Turley Exposes Republicans And Himself As Being Full Of Shionla

[OldLady]

The GOP's only impeachment witness on Wednesday contradicted his own previous testimony

I am going to take a different angle on this, because just demolishing Turley's testimony is already trending on Twitter..I am going to ask you Trumpers, what do you feel an elected official should be impeached for??

What Turley did in that hearing was embarrassing, it is what we call "concern trolling" -- he didn't say impeachment was wrong because Trump's actions were justified, he didn't say impeachment was wrong due to any argument made on "CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS" -- he is saying it is wrong because of feelings....feelings that it was moving too fast.... almost as fast as the Jackson impeachment but not as slow as the Clinton impeachment (the only 2 other presidential impeachment hearings in US history..so basically it is moving at a median speed) -- and feelings that people are just so mad and we all need to not be so mad....that is the best witness the republicans could call?? -- On top of that, the Republicans only expert witness actually said "The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

This is the second time Republicans called Turley in as their witness for an impeachment hearing...The first time he was there to make the case in favor of impeachment against Bill Clinton....back then he CORRECTLY said "the accusatory function of the House is essential to maintain a certain deterrence on presidential misconduct..narrowing the scope of impeachable "OFFENSES" <<--(remember that word) can expand the scope of presidential misconduct" -- Basically he was saying if we don't impeach Clinton for lying under oath about a blow job, then that may expand the misconduct of presidents in the future, and he was right....wasn't he??

However, the last impeachment hearing wasn't held in the 90's -- the last impeachment hearing was held in 2010....but I am sure most Trumpers have no idea about it because most Trumpers were too busy putting on funny little tea party hats and claiming they were independents to distance themselves from the embarrassment of George W. Bush.

In 2010, a Clinton appointed federal judge (G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana) was facing impeachment in the Senate for taking bribes...the person representing that corrupt judge was Mr. Turley, the guy who said impeachment is wrong if you don't do it slow enough and if it makes people mad.. The people representing the prosecution in the Senate was republican Bob Goodlatte and democrat Adam Schiff...Turley claimed that the judge was only human and you can't impeach him for being a "moocher" -- however, what Turley called mooching was what the rest of the world called, bribes...like taking payoffs from lawyers in cases where that judge was presiding over their clients, pays offs that influenced decisions he made....The senate voted to convict and remove that judge 96-0...

Fact of the matter is....It is fundamentally and constitutionally impossible to reconcile what Turley's position was in 1998 to what he is claiming today...so when Turley asked "where will you stand" when the wind blows again for a Democratic president to be charged. The answer is simple -- any Democratic president who abuses his power to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign country in order to benefit his own re-election and hurt his political opponent, should be impeached. Simple.

You're putting a mighty heavy spin on Turley's remarks. And I heard a very different concern from him about the Democrats not having enough evidence that can be considered during a real "trial." Yes, there is circumstantial evidence up the wazoo, but there is obstruction of the investigation by the President and the testimony and evidence that is required will be withheld by Trump's stable of lawyers until well after the 2020 election. The Dems will lose, but not for lack of a crime. They will lose because they do not wish to spend a couple of years battling in the courts for every witness.

Witnesses are not circumstantial.


Turley kept on about the timing. Republicans would love to push this back a couple months so they could argue it is too close to the election.

Republicans & Trump not participating & blocking testimony is only a sign of guilt.

Republicans could have ended it months ago if they had proof that no crime was committed.

Some folks try so hard to appear "objective" that it makes them look sad....

They feel that if the tables were totally switched -- that these republicans that they are trying so hard to bend over backwards for -- will be just as fair and objective to them.....

You are 1000% right that republicans are blocking testimony, blocking witnesses, blocking additional evidence not because it proves Trump's innocence but because it will prove Trump's guilt beyond any reasonable doubt....even OldLady's ...as much as I respect her opinions...

Biff, you misunderstand me. I have no question in my mind that Trump is guilty as charged. What I had difficulty with was the very biased article you put up that dismisses the observations of a very experienced Constitutional lawyer. I think it is very clear to all that the Senate will not impeach the President; we all know that, but I am not sure it is SOLELY for partisan reasons. The evidence required in a trial is being obstructed by the President, YES, and the Dems have chosen to let him out of consideration for the time it would take to wrestle his cooperation.

I wish I was wrong and that Trump would be impeached by the Senate and removed from office for his behavior, but there is a game to be played here, first, and the Dems do not have winning hand. If this were their last full-blown attempt to change the voting public's mind before the election, it seems to have failed. At least polls show that people simply heard what they wanted to hear in all the testimony....it did not change many minds about the President at all.

Sorry days.

Just keep clear eyed about this and do not let yourself be sucked down into the ridiculous swamp of ad homs that the Republicans use to discredit the opposition.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The GOP's only impeachment witness on Wednesday contradicted his own previous testimony

I am going to take a different angle on this, because just demolishing Turley's testimony is already trending on Twitter..I am going to ask you Trumpers, what do you feel an elected official should be impeached for??

What Turley did in that hearing was embarrassing, it is what we call "concern trolling" -- he didn't say impeachment was wrong because Trump's actions were justified, he didn't say impeachment was wrong due to any argument made on "CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS" -- he is saying it is wrong because of feelings....feelings that it was moving too fast.... almost as fast as the Jackson impeachment but not as slow as the Clinton impeachment (the only 2 other presidential impeachment hearings in US history..so basically it is moving at a median speed) -- and feelings that people are just so mad and we all need to not be so mad....that is the best witness the republicans could call?? -- On top of that, the Republicans only expert witness actually said "The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

This is the second time Republicans called Turley in as their witness for an impeachment hearing...The first time he was there to make the case in favor of impeachment against Bill Clinton....back then he CORRECTLY said "the accusatory function of the House is essential to maintain a certain deterrence on presidential misconduct..narrowing the scope of impeachable "OFFENSES" <<--(remember that word) can expand the scope of presidential misconduct" -- Basically he was saying if we don't impeach Clinton for lying under oath about a blow job, then that may expand the misconduct of presidents in the future, and he was right....wasn't he??

However, the last impeachment hearing wasn't held in the 90's -- the last impeachment hearing was held in 2010....but I am sure most Trumpers have no idea about it because most Trumpers were too busy putting on funny little tea party hats and claiming they were independents to distance themselves from the embarrassment of George W. Bush.

In 2010, a Clinton appointed federal judge (G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana) was facing impeachment in the Senate for taking bribes...the person representing that corrupt judge was Mr. Turley, the guy who said impeachment is wrong if you don't do it slow enough and if it makes people mad.. The people representing the prosecution in the Senate was republican Bob Goodlatte and democrat Adam Schiff...Turley claimed that the judge was only human and you can't impeach him for being a "moocher" -- however, what Turley called mooching was what the rest of the world called, bribes...like taking payoffs from lawyers in cases where that judge was presiding over their clients, pays offs that influenced decisions he made....The senate voted to convict and remove that judge 96-0...

Fact of the matter is....It is fundamentally and constitutionally impossible to reconcile what Turley's position was in 1998 to what he is claiming today...so when Turley asked "where will you stand" when the wind blows again for a Democratic president to be charged. The answer is simple -- any Democratic president who abuses his power to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign country in order to benefit his own re-election and hurt his political opponent, should be impeached. Simple.

