Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Official Impeachment Thread 2.0: House Judiciary Committee Hearings
- Thread starter Nostra
- Start date
BREAKING: Rats Flee Pelosi’s Sinking Ship – 3 Democrats ALREADY Signal No Vote on Sham Impeachment – Only 14 To Go to Shut It Down
And now ONE-THIRD of DEMOCRATS think Joe Biden should be investigated on his pay-for-play schemes with his son Hunter.
Why Not Investigate The Bidens?
Last edited:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi charged the House Judiciary Committee with the preparation of articles of impeachment against President Trump yesterday. From the perspective of the Star Tribune editors, it’s probably the biggest news of the day. The AP story touting it sits at the top left of the Star Tribune home page (“Democrats say Trump impeachment charges must come swiftly”).
Readers, however, seem to be pursuing other interests. Below is a screenshot of the Star Tribune’s top five most read online stories as of 5:45 a.m. (Central) this morning. The tragic loss of three members of the Minnesota National Guard in the helicopter accident yesterday afternoon comes in at number 1; it is featured in the center column of the home page. We see in the number 2 most read story that Twins fans continue to wait till next year. News of Trump’s prospective impeachment does not make the top 5. It’s almost funny.
Readers, however, seem to be pursuing other interests. Below is a screenshot of the Star Tribune’s top five most read online stories as of 5:45 a.m. (Central) this morning. The tragic loss of three members of the Minnesota National Guard in the helicopter accident yesterday afternoon comes in at number 1; it is featured in the center column of the home page. We see in the number 2 most read story that Twins fans continue to wait till next year. News of Trump’s prospective impeachment does not make the top 5. It’s almost funny.
Doesn't Find Democrats Impeachment Farce Interesting
Trump has always been an amazing ratings draw:
Napolitano: Trump will testify at his impeachment trial and it’ll be the most dramatic political event of our lifetimes
“200 million people watching on television.”
Nappy's does a great impression of an idiot.
https://hotair.com/archives/allahpu...rial-itll-dramatic-political-event-lifetimes/
Napolitano: Trump will testify at his impeachment trial and it’ll be the most dramatic political event of our lifetimes
“200 million people watching on television.”
Nappy's does a great impression of an idiot.
https://hotair.com/archives/allahpu...rial-itll-dramatic-political-event-lifetimes/
kyzr
Diamond Member
- Oct 14, 2009
- 37,336
- 28,737
1. The democrats will impeach Trump on a party line vote with a few democrats voting no.
2. The Horowitz report will be out documenting FISA abuses and how the FBI and DOJ were after Trump
3. The Barr, Durham, and Huber reports will be out documenting the illegal start of the deep state's coup plots against Trump
4. The senate trial will begin with a dynamite list of potential witnesses: Schiff, Ciaramella, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Chalupa, Comey, Baker, Gaeta, McCabe, Page, Strzok, the Ohrs, Rosenstein, Yates, Kavalec, Brennan, Clapper, Downer, Halper, Mifsud, Rice, Steele, Mueller, Rhee, Weissman, Zebley, Flynn, Carter Page,
5. The various democrat's plots against Trump will be exposed
6. Trump will be re-elected in a landslide, and the House will switch back to the GOP
7. In his 2nd term Trump will replace RBG, Breyer, and Thomas on the USSC with young conservative justices.
2. The Horowitz report will be out documenting FISA abuses and how the FBI and DOJ were after Trump
3. The Barr, Durham, and Huber reports will be out documenting the illegal start of the deep state's coup plots against Trump
4. The senate trial will begin with a dynamite list of potential witnesses: Schiff, Ciaramella, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Chalupa, Comey, Baker, Gaeta, McCabe, Page, Strzok, the Ohrs, Rosenstein, Yates, Kavalec, Brennan, Clapper, Downer, Halper, Mifsud, Rice, Steele, Mueller, Rhee, Weissman, Zebley, Flynn, Carter Page,
5. The various democrat's plots against Trump will be exposed
6. Trump will be re-elected in a landslide, and the House will switch back to the GOP
7. In his 2nd term Trump will replace RBG, Breyer, and Thomas on the USSC with young conservative justices.
more Republicans would back Trump’s ouster if a vote were held in private, my friends!
