• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP witness says ‘current evidence’ doesn’t support Biden impeachment

AmbiguousGuy said:
That's bizarre. They had tons of evidence. You should have followed it.
Click to expand...

Of course, they only said and voted because they hate our beloved victim, AKA, "I am the only one....!"

Impeachment I
https://www.nytimes.com › live › 2020 › trump-impeachment-trial-01-30

Day in Impeachment: Alexander Says Democrats Proved Their Case, But It ...​

Jan 31, 2020 Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, said late Thursday that although he believed that Democrats have proved their case that President Trump had acted "inappropriately" in his...

Impeachment II
 
Crakhobarbie said:
As I said earlier,
If they'd had any evidence of wrongdoing viable enough to be substantiated in a court of law, they'd of presented it today.

So, at this point they've got squat.
Click to expand...

Indeed. They all know they have squat.

And what’s most interesting about that Fox interview is McCarthy admitting that the reason for doing it, a lot of it is theatrical and about the 2024 election, that the faction pushing for this wants to have a parallel proceeding going on while Trump is going through these trials, that Biden isn’t going to be removed and that a lot of this is performance and politics.
Sol says they may find more evidence and also admits that it is theater and there’s not going to be a removal.
So sounds like they agree with you and others saying the same thing.


 
DrewPaul said:
I believe him and Barr give honest opinions. They may not always be right. I'm not surprised they are stating there isn't enough evidence to proceed with impeachment. If there was they'd proceed to impeaching the president. There is plenty of evidence to warrant this inquiry.
Click to expand...
That's exactly right.

It's my opinion (based on hearing Turley a lot in recent months and watching the entirety of yesterday's hearing) that he thinks all that has been uncovered by the committees is extremely alarming - and if that link to Joe is properly/accurately made, it's a VERY big deal for the country and for the President.
That's why he thinks this inquiry is so important and that the inquiry threshold has been both reached and passed.
 
Paradoxical said:
and were still ordering Twitter and Facebook around even after Musk and Matt Tabbi exposed their fraud.
Click to expand...
Musk exposed fraud by Trump's FBI?

Where is it?
 
Paradoxical said:
they handed out tickets.
Click to expand...
To disrupt a congressional session and look around to hang the vice president of the United States? Pretty friendly torurists!😁👍

But hey, I’m sure those were all just FBI operatives. MAGA would never go beyond just shooting desperate asylum seeking families in the legs.
 
Last edited:
Paradoxical said:
Lawfare = Warfare against someone trying to take their power away from them.
Click to expand...
Yes, the House impeachment is definitely that.

But they can't rise above clown-show level with it.
 
gbg3 said:
I think they have a great deal of evidence. Frankly, I think it's amazing all they've uncovered to date, with the strong resistance/obstacles they face at every step.

I heard a long and good panel discussion after the hearing today. The panel was comprised of Andy McCarthy, Sol Weisenberg, and John Yoo. I've linked it here in case you are interested in listening to the nearly 20 minute discussion.

Like Turley, all three of these legal minds think what has been learned to date definitely warrants the impeachment inquiry (partially to give the committees the ability to plow through some of that strong resistance) and also, like Turley, none think we're at an impeachment stage yet. At the end, when asked how long they think this will take, they all seem to agree - many months to a year - in that it is very important it be thorough and complete. That will involve the financial records and many witnesses. So, I'll pace myself and have patience. Joe and Hunter bank records were subpoenaed by Comer today. Following the money will come first.

www.foxnews.com

Biden impeachment inquiry hearing was 'mischaracterized': John Yoo | Fox News Video

Former Whitewater independent counsel Solomon Wisenberg, ex-Bush DOJ official John Yoo and FOX News contributor Andy McCarthy react to first Biden impeachment inquiry hearing on 'Your World.'
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
Click to expand...
There isn't one sentence in your post that a reader can take seriously. If you believe what you posted, your participation here s not fair to you or to readers because your post appears authored by an empty vessel.

The people you put your faith in are jackasses.

en.wikipedia.org

Andrew C. McCarthy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
"...During the presidency of Barack Obama, McCarthy characterized Obama as a radical and a socialist, and authored a book alleging that Obama was advancing a "Sharia Agenda". He authored another book calling for Obama's impeachment. He defended false claims that the Affordable Care Act would lead to "death panels", and promoted a conspiracy theory that Bill Ayers, co-founder of the militant radical left-wing organization Weather Underground, had authored Obama's autobiography Dreams from My Father. .."
Coleman, Justine (December 4, 2019). "GOP witness to say Trump impeachment would set a 'dangerous precedent'". The Hill. Archived from the original on December 4, 2019. Retrieved December 4, 2019.

Solomon L. Wisenberg - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Solomon Louis Wisenberg (born June 8, 1954) .. From 1997 to 1999, he served as Associate and Deputy ...under Kenneth W. Starr during the .. Clinton-Lewinsky Investigations...
...
Wisenberg led the grand jury phase of the Lewinsky Investigation and questioned Clinton during his videotaped grand jury testimony that took place on August 17, 1998.

Wisenberg elicited Clinton's most infamous answer during federal grand jury questioning in the Lewinsky Investigation. He asked Clinton: "[T]he statement that there was ‘no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, [between Lewinsky and] President Clinton,’ was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?" Clinton responded: "It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is." By mid-1998, Wisenberg and the rest of the Starr team were facing accusations of partisanship for pursuing the Lewinsky sex scandal as part of an investigation that had primarily begun as an inquiry into financial improprieties and potential corruption."

Torture Memos​

A set of legal memoranda known as the "Torture Memos" were drafted by John Yoo as Deputy Assistant Attorney General.. Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Emlee said:
Indeed. They all know they have squat.

