Trump's Russian Collusion

[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."

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.

The President's position gets what the lawyers call an instruction on a negative inference: the President has declined to respond to lawful requests for information by a coordinate branch of government. We can therefore apply a rebuttable presumption that the President has no exculpatory evidence to disclose.

[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.

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

The President's position gets what the lawyers call an instruction on a negative inference: the President has declined to respond to lawful requests for information by a coordinate branch of government. We can therefore apply a rebuttable presumption that the President has no exculpatory evidence to disclose.

Testimony from Pence, Pompeo, Giuliani, Perry, Mulvaney and Trump can easily clear this all up by Christmas.

[Kinduv]

The president is gangsta, gangstas d0n't g0 t0 c0urt un1ess they have t0,

[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."

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.

The President's position gets what the lawyers call an instruction on a negative inference: the President has declined to respond to lawful requests for information by a coordinate branch of government. We can therefore apply a rebuttable presumption that the President has no exculpatory evidence to disclose.

Testimony from Pence, Pompeo, Giuliani, Perry, Mulvaney and Trump can easily clear this all up by Christmas.

From Dear Leader:

“Our Crazy, Do Nothing (where’s USMCA, infrastructure, lower drug pricing & much more?) Speaker of the House, Nervous Nancy Pelosi, who is petrified by her Radical Left knowing she will soon be gone (they & Fake News Media are her BOSS), suggested on Sunday’s DEFACE THE NATION … ….that I testify about the phony Impeachment Witch Hunt,” Trump wrote on Twitter Monday morning.

“She also said I could do it in writing. Even though I did nothing wrong, and don’t like giving credibility to this No Due Process Hoax, I like the idea & will, in order to get Congress focused again, strongly consider it!”

Well, he did consider it. And now says that he has to preserve the prerogatives of the Presidency, and just has to gag everyone.

[jhu72]

Such a lame argument being made by the Trumpnista. You can't move forward without a super-majority of the American people being for impeachment. Where were these slime bags when they impeached Clinton with far less support than a simple majority of public opinion. Current polling says more people support impeachment than oppose it.

These guys once again have zero defense, are offering no defense. No questions directed at the witnesses, just senseless blather.

[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.

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

The President's position gets what the lawyers call an instruction on a negative inference: the President has declined to respond to lawful requests for information by a coordinate branch of government. We can therefore apply a rebuttable presumption that the President has no exculpatory evidence to disclose.

Testimony from Pence, Pompeo, Giuliani, Perry, Mulvaney and Trump can easily clear this all up by Christmas.

From Dear Leader:

“Our Crazy, Do Nothing (where’s USMCA, infrastructure, lower drug pricing & much more?) Speaker of the House, Nervous Nancy Pelosi, who is petrified by her Radical Left knowing she will soon be gone (they & Fake News Media are her BOSS), suggested on Sunday’s DEFACE THE NATION … ….that I testify about the phony Impeachment Witch Hunt,” Trump wrote on Twitter Monday morning.

“She also said I could do it in writing. Even though I did nothing wrong, and don’t like giving credibility to this No Due Process Hoax, I like the idea & will, in order to get Congress focused again, strongly consider it!”

Well, he did consider it. And now says that he has to preserve the prerogatives of the Presidency, and just has to gag everyone.

Are you 100% certain that Paris Hilton did not dictate that tweet?

[ggait]

Turley is playing a weak hand well. Because most of the law is strongly against him.

1. He'd like to see an actual proven crime for impeachment to proceed. Perhaps a nice to have, but clearly not required by the Constitution. And there's plenty of evidence and arguments that a crime does exist here. Pretty clever pretzel reasoning though, since it lets him justify impeaching Clinton (because there was a crime of perjury) but not justify impeaching Trump. That's a ridiculous conclusion -- since Trump's conduct (like Nixon's and unlike Clinton's) goes to his official presidential duties/acts. Which is exactly what impeachment is supposed to be about.

