Turley Exposes Republicans And Himself As Being Full Of Shionla

[BWK]

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?

There are too many facts in this case that support impeachment, and no one has been rushing. We have the mueller report that was enough as well, and we received that report a long time ago.

 

[BWK]

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

I am going to take a napdifferent 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.

This is a street fight. Street fights are never won by the rules.

Do you think the one moment before he entered this office he didn't already know what it was all about?

The one thing he probably underestimated was how many traitors were left behind from the previous administration.

Trump is an expert Street fighter the DNC sucks at it unless they're screwing one of their own.

Aside from being torturously boring
Your posts are childishly wishful.

The next election is already over.

Jo

I like how you failed to refute any facts

People with the facts on their side don't have to say shit like "can't win it by the rules"

There is a reason you folks argue your sycophantic feelings about your cult leader and avoid arguing any facts.....

and if the dems suck at whatever it is you whining about -- why is it anytime reality pops your delusion bubble -- you blame it on the Dems and their Deep State??

Tells me that the Dems control everything...even Trump's own personal attorney, trump's own campaign manager, national security advisor, both of his attorney generals, FBI director, secretary of state, 3 chiefs of staff....at what point do you dumb asses quit finding excuses??

An idiot will pound something even when there is nothing left to pound. Those folks are called "deplorable Trump supporting Sheep."

 

[Olde Europe]

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...

So, Turley tried to dictate to you (or anyone) how you (they) react? Really?

Yeah, I read that lazy "Business Insider" article, and the silly gotcha nonsense, too. Turley never said a crime is necessary to impeach - only that it would be uncommon (Turley's written statement), and following the same or reasonably similar evidentiary standards as would a criminal case would help solidify the case for impeachment. That argument is not entirely compelling as it stands - or so I would think - but those who would just laugh at Turley aren't very convincing either.

Pointing out, as Turley did, that Congress not insisting on lines not to be crossed extends the scope of executive malfeasance, is certainly correct. Also, on principle, insisting that incomplete evidence damages the case for impeachment, is also correct. Moreover, wile both taken together seemingly pose a dilemma, they can very well coexist.

All told, I found it pathetic that the Democrats almost completely ignored Turley, most disappointingly even the majority counsel followed that, when they should have taken full advantage of Turley finding out flaws in their case for impeachment, or possible other lines of attack. But not one, seemingly, was well enough prepared to do that, much less was anyone prepared to pick apart Turley's argument, which I find is the biggest defect of the inquiry so far. You plainly cannot leave the witness for the other side to the other side, leaving everyone watching with the impression Democrats have no compelling argument against him. I think Turley's argument can be validly countered, but that requires prudent work, and I am not seeing that happening. Sadly enough.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

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...

So, Turley tried to dictate to you (or anyone) how you (they) react? Really?

Yeah, I read that lazy "Business Insider" article, and the silly gotcha nonsense, too. Turley never said a crime is necessary to impeach - only that it would be uncommon (Turley's written statement), and following the same or reasonably similar evidentiary standards as would a criminal case would help solidify the case for impeachment. That argument is not entirely compelling as it stands - or so I would think - but those who would just laugh at Turley aren't very convincing either.

Pointing out, as Turley did, that Congress not insisting on lines not to be crossed extends the scope of executive malfeasance, is certainly correct. Also, on principle, insisting that incomplete evidence damages the case for impeachment, is also correct. Moreover, wile both taken together seemingly pose a dilemma, they can very well coexist.

All told, I found it pathetic that the Democrats almost completely ignored Turley, most disappointingly even the majority counsel followed that, when they should have taken full advantage of Turley finding out flaws in their case for impeachment, or possible other lines of attack. But not one, seemingly, was well enough prepared to do that, much less was anyone prepared to pick apart Turley's argument, which I find is the biggest defect of the inquiry so far. You plainly cannot leave the witness for the other side to the other side, leaving everyone watching with the impression Democrats have no compelling argument against him. I think Turley's argument can be validly countered, but that requires prudent work, and I am not seeing that happening. Sadly enough.

Remember when Turley never argued the facts of what Trump did??

Remember when Turley never gave a constitutional basis for why impeachment is wrong in this case??

The founders never said anything about "don't impeach too fast" or "don't impeach when everyone is mad"

There was one law professor said it best when she simplified exactly what Trump did so the average everyday person could understand it without the spin.....

