Trump's Russian Collusion

[DMac]

Prof Turley certainly comes across as a knowledgeable, reasonable, and fair person, he aint helpin' the Ds' cause out one little tiny bit. We'll see what the rest of the day/process brings, but he's a pretty impressive fellow, IMO.

[Kismet]

Except per Jill Wine-Banks (one of the Watergate prosecutors) he got a key detail WRONG and she ought to know (and frankly so should he)

"Prof Turley just misrepresented SCOTUS Watergate decision. Court ruled against Nixon and for Special Prosecutor and ordered President to turn evidence to court, not Congress, for our criminal case."

[RedFromMI]

Prof Turley certainly comes across as a knowledgeable, reasonable, and fair person, he aint helpin' the Ds' cause out one little tiny bit. We'll see what the rest of the day/process brings, but he's a pretty impressive fellow, IMO.

Not just the huge omission Wine-Banks pointed out, but Turley is mixing up things intentionally in his arguments. When the Constitution was approved, there was no Federal statutory code, which came later. And the Supreme Court rulings on bribery would have been in specific references to some statute, not the bribery clause reference for impeachment. What he is doing is making the "crime" specific to some statute. Impeachment does NOT have to be for a specific violation of the criminal code. That is exactly what flows from the whole "high crimes and misdemeanors".

And most of the rest of his arguments are more about how Turley wants to have the process work. Not about the issues of what the Constitution actually says...

He says fast and narrow is not a good recipe for impeachment. But the lack of available witnesses and documents make it narrow, as the narrow case is pretty well backed up by the facts. And fast because his continued criminality/impeachable offenses may affect the next election inappropriately.

[MDlaxfan76]

Prof Turley certainly comes across as a knowledgeable, reasonable, and fair person, he aint helpin' the Ds' cause out one little tiny bit. We'll see what the rest of the day/process brings, but he's a pretty impressive fellow, IMO.

The one area in which I would agree with Turley is that the process should slow down, including enforcement of all important subpoenas.

CNN jut made the point that Nadler, should say 'ok, I'll agree to slow down by 3 weeks if you R's will all agree, unanimously, to subpoena Pompeo, Bolton, etc and all the paperwork already subpoenaed."

[seacoaster]

Umm, right. Moving on:

Here is Karlan's full statement:

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/s ... timony.pdf

Feldman's full statement:

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/s ... timony.pdf

Turley's full statement:

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/s ... timony.pdf

No written Gerhardt (SP?) statement?

Jeez, tough crowd:

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/s ... timony.pdf

[seacoaster]

Prof Turley certainly comes across as a knowledgeable, reasonable, and fair person, he aint helpin' the Ds' cause out one little tiny bit. We'll see what the rest of the day/process brings, but he's a pretty impressive fellow, IMO.

The one area in which I would agree with Turley is that the process should slow down, including enforcement of all important subpoenas.

CNN jut made the point that Nadler, should say 'ok, I'll agree to slow down by 3 weeks if you R's will all agree, unanimously, to subpoena Pompeo, Bolton, etc and all the paperwork already subpoenaed."

I think Turley is auditioning for something. He makes two main points: First, that the Congress should slow down -- even though the election in which Trump is actively attempting to tamper is eleven months from today. He is jettisoning the political reality that impeachment is aimed at preserving the integrity of that election.

His second point is that the record is not fulsome enough to countenance an impeachment of a duly elected President. Well, jiminy Professor, there's a reason that the record isn't as full as it should be. Pat Cippolone anyone? You cannot make a record what a coordinate branch of government is attempting the run out the clock by violating its obligation to cooperate in the carrying out of duties invested entirely in another branch of government.

Turley is the weakest of these witnesses, and that's telling.

[old salt]

Prof Turley certainly comes across as a knowledgeable, reasonable, and fair person, he aint helpin' the Ds' cause out one little tiny bit. We'll see what the rest of the day/process brings, but he's a pretty impressive fellow, IMO.

The one area in which I would agree with Turley is that the process should slow down, including enforcement of all important subpoenas.

CNN jut made the point that Nadler, should say 'ok, I'll agree to slow down by 3 weeks if you R's will all agree, unanimously, to subpoena Pompeo, Bolton, etc and all the paperwork already subpoenaed."

BS. If this was legit, worthy of impeachment, the (D)'s would wait for the courts to enforce the subpoenas, no matter how long it takes.

[RedFromMI]

Prof Turley certainly comes across as a knowledgeable, reasonable, and fair person, he aint helpin' the Ds' cause out one little tiny bit. We'll see what the rest of the day/process brings, but he's a pretty impressive fellow, IMO.

The one area in which I would agree with Turley is that the process should slow down, including enforcement of all important subpoenas.

CNN jut made the point that Nadler, should say 'ok, I'll agree to slow down by 3 weeks if you R's will all agree, unanimously, to subpoena Pompeo, Bolton, etc and all the paperwork already subpoenaed."

I think Turley is auditioning for something. He makes two main points: First, that the Congress should slow down -- even though the election in which Trump is actively attempting to tamper is eleven months from today. He is jettisoning the political reality that impeachment is aimed at preserving the integrity of that election.