A vote of that magnitude should never be private. People need to be on record. Of course, if it were private, more democrats would vote against it as well.
They are trying to spin their looming vote loss.more Republicans would back Trump’s ouster if a vote were held in private, my friends!
A vote of that magnitude should never be private. People need to be on record. Of course, if it were private, more democrats would vote against it as well.
Impeachment hearing didn’t go as Fat Jerry planned.
The House Judiciary Committee hearing featuring four law professors — three of them urging the imminent impeachment of President Trump — did not go as Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) planned. Instead of a panel featuring reasoned analysis by liberal academic rock stars, the country witnessed exaggerations and the ridicule of a child’s name, all tinged with a tone of obsession and mania by the majority’s witnesses.
The hearing might also leave many Americans wondering what in the world is being taught at elite law schools.
Noah Feldman compared Trump’s behavior to Richard Nixon. As president, Nixon, according to Feldman, “sent burglars” into the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters in 1972.
Nixon, of course, did no such thing and didn’t even know about the break-in until after it happened. Feldman was recklessly exaggerating the facts of Watergate or he doesn’t know his history. Neither possibility helps the House impeachment train.
Karlan served in the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division and has a reputation among Democrats as a top-shelf expert on voting rights. Had Hillary Clinton won the presidency in 2016, Karlan would certainly have been nominated to the federal bench.
Karlan represents what has gone wrong in the nation’s elite law schools. By the end of the hearing, Karlan effectively became a Republican witness, turning off viewers to any impeachment of Trump.
Karlan was bitter, detached and radical. Her testimony provided a glimpse of what is occurring inside law schools, where students today are treated to ideologically saturated political law. She showed viewers in mainstream America what some of us have been warning them about for years — that a detached group of academic legal elites have profound hostility to “flyover country” values and are willing to use their intellectual skills and tenured perches to get their way, no matter what.
Karlan also has a troubling academic record when attacking Republicans. In the Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy, she incorrectly smeared the George W. Bush DOJ’s Civil Rights Division record of voting rights enforcement. She wrote that “for five of the eight years of the Bush Administration, [the Civil Rights Division] brought no Voting Rights Act cases of its own except for one case protecting white voters.”
Karlan wasn’t telling the truth then, and hasn’t corrected the record since.
Doubt it? Just go to the DOJ’s website. Numbers don’t lie: The Bush Justice Department, in fact, brought 16 cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — three in 2001, one in 2002, one in 2003, three in 2005, three in 2006, one in 2007 and four in 2008.
The same Bush Justice Department brought even more cases to protect language minorities during that same time period. Ironically, Karlan’s tenure at the Justice Department overseeing voting rights enforcement during the Obama administration saw a fraction of the Section 2 cases filed compared to the Bush years.
The Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy editors said it was up to Karlan to retract her work. She hasn’t.
Just like her testimony before the House providing legal justifications for impeachment, Karlan’s incorrect Duke Journal article was designed to package a smear of Republicans in the fancy dress of a respected academic.
For good measure, Karlan revealed in her testimony that she is so unsettled by the results of the 2016 election that she has to cross Pennsylvania Avenue to avoid passing the Trump International Hotel. And if that wasn’t enough, Karlan’s nasty ridicule of the president, using his son’s name as a prop in a quip about royalty, was something most parents would find grotesque. First lady Melania Trump did, taking to Twitter to scold the professor’s cold incivility.
The House Judiciary Committee hearing featuring four law professors — three of them urging the imminent impeachment of President Trump — did not go as Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) planned. Instead of a panel featuring reasoned analysis by liberal academic rock stars, the country witnessed exaggerations and the ridicule of a child’s name, all tinged with a tone of obsession and mania by the majority’s witnesses.
The hearing might also leave many Americans wondering what in the world is being taught at elite law schools.
Noah Feldman compared Trump’s behavior to Richard Nixon. As president, Nixon, according to Feldman, “sent burglars” into the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters in 1972.
Nixon, of course, did no such thing and didn’t even know about the break-in until after it happened. Feldman was recklessly exaggerating the facts of Watergate or he doesn’t know his history. Neither possibility helps the House impeachment train.