Basically, If you were traveling the speed limit, doing nothing wrong..and the police pulled you over and said you were speeding...and said if you give him 200 bucks, he won't give you a ticket...you hesitate....then his partner comes up and reiterates that if you give them 200 bucks, you won't get a ticket...and even tho you can't really afford to give them the money, you decide to pay up....and right then, the police sergeant comes up and asks what is going on...both cops say nothing and tell you to move along...no ticket, everything is fine.....those cops still tried to extort money out of you....

and not one single republican refuted that fact....instead they as usual, bitch and complain about everything else other than the facts

 

[Dana7360]

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?

I'm not sure who said it yesterday but I agree with them.

The same point was brought up at the hearing and for full disclosure I used to have that view too. However, I agree with whoever said, trump needs to be stopped from cheating in the election next year. Who knows what else he's been up to? We need to make sure this coming election is as fair and honest as possible, We can't do that if we don't make it very clear to trump that his cheating will not be tolerated.

We can't run the risk of him cheating more in this election to get reelected.

 

[Olde Europe]

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...

So, Turley tried to dictate to you (or anyone) how you (they) react? Really?

Yeah, I read that lazy "Business Insider" article, and the silly gotcha nonsense, too. Turley never said a crime is necessary to impeach - only that it would be uncommon (Turley's written statement), and following the same or reasonably similar evidentiary standards as would a criminal case would help solidify the case for impeachment. That argument is not entirely compelling as it stands - or so I would think - but those who would just laugh at Turley aren't very convincing either.

Pointing out, as Turley did, that Congress not insisting on lines not to be crossed extends the scope of executive malfeasance, is certainly correct. Also, on principle, insisting that incomplete evidence damages the case for impeachment, is also correct. Moreover, wile both taken together seemingly pose a dilemma, they can very well coexist.

All told, I found it pathetic that the Democrats almost completely ignored Turley, most disappointingly even the majority counsel followed that, when they should have taken full advantage of Turley finding out flaws in their case for impeachment, or possible other lines of attack. But not one, seemingly, was well enough prepared to do that, much less was anyone prepared to pick apart Turley's argument, which I find is the biggest defect of the inquiry so far. You plainly cannot leave the witness for the other side to the other side, leaving everyone watching with the impression Democrats have no compelling argument against him. I think Turley's argument can be validly countered, but that requires prudent work, and I am not seeing that happening. Sadly enough.

Remember when Turley never argued the facts of what Trump did??

Remember when Turley never gave a constitutional basis for why impeachment is wrong in this case??

The founders never said anything about "don't impeach too fast" or "don't impeach when everyone is mad"

There was one law professor said it best when she simplified exactly what Trump did so the average everyday person could understand it without the spin.....

Basically, If you were traveling the speed limit, doing nothing wrong..and the police pulled you over and said you were speeding...and said if you give him 200 bucks, he won't give you a ticket...you hesitate....then his partner comes up and reiterates that if you give them 200 bucks, you won't get a ticket...and even tho you can't really afford to give them the money, you decide to pay up....and right then, the police sergeant comes up and asks what is going on...both cops say nothing and tell you to move along...no ticket, everything is fine.....those cops still tried to extort money out of you....

and not one single republican refuted that fact....instead they as usual, bitch and complain about everything else other than the facts

Somehow, in your impeachment fervor, you forgot to address a single point I made.

Yes, that little cop story is nice, but Turley's argument is that the evidentiary record is not sufficient to establish either bribery or extortion. Once again, Biff, I believe that argument can be countered, and it should be, but Democrats, as far as I have seen, haven't. Goes without saying, declaring him to be full of shinola doesn't do the trick, either.

Don't be lazy, Biff. Read his text (linked above), and see whether you find a good counter.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

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?

No, it is not because Republicans are partly right....as I have said many times, memory is a liberal superpower...republicans hate memory...so lets take a trip down memory lane...

The framers made no provision about "don't impeach during an election year" -- do not think that Republicans if the roles were reversed, would not impeach because it is an election year...how do I know?? Because it was republicans who TOTALLY KILLED A SUPREME COURT NOMINATION because it was an election year...even tho the framers made no provision saying presidents can only nominate justices when it is not an election year...if Ruth died today, are you telling me that Trump and republicans will hold off on nominating a new justice because it's an election year??

Stop trying to appeal to some sense of fairness on the part of republicans, they are depraved...meanwhile, democrats bend over backwards over and over and over and over again to appease the depravity of Republicans...there is no "both sides do it" about this...

During the first year or so of Obama's presidency, the biggest scandals were him ordering Dijon mustard on his burger, putting his feet on the desk, wearing a tan suit and giving his wife a fist bump....during Trump's first year, half of his campaign got indicted...there is no both sides do it...

If you continue to keep doing this, it is just going to get worse....

 

[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?

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?

There are too many facts in this case that support impeachment, and no one has been rushing. We have the mueller report that was enough as well, and we received that report a long time ago.

Okay. I hope you all are right and we get the old bastard out of 1600 Pennsylvania before any further damage is done. And at the rate they're going, we won't have to wait very long.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

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...

So, Turley tried to dictate to you (or anyone) how you (they) react? Really?

Yeah, I read that lazy "Business Insider" article, and the silly gotcha nonsense, too. Turley never said a crime is necessary to impeach - only that it would be uncommon (Turley's written statement), and following the same or reasonably similar evidentiary standards as would a criminal case would help solidify the case for impeachment. That argument is not entirely compelling as it stands - or so I would think - but those who would just laugh at Turley aren't very convincing either.

Pointing out, as Turley did, that Congress not insisting on lines not to be crossed extends the scope of executive malfeasance, is certainly correct. Also, on principle, insisting that incomplete evidence damages the case for impeachment, is also correct. Moreover, wile both taken together seemingly pose a dilemma, they can very well coexist.

All told, I found it pathetic that the Democrats almost completely ignored Turley, most disappointingly even the majority counsel followed that, when they should have taken full advantage of Turley finding out flaws in their case for impeachment, or possible other lines of attack. But not one, seemingly, was well enough prepared to do that, much less was anyone prepared to pick apart Turley's argument, which I find is the biggest defect of the inquiry so far. You plainly cannot leave the witness for the other side to the other side, leaving everyone watching with the impression Democrats have no compelling argument against him. I think Turley's argument can be validly countered, but that requires prudent work, and I am not seeing that happening. Sadly enough.

Remember when Turley never argued the facts of what Trump did??

Remember when Turley never gave a constitutional basis for why impeachment is wrong in this case??

The founders never said anything about "don't impeach too fast" or "don't impeach when everyone is mad"

There was one law professor said it best when she simplified exactly what Trump did so the average everyday person could understand it without the spin.....

Basically, If you were traveling the speed limit, doing nothing wrong..and the police pulled you over and said you were speeding...and said if you give him 200 bucks, he won't give you a ticket...you hesitate....then his partner comes up and reiterates that if you give them 200 bucks, you won't get a ticket...and even tho you can't really afford to give them the money, you decide to pay up....and right then, the police sergeant comes up and asks what is going on...both cops say nothing and tell you to move along...no ticket, everything is fine.....those cops still tried to extort money out of you....

and not one single republican refuted that fact....instead they as usual, bitch and complain about everything else other than the facts

Somehow, in your impeachment fervor, you forgot to address a single point I made.

Yes, that little cop story is nice, but Turley's argument is that the evidentiary record is not sufficient to establish either bribery or extortion. Once again, Biff, I believe that argument can be countered, and it should be, but Democrats, as far as I have seen, haven't. Goes without saying, declaring him to be full of shinola doesn't do the trick, either.

Don't be lazy, Biff. Read his text (linked above), and see whether you find a good counter.

I tell you what...….remember when you morons kept saying "if the dems want to impeach, let them...they will regret it" -- they are impeaching him, instead of complaining, make them regret it...

When the trial starts in the Senate...have Trump present his witnesses, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Giuliani, anyone he feels has this explosive evidence that will exonerate him...have them give this exonerating testimony under oath...and you will totally own the Democrats....


Your excuse for not doing this so far was "we can't have witnesses for Trump testify in the House because democrats are yucky" --- fine....what will be the excuse for them not testifying under oath in the Senate?? It is Republican controlled...so what will be the new excuse??


If someone was on trial for murder, let's say some thug black teen, like a Trayvon or someone scary........and they claim they have 2 witnesses who could TOTALLY prove his innocence...but he refuses to have them testify because he wants the prosecutor to testify instead.... he refuses to present this exonerating evidence, because he wants the son of the assistant police chief to testify instead?? Are you telling me you are going to be like "hmm, that makes perfect sense!!" Fuck no...you are going to say that thug is acting like he is guilty..but since it is your cult leader making that exact same argument, you throw common sense out the window

 

[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?

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?

No, it is not because Republicans are partly right....as I have said many times, memory is a liberal superpower...republicans hate memory...so lets take a trip down memory lane...

The framers made no provision about "don't impeach during an election year" -- do not think that Republicans if the roles were reversed, would not impeach because it is an election year...how do I know?? Because it was republicans who TOTALLY KILLED A SUPREME COURT NOMINATION because it was an election year...even tho the framers made no provision saying presidents can only nominate justices when it is not an election year...if Ruth died today, are you telling me that Trump and republicans will hold off on nominating a new justice because it's an election year??