His second point is that the record is not fulsome enough to countenance an impeachment of a duly elected President. Well, jiminy Professor, there's a reason that the record isn't as full as it should be. Pat Cippolone anyone? You cannot make a record what a coordinate branch of government is attempting the run out the clock by violating its obligation to cooperate in the carrying out of duties invested entirely in another branch of government.

Turley is the weakest of these witnesses, and that's telling.

MSNBC is making mincemeat of his arguments right now.

[RedFromMI]

Prof Turley certainly comes across as a knowledgeable, reasonable, and fair person, he aint helpin' the Ds' cause out one little tiny bit. We'll see what the rest of the day/process brings, but he's a pretty impressive fellow, IMO.

The one area in which I would agree with Turley is that the process should slow down, including enforcement of all important subpoenas.

CNN jut made the point that Nadler, should say 'ok, I'll agree to slow down by 3 weeks if you R's will all agree, unanimously, to subpoena Pompeo, Bolton, etc and all the paperwork already subpoenaed."

BS. If this was legit, worthy of impeachment, the (D)'s would wait for the courts to enforce the subpoenas, no matter how long it takes.

And you would probably (timewise) be in the next session of Congress then...

[MDlaxfan76]

Prof Turley certainly comes across as a knowledgeable, reasonable, and fair person, he aint helpin' the Ds' cause out one little tiny bit. We'll see what the rest of the day/process brings, but he's a pretty impressive fellow, IMO.

The one area in which I would agree with Turley is that the process should slow down, including enforcement of all important subpoenas.

CNN jut made the point that Nadler, should say 'ok, I'll agree to slow down by 3 weeks if you R's will all agree, unanimously, to subpoena Pompeo, Bolton, etc and all the paperwork already subpoenaed."

BS. If this was legit, worthy of impeachment, the (D)'s would wait for the courts to enforce the subpoenas, no matter how long it takes.

BS?
Because I agreed that with Turkey that it would be beneficial to slow down and enforce the subpoenas???
Trump has lost again and again and again in the courts, and that's going to continue at every step.

The reason I think they should go through that process regardless of the timetable is that I think that principle is more important even than the immediate removal of Trump, dangerous as he is.

Not sure where you think that's "BS".

Or are you saying the CNN commentary is BS, that it wouldn't be a smart pivot to trade a slower schedule for GOP agreement to subpoena the witnesses closest to the actual alleged deeds and the insistence on enforcement of the subpoenas for all relevant records?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Prof Turley certainly comes across as a knowledgeable, reasonable, and fair person, he aint helpin' the Ds' cause out one little tiny bit. We'll see what the rest of the day/process brings, but he's a pretty impressive fellow, IMO.

The one area in which I would agree with Turley is that the process should slow down, including enforcement of all important subpoenas.

CNN jut made the point that Nadler, should say 'ok, I'll agree to slow down by 3 weeks if you R's will all agree, unanimously, to subpoena Pompeo, Bolton, etc and all the paperwork already subpoenaed."

BS. If this was legit, worthy of impeachment, the (D)'s would wait for the courts to enforce the subpoenas, no matter how long it takes.

[admin]

Discuss issues, not post-ers.

[jhu72]

Umm, right. Moving on:

Here is Karlan's full statement:

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/s ... timony.pdf

Feldman's full statement:

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/s ... timony.pdf

Turley's full statement:

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/s ... timony.pdf

No written Gerhardt (SP?) statement?

Jeez, tough crowd:

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/s ... timony.pdf

Thank you.

[jhu72]

Prof Turley certainly comes across as a knowledgeable, reasonable, and fair person, he aint helpin' the Ds' cause out one little tiny bit. We'll see what the rest of the day/process brings, but he's a pretty impressive fellow, IMO.

He's a television lawyer. He does present well. He only made one point that I bought. I do agree the case would be stronger if the democrats waited for court hearings. It would not change any actual facts, unless the President delivered on all the subpoena cases he has and will lose. I have never bought the argument that this has to wrap up so quickly. I see no problem with letting it go on through the early primary season. Think best timing would actually be to let it go through lacrosse season.

[jhu72]

Prof Turley certainly comes across as a knowledgeable, reasonable, and fair person, he aint helpin' the Ds' cause out one little tiny bit. We'll see what the rest of the day/process brings, but he's a pretty impressive fellow, IMO.

The one area in which I would agree with Turley is that the process should slow down, including enforcement of all important subpoenas.

CNN jut made the point that Nadler, should say 'ok, I'll agree to slow down by 3 weeks if you R's will all agree, unanimously, to subpoena Pompeo, Bolton, etc and all the paperwork already subpoenaed."

Exactly. Make joint appeal to the courts to expedite decisions. Of course we know Trump won't. So at the end of the day all you really have is a delay tactic - but I think delay actually works to the advantage of the D's. But costs nothing to call Trump's bluff.

[njbill]

I think Feldman has by far been the most impressive witness. I am sure he is a great appellate advocate. Yes, he is an egghead academic, but his comments are clear and very compelling. He is a very persuasive speaker.