You're putting a mighty heavy spin on Turley's remarks. And I heard a very different concern from him about the Democrats not having enough evidence that can be considered during a real "trial." Yes, there is circumstantial evidence up the wazoo, but there is obstruction of the investigation by the President and the testimony and evidence that is required will be withheld by Trump's stable of lawyers until well after the 2020 election. The Dems will lose, but not for lack of a crime. They will lose because they do not wish to spend a couple of years battling in the courts for every witness.

Witnesses are not circumstantial.


Turley kept on about the timing. Republicans would love to push this back a couple months so they could argue it is too close to the election.

Republicans & Trump not participating & blocking testimony is only a sign of guilt.

Republicans could have ended it months ago if they had proof that no crime was committed.

Some folks try so hard to appear "objective" that it makes them look sad....

They feel that if the tables were totally switched -- that these republicans that they are trying so hard to bend over backwards for -- will be just as fair and objective to them.....

You are 1000% right that republicans are blocking testimony, blocking witnesses, blocking additional evidence not because it proves Trump's innocence but because it will prove Trump's guilt beyond any reasonable doubt....even OldLady's ...as much as I respect her opinions...

You obviously are cluelss on Executive Privilege. If the Dems thought they could force the testimony, why didn't they take it to court? Oh, they were in a rush to impeach Trump and that might take to long to find out they lost! They also wanted to charge Trump with obstruction which Turley categorically denied was possible because Congress did not take Trump to court to force the testimony. They could have, and should have, but we too afraid of losing in court. They just use it to bash Trump in the media, despite it being the Dems failure..

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The GOP's only impeachment witness on Wednesday contradicted his own previous testimony

I am going to take a different angle on this, because just demolishing Turley's testimony is already trending on Twitter..I am going to ask you Trumpers, what do you feel an elected official should be impeached for??

What Turley did in that hearing was embarrassing, it is what we call "concern trolling" -- he didn't say impeachment was wrong because Trump's actions were justified, he didn't say impeachment was wrong due to any argument made on "CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS" -- he is saying it is wrong because of feelings....feelings that it was moving too fast.... almost as fast as the Jackson impeachment but not as slow as the Clinton impeachment (the only 2 other presidential impeachment hearings in US history..so basically it is moving at a median speed) -- and feelings that people are just so mad and we all need to not be so mad....that is the best witness the republicans could call?? -- On top of that, the Republicans only expert witness actually said "The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

This is the second time Republicans called Turley in as their witness for an impeachment hearing...The first time he was there to make the case in favor of impeachment against Bill Clinton....back then he CORRECTLY said "the accusatory function of the House is essential to maintain a certain deterrence on presidential misconduct..narrowing the scope of impeachable "OFFENSES" <<--(remember that word) can expand the scope of presidential misconduct" -- Basically he was saying if we don't impeach Clinton for lying under oath about a blow job, then that may expand the misconduct of presidents in the future, and he was right....wasn't he??

However, the last impeachment hearing wasn't held in the 90's -- the last impeachment hearing was held in 2010....but I am sure most Trumpers have no idea about it because most Trumpers were too busy putting on funny little tea party hats and claiming they were independents to distance themselves from the embarrassment of George W. Bush.

In 2010, a Clinton appointed federal judge (G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana) was facing impeachment in the Senate for taking bribes...the person representing that corrupt judge was Mr. Turley, the guy who said impeachment is wrong if you don't do it slow enough and if it makes people mad.. The people representing the prosecution in the Senate was republican Bob Goodlatte and democrat Adam Schiff...Turley claimed that the judge was only human and you can't impeach him for being a "moocher" -- however, what Turley called mooching was what the rest of the world called, bribes...like taking payoffs from lawyers in cases where that judge was presiding over their clients, pays offs that influenced decisions he made....The senate voted to convict and remove that judge 96-0...

Fact of the matter is....It is fundamentally and constitutionally impossible to reconcile what Turley's position was in 1998 to what he is claiming today...so when Turley asked "where will you stand" when the wind blows again for a Democratic president to be charged. The answer is simple -- any Democratic president who abuses his power to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign country in order to benefit his own re-election and hurt his political opponent, should be impeached. Simple.

You're putting a mighty heavy spin on Turley's remarks. And I heard a very different concern from him about the Democrats not having enough evidence that can be considered during a real "trial." Yes, there is circumstantial evidence up the wazoo, but there is obstruction of the investigation by the President and the testimony and evidence that is required will be withheld by Trump's stable of lawyers until well after the 2020 election. The Dems will lose, but not for lack of a crime. They will lose because they do not wish to spend a couple of years battling in the courts for every witness.

Witnesses are not circumstantial.


Turley kept on about the timing. Republicans would love to push this back a couple months so they could argue it is too close to the election.

Republicans & Trump not participating & blocking testimony is only a sign of guilt.

Republicans could have ended it months ago if they had proof that no crime was committed.

Some folks try so hard to appear "objective" that it makes them look sad....

They feel that if the tables were totally switched -- that these republicans that they are trying so hard to bend over backwards for -- will be just as fair and objective to them.....

You are 1000% right that republicans are blocking testimony, blocking witnesses, blocking additional evidence not because it proves Trump's innocence but because it will prove Trump's guilt beyond any reasonable doubt....even OldLady's ...as much as I respect her opinions...

Biff, you misunderstand me. I have no question in my mind that Trump is guilty as charged. What I had difficulty with was the very biased article you put up that dismisses the observations of a very experienced Constitutional lawyer. I think it is very clear to all that the Senate will not impeach the President; we all know that, but I am not sure it is SOLELY for partisan reasons. The evidence required in a trial is being obstructed by the President, YES, and the Dems have chosen to let him out of consideration for the time it would take to wrestle his cooperation.

I wish I was wrong and that Trump would be impeached by the Senate and removed from office for his behavior, but there is a game to be played here, first, and the Dems do not have winning hand. If this were their last full-blown attempt to change the voting public's mind before the election, it seems to have failed. At least polls show that people simply heard what they wanted to hear in all the testimony....it did not change many minds about the President at all.

Sorry days.

Just keep clear eyed about this and do not let yourself be sucked down into the ridiculous swamp of ad homs that the Republicans use to discredit the opposition.

Does that make sense to you?

You need to see a doctor immediately because you are obviously suffering a stroke. That was a well-reasoned response. Thank you! I guess there is a first time for everything!

 

[OldLady]

The GOP's only impeachment witness on Wednesday contradicted his own previous testimony

I am going to take a different angle on this, because just demolishing Turley's testimony is already trending on Twitter..I am going to ask you Trumpers, what do you feel an elected official should be impeached for??

What Turley did in that hearing was embarrassing, it is what we call "concern trolling" -- he didn't say impeachment was wrong because Trump's actions were justified, he didn't say impeachment was wrong due to any argument made on "CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS" -- he is saying it is wrong because of feelings....feelings that it was moving too fast.... almost as fast as the Jackson impeachment but not as slow as the Clinton impeachment (the only 2 other presidential impeachment hearings in US history..so basically it is moving at a median speed) -- and feelings that people are just so mad and we all need to not be so mad....that is the best witness the republicans could call?? -- On top of that, the Republicans only expert witness actually said "The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

This is the second time Republicans called Turley in as their witness for an impeachment hearing...The first time he was there to make the case in favor of impeachment against Bill Clinton....back then he CORRECTLY said "the accusatory function of the House is essential to maintain a certain deterrence on presidential misconduct..narrowing the scope of impeachable "OFFENSES" <<--(remember that word) can expand the scope of presidential misconduct" -- Basically he was saying if we don't impeach Clinton for lying under oath about a blow job, then that may expand the misconduct of presidents in the future, and he was right....wasn't he??

However, the last impeachment hearing wasn't held in the 90's -- the last impeachment hearing was held in 2010....but I am sure most Trumpers have no idea about it because most Trumpers were too busy putting on funny little tea party hats and claiming they were independents to distance themselves from the embarrassment of George W. Bush.

In 2010, a Clinton appointed federal judge (G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana) was facing impeachment in the Senate for taking bribes...the person representing that corrupt judge was Mr. Turley, the guy who said impeachment is wrong if you don't do it slow enough and if it makes people mad.. The people representing the prosecution in the Senate was republican Bob Goodlatte and democrat Adam Schiff...Turley claimed that the judge was only human and you can't impeach him for being a "moocher" -- however, what Turley called mooching was what the rest of the world called, bribes...like taking payoffs from lawyers in cases where that judge was presiding over their clients, pays offs that influenced decisions he made....The senate voted to convict and remove that judge 96-0...

Fact of the matter is....It is fundamentally and constitutionally impossible to reconcile what Turley's position was in 1998 to what he is claiming today...so when Turley asked "where will you stand" when the wind blows again for a Democratic president to be charged. The answer is simple -- any Democratic president who abuses his power to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign country in order to benefit his own re-election and hurt his political opponent, should be impeached. Simple.

You're putting a mighty heavy spin on Turley's remarks. And I heard a very different concern from him about the Democrats not having enough evidence that can be considered during a real "trial." Yes, there is circumstantial evidence up the wazoo, but there is obstruction of the investigation by the President and the testimony and evidence that is required will be withheld by Trump's stable of lawyers until well after the 2020 election. The Dems will lose, but not for lack of a crime. They will lose because they do not wish to spend a couple of years battling in the courts for every witness.

Witnesses are not circumstantial.


Turley kept on about the timing. Republicans would love to push this back a couple months so they could argue it is too close to the election.

Republicans & Trump not participating & blocking testimony is only a sign of guilt.

Republicans could have ended it months ago if they had proof that no crime was committed.

Some folks try so hard to appear "objective" that it makes them look sad....

They feel that if the tables were totally switched -- that these republicans that they are trying so hard to bend over backwards for -- will be just as fair and objective to them.....

You are 1000% right that republicans are blocking testimony, blocking witnesses, blocking additional evidence not because it proves Trump's innocence but because it will prove Trump's guilt beyond any reasonable doubt....even OldLady's ...as much as I respect her opinions...

Biff, you misunderstand me. I have no question in my mind that Trump is guilty as charged. What I had difficulty with was the very biased article you put up that dismisses the observations of a very experienced Constitutional lawyer. I think it is very clear to all that the Senate will not impeach the President; we all know that, but I am not sure it is SOLELY for partisan reasons. The evidence required in a trial is being obstructed by the President, YES, and the Dems have chosen to let him out of consideration for the time it would take to wrestle his cooperation.

I wish I was wrong and that Trump would be impeached by the Senate and removed from office for his behavior, but there is a game to be played here, first, and the Dems do not have winning hand. If this were their last full-blown attempt to change the voting public's mind before the election, it seems to have failed. At least polls show that people simply heard what they wanted to hear in all the testimony....it did not change many minds about the President at all.

Sorry days.

Just keep clear eyed about this and do not let yourself be sucked down into the ridiculous swamp of ad homs that the Republicans use to discredit the opposition.

Does that make sense to you?

You need to see a doctor immediately because you are obviously suffering a stroke. That was a well-reasoned response. Thank you! I guess there is a first time for everything!

I'm always well-reasoned.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You're putting a mighty heavy spin on Turley's remarks. And I heard a very different concern from him about the Democrats not having enough evidence that can be considered during a real "trial." Yes, there is circumstantial evidence up the wazoo, but there is obstruction of the investigation by the President and the testimony and evidence that is required will be withheld by Trump's stable of lawyers until well after the 2020 election. The Dems will lose, but not for lack of a crime. They will lose because they do not wish to spend a couple of years battling in the courts for every witness.

Witnesses are not circumstantial.


Turley kept on about the timing. Republicans would love to push this back a couple months so they could argue it is too close to the election.

Republicans & Trump not participating & blocking testimony is only a sign of guilt.

Republicans could have ended it months ago if they had proof that no crime was committed.

Some folks try so hard to appear "objective" that it makes them look sad....

They feel that if the tables were totally switched -- that these republicans that they are trying so hard to bend over backwards for -- will be just as fair and objective to them.....

You are 1000% right that republicans are blocking testimony, blocking witnesses, blocking additional evidence not because it proves Trump's innocence but because it will prove Trump's guilt beyond any reasonable doubt....even OldLady's ...as much as I respect her opinions...

Biff, you misunderstand me. I have no question in my mind that Trump is guilty as charged. What I had difficulty with was the very biased article you put up that dismisses the observations of a very experienced Constitutional lawyer. I think it is very clear to all that the Senate will not impeach the President; we all know that, but I am not sure it is SOLELY for partisan reasons. The evidence required in a trial is being obstructed by the President, YES, and the Dems have chosen to let him out of consideration for the time it would take to wrestle his cooperation.

I wish I was wrong and that Trump would be impeached by the Senate and removed from office for his behavior, but there is a game to be played here, first, and the Dems do not have winning hand. If this were their last full-blown attempt to change the voting public's mind before the election, it seems to have failed. At least polls show that people simply heard what they wanted to hear in all the testimony....it did not change many minds about the President at all.

Sorry days.

Just keep clear eyed about this and do not let yourself be sucked down into the ridiculous swamp of ad homs that the Republicans use to discredit the opposition.

Does that make sense to you?

You need to see a doctor immediately because you are obviously suffering a stroke. That was a well-reasoned response. Thank you! I guess there is a first time for everything!

I'm always well-reasoned.

No, well-seasoned maybe, but well-reasoned is not an apt descriptor for you. Everything you said was totally inaccurate regarding the facts, but you explained it completely, and that never happened before.

 

[Penelope]

Turley is a democrat,, he’s trying to save you people for the sickness of TDS

Uh huh......I like how you avoided every fact I presented.....

Especially this one...…..""The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

That has already been proven.....this Trump era will not age well for his sycophants....

Hope you still got them cute little tea-party hats and "I'm An Independent" t-shirts in storage somewhere....you will be needing them in your next re-branding campaign

It hasn't happened - bippy boy.

Uh huh....Mulvaney disagrees with you.....maybe we should call him to testify under oath and clear things up...oh wait!

Look you stupid fuck.
The whole idea of foreign aid is - give to get.
No where did Trump try to get what you claim -
You are horseshit dude.

Yes, he solicited Ukraine -- not to investigate Biden -- but to just "ANNOUNCE" that you are investigating Biden....

Why?? Because he did not care about an actual investigation, he just wanted the appearance of an investigation to give him a political advantage..

The fact yo dumb ass don't want to admit it isn't my problem....

Just like yo dumb ass will be trying to claim John Durham, William Barr and anyone else who doesn't placate your conspiracy theories are now the Deep State....

He didn't care one hoot about corruption, and now everyone knows about Joe Biden, the only thing tramp cared about is an investigation like Hillary, Lock her up!!

Also he has obstructed the house, both times, in the Mueller investigation and the Ukraine investigation.

Everyone is deep state except for tramp's cult.

 

[Jitss617]

Orange man bad lol

 

[Olde Europe]

I bring up Porteous because his defense was not vigorous, it was abysmal....to the point that 96-0 voted for removal...that means his defense didn't sway basically ANYONE...

Have you thought that through? Can a defense be both vigorous and abysmal? For appears to me, it can. Moreover, the defendant's conviction doesn't prove the defense was abysmal. In former judge Porteous's case, the evidence for his guilt was overwhelming, and the verdict reflected that. Other than that, Turley's argument as defense counsel still cannot be thrown at him as his stance on the (de-) merits of impeachment.

The rest of your posting had nothing to do with mine. I do object to your trying to dictate what Turley can, or cannot, say. If he finds defects in the procedure, or the speed of the inquiry, or with sloppy evidentiary standards, that's up to him. If he finds reminding lawmakers that anger is not a valid legal or Constitutional argument - and clothes that valid advice in the language of his dog being mad - that is also up to him. You may disagree with his argument, as do I. Other than that he should be free to argue his case as he sees fit.

 

[OldLady]

Witnesses are not circumstantial.


Turley kept on about the timing. Republicans would love to push this back a couple months so they could argue it is too close to the election.

Republicans & Trump not participating & blocking testimony is only a sign of guilt.

Republicans could have ended it months ago if they had proof that no crime was committed.

Some folks try so hard to appear "objective" that it makes them look sad....

They feel that if the tables were totally switched -- that these republicans that they are trying so hard to bend over backwards for -- will be just as fair and objective to them.....

You are 1000% right that republicans are blocking testimony, blocking witnesses, blocking additional evidence not because it proves Trump's innocence but because it will prove Trump's guilt beyond any reasonable doubt....even OldLady's ...as much as I respect her opinions...

Biff, you misunderstand me. I have no question in my mind that Trump is guilty as charged. What I had difficulty with was the very biased article you put up that dismisses the observations of a very experienced Constitutional lawyer. I think it is very clear to all that the Senate will not impeach the President; we all know that, but I am not sure it is SOLELY for partisan reasons. The evidence required in a trial is being obstructed by the President, YES, and the Dems have chosen to let him out of consideration for the time it would take to wrestle his cooperation.

I wish I was wrong and that Trump would be impeached by the Senate and removed from office for his behavior, but there is a game to be played here, first, and the Dems do not have winning hand. If this were their last full-blown attempt to change the voting public's mind before the election, it seems to have failed. At least polls show that people simply heard what they wanted to hear in all the testimony....it did not change many minds about the President at all.

Sorry days.

Just keep clear eyed about this and do not let yourself be sucked down into the ridiculous swamp of ad homs that the Republicans use to discredit the opposition.

Does that make sense to you?

You need to see a doctor immediately because you are obviously suffering a stroke. That was a well-reasoned response. Thank you! I guess there is a first time for everything!

I'm always well-reasoned.

No, well-seasoned maybe, but well-reasoned is not an apt descriptor for you. Everything you said was totally inaccurate regarding the facts, but you explained it completely, and that never happened before.

I've never understood why you take such a negative view of me; it seems to be almost personal.

Are you flirting?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

The GOP's only impeachment witness on Wednesday contradicted his own previous testimony

I am going to take a different angle on this, because just demolishing Turley's testimony is already trending on Twitter..I am going to ask you Trumpers, what do you feel an elected official should be impeached for??

What Turley did in that hearing was embarrassing, it is what we call "concern trolling" -- he didn't say impeachment was wrong because Trump's actions were justified, he didn't say impeachment was wrong due to any argument made on "CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS" -- he is saying it is wrong because of feelings....feelings that it was moving too fast.... almost as fast as the Jackson impeachment but not as slow as the Clinton impeachment (the only 2 other presidential impeachment hearings in US history..so basically it is moving at a median speed) -- and feelings that people are just so mad and we all need to not be so mad....that is the best witness the republicans could call?? -- On top of that, the Republicans only expert witness actually said "The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

This is the second time Republicans called Turley in as their witness for an impeachment hearing...The first time he was there to make the case in favor of impeachment against Bill Clinton....back then he CORRECTLY said "the accusatory function of the House is essential to maintain a certain deterrence on presidential misconduct..narrowing the scope of impeachable "OFFENSES" <<--(remember that word) can expand the scope of presidential misconduct" -- Basically he was saying if we don't impeach Clinton for lying under oath about a blow job, then that may expand the misconduct of presidents in the future, and he was right....wasn't he??

However, the last impeachment hearing wasn't held in the 90's -- the last impeachment hearing was held in 2010....but I am sure most Trumpers have no idea about it because most Trumpers were too busy putting on funny little tea party hats and claiming they were independents to distance themselves from the embarrassment of George W. Bush.

In 2010, a Clinton appointed federal judge (G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana) was facing impeachment in the Senate for taking bribes...the person representing that corrupt judge was Mr. Turley, the guy who said impeachment is wrong if you don't do it slow enough and if it makes people mad.. The people representing the prosecution in the Senate was republican Bob Goodlatte and democrat Adam Schiff...Turley claimed that the judge was only human and you can't impeach him for being a "moocher" -- however, what Turley called mooching was what the rest of the world called, bribes...like taking payoffs from lawyers in cases where that judge was presiding over their clients, pays offs that influenced decisions he made....The senate voted to convict and remove that judge 96-0...

Fact of the matter is....It is fundamentally and constitutionally impossible to reconcile what Turley's position was in 1998 to what he is claiming today...so when Turley asked "where will you stand" when the wind blows again for a Democratic president to be charged. The answer is simple -- any Democratic president who abuses his power to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign country in order to benefit his own re-election and hurt his political opponent, should be impeached. Simple.

funny that you think Turley's testimony is being demolished. He is one of your own, the problem with Turley is that he is sensible, with eyes wide open and clear.

When he speaks about a Democrat standing when the winds blow, he is specifically referring to the fact that no longer will facts and/or crime be necessary for impeachment.

From the moment that the vote is taken to impeach, no president going forward will be safe from factless impeachment for political expediency.

Concern trolling...…..

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about an affair he had -- during a special counsel investigation that had ZERO TO DO WITH A REAL ESTATE DEAL IN ARKANSAS -- which the special counsel investigation was for...

And despite that, Turley never said "From the moment that the vote is taken to impeach, no president going forward will be safe from factless impeachment for political expediency"

and despite that...not a single republican ever said "From the moment that the vote is taken to impeach, no president going forward will be safe from factless impeachment for political expediency"


and despite that...Democrats didn't seek to pursue a "factless impeachment for political expediency"

and despite that...Republicans didn't seek to pursue a "factless impeachment for political expediency"

However, what you are doing is guaranteeing that this president and future presidents will abuse their office to leverage foreign countries to do whatever they can to damage that president's political opponents or else...and there will be no need to do it in secret because you have already made it clear you have no problem with it being done at all...secret or otherwise...

This will be another case of folks being on the wrong side of history and later pretending none of what they are saying today, were ever opinions they held....

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

I bring up Porteous because his defense was not vigorous, it was abysmal....to the point that 96-0 voted for removal...that means his defense didn't sway basically ANYONE...

Have you thought that through? Can a defense be both vigorous and abysmal? For appears to me, it can. Moreover, the defendant's conviction doesn't prove the defense was abysmal. In former judge Porteous's case, the evidence for his guilt was overwhelming, and the verdict reflected that. Other than that, Turley's argument as defense counsel still cannot be thrown at him as his stance on the (de-) merits of impeachment.

