Turley says the quiet part out loud.

[Hutch Starskey]

Not what he said. In fact, he specifically did say that it should now be investigated.

Which is different how than the the previous “investigation”?
If the previous investigation did not find anything to be impeachable, how will a future investigation?

 

[mudwhistle]

Still owned by the Murdoch family.

But his kids are running Fox, and they're woke liberals.

 

[MarcATL]

This is how you know that last night's S-show was a giant loss for Republicans....

1. Greg Gutfeld Attacks Moderator In Fox Debate, Criticizes Team-Up With Univision
2. Neil Cavuto Unimpressed With Impeachment Inquiry Hearing That Lasted 'Six-Plus Hours'
3. Steven Bannon Baffled By James Comer’s Decision To Have Jonathan Turley Testify: ‘Not a Witness I Call Initially’

They're all crying.

#LOLGOP #TooFunny #CLASSIC #RepublicansAreAJoke

 

[struth]

As one of their first witnesses, Republicans called on Jonathan Turley, a conservative legal scholar who previously served as a Justice Department tax attorney. Turley was set to act as a content witness to help analyze the Biden family’s business dealings—but even he admitted there’s not enough evidence.

“I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment,” Turley said in written testimony submitted ahead of the hearing.

Turley also said he did believe it was “warranted” for the House to investigate potential connections between Biden and his son Hunter’s business dealings. But Republicans have been doing just that for months, and they still haven’t found proof linking the president to Hunter Biden’s work.

Republicans’ Key “Biden Corruption” Witness Torches Their Entire Claims

If you want to hold a big impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden, maybe make sure your witnesses are on the same page first.

newrepublic.com

Was this something they knew he was going to say?

Yes, how is that the quiet part? If there was enough evidence he’d be impeached. His not yet, hence why we have the inquiry going on

Are you all that dense?

 

[lennypartiv]

“I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment,” -- Jonathan Turley, Fox News Douche

He's just one person.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes, how is that the quiet part? If there was enough evidence he’d be impeached. His not yet, hence why we have the inquiry going on

Are you all that dense?

But there was so much evidence though.

 

[g5000]

Even some Republicans admit Biden impeachment hearing is an ‘unmitigated disaster’​

​

None of the witnesses that were present at the hearing were fact witnesses to the conduct being alleged. Two Republican witnesses went as far as to say there wasn’t enough evidence to justify impeachment. Georgetown Law Professor Jonathan Turley, a Republican favourite witness, told lawmakers, "I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment," but he made a caveat to say that he believes an inquiry is justified. Turley’s written statement was even more explicit, though: "I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment."

Another Republican-called witness also undermined the GOP’s claims. Bruce Dubinsky, a forensic accountant, told the committee that there is no evidence connecting Joe Biden to illicit activities. House Democrats’ witness, Professor Michael Gerhardt, said that there is no evidence to justify this impeachment inquiry, period. Gerhardt used an analogy to describe this inquiry, stating that it’s as if Hunter Biden was pulled over for speeding in a car owned by Joe Biden, and they want to give Joe Biden the speeding ticket.
Republicans acknowledge this impeachment inquiry exists to try and find evidence they don’t have.
[snip]
The new "evidence" that Republicans do claim to have involves text messages that do not show any proof that Biden used his position to run an influence-peddling scheme. In fact, some of the evidence was distorted. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY) revealed that one of the text messages displayed by Rep Byron Donalds (R-FL) cropped out crucial context. The full conversation showed that Jim Biden, Joe Biden’s brother, was talking to Hunter Biden about how he’s trying to convince Joe to help pay Hunter’s alimony. Republicans cut off that context to make it seem like it was about Hunter’s business dealings.

These assholes are as dishonest as it gets.

 

[struth]

But there was so much evidence though.

Yes to open the inquiry. Hence we are here now, inquiring

Glad to see them take some legal advice early on…made Shifty should of done that instead of rushing a hoax impeachment through based on parody and wouldn’t of embarrass himself and the country at trial

 

[lennypartiv]

Even some Republicans admit Biden impeachment hearing is an ‘unmitigated disaster’​

Impeaching Biden would be the right thing to do if anyone else was vice-president.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

False. Why repeat a lie that has already been debunked, dainty?