Karlan is very good on substance, but I didn’t like her angry demeanor in her opening statement.

I’m not particularly impressed with Gerhardt. He is OK on substance, but not a very compelling speaker. Also, he confused robbery and burglary. Ugh. I wouldn’t have called him as a witness.

I think Turley has done a better job than some of the other posters. He is one of the more reasonable Fox contributors. Yes, he has made some misstatements, but by and large, he has done a pretty good job advocating a very weak position. His “too fast” and “thin record” arguments are about as good as can be made under the circumstances. I disagree with them, but they are not frivolous. I think his attempt to argue that what Trump did is not bribery was not very compelling. My biggest criticism of him, however, is that he has failed to come to grips with (or even really address) the core impeachable offense – that Trump asked a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent in return for releasing congressionally approved aid. As Feldman said, that is about as impeachable as it gets.

[CU88]

Prof Turley certainly comes across as a knowledgeable, reasonable, and fair person, he aint helpin' the Ds' cause out one little tiny bit. We'll see what the rest of the day/process brings, but he's a pretty impressive fellow, IMO.

The one area in which I would agree with Turley is that the process should slow down, including enforcement of all important subpoenas.

CNN jut made the point that Nadler, should say 'ok, I'll agree to slow down by 3 weeks if you R's will all agree, unanimously, to subpoena Pompeo, Bolton, etc and all the paperwork already subpoenaed."

BS. If this was legit, worthy of impeachment, the (D)'s would wait for the courts to enforce the subpoenas, no matter how long it takes.

BS, if o d and his cohorts, were innocent they would share all records and step forward to defend themselves.

[jhu72]

I think Feldman has by far been the most impressive witness. I am sure he is a great appellate advocate. Yes, he is an egghead academic, but his comments are clear and very compelling. He is a very persuasive speaker.

Karlan is very good on substance, but I didn’t like her angry demeanor in her opening statement. - saw it more as passion

I’m not particularly impressed with Gerhardt. He is OK on substance, but not a very compelling speaker. Also, he confused robbery and burglary. Ugh. I wouldn’t have called him as a witness.

I think Turley has done a better job than some of the other posters. He is one of the more reasonable Fox contributors. Yes, he has made some misstatements, but by and large, he has done a pretty good job advocating a very weak position. His “too fast” and “thin record” arguments are about as good as can be made under the circumstances. I disagree with them, but they are not frivolous. I think his attempt to argue that what Trump did is not bribery was not very compelling. My biggest criticism of him, however, is that he has failed to come to grips with (or even really address) the core impeachable offense – that Trump asked a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent in return for releasing congressionally approved aid. As Feldman said, that is about as impeachable as it gets. -- does he still have his Fox gig?? I haven't seem him there in a while.

[seacoaster]

I think Feldman has by far been the most impressive witness. I am sure he is a great appellate advocate. Yes, he is an egghead academic, but his comments are clear and very compelling. He is a very persuasive speaker.

Karlan is very good on substance, but I didn’t like her angry demeanor in her opening statement.

I’m not particularly impressed with Gerhardt. He is OK on substance, but not a very compelling speaker. Also, he confused robbery and burglary. Ugh. I wouldn’t have called him as a witness.

I think Turley has done a better job than some of the other posters. He is one of the more reasonable Fox contributors. Yes, he has made some misstatements, but by and large, he has done a pretty good job advocating a very weak position. His “too fast” and “thin record” arguments are about as good as can be made under the circumstances. I disagree with them, but they are not frivolous. I think his attempt to argue that what Trump did is not bribery was not very compelling. My biggest criticism of him, however, is that he has failed to come to grips with (or even really address) the core impeachable offense – that Trump asked a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent in return for releasing congressionally approved aid. As Feldman said, that is about as impeachable as it gets.

Agree with you on most of this. I think Feldman is just an excellent witness, and an authoritative reference point for any free-thinking person. It seemed like Collins just p*ssed Karlan off, and she reacted a little testily, given the solemnity of the occasion. And Turley is, as you say, advancing a very weak position; he's just picking at symptoms without curing the illness.

[njbill]

There is certainly some appeal to letting the judicial process play out with respect to all of the witness and document subpoenas. The problem is the calendar, however. Virtually all of the cases would go to the Supreme Court. The earliest any of those cases might be decided would be early spring, and that is if the Court expedites the case. Or, the cases might not be decided until the end of June. (Theoretically, they could be carried over until the following term, and not be decided before the election.)

Assuming the Court rules in the favor of Congress, the documents would then need to be produced and the witnesses depositions scheduled. Then more impeachment hearings. We are then into the summer or early fall, right in the middle of the 2020 election. As a practical matter, I think that is simply too late.

In the ideal world, the judicial process should play out. While Trump has defied subpoenas, I don’t think he has ignored any court orders. If the Supreme Court were to rule against him, and if he were to refuse to follow the Court’s ruling, I think that might substantially ratchet up impeachment support, even among Republicans. But he has successfully run the clock out on that. I don’t like it, but it is the reality. So I think the Democrats are rightly pushing this process through now. Trump will be impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate. How this will impact the 2020 election remains to be seen.