The rest of your posting had nothing to do with mine. I do object to your trying to dictate what Turley can, or cannot, say. If he finds defects in the procedure, or the speed of the inquiry, or with sloppy evidentiary standards, that's up to him. If he finds reminding lawmakers that anger is not a valid legal or Constitutional argument - and clothes that valid advice in the language of his dog being mad - that is also up to him. You may disagree with his argument, as do I. Other than that he should be free to argue his case as he sees fit.

Turley can say what ever he wants...what Turley can not do is dictate how me or anyone else reacts to what he says...

And me and anyone else didn't have to make up what Turley said, all me and anyone else had to do was present Turley's own words to him...and ask him how that reconciles with anything Constitutionally..the other witnesses argued constitutional facts...he didn't....which is why he is being laughed at today...

the reason Turley's defense of Porteous was so abysmal is precisely because the facts were not on his side....and since the facts are not on his side in his case, he looks equally pathetic...just as pathetic as people claiming that Obama and Hillary are the ones who responsible for all of this happening today....

 

[RealDave]

The GOP's only impeachment witness on Wednesday contradicted his own previous testimony

I am going to take a different angle on this, because just demolishing Turley's testimony is already trending on Twitter..I am going to ask you Trumpers, what do you feel an elected official should be impeached for??

What Turley did in that hearing was embarrassing, it is what we call "concern trolling" -- he didn't say impeachment was wrong because Trump's actions were justified, he didn't say impeachment was wrong due to any argument made on "CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS" -- he is saying it is wrong because of feelings....feelings that it was moving too fast.... almost as fast as the Jackson impeachment but not as slow as the Clinton impeachment (the only 2 other presidential impeachment hearings in US history..so basically it is moving at a median speed) -- and feelings that people are just so mad and we all need to not be so mad....that is the best witness the republicans could call?? -- On top of that, the Republicans only expert witness actually said "The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

This is the second time Republicans called Turley in as their witness for an impeachment hearing...The first time he was there to make the case in favor of impeachment against Bill Clinton....back then he CORRECTLY said "the accusatory function of the House is essential to maintain a certain deterrence on presidential misconduct..narrowing the scope of impeachable "OFFENSES" <<--(remember that word) can expand the scope of presidential misconduct" -- Basically he was saying if we don't impeach Clinton for lying under oath about a blow job, then that may expand the misconduct of presidents in the future, and he was right....wasn't he??

However, the last impeachment hearing wasn't held in the 90's -- the last impeachment hearing was held in 2010....but I am sure most Trumpers have no idea about it because most Trumpers were too busy putting on funny little tea party hats and claiming they were independents to distance themselves from the embarrassment of George W. Bush.

In 2010, a Clinton appointed federal judge (G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana) was facing impeachment in the Senate for taking bribes...the person representing that corrupt judge was Mr. Turley, the guy who said impeachment is wrong if you don't do it slow enough and if it makes people mad.. The people representing the prosecution in the Senate was republican Bob Goodlatte and democrat Adam Schiff...Turley claimed that the judge was only human and you can't impeach him for being a "moocher" -- however, what Turley called mooching was what the rest of the world called, bribes...like taking payoffs from lawyers in cases where that judge was presiding over their clients, pays offs that influenced decisions he made....The senate voted to convict and remove that judge 96-0...

Fact of the matter is....It is fundamentally and constitutionally impossible to reconcile what Turley's position was in 1998 to what he is claiming today...so when Turley asked "where will you stand" when the wind blows again for a Democratic president to be charged. The answer is simple -- any Democratic president who abuses his power to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign country in order to benefit his own re-election and hurt his political opponent, should be impeached. Simple.

You're putting a mighty heavy spin on Turley's remarks. And I heard a very different concern from him about the Democrats not having enough evidence that can be considered during a real "trial." Yes, there is circumstantial evidence up the wazoo, but there is obstruction of the investigation by the President and the testimony and evidence that is required will be withheld by Trump's stable of lawyers until well after the 2020 election. The Dems will lose, but not for lack of a crime. They will lose because they do not wish to spend a couple of years battling in the courts for every witness.

Witnesses are not circumstantial.


Turley kept on about the timing. Republicans would love to push this back a couple months so they could argue it is too close to the election.

Republicans & Trump not participating & blocking testimony is only a sign of guilt.

Republicans could have ended it months ago if they had proof that no crime was committed.

Some folks try so hard to appear "objective" that it makes them look sad....

They feel that if the tables were totally switched -- that these republicans that they are trying so hard to bend over backwards for -- will be just as fair and objective to them.....

You are 1000% right that republicans are blocking testimony, blocking witnesses, blocking additional evidence not because it proves Trump's innocence but because it will prove Trump's guilt beyond any reasonable doubt....even OldLady's ...as much as I respect her opinions...

You obviously are cluelss on Executive Privilege. If the Dems thought they could force the testimony, why didn't they take it to court? Oh, they were in a rush to impeach Trump and that might take to long to find out they lost! They also wanted to charge Trump with obstruction which Turley categorically denied was possible because Congress did not take Trump to court to force the testimony. They could have, and should have, but we too afraid of losing in court. They just use it to bash Trump in the media, despite it being the Dems failure..

Let Trump run it through the courts a couple of years?

I have an idea. Lets do nothing so that future Presidents can obstruct & run bribery scheme & use precedence as an excuse why they should not be impeached.

Congress has the right to investigate. Trump can hide all of his people all he wants. Evidently he thinks that will protect him. Evidently they have nothing good to say.

 

[RealDave]

The GOP's only impeachment witness on Wednesday contradicted his own previous testimony

I am going to take a different angle on this, because just demolishing Turley's testimony is already trending on Twitter..I am going to ask you Trumpers, what do you feel an elected official should be impeached for??

What Turley did in that hearing was embarrassing, it is what we call "concern trolling" -- he didn't say impeachment was wrong because Trump's actions were justified, he didn't say impeachment was wrong due to any argument made on "CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS" -- he is saying it is wrong because of feelings....feelings that it was moving too fast.... almost as fast as the Jackson impeachment but not as slow as the Clinton impeachment (the only 2 other presidential impeachment hearings in US history..so basically it is moving at a median speed) -- and feelings that people are just so mad and we all need to not be so mad....that is the best witness the republicans could call?? -- On top of that, the Republicans only expert witness actually said "The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

This is the second time Republicans called Turley in as their witness for an impeachment hearing...The first time he was there to make the case in favor of impeachment against Bill Clinton....back then he CORRECTLY said "the accusatory function of the House is essential to maintain a certain deterrence on presidential misconduct..narrowing the scope of impeachable "OFFENSES" <<--(remember that word) can expand the scope of presidential misconduct" -- Basically he was saying if we don't impeach Clinton for lying under oath about a blow job, then that may expand the misconduct of presidents in the future, and he was right....wasn't he??

However, the last impeachment hearing wasn't held in the 90's -- the last impeachment hearing was held in 2010....but I am sure most Trumpers have no idea about it because most Trumpers were too busy putting on funny little tea party hats and claiming they were independents to distance themselves from the embarrassment of George W. Bush.

In 2010, a Clinton appointed federal judge (G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana) was facing impeachment in the Senate for taking bribes...the person representing that corrupt judge was Mr. Turley, the guy who said impeachment is wrong if you don't do it slow enough and if it makes people mad.. The people representing the prosecution in the Senate was republican Bob Goodlatte and democrat Adam Schiff...Turley claimed that the judge was only human and you can't impeach him for being a "moocher" -- however, what Turley called mooching was what the rest of the world called, bribes...like taking payoffs from lawyers in cases where that judge was presiding over their clients, pays offs that influenced decisions he made....The senate voted to convict and remove that judge 96-0...

