did not, however, use his name in order to make fun of him, as Trumpists are claiming. She used it as an analogy, which the c&p proves.

And her name is Karlan, not Harlan, as your c&p reads.

Are you going to reveal where you c&p'd from? You know, the c&p that doesn't actually prove your argument...

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, urged House lawmakers to look to history before they try to impeach President Donald Trump. Oh my...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeeZxiPWl8c

Also Jonathan Turley:

"Turley argued there was no proof that President Donald Trump broke a specific law related to the Ukraine scandal and therefore should not be impeached. But in 1998, Turley made the opposite case, telling Congress during former President Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings that Clinton's actions didn't need to violate any laws in order to be impeachable conduct. "While there's a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable," he wrote in a 2014 op-ed for The Washington Post."

Oh, my......................

3 ( +4 / -1 )

*She apologized for it because it was out of order, bringing the kid's name into it.*

That’s the only thing that matters, she knew she was wrong and I’m happy she did and good on her.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Turley was the only professional professor in the room, always calm, cool, collected and rational and put everyone to shame in that room. Turley embodies and personifies what it means to be a true American.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Turley was the only professional professor in the room, always calm, cool, collected and rational and put everyone to shame in that room. Turley embodies and personifies what it means to be a true American.

"Turley argued there was no proof that President Donald Trump broke a specific law related to the Ukraine scandal and therefore should not be impeached. But in 1998, Turley made the opposite case, telling Congress during former President Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings that Clinton's actions didn't need to violate any laws in order to be impeachable conduct. "While there's a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable," he wrote in a 2014 op-ed for The Washington Post."

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"Turley argued there was no proof that President Donald Trump broke a specific law related to the Ukraine scandal and therefore should not be impeached. But in 1998, Turley made the opposite case, telling Congress during former President Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings that Clinton's actions didn't need to violate any laws in order to be impeachable conduct. "While there's a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable," he wrote in a 2014 op-ed for The Washington Post.

Yes, he also said this:

"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 are accusing the President of doing. We have a third branch that deals with conflicts of the other two branches.

and....

This Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration. There is two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress. One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction. (House hearing, December 3, 2013

What I love about Turley, he doesn’t attack the people he doesn’t like or agrees with, he just prevents the facts without the drop of emotion attached to it.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

SuperLibToday 07:09 am JSTWell it's obvious he broke his oath to the country. It's not like we need a Harvard Law School professor to tell us that. He put his own gains before country to benefit himself personally because that's the type of man he is.

That was obvious from Day One. His temper-tantrum of an 'inauguration speech' was a totally immature and obnoxious disgrace. Everything he's done has been negligent, egotistical, downright evil and more than impeachable. And every day he tweets insults at everybody like the rotten little juvenile he is. He is not a 'man' in any sense or definition of the word!

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Turley was the only professional professor in the room, always calm, cool, collected and rational and put everyone to shame in that room. Turley embodies and personifies what it means to be a true American.

Turley's main point throughout his testimony was that Trump's phone call and QPQ policy towards Ukraine was in his words "far from perfect"....but that the Dems hadn't yet reached the threshold for impeachment. He said the Dems should continue to go thru the courts to force Pence, Mulvaney, Perry and Pompeo to testify.

Turley directly contradicted Trump's claim that it was all "perfect"...

You call that support?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

What did he get from Ukraine? Nothing. What did they get?

That's cause their deal got interrupted by getting caught.

This is like arguing that a guy holding drugs, talking to a guy with money, making a verbal agreement to exchange the amount of said money for the amount of said drugs, and getting arrested before they actually pass these items back and forth, were not involved in a drug deal.

Yeah. Right.

I'm not sure why you people would ever think we'd accept your team's ridiculous posturing as having any basis in reality.

World media (not 'American fake news deep-state MSM) is speaking poorly of Trump on this matter. Combine that with other world leaders openly making fun of him, and laughing at him when he does speeches, and America looks like a complete and absolute mess right now from the outside. A complete mess.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites