We are way beyond reasonable doubt with Trump, Mulvaney, Sondland, and along with about twelve witnesses cementing a Quid Pro Quo election conspiracy to collude with a foreign government. There is absolutely zero reasonable doubt to question Trump's guilt. And no one on the Right has produced such a doubt. Nor will they. The problem I see, Republicans really don't give a shit what Trump does or did. And this is what I have been witnessing with this party, even before Trump. It's a party that identifies with self interests and enrichment. It has no other function or interest.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?