Damn, you’re feeble.

Hutch Starskey had it straight too.

"I shouldn't have asked Turley a question," Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert reportedly complained to an aide on Thursday. "He was a crappy witness."

"An unmitigated disaster": House GOP's first impeachment inquiry panned by Republicans​

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes to open the inquiry. Hence we are here now, inquiring

Glad to see them take some legal advice early on…made Shifty should of done that instead of rushing a hoax impeachment through based on parody and wouldn’t of embarrass himself and the country at trial

Old saying, "Where there's smoke, there's fire."

But here all you people can come up with is...

Second hand smoke.

 

[g5000]

Impeaching Biden would be the right thing to do if anyone else was vice-president.

You are a very sick individual if you think Biden should be impeached over NOTHING.

Seriously.

Are you not paying attention? Even the Republicans own witnesses are saying this is total bullshit!

Even worse, they attempted to fabricate evidence! If anyone should be impeached, it is them.

You are the epitome of a partisan hack.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

He's just one person.

MSN

www.msn.com

"An unmitigated disaster": House GOP's first impeachment inquiry panned by Republicans​

 

[BackAgain]

Which is different how than the the previous “investigation”?
If the previous investigation did not find anything to be impeachable, how will a future investigation?

Fakey, don’t try so hard to establish your ignorance and duplicity. It’s already quite fully confirmed that you’re a dope and disingenuous.

 

[BackAgain]

Hutch Starskey had it straight too.

"I shouldn't have asked Turley a question," Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert reportedly complained to an aide on Thursday. "He was a crappy witness."

View attachment 835586

"An unmitigated disaster": House GOP's first impeachment inquiry panned by Republicans​

MSN

www.msn.com

You miss the point. As always.

 

[struth]

Old saying, "Where there's smoke, there's fire."

But here all you people can come up with is...

Second hand smoke.

Yep lots of smoke hence the inquiry

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yep lots of smoke hence the inquiry

Second hand smoke is no evidence of a fire.

As one of their first witnesses, Republicans called on Jonathan Turley, a conservative legal scholar who previously served as a Justice Department tax attorney. Turley was set to act as a content witness to help analyze the Biden family’s business dealings—but even he admitted there’s not enough evidence.

“I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment,” Turley said in written testimony submitted ahead of the hearing.

Turley also said he did believe it was “warranted” for the House to investigate potential connections between Biden and his son Hunter’s business dealings. But Republicans have been doing just that for months, and they still haven’t found proof linking the president to Hunter Biden’s work.

Republicans’ Key “Biden Corruption” Witness Torches Their Entire Claims

If you want to hold a big impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden, maybe make sure your witnesses are on the same page first.

newrepublic.com

Was this something they knew he was going to say?

Here we go again...

The first hearing in House Republicans’ impeachment inquiry into President Biden featured their star witnesses testifying that they lacked proof that he committed impeachable offenses, multiple procedural skirmishes the G.O.P. majority nearly lost and, at times, nearly a dozen empty Republican seats.

What it did not include was any new information about Mr. Biden’s conduct — or any support for Republicans’ accusations that he had entered into corrupt overseas business deals.

“If the Republicans had a smoking gun or even a dripping water pistol, they would be presenting it today,” said Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee. “But they’ve got nothing on Joe Biden.”

First Impeachment Hearing Yields No New Information on Biden

In a chaotic session, Republicans accused the president of crime and corruption, but even their witnesses said the case for impeachment hadn’t been made.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Crepitus]

What do you mean?? Isn’t it normal for the VP to accept money from China?

He wasn't VP in 2017.

DERP

 

[Crepitus]

But his kids are running Fox, and they're woke liberals.

Sure they are, lol.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Who are you calling a Trump minion? Not me, asshole!

My mistake. I apologize. I thought it was criticism of Turley because he did not say there was enough evidence to impeach Biden,
The MAGA minions wanted him to back a reason to impeach Biden.
Plus, I am not an asshole.
I am one of the greatest guys in the entire USA