Fact of the matter is....It is fundamentally and constitutionally impossible to reconcile what Turley's position was in 1998 to what he is claiming today...so when Turley asked "where will you stand" when the wind blows again for a Democratic president to be charged. The answer is simple -- any Democratic president who abuses his power to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign country in order to benefit his own re-election and hurt his political opponent, should be impeached. Simple.

I think you misunderstood his point.....which was anger is not an excuse for impeachment.

So we shouldn't be angry that Trump broke the law.

 

[justoffal]

The GOP's only impeachment witness on Wednesday contradicted his own previous testimony

I am going to take a different angle on this, because just demolishing Turley's testimony is already trending on Twitter..I am going to ask you Trumpers, what do you feel an elected official should be impeached for??

What Turley did in that hearing was embarrassing, it is what we call "concern trolling" -- he didn't say impeachment was wrong because Trump's actions were justified, he didn't say impeachment was wrong due to any argument made on "CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS" -- he is saying it is wrong because of feelings....feelings that it was moving too fast.... almost as fast as the Jackson impeachment but not as slow as the Clinton impeachment (the only 2 other presidential impeachment hearings in US history..so basically it is moving at a median speed) -- and feelings that people are just so mad and we all need to not be so mad....that is the best witness the republicans could call?? -- On top of that, the Republicans only expert witness actually said "The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

This is the second time Republicans called Turley in as their witness for an impeachment hearing...The first time he was there to make the case in favor of impeachment against Bill Clinton....back then he CORRECTLY said "the accusatory function of the House is essential to maintain a certain deterrence on presidential misconduct..narrowing the scope of impeachable "OFFENSES" <<--(remember that word) can expand the scope of presidential misconduct" -- Basically he was saying if we don't impeach Clinton for lying under oath about a blow job, then that may expand the misconduct of presidents in the future, and he was right....wasn't he??

However, the last impeachment hearing wasn't held in the 90's -- the last impeachment hearing was held in 2010....but I am sure most Trumpers have no idea about it because most Trumpers were too busy putting on funny little tea party hats and claiming they were independents to distance themselves from the embarrassment of George W. Bush.

In 2010, a Clinton appointed federal judge (G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana) was facing impeachment in the Senate for taking bribes...the person representing that corrupt judge was Mr. Turley, the guy who said impeachment is wrong if you don't do it slow enough and if it makes people mad.. The people representing the prosecution in the Senate was republican Bob Goodlatte and democrat Adam Schiff...Turley claimed that the judge was only human and you can't impeach him for being a "moocher" -- however, what Turley called mooching was what the rest of the world called, bribes...like taking payoffs from lawyers in cases where that judge was presiding over their clients, pays offs that influenced decisions he made....The senate voted to convict and remove that judge 96-0...

Fact of the matter is....It is fundamentally and constitutionally impossible to reconcile what Turley's position was in 1998 to what he is claiming today...so when Turley asked "where will you stand" when the wind blows again for a Democratic president to be charged. The answer is simple -- any Democratic president who abuses his power to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign country in order to benefit his own re-election and hurt his political opponent, should be impeached. Simple.

funny that you think Turley's testimony is being demolished. He is one of your own, the problem with Turley is that he is sensible, with eyes wide open and clear.

When he speaks about a Democrat standing when the winds blow, he is specifically referring to the fact that no longer will facts and/or crime be necessary for impeachment.

From the moment that the vote is taken to impeach, no president going forward will be safe from factless impeachment for political expediency.

BINGO! POST OF THE MONTH!

JO

 

[RealDave]

Turley is a democrat,, he’s trying to save you people for the sickness of TDS

Uh huh......I like how you avoided every fact I presented.....

Especially this one...…..""The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

That has already been proven.....this Trump era will not age well for his sycophants....

Hope you still got them cute little tea-party hats and "I'm An Independent" t-shirts in storage somewhere....you will be needing them in your next re-branding campaign

It hasn't happened - bippy boy.

Uh huh....Mulvaney disagrees with you.....maybe we should call him to testify under oath and clear things up...oh wait!

How come you don’t play the clarification

"Clarification"? What he said after Trump gave him an ass beating for admitting it.

 

[theHawk]

The GOP's only impeachment witness on Wednesday contradicted his own previous testimony

I am going to take a different angle on this, because just demolishing Turley's testimony is already trending on Twitter..I am going to ask you Trumpers, what do you feel an elected official should be impeached for??

What Turley did in that hearing was embarrassing, it is what we call "concern trolling" -- he didn't say impeachment was wrong because Trump's actions were justified, he didn't say impeachment was wrong due to any argument made on "CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS" -- he is saying it is wrong because of feelings....feelings that it was moving too fast.... almost as fast as the Jackson impeachment but not as slow as the Clinton impeachment (the only 2 other presidential impeachment hearings in US history..so basically it is moving at a median speed) -- and feelings that people are just so mad and we all need to not be so mad....that is the best witness the republicans could call?? -- On top of that, the Republicans only expert witness actually said "The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

This is the second time Republicans called Turley in as their witness for an impeachment hearing...The first time he was there to make the case in favor of impeachment against Bill Clinton....back then he CORRECTLY said "the accusatory function of the House is essential to maintain a certain deterrence on presidential misconduct..narrowing the scope of impeachable "OFFENSES" <<--(remember that word) can expand the scope of presidential misconduct" -- Basically he was saying if we don't impeach Clinton for lying under oath about a blow job, then that may expand the misconduct of presidents in the future, and he was right....wasn't he??

However, the last impeachment hearing wasn't held in the 90's -- the last impeachment hearing was held in 2010....but I am sure most Trumpers have no idea about it because most Trumpers were too busy putting on funny little tea party hats and claiming they were independents to distance themselves from the embarrassment of George W. Bush.

In 2010, a Clinton appointed federal judge (G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana) was facing impeachment in the Senate for taking bribes...the person representing that corrupt judge was Mr. Turley, the guy who said impeachment is wrong if you don't do it slow enough and if it makes people mad.. The people representing the prosecution in the Senate was republican Bob Goodlatte and democrat Adam Schiff...Turley claimed that the judge was only human and you can't impeach him for being a "moocher" -- however, what Turley called mooching was what the rest of the world called, bribes...like taking payoffs from lawyers in cases where that judge was presiding over their clients, pays offs that influenced decisions he made....The senate voted to convict and remove that judge 96-0...

Fact of the matter is....It is fundamentally and constitutionally impossible to reconcile what Turley's position was in 1998 to what he is claiming today...so when Turley asked "where will you stand" when the wind blows again for a Democratic president to be charged. The answer is simple -- any Democratic president who abuses his power to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign country in order to benefit his own re-election and hurt his political opponent, should be impeached. Simple.

He voted against President Trump you dolt. He is a Democrat. He knows Dems will get annihilated if they go forward with a real impeachment.

Even the CNN bobble-heads were concerned about it.

So hurry up and vote on articles of impeachment.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

The GOP's only impeachment witness on Wednesday contradicted his own previous testimony

I am going to take a different angle on this, because just demolishing Turley's testimony is already trending on Twitter..I am going to ask you Trumpers, what do you feel an elected official should be impeached for??