Karlan served in the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division and has a reputation among Democrats as a top-shelf expert on voting rights. Had Hillary Clinton won the presidency in 2016, Karlan would certainly have been nominated to the federal bench.
Karlan represents what has gone wrong in the nation’s elite law schools. By the end of the hearing, Karlan effectively became a Republican witness, turning off viewers to any impeachment of Trump.
Karlan was bitter, detached and radical. Her testimony provided a glimpse of what is occurring inside law schools, where students today are treated to ideologically saturated political law. She showed viewers in mainstream America what some of us have been warning them about for years — that a detached group of academic legal elites have profound hostility to “flyover country” values and are willing to use their intellectual skills and tenured perches to get their way, no matter what.
Karlan also has a troubling academic record when attacking Republicans. In the Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy, she incorrectly smeared the George W. Bush DOJ’s Civil Rights Division record of voting rights enforcement. She wrote that “for five of the eight years of the Bush Administration, [the Civil Rights Division] brought no Voting Rights Act cases of its own except for one case protecting white voters.”
Karlan wasn’t telling the truth then, and hasn’t corrected the record since.
Doubt it? Just go to the DOJ’s website. Numbers don’t lie: The Bush Justice Department, in fact, brought 16 cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — three in 2001, one in 2002, one in 2003, three in 2005, three in 2006, one in 2007 and four in 2008.
The same Bush Justice Department brought even more cases to protect language minorities during that same time period. Ironically, Karlan’s tenure at the Justice Department overseeing voting rights enforcement during the Obama administration saw a fraction of the Section 2 cases filed compared to the Bush years.
The Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy editors said it was up to Karlan to retract her work. She hasn’t.
Just like her testimony before the House providing legal justifications for impeachment, Karlan’s incorrect Duke Journal article was designed to package a smear of Republicans in the fancy dress of a respected academic.
For good measure, Karlan revealed in her testimony that she is so unsettled by the results of the 2016 election that she has to cross Pennsylvania Avenue to avoid passing the Trump International Hotel. And if that wasn’t enough, Karlan’s nasty ridicule of the president, using his son’s name as a prop in a quip about royalty, was something most parents would find grotesque. First lady Melania Trump did, taking to Twitter to scold the professor’s cold incivility.
NADLER SAYS HOUSE CAN READ TRUMP’S MIND, THEN IMPEACH HIM: It’s an extraordinary claim in the House Judiciary Committee’s just released report on the constitutional grounds for impeachment.
You will find it on page six in the graph beginning “Fourth” where it is stated that:
You will find it on page six in the graph beginning “Fourth” where it is stated that:
“The question is not whether the President’s conduct could have resulted from permissible motives. It is whether the President’s real reasons, the ones in his mind at the time, were legitimate. Where the House discovers persuasive evidence of corrupt wrongdoing, it is entitled to rely upon that evidence to impeach.”
We know an impeachable offense when we see one: “The Lawyer Left Does Impeachment” at the House Judiciary Committee.
Jacobellis v. Ohio was how to define hard-core pornography for purposes of setting the elusive boundary where protected free expression transmogrifies into criminal obscenity. Assessing the terrain, Justice Stewart confessed that he could not “intelligibly” provide a workable definition … “but I know it when I see it.”
Impeachment's like that, too.
You would never know that from listening to the law profs. The most memorable moment in the hearing turned out to be the mind-bogglingly moronic decision by Stanford’s Pamela Karlan to use 13-year-old Barron Trump in one of her many snarky jabs at the president. So advanced is her Trump derangement that she is incapable of apologizing for her own poor judgment without taking another snide shot at the Bad Orange Man, lest we forget how morally superior she is.
Suffice it to say, it was a good day for the president.
Yes, yes, he’s going to be impeached, but only on the strength of a vague “abuse of power” standard articulated by left-wing academics — Karlan, along with two others who competed with her for Most Over the Top honors: Harvard’s Noah Feldman, who started calling for Trump’s impeachment about five minutes after the president’s term began, and the University of North Carolina’s Michael Gerhardt, who looks at Trump’s dealing with Ukraine and finds it “worse than the misconduct of any prior president.” Truly.