Check out Turley in 1998:

https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/ ... 8936235013

2. He'd like the process to go slower. Again, that's a preference but not a legal requirement. I'd call BS on Turley by asking this question -- "So are you saying that we should drag this out even after Trump would be re-elected? After all, Nixon got re-elected and was then impeached well into his second term. Is that what you recommend?" No one believes that it is a good idea or possible to keep this going into a (god forbid) second Trump term.

3. He is sad that we don't have more witnesses and documents. Sure in an ideal world it would be great if we had a couple of years to litigate all the BS legal defenses Trump has thrown up. But where the legal claims are being made in such complete bad faith, you really can't maintain this as a practical matter. Since justice delayed is always justice denied.

But at least he's making a defense that does not depend upon gas-lighting the public. So Turley admits that:

1. The legal claims that Trump is making are bogus and that Trump is likely to keep losing these cases in a Washington Generals-like fashion.

2. Turley admits that Trump's conduct was not perfect -- he calls it wrong and inappropriate.

3. Turley admits that the House has the right to investigate this matter.

4. Turley admits that, if proven, using military aid as a QPQ to investigate a political rival is impeachable. He just claims that it has not been proven yet.

But the Banana Republicans won't even go with Turley's position -- since that would require the GOP to acknowledge that Trump's water is wet.

Interestingly, Turley strongly opposes the idea of censure. He says (and I agree) that's BS impeachment-lite with no constitutional basis.

[ggait]

The President's position gets what the lawyers call an instruction on a negative inference: the President has declined to respond to lawful requests for information by a coordinate branch of government. We can therefore apply a rebuttable presumption that the President has no exculpatory evidence to disclose.

In many courts, the prosecutor can get a so-called "missing witness" jury instruction. Here's an example of how that might read:

It was particularly within the power of the (government) (defense) to produce_____, who could have given material testimony on an issue in the case. The(government's) (defense's) failure to call ______ may give rise to an inference that his testimony would be unfavorable to it. You should bear in mind that the law does not impose on a defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence.

[jhu72]

Electoral college landslide.

[MDlaxfan76]

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.

True, but I think it's more important to be sure the courts really do come through with these rulings than an impeachment without removal. Unfortunate that it will take longer, but that's the hand to be played. Force the documents to be released, there's going to be a lot of damning info. Force these cats to testify under oath. Force the financial records, tax returns into the open. Keep at it with Guiliani, Lev and Igor et al. Make the Trumpists defend it all, in excruciating detail.

Now, if one is only worried about the election, then I'd suggest that continuing to expose to the corruption, as long as it takes, is better politics than 'losing' the trial in the Senate and being labeled as merely 'partisan'.

[ggait]

does he still have his Fox gig?? I haven't seem him there in a while.

Turley is now on CBS.

[jhu72]

does he still have his Fox gig?? I haven't seem him there in a while.

Turley is now on CBS.

That's what I thought.

[njbill]

does he still have his Fox gig?? I haven't seem him there in a while.

Turley is now on CBS.

Good catch. No wonder I haven’t seen him on Fox in a while.

[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.

True, but I think it's more important to be sure the courts really do come through with these rulings than an impeachment without removal. Unfortunate that it will take longer, but that's the hand to be played. Force the documents to be released, there's going to be a lot of damning info. Force these cats to testify under oath. Force the financial records, tax returns into the open. Keep at it with Guiliani, Lev and Igor et al. Make the Trumpists defend it all, in excruciating detail.

Now, if one is only worried about the election, then I'd suggest that continuing to expose to the corruption, as long as it takes, is better politics than 'losing' the trial in the Senate and being labeled as merely 'partisan'.

There is certainly a lot of power to that strategy. Rope-a-dope Trump with investigations through the fall of 2020. I am one of those, though, who flipped on impeachment after the Ukraine call. I firmly believe that this is the right thing for Congress to do. If Trump isn’t impeached (even if he isn’t removed) for what he did, then any president down the road may have a free pass to do the same thing.