What Turley did in that hearing was embarrassing, it is what we call "concern trolling" -- he didn't say impeachment was wrong because Trump's actions were justified, he didn't say impeachment was wrong due to any argument made on "CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS" -- he is saying it is wrong because of feelings....feelings that it was moving too fast.... almost as fast as the Jackson impeachment but not as slow as the Clinton impeachment (the only 2 other presidential impeachment hearings in US history..so basically it is moving at a median speed) -- and feelings that people are just so mad and we all need to not be so mad....that is the best witness the republicans could call?? -- On top of that, the Republicans only expert witness actually said "The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

This is the second time Republicans called Turley in as their witness for an impeachment hearing...The first time he was there to make the case in favor of impeachment against Bill Clinton....back then he CORRECTLY said "the accusatory function of the House is essential to maintain a certain deterrence on presidential misconduct..narrowing the scope of impeachable "OFFENSES" <<--(remember that word) can expand the scope of presidential misconduct" -- Basically he was saying if we don't impeach Clinton for lying under oath about a blow job, then that may expand the misconduct of presidents in the future, and he was right....wasn't he??

However, the last impeachment hearing wasn't held in the 90's -- the last impeachment hearing was held in 2010....but I am sure most Trumpers have no idea about it because most Trumpers were too busy putting on funny little tea party hats and claiming they were independents to distance themselves from the embarrassment of George W. Bush.

In 2010, a Clinton appointed federal judge (G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana) was facing impeachment in the Senate for taking bribes...the person representing that corrupt judge was Mr. Turley, the guy who said impeachment is wrong if you don't do it slow enough and if it makes people mad.. The people representing the prosecution in the Senate was republican Bob Goodlatte and democrat Adam Schiff...Turley claimed that the judge was only human and you can't impeach him for being a "moocher" -- however, what Turley called mooching was what the rest of the world called, bribes...like taking payoffs from lawyers in cases where that judge was presiding over their clients, pays offs that influenced decisions he made....The senate voted to convict and remove that judge 96-0...

Fact of the matter is....It is fundamentally and constitutionally impossible to reconcile what Turley's position was in 1998 to what he is claiming today...so when Turley asked "where will you stand" when the wind blows again for a Democratic president to be charged. The answer is simple -- any Democratic president who abuses his power to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign country in order to benefit his own re-election and hurt his political opponent, should be impeached. Simple.

You're putting a mighty heavy spin on Turley's remarks. And I heard a very different concern from him about the Democrats not having enough evidence that can be considered during a real "trial." Yes, there is circumstantial evidence up the wazoo, but there is obstruction of the investigation by the President and the testimony and evidence that is required will be withheld by Trump's stable of lawyers until well after the 2020 election. The Dems will lose, but not for lack of a crime. They will lose because they do not wish to spend a couple of years battling in the courts for every witness.

Witnesses are not circumstantial.


Turley kept on about the timing. Republicans would love to push this back a couple months so they could argue it is too close to the election.

Republicans & Trump not participating & blocking testimony is only a sign of guilt.

Republicans could have ended it months ago if they had proof that no crime was committed.

Some folks try so hard to appear "objective" that it makes them look sad....

They feel that if the tables were totally switched -- that these republicans that they are trying so hard to bend over backwards for -- will be just as fair and objective to them.....

You are 1000% right that republicans are blocking testimony, blocking witnesses, blocking additional evidence not because it proves Trump's innocence but because it will prove Trump's guilt beyond any reasonable doubt....even OldLady's ...as much as I respect her opinions...

Biff, you misunderstand me. I have no question in my mind that Trump is guilty as charged. What I had difficulty with was the very biased article you put up that dismisses the observations of a very experienced Constitutional lawyer. I think it is very clear to all that the Senate will not impeach the President; we all know that, but I am not sure it is SOLELY for partisan reasons. The evidence required in a trial is being obstructed by the President, YES, and the Dems have chosen to let him out of consideration for the time it would take to wrestle his cooperation.

I wish I was wrong and that Trump would be impeached by the Senate and removed from office for his behavior, but there is a game to be played here, first, and the Dems do not have winning hand. If this were their last full-blown attempt to change the voting public's mind before the election, it seems to have failed. At least polls show that people simply heard what they wanted to hear in all the testimony....it did not change many minds about the President at all.

Sorry days.

Just keep clear eyed about this and do not let yourself be sucked down into the ridiculous swamp of ad homs that the Republicans use to discredit the opposition.

Does that make sense to you?

When Clinton was impeached, the voting public was only 29% in favor of impeachment....not one republicans said anything about "impeachment is for changing the voting public's mind"

When Nixon resigned, at that point, the voting public was maybe 40% -- and that was before courts forced him to release the tapes...when that happened, he resigned because he knew...and even after the tapes were released, you still had people who didn't want him impeached -- those people are party sycophants and are irrelevant when it comes to impeachment....

Nearly 50% favor impeachment now, if Mulvaney, Giuliani, Bolton, Pompeo testified under oath -- the public would be well over 50% for impeachment, because none of them will lie under oath to protect Trump.....

But as I said before, impeachment isn't about the voting public, it is about making sure the next president DOES NOT think Article 2 gives them power to do whatever they want -- which is exactly what Trump actually said....

I have no concerns about future presidents possibly being impeached for impeachable offenses, because if they committed impeachable acts, they should be impeached....I am not a party sycophant so it wouldn't bother me....

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

The GOP's only impeachment witness on Wednesday contradicted his own previous testimony

I am going to take a different angle on this, because just demolishing Turley's testimony is already trending on Twitter..I am going to ask you Trumpers, what do you feel an elected official should be impeached for??

What Turley did in that hearing was embarrassing, it is what we call "concern trolling" -- he didn't say impeachment was wrong because Trump's actions were justified, he didn't say impeachment was wrong due to any argument made on "CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS" -- he is saying it is wrong because of feelings....feelings that it was moving too fast.... almost as fast as the Jackson impeachment but not as slow as the Clinton impeachment (the only 2 other presidential impeachment hearings in US history..so basically it is moving at a median speed) -- and feelings that people are just so mad and we all need to not be so mad....that is the best witness the republicans could call?? -- On top of that, the Republicans only expert witness actually said "The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

This is the second time Republicans called Turley in as their witness for an impeachment hearing...The first time he was there to make the case in favor of impeachment against Bill Clinton....back then he CORRECTLY said "the accusatory function of the House is essential to maintain a certain deterrence on presidential misconduct..narrowing the scope of impeachable "OFFENSES" <<--(remember that word) can expand the scope of presidential misconduct" -- Basically he was saying if we don't impeach Clinton for lying under oath about a blow job, then that may expand the misconduct of presidents in the future, and he was right....wasn't he??

However, the last impeachment hearing wasn't held in the 90's -- the last impeachment hearing was held in 2010....but I am sure most Trumpers have no idea about it because most Trumpers were too busy putting on funny little tea party hats and claiming they were independents to distance themselves from the embarrassment of George W. Bush.

In 2010, a Clinton appointed federal judge (G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana) was facing impeachment in the Senate for taking bribes...the person representing that corrupt judge was Mr. Turley, the guy who said impeachment is wrong if you don't do it slow enough and if it makes people mad.. The people representing the prosecution in the Senate was republican Bob Goodlatte and democrat Adam Schiff...Turley claimed that the judge was only human and you can't impeach him for being a "moocher" -- however, what Turley called mooching was what the rest of the world called, bribes...like taking payoffs from lawyers in cases where that judge was presiding over their clients, pays offs that influenced decisions he made....The senate voted to convict and remove that judge 96-0...