Even if you were already convinced that impeachment is a political stunt, you may not have been psychologically prepared for eight hours of the “living Constitution” crowd doing their best Justice Scalia impressions in explaining what James Madison would have made of Donald Trump. (I couldn’t help but wonder what James Madison would have made of giving $391 million to Ukraine!)
Before Trump began his term, before he even had a chance to commit any impeachable offenses, Democrats, such as Professor Feldman, had made up their minds that he had to be impeached. Indeed, by January 20, 2017, the Obama administration had already obtained its second surveillance warrant from the FISA court on the claim that there was probable cause to believe the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to steal the election.
The delegates at the Philadelphia convention opted against making maladministration the standard, for fear that it would capture trivial misconduct that did not rise to the egregious level needed to justify removing a duly elected president. An amorphous standard — and “abuse of power” may be worse than “maladministration” — would invite the evils the Framers were trying to prevent: too much congressional power over the chief executive; impeachments driven by factional rivalry (today, it’s partisanship) rather than objectively disqualifying behavior.
To impeach Donald Trump on the Ukraine episode, Turley elaborated, would be to render every future president vulnerable to impeachment inquiries, with metastasizing divisiveness and dysfunction as the price paid by the public and the government.
If you believe the president should be ousted because of Ukraine, you probably thought he should be ousted before we heard about Ukraine — you may now feel more confirmed in that conviction, but you were pretty confirmed already.
Ukraine hasn’t changed anyone’s mind. If we know an impeachable offense when we see it, then this is not that.
Trump Impeachment Inquiry: Democrats’ Vague ‘Abuse of Power’ Standard | National Review
Jacobellis v. Ohio was how to define hard-core pornography for purposes of setting the elusive boundary where protected free expression transmogrifies into criminal obscenity. Assessing the terrain, Justice Stewart confessed that he could not “intelligibly” provide a workable definition … “but I know it when I see it.”
Impeachment's like that, too.
You would never know that from listening to the law profs. The most memorable moment in the hearing turned out to be the mind-bogglingly moronic decision by Stanford’s Pamela Karlan to use 13-year-old Barron Trump in one of her many snarky jabs at the president. So advanced is her Trump derangement that she is incapable of apologizing for her own poor judgment without taking another snide shot at the Bad Orange Man, lest we forget how morally superior she is.
Suffice it to say, it was a good day for the president.
Yes, yes, he’s going to be impeached, but only on the strength of a vague “abuse of power” standard articulated by left-wing academics — Karlan, along with two others who competed with her for Most Over the Top honors: Harvard’s Noah Feldman, who started calling for Trump’s impeachment about five minutes after the president’s term began, and the University of North Carolina’s Michael Gerhardt, who looks at Trump’s dealing with Ukraine and finds it “worse than the misconduct of any prior president.” Truly.
Even if you were already convinced that impeachment is a political stunt, you may not have been psychologically prepared for eight hours of the “living Constitution” crowd doing their best Justice Scalia impressions in explaining what James Madison would have made of Donald Trump. (I couldn’t help but wonder what James Madison would have made of giving $391 million to Ukraine!)
Before Trump began his term, before he even had a chance to commit any impeachable offenses, Democrats, such as Professor Feldman, had made up their minds that he had to be impeached. Indeed, by January 20, 2017, the Obama administration had already obtained its second surveillance warrant from the FISA court on the claim that there was probable cause to believe the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to steal the election.
The delegates at the Philadelphia convention opted against making maladministration the standard, for fear that it would capture trivial misconduct that did not rise to the egregious level needed to justify removing a duly elected president. An amorphous standard — and “abuse of power” may be worse than “maladministration” — would invite the evils the Framers were trying to prevent: too much congressional power over the chief executive; impeachments driven by factional rivalry (today, it’s partisanship) rather than objectively disqualifying behavior.
To impeach Donald Trump on the Ukraine episode, Turley elaborated, would be to render every future president vulnerable to impeachment inquiries, with metastasizing divisiveness and dysfunction as the price paid by the public and the government.