And I strongly agree that Trump’s stonewalling should be tested in court even if impeachment fails in the Senate.

What I don’t think works, though, is to put impeachment on hold until the courts have ruled on all of the subpoenas simply because, as I said, the clock will run out. It is hard for me to imagine that no matter how damning any evidence that came out would be, the Senate would convict him in the summer or fall of 2020. And I would be concerned that a lot of the electorate would simply say, “let’s just wait a couple of months until the election.”

Bottom line though: we may not know until November 2020 which strategy was the right one to employ.

[MDlaxfan76]

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.

True, but I think it's more important to be sure the courts really do come through with these rulings than an impeachment without removal. Unfortunate that it will take longer, but that's the hand to be played. Force the documents to be released, there's going to be a lot of damning info. Force these cats to testify under oath. Force the financial records, tax returns into the open. Keep at it with Guiliani, Lev and Igor et al. Make the Trumpists defend it all, in excruciating detail.

Now, if one is only worried about the election, then I'd suggest that continuing to expose to the corruption, as long as it takes, is better politics than 'losing' the trial in the Senate and being labeled as merely 'partisan'.

There is certainly a lot of power to that strategy. Rope-a-dope Trump with investigations through the fall of 2020. I am one of those, though, who flipped on impeachment after the Ukraine call. I firmly believe that this is the right thing for Congress to do. If Trump isn’t impeached (even if he isn’t removed) for what he did, then any president down the road may have a free pass to do the same thing.

And I strongly agree that Trump’s stonewalling should be tested in court even if impeachment fails in the Senate.

What I don’t think works, though, is to put impeachment on hold until the courts have ruled on all of the subpoenas simply because, as I said, the clock will run out. It is hard for me to imagine that no matter how damning any evidence that came out would be, the Senate would convict him in the summer or fall of 2020. And I would be concerned that a lot of the electorate would simply say, “let’s just wait a couple of months until the election.”

Bottom line though: we may not know until November 2020 which strategy was the right one to employ.

I don't think we'll ever know for sure which strategy would be better, politically, as we won't be able to test the alternative.

I'd agree that the Senate may well not be any more willing to convict and remove next summer, but it's darn obvious that they won't be doing so this January.

So, if it's a pretty darn sure thing that Senate won't convict and remove now, and it's pretty darn clear that the country is pretty evenly divided as to whether to impeach plus remove as based on what they know now (yet 70% believe that what the President did was 'wrong'), we would have to imagine a scenario under which continued revelations (or lack thereof) of the the various corruption would nevertheless result in the electorate turning against the Dem candidate and instead decide to re-elect Trump specifically because the Dems took too long with the impeachment process...because they grinned through the courts.

One such scenario, it seems to me, might be that the ongoing investigation would NOT reveal more evidence of corruption, or even find exculpatory evidence and testimony. I think that scenario is extremely remote. But if that's what the Dems are worried about (which I doubt), then shame on them for rushing...the documents should provide further damning evidence and the direct testimony should reveal the President's corrupt intent. They should have that confidence.

So, I'm at a loss as to why this process shouldn't actually slow down.

It seems to me that the most important principle is to not allow a President, any President or their Administration, to actually ignore valid subpoenas. If Trump is impeached by the House but let off by a partisan vote in the Senate, having indeed successfully stonewalled, the lesson he will take, and history will take, is that a President can indeed get away with it (and that's a big, virtually unlimited "it")...as long as his party controls one of the houses of Congress.

[ggait]

the documents should provide further damning evidence and the direct testimony should reveal the President's corrupt intent. They should have that confidence.

So, I'm at a loss as to why this process shouldn't actually slow down.

This is horrendous political advice. Thank goodness Pelosi knows better.

It should be 100% clear by now that the facts just don't matter here. Literally, this is Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue.

The Dems had no choice imo to pursue the Uke scandal, but there's no reason to turn it into a suicide mission. Get the facts out as best you can and then get back to job 1.