Stop trying to appeal to some sense of fairness on the part of republicans, they are depraved...meanwhile, democrats bend over backwards over and over and over and over again to appease the depravity of Republicans...there is no "both sides do it" about this...

During the first year or so of Obama's presidency, the biggest scandals were him ordering Dijon mustard on his burger, putting his feet on the desk, wearing a tan suit and giving his wife a fist bump....during Trump's first year, half of his campaign got indicted...there is no both sides do it...

If you continue to keep doing this, it is just going to get worse....

I'm not sure where you think I'm trying to defend both sides here. I'm not. Let's call a truce.

 

[007]

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

It's amazing how fast the democrats will turn on and eat their own if they don't TOW THE LINE, and happen to say something that's outside their programming or agenda.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

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?

No, it is not because Republicans are partly right....as I have said many times, memory is a liberal superpower...republicans hate memory...so lets take a trip down memory lane...

The framers made no provision about "don't impeach during an election year" -- do not think that Republicans if the roles were reversed, would not impeach because it is an election year...how do I know?? Because it was republicans who TOTALLY KILLED A SUPREME COURT NOMINATION because it was an election year...even tho the framers made no provision saying presidents can only nominate justices when it is not an election year...if Ruth died today, are you telling me that Trump and republicans will hold off on nominating a new justice because it's an election year??

Stop trying to appeal to some sense of fairness on the part of republicans, they are depraved...meanwhile, democrats bend over backwards over and over and over and over again to appease the depravity of Republicans...there is no "both sides do it" about this...

During the first year or so of Obama's presidency, the biggest scandals were him ordering Dijon mustard on his burger, putting his feet on the desk, wearing a tan suit and giving his wife a fist bump....during Trump's first year, half of his campaign got indicted...there is no both sides do it...

If you continue to keep doing this, it is just going to get worse....

I'm not sure where you think I'm trying to defend both sides here. I'm not. Let's call a truce.

No need for a truce, because I am not at war with you...I am stating the facts and trying to get you to remain in a factual discussion with me...this isn't about anyone's feelings...

you said "could it be the Republicans are partly right? " -- partly right about what?? rushing impeachment??

This phase of the impeachment process is exactly at around 70 or 71 days since the beginning of the whole impeachment inquiry....guess what else was on the exact same pace, down to the day?? The Clinton impeachment....and not one time did Turley or anyone else make the claim that it was being rushed......I suggest you stop trying to adopt their talking points and just stick to the facts....

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

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

It's amazing how fast the democrats will turn on and eat their own if they don't TOW THE LINE, and happen to say something that's outside their programming or agenda.

Self projection is fun to watch....the main people who turn on the person they were just praising and worshiping are Trumpers...this has been demonstrated time and time again...

In fact, remember this face.....because you dic suckers will be calling him a Deep state traitor in a couple of weeks...right now tho, you are all worshiping him and praising him....by the way, that is John Durham....perhaps you heard of him...

 

[blackhawk]

Turly was the only one of the four who did not come off as a total partisan shill. He is one of the few who sees the danger of using impeachment in a trival way and using the impeachment process to try and overturn an election result you don't like or give your party an advantage in the next election is a very dangerous precedent to set. People would be wise to listen to him because this will not end with Trump there will be another Democrat in the White House and the Republicans will control the House at the same time again and now there is precedent for them to start a purly partisan impeachment over something minor and trival because of what the Democrats have done with Trump. I hope everyone who wants impeachment so much now enjoys it as much when it's going the other way.

 

[OldLady]

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?

No, it is not because Republicans are partly right....as I have said many times, memory is a liberal superpower...republicans hate memory...so lets take a trip down memory lane...

The framers made no provision about "don't impeach during an election year" -- do not think that Republicans if the roles were reversed, would not impeach because it is an election year...how do I know?? Because it was republicans who TOTALLY KILLED A SUPREME COURT NOMINATION because it was an election year...even tho the framers made no provision saying presidents can only nominate justices when it is not an election year...if Ruth died today, are you telling me that Trump and republicans will hold off on nominating a new justice because it's an election year??

Stop trying to appeal to some sense of fairness on the part of republicans, they are depraved...meanwhile, democrats bend over backwards over and over and over and over again to appease the depravity of Republicans...there is no "both sides do it" about this...

During the first year or so of Obama's presidency, the biggest scandals were him ordering Dijon mustard on his burger, putting his feet on the desk, wearing a tan suit and giving his wife a fist bump....during Trump's first year, half of his campaign got indicted...there is no both sides do it...

If you continue to keep doing this, it is just going to get worse....

I'm not sure where you think I'm trying to defend both sides here. I'm not. Let's call a truce.