If you believe the president should be ousted because of Ukraine, you probably thought he should be ousted before we heard about Ukraine — you may now feel more confirmed in that conviction, but you were pretty confirmed already.
Ukraine hasn’t changed anyone’s mind. If we know an impeachable offense when we see it, then this is not that.
Trump Impeachment Inquiry: Democrats’ Vague ‘Abuse of Power’ Standard | National Review
easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,150
How embarrassing....4 years, zero crimes, zero evidence of crimes, zero whistle blowers, zero witnesses, and Schiff just got caught for the 3rd time manufacturing / attempting to push fake evidence of crimes...
Poor lil' Trump-hating snowflakes...
Poor lil' Trump-hating snowflakes...
He also came up with some call records that has a lot of people puzzled, he's not authorized for that.How embarrassing....4 years, zero crimes, zero evidence of crimes, zero whistle blowers, zero witnesses, and Schiff just got caught for the 3rd time manufacturing / attempting to push fake evidence of crimes...
Poor lil' Trump-hating snowflakes...
If he committed crimes to get them, he will likely be expelled from the House once the GOP retakes control.
basquebromance
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2015
- 109,396
- 27,042
“An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents.” —Alexander Hamilton
toomuchtime_
Gold Member
- Dec 29, 2008
- 20,046
- 4,960
You are referring to Biden's efforts to get the prosecutor fired on the eve of the 2016 election season, right?“An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents.” —Alexander Hamilton
basquebromance
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2015
- 109,396
- 27,042
nyetYou are referring to Biden's efforts to get the prosecutor fired on the eve of the 2016 election season, right?“An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents.” —Alexander Hamilton
Yeah. And with Biden giving the 6 hour deadline to fire the prosecutor, it looks pretty bad.“An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents.” —Alexander Hamilton
toomuchtime_
Gold Member
- Dec 29, 2008
- 20,046
- 4,960
Why not? Biden bragged that he presented the Ukrainian president with a quid pro quo, either fire the prosecutor who is investigating the firm Hunter Biden is working for or Ukraine will forfeit $1,000,000,000 in US aid right before the 2016 election season. It is a pretty clear cut case of the Obama administration forcing a foreign nation to influence US elections.nyetYou are referring to Biden's efforts to get the prosecutor fired on the eve of the 2016 election season, right?“An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents.” —Alexander Hamilton
Looks like Nancy may be throwing the impeachment vote:“An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents.” —Alexander Hamilton
Maybe Democrats don't want an impeachment
Benny
✔@bennyjohnson
Democrat Majority Whip Clyburn:
• Not Whipping Votes for Impeachment.
• Expects to lose more votes on top of Jeff Van Drew who announced yesterday that he will likely Vote against Impeachment.
Democrat leaders are not pushing House members to vote for impeachment.Clyburn's words undercut the Democrats' self-righteous call to impeach.
Clyburn told CNN, "This is a vote of conscience. I do believe that when it comes to something as divisive as impeachment, we have to leave members up to their own consciences, their own constituents, and what they think is in the best interest of their love for country.
"And so, I think it would be a bit unseemly for us to go out whipping up a vote on something like this. This is too serious, this is too much about preserving this great Republic."
But if it is "about preserving this great Republic," then Clyburn is under a moral obligation to press for Democrats to toe the line.
Does he not care enough "about preserving this great Republic" to lobby for impeachment?
Clyburn said, "If we cannot vote to impeach with what we had in testimonies last week and what we've seen in news reports this week, then we ought to just modify the Constitution and get rid of impeachment altogether."
Or maybe just preserve impeachment for an actual crime.
Conventional wisdom in DC is Democrats will impeach and Republicans will acquit.
But Clyburn does not think it is important enough to twist arms to get it to pass. At best that is a mixed message.
basquebromance
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2015
- 109,396
- 27,042
"BREAKING: The Hill newspaper names 3 GOP senators as possible votes to convict Trump. Turns out they're all legendarily feckless old ladies: Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, & Mitt Romney."
Similar threads
- Replies
- 21
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 31
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 2
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 18
- Replies
- 25
- Views
- 234
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8520
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 484
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-