The downside of dragging it out seems to me much bigger than the upside. But actually no one knows. Since the Dems are the favorite to win the election even without impeachment, why risk running the experiment?

[a fan]

It should be 100% clear by now that the facts just don't matter here. Literally, this is Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue.

This would have been unanimous impeachment 20 years ago.

My, how our country has fallen. And we wonder why they're laughing at us at NATO.....

[cradleandshoot]

does he still have his Fox gig?? I haven't seem him there in a while.

Turley is now on CBS.

Judge Naps may be joining him there very soon. Not to pick on you ggait but you do remember all the times you ripped on Judge Naps? I guess it turned out he really is a judge who calls balls and strikes. I ain't a lawyer but I saw that in his disposition all along.

[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.

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.

I wouldn't have known Turley from his Labradoodle before today, my first experience with him, as well as the other three. He does, indeed, present well, sounds believable, seems to put a lot of thought into what he says. This is a tough crowd here who will catch inaccuracies, the average Joe/Jaquella won't, he leaves a good impression, R boys gotta be lovin' him.
I was equally impressed with Feldman and Karlan....Gerhardt, not nearly as much. The Fel-Kar duo sounded mighty convincing to me, two people who know the Constitution. People might differ with their interpretation of this and that, but they sure sound as if they're commited to upholding the rules and standards that the whole show is supposed to be run by. Sad thing is, the guy running the whole show couldn't sit down with any of these folks and have a discussion about it beyond a second grade level. I'd love to see Trump get grilled by these people. He'd be drooling, spitting, babbling, and faint two minutes into the questioning.

[old salt]

^^^^ Turley's also the US legal expert on BBC.

TDS Zombie porn. You guys are going to be so disappointed. Rave on.

What do you think of the evidence in the report?

I look forward to you & Schiff trying to sell this hooey to a disinterested public -- that this is an impeachable crime (& a crime is what the public thinks it needs to be). Tomorrow the law professors will put to sleep anyone who hasn't already tuned out.

Try to sell the notion that an 11 wk delay in Ukraine receiving sniper rifles is somehow endangering US national security,
when 2 years ago, we wouldn't even give them bullets. They haven't even needed to use the Javelins that Trump gave them 2 years ago.

Salty wants to gaslight by making the impeachment proceedings being about a delay in weapons delivery as opposed to Trump's behavior in causing that delay to happen, and his reasons for so doing. The proceedings look like they will reveal the latter in fairly clear and understandable terms. I imagine the public will be paying more attention than Old Salt gives them credit for regarding this matter. Time will tell.

Trump's reasons ? Politics as usual. You don't even specify the "crime".
What's that you say, doesn't have to be a crime. It's political.
If Schiff thought he could sell it as a crime, he wouldn't be gaslighting it as endangering US national security.
You guys are so sure about this ? Schiff claims he doesn't know how he'll vote yet. ..
Let us know when you've got 20 (R) votes in the Senate. ...'til then, gaslight this.
This trivializes impeachment & makes it just another political device, going forward.

Looks like you forgot to read the House Report. I laughed out loud when I read "this trivializes impeachment." You must've been really miffed with House Republicans in December 1998.

He has no credibility. Flowery words and nomenclature can’t cover it up. It’s sad. I don’t believe Trump will be removed from office given the actions on the Senate over his term. Not sure I want to se him removed. Doesn’t mean the impeachment process should be abandoned. Old Salt’s philosophy is only prosecute if you can guarantee a conviction.

Impeachment isn't a prosecution. The founders designed it this way so that the cause for removal must be so convincing that it requires bipartisan support by 2/3 of the Senate. Initiating Impeachment procedures for an offense that does not generate that level of support is an abuse of the process, whether in 1998 or 2019. That's what Turley's trying to tell you partisan zealots. The (D)'s will regret that they did this. They're weaponizing the impeachment process, making it petty partisan harassment to placate their sore loser base.