No need for a truce, because I am not at war with you...I am stating the facts and trying to get you to remain in a factual discussion with me...this isn't about anyone's feelings...

you said "could it be the Republicans are partly right? " -- partly right about what?? rushing impeachment??

This phase of the impeachment process is exactly at around 70 or 71 days since the beginning of the whole impeachment inquiry....guess what else was on the exact same pace, down to the day?? The Clinton impeachment....and not one time did Turley or anyone else make the claim that it was being rushed......I suggest you stop trying to adopt their talking points and just stick to the facts....

partly right about what?? rushing impeachment??
Yes, but Biff, it wasn't Turley who gave me that impression. Just about every commentator and article on impeachment seems to mention it. And no, I'm not reading Breitbart, either.

I have to go for now. Don't EVER accuse me of adopting Trumpette talking points, not ever again. EVER.
Good night.

 

[BWK]

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?

There are too many facts in this case that support impeachment, and no one has been rushing. We have the mueller report that was enough as well, and we received that report a long time ago.

Okay. I hope you all are right and we get the old bastard out of 1600 Pennsylvania before any further damage is done. And at the rate they're going, we won't have to wait very long.

If he is not impeached, it won't be from a lack of factual evidence. It will be because there is a RICO criminal organization in the WH that stretches way beyond Trump, and that organization will protect Trump at all costs, because their asses are now in trouble.

 

[BWK]

Turly was the only one of the four who did not come off as a total partisan shill. He is one of the few who sees the danger of using impeachment in a trival way and using the impeachment process to try and overturn an election result you don't like or give your party an advantage in the next election is a very dangerous precedent to set. People would be wise to listen to him because this will not end with Trump there will be another Democrat in the White House and the Republicans will control the House at the same time again and now there is precedent for them to start a purly partisan impeachment over something minor and trival because of what the Democrats have done with Trump. I hope everyone who wants impeachment so much now enjoys it as much when it's going the other way.

Turley never presented any Constitutional talking points against impeachment. He just complained about the process. He didn't complain about it being too quick with Clinton. Lol! Anyone could have done that. They could do the same thing right before the election. Anyone could come up with that excuse. And if that is what everyone used, then impeachment would have no meaning. There is more combined evidence against Trump right at this moment, than all impeached presidents combined. Enough of the bull shit people. Trump has to go. He is a direct national security threat.

 

[BWK]

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?

I'm not sure who said it yesterday but I agree with them.

The same point was brought up at the hearing and for full disclosure I used to have that view too. However, I agree with whoever said, trump needs to be stopped from cheating in the election next year. Who knows what else he's been up to? We need to make sure this coming election is as fair and honest as possible, We can't do that if we don't make it very clear to trump that his cheating will not be tolerated.

We can't run the risk of him cheating more in this election to get reelected.

I think Pamela Karlan said that.

 

[Olde Europe]

I tell you what...….remember when you morons kept saying "if the dems want to impeach, let them...they will regret it" -- they are impeaching him, instead of complaining, make them regret it...

When the trial starts in the Senate...have Trump present his witnesses, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Giuliani, anyone he feels has this explosive evidence that will exonerate him...have them give this exonerating testimony under oath...and you will totally own the Democrats....


Your excuse for not doing this so far was "we can't have witnesses for Trump testify in the House because democrats are yucky" --- fine....what will be the excuse for them not testifying under oath in the Senate?? It is Republican controlled...so what will be the new excuse??


If someone was on trial for murder, let's say some thug black teen, like a Trayvon or someone scary........and they claim they have 2 witnesses who could TOTALLY prove his innocence...but he refuses to have them testify because he wants the prosecutor to testify instead.... he refuses to present this exonerating evidence, because he wants the son of the assistant police chief to testify instead?? Are you telling me you are going to be like "hmm, that makes perfect sense!!" Fuck no...you are going to say that thug is acting like he is guilty..but since it is your cult leader making that exact same argument, you throw common sense out the window

Heavens, Biff, this is your thread. It wasn't supposed to be about the Republicans' shenanigans before the House Committees, it's also not about the sleaze they will inflict upon the Senate. You forgot? This was about disproving Turley's argument, and, so far, I haven't seen any argument from you - and that lazy Business Insider articles doesn't get there, either.

In short, Turley's question is this: Do you really want to set a precedent for future presidents in the form of impeachment without a solid core in the form of an established-beyond-reasonable-doubt statutory crime, and with incomplete evidence, witnesses central to the cause not heard, and with arbitrary deadlines imposed to accommodate electoral interests?

 

[Oddball]

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

So far, there's absolutely zero evidence to support the claim that Trump's request was politically motivated.

You clowns need to find a law book on what does and doesn't constitute evidence.