Andrew Nepolitano would vote to impeach Trump

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

If the President ISN'T subject to Oversight, who is he responsible to?

voters. its called a republic with Democratically elected representatives and executives. look into it.

[dukkha]

If the President ISN'T subject to Oversight, who is he responsible to?

Ordinary oversight is a House function, but this isn't ordinary oversight

[Darth Omar]

Napolitano Has Been Wrong About Basically Everything
https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/201...ly-everything/
......At some point, all of Napolitano’s opinions start to seem more like excuses to bash the President than actual legal analysis.

Napolitano also predicted that Donald Trump Jr. would be indicted.

When asked if he expects anyone in the president’s inner circle to be charged, Napolitano said, “Yes. I don’t know who, but I do know that Donald Jr. has told friends he expects to be indicted.”

“Do you expect he’d be indicted?” Abrams asked.

“Yes,” Napolitano said.

Wrong again, as Napolitano found himself in the company of such great predictive minds as John Brennan and Chris Matthews.

But forget Trump for a second, because his bad takes go back to Hillary Clinton as well. Who can forget his proclamations that indictments were coming in the email scandal?

So we know already the FBI is interacting with the Justice Department, the FBI has already made some recommendations to the Justice Department, the Justice Department has accepted those recommendations seriously, has convened a grand jury, and has begun or will soon begin to present evidence to the grand jury, and they need Mr. Pagliano’s testimony immunized, which means he no longer has the privilege against self-incrimination because they can’t use against him whatever he says. It also means — this is profound — they intend to indict someone. It’s not Bryan Pagliano; he can only be indicted if he commits perjury if he lies under oath. But, they intend to indict someone in this chain north of him.

That’s a big nope. In the end, no one was indicted in the Hillary email case, much less Clinton herself.

Allow me to reiterate what I said earlier. This guy has been wrong about literally everything he’s commented on in regards to high profile, political-legal cases in the last four years. I’m sure if I went back further, I could find more examples outside of Trump and Hillary as well. He continually falls into dramatic proclamations over factual analysis. His hatred of Donald Trump has only driven him further over the edge, where he’s whiffed again and again regarding the President.

The same thing is happening now with his statements on Ukraine. At what point does Fox News stop paying this guy to be wrong? I don’t know, but I do know that no one should be taking him seriously.

Media punditry sucks, as a general rule.

There are people here who do a better job of it as a hobby.

[Jack]

Voters lol?

Why don’t House Democrats listen to them?

The Constitution provides Impeachment for 'High Crimes'.

Using 400 million dollars of US Taxpayer money for Military Aid to Ukraine to stop Russian aggression ... can't be used by Trump for 'Personal Gain', namely, to extort Ukraine to 'investigate' a Political Rival.

[Jack]

Ordinary oversight is a House function, but this isn't ordinary oversight

Obstruction. Refusing to honor subpoenas.

[Darth Omar]

The Constitution provides Impeachment for 'High Crimes'.

Using 400 million dollars of US Taxpayer money for Military Aid to Ukraine to stop Russian aggression ... can't be used by Trump for 'Personal Gain', namely, to extort Ukraine to 'investigate' a Political Rival.

Conjecture.

[dukkha]

Obstruction. Refusing to honor subpoenas.

nope . Trump claims exec.privilege
You have to get a court ruling otherwise,and then he has to refuse before there is obstruction

[dukkha]

Media punditry sucks, as a general rule.

There are people here who do a better job of it as a hobby.

as of late there isn't anyone i use as a go to source.
I have to get their ideas , and then make up my own mind -for both sides of the aisle

[Callinectes]

Here we have a man who is an attorney, former superior court judge and author who has far more grasp and knowledge of these crimes than you can ever have. Is Trump ever wrong about anything, or must you continue to defend him no matter how serious of a crime he commits.

And here you have a president who is NOT an attorney, former superior court judge and author(I'll say that Trump isn't an author, he probably has those books ghost written) who has far more grasp and knowledge of these "crimes" than you can ever have. That's why he has attorneys around him. Every time Trump wants to do something, and is advised not to do it, he's accused of committing a crime anyway. Do you think Rudy and the rest of those guys really would have refused to appear if it was something they could get in trouble for? Or if they didn't know for certain that the house was gonna charge Trump with a bunch of weak-ass bull shit anyway?

[floridafan]

And here you have a president who is NOT an attorney, former superior court judge and author(I'll say that Trump isn't an author, he probably has those books ghost written) who has far more grasp and knowledge of these "crimes" than you can ever have. That's why he has attorneys around him. Every time Trump wants to do something, and is advised not to do it, he's accused of committing a crime anyway. Do you think Rudy and the rest of those guys really would have refused to appear if it was something they could get in trouble for? Or if they didn't know for certain that the house was gonna charge Trump with a bunch of weak-ass bull shit anyway?

If trump and the members of this administration were truly innocent, they would
1, Be anxious to testify
2. Anxious to release the full transcript of any phone calls
3. Be anxious to supply all of the documents the House has requested.
In other words they would be completely transparent. Its the guilty who have much to hide from.

[Jack]

Conjecture.

hahahaha ... let Rudy testify!

[Darth Omar]

hahahaha ... let Rudy testify!

To prove it’s not conjecture or to refute the conjecture lol?

[Jack]

nope . Trump claims exec.privilege
You have to get a court ruling otherwise,and then he has to refuse before there is obstruction

"Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. Historically, the bribery of a U.S. Senator or U.S. Representative was considered contempt of Congress. In modern times, contempt of Congress has generally applied to the refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by a Congressional committee or subcommittee—usually seeking to compel either testimony or the production of requested documents."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

[Darth Omar]

as of late there isn't anyone i use as a go to source.
I have to get their ideas , and then make up my own mind -for both sides of the aisle

Turley is an exception.

He’s the rare-bird non-Trump supporter who isn’t afflicted with TDS.

[Micawber]

Ordinary oversight is a House function, but this isn't ordinary oversight

Three of four law professors said they would remove Trump from office having reviewed the evidence.
One said he would not remove him for lack of percipient fact witness.

None said this was a sham impeachment.