Fact of the matter is....It is fundamentally and constitutionally impossible to reconcile what Turley's position was in 1998 to what he is claiming today...so when Turley asked "where will you stand" when the wind blows again for a Democratic president to be charged. The answer is simple -- any Democratic president who abuses his power to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign country in order to benefit his own re-election and hurt his political opponent, should be impeached. Simple.

He voted against President Trump you dolt. He is a Democrat. He knows Dems will get annihilated if they go forward with a real impeachment.

Even the CNN bobble-heads were concerned about it.

So hurry up and vote on articles of impeachment.

and Lindsey Graham called Trump a racist bigot...your point??

Doesn't stop Lindsey from deep throating Trump now, because he has no shame....just like Turley...

There is a reason republicans called him during the Clinton impeachment and there is a reason they called him now....because he is a civil libertarian....which is code for, republicans like his interpretation of executive power, but they don't like the fact he thinks gays should be treated equally under the law....but that latter part isn't why he was called to testify was it

 

[OldLady]

The GOP's only impeachment witness on Wednesday contradicted his own previous testimony

I am going to take a different angle on this, because just demolishing Turley's testimony is already trending on Twitter..I am going to ask you Trumpers, what do you feel an elected official should be impeached for??

What Turley did in that hearing was embarrassing, it is what we call "concern trolling" -- he didn't say impeachment was wrong because Trump's actions were justified, he didn't say impeachment was wrong due to any argument made on "CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS" -- he is saying it is wrong because of feelings....feelings that it was moving too fast.... almost as fast as the Jackson impeachment but not as slow as the Clinton impeachment (the only 2 other presidential impeachment hearings in US history..so basically it is moving at a median speed) -- and feelings that people are just so mad and we all need to not be so mad....that is the best witness the republicans could call?? -- On top of that, the Republicans only expert witness actually said "The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

This is the second time Republicans called Turley in as their witness for an impeachment hearing...The first time he was there to make the case in favor of impeachment against Bill Clinton....back then he CORRECTLY said "the accusatory function of the House is essential to maintain a certain deterrence on presidential misconduct..narrowing the scope of impeachable "OFFENSES" <<--(remember that word) can expand the scope of presidential misconduct" -- Basically he was saying if we don't impeach Clinton for lying under oath about a blow job, then that may expand the misconduct of presidents in the future, and he was right....wasn't he??

However, the last impeachment hearing wasn't held in the 90's -- the last impeachment hearing was held in 2010....but I am sure most Trumpers have no idea about it because most Trumpers were too busy putting on funny little tea party hats and claiming they were independents to distance themselves from the embarrassment of George W. Bush.

In 2010, a Clinton appointed federal judge (G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana) was facing impeachment in the Senate for taking bribes...the person representing that corrupt judge was Mr. Turley, the guy who said impeachment is wrong if you don't do it slow enough and if it makes people mad.. The people representing the prosecution in the Senate was republican Bob Goodlatte and democrat Adam Schiff...Turley claimed that the judge was only human and you can't impeach him for being a "moocher" -- however, what Turley called mooching was what the rest of the world called, bribes...like taking payoffs from lawyers in cases where that judge was presiding over their clients, pays offs that influenced decisions he made....The senate voted to convict and remove that judge 96-0...

Fact of the matter is....It is fundamentally and constitutionally impossible to reconcile what Turley's position was in 1998 to what he is claiming today...so when Turley asked "where will you stand" when the wind blows again for a Democratic president to be charged. The answer is simple -- any Democratic president who abuses his power to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign country in order to benefit his own re-election and hurt his political opponent, should be impeached. Simple.

You're putting a mighty heavy spin on Turley's remarks. And I heard a very different concern from him about the Democrats not having enough evidence that can be considered during a real "trial." Yes, there is circumstantial evidence up the wazoo, but there is obstruction of the investigation by the President and the testimony and evidence that is required will be withheld by Trump's stable of lawyers until well after the 2020 election. The Dems will lose, but not for lack of a crime. They will lose because they do not wish to spend a couple of years battling in the courts for every witness.

Witnesses are not circumstantial.


Turley kept on about the timing. Republicans would love to push this back a couple months so they could argue it is too close to the election.

Republicans & Trump not participating & blocking testimony is only a sign of guilt.

Republicans could have ended it months ago if they had proof that no crime was committed.

Some folks try so hard to appear "objective" that it makes them look sad....

They feel that if the tables were totally switched -- that these republicans that they are trying so hard to bend over backwards for -- will be just as fair and objective to them.....

You are 1000% right that republicans are blocking testimony, blocking witnesses, blocking additional evidence not because it proves Trump's innocence but because it will prove Trump's guilt beyond any reasonable doubt....even OldLady's ...as much as I respect her opinions...

Biff, you misunderstand me. I have no question in my mind that Trump is guilty as charged. What I had difficulty with was the very biased article you put up that dismisses the observations of a very experienced Constitutional lawyer. I think it is very clear to all that the Senate will not impeach the President; we all know that, but I am not sure it is SOLELY for partisan reasons. The evidence required in a trial is being obstructed by the President, YES, and the Dems have chosen to let him out of consideration for the time it would take to wrestle his cooperation.

I wish I was wrong and that Trump would be impeached by the Senate and removed from office for his behavior, but there is a game to be played here, first, and the Dems do not have winning hand. If this were their last full-blown attempt to change the voting public's mind before the election, it seems to have failed. At least polls show that people simply heard what they wanted to hear in all the testimony....it did not change many minds about the President at all.

Sorry days.

Just keep clear eyed about this and do not let yourself be sucked down into the ridiculous swamp of ad homs that the Republicans use to discredit the opposition.

Does that make sense to you?

When Clinton was impeached, the voting public was only 29% in favor of impeachment....not one republicans said anything about "impeachment is for changing the voting public's mind"

When Nixon resigned, at that point, the voting public was maybe 40% -- and that was before courts forced him to release the tapes...when that happened, he resigned because he knew...and even after the tapes were released, you still had people who didn't want him impeached -- those people are party sycophants and are irrelevant when it comes to impeachment....

Nearly 50% favor impeachment now, if Mulvaney, Giuliani, Bolton, Pompeo testified under oath -- the public would be well over 50% for impeachment, because none of them will lie under oath to protect Trump.....

But as I said before, impeachment isn't about the voting public, it is about making sure the next president DOES NOT think Article 2 gives them power to do whatever they want -- which is exactly what Trump actually said....

I have no concerns about future presidents possibly being impeached for impeachable offenses, because if they committed impeachable acts, they should be impeached....I am not a party sycophant so it wouldn't bother me....

impeachment isn't about the voting public, it is about making sure the next president DOES NOT think Article 2 gives them power to do whatever they want -- which is exactly what Trump actually said....
Yes. I agree.

Interesting about the % of the public that was behind our last two impeachment investigations. I know it isn't about votes--or it shouldn't be--but it is an election year and I do wonder why Pelosi is rushing this forward...could it be the Republicans are partly right? Yes, the President did wrong and got caught with his hand in the cookie jar up to his elbow. But to wrap this up before the voting booths open? The Dems will take advantage of the opportunity, don't you think?

 

[BWK]

If they're the shinola, you must be the shit.

Fair enough.

Got a counter argument? No! looks like you're the shit, because you haven't debated anything.