And what’s most interesting about that Fox interview is McCarthy admitting that the reason for doing it, a lot of it is theatrical and about the 2024 election, that the faction pushing for this wants to have a parallel proceeding going on while Trump is going through these trials, that Biden isn’t going to be removed and that a lot of this is performance and politics.
Sol says they may find more evidence and also admits that it is theater and there’s not going to be a removal.


Click to expand...

Whoa! That's an under two minute cropped little piece of a very inclusive interview. For anyone who wants to discuss with even a bit of intellectual honesty, the full interview is here.

www.foxnews.com

Biden impeachment inquiry hearing was 'mischaracterized': John Yoo | Fox News Video

Former Whitewater independent counsel Solomon Wisenberg, ex-Bush DOJ official John Yoo and FOX News contributor Andy McCarthy react to first Biden impeachment inquiry hearing on 'Your World.'
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
 
Paradoxical said:
Milley is a traitor for going behind the back of the president. There is no question about it. He would have been hung for it a hundred years ago.
Click to expand...
Trump would have been hanged for extorting Ukraine, and so this situation never would have arisen.
 
gbg3 said:
That's exactly right.

It's my opinion (based on hearing Turley a lot in recent months and watching the entirety of yesterday's hearing) that he thinks all that has been uncovered by the committees is extremely alarming - and if that link to Joe is properly/accurately made, it's a VERY big deal for the country and for the President.
That's why he thinks this inquiry is so important and that the inquiry threshold has been both reached and passed.
Click to expand...

This is literally no different than that scene from The Life of Brian where Brian tells the crowd outside his window that he's not the Messiah and to go away, which only reinforces the crowd's belief that he's the Messiah.
 
gbg3 said:
Whoa! That's an under two minute cropped little piece of a very inclusive interview. For anyone who wants to discuss with even a bit of intellectual honesty, the full interview is here.

www.foxnews.com

Biden impeachment inquiry hearing was 'mischaracterized': John Yoo | Fox News Video

Former Whitewater independent counsel Solomon Wisenberg, ex-Bush DOJ official John Yoo and FOX News contributor Andy McCarthy react to first Biden impeachment inquiry hearing on 'Your World.'
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
Click to expand...
Who cares, they were their exact words, in perfect context.

I clearly never said it was the entire discussion, I said it was what was most interesting. And it is. Nothing in the rest of the interview changed their words or the context of that clip.

And you’re one of the last people who should ever be saying anything about an intellectually honest discussion. 😂
 
Last edited:
trixare4kids said:
This is an impeachment inquiry, not an impeachment so of course he was correct to say,
"there's no evidence to support impeaching Pres Biden". You're putting the cart before the house.
Click to expand...
From what I've seen of Prof Hurley up to yesterday, he hardly ever disagrees with Republicans even if they're now Trumplicans - he defends them. Hence, my shock about what he stated yesterday during the inquiry about no evidence to impeach Pres Biden.
 
gbg3 said:
Whoa! That's an under two minute cropped little piece of a very inclusive interview. For anyone who wants to discuss with even a bit of intellectual honesty, the full interview is here.
Click to expand...
A tactic oft used by the right to "get" Biden. Nonetheless the words were the words......
 
ouch said:
From what I've seen of Prof Hurley up to yesterday, he hardly ever disagrees with Republicans even if they're now Trumplicans - he defends them. Hence, my shock about what he stated yesterday during the inquiry about no evidence to impeach Pres Biden.
Click to expand...
Notice that @gbg3 called him a GOP witness not an impartial constitutional lawyer........hoot!
 
gbg3 said:
That's exactly right.

It's my opinion (based on hearing Turley a lot in recent months and watching the entirety of yesterday's hearing) that he thinks all that has been uncovered by the committees is extremely alarming - and if that link to Joe is properly/accurately made, it's a VERY big deal for the country and for the President.
That's why he thinks this inquiry is so important and that the inquiry threshold has been both reached and passed.
Click to expand...
LOL! "based on...." LOL!
 
gbg3 said:
Lol, about the spending battle and the silly clock they plopped in front of all the Dems today. That was stupid and oh so theatrical!

The spending battles seem to be rather commonplace these days and the drama will be intense for a week or two, as it often is. But then (or sooner if they do a CR), that will become old news quickly. If they do a 45 day CR, it will crop up again then, be dramatic again, and then be figured out. This impeachment inquiry is just getting underway. This dramatic overlap the Dems are trying to make such a production of - will be quite temporary.
Click to expand...
I just read a new article about 15 minutes ago that there has been a 30 day extension agreed to in order to work out the bugs with government spending. So, will 30 days be enough for the impeachment inquiry to learn that no evidence is there to impeach and move on to the next witch hunt?
 
Moon said:
Currently being the key word. Turley also said the inquiry was justified based on what’s known.
Click to expand...
They have been playing this game for 9 months now. If they had a real shred of wrong doing on Biden's part it would have been front and center yesterday. How long should they get to play this?
 
Callen said:
Notice that @gbg3 called him a GOP witness not an impartial constitutional lawyer........hoot!
Click to expand...

In chronological order, most recent, first,








 
ouch said:
I just read a new article about 15 minutes ago that there has been a 30 day extension agreed to in order to work out the bugs with government spending. So, will 30 days be enough for the impeachment inquiry to learn that no evidence is there to impeach and move on to the next witch hunt?
Click to expand...
I just read about a 30 day House bill that made it past the first vote (to take it to debate) but failed on the second vote to pass it. I'm guessing we might be discussing the same one because the Senate has a version they are working on also, but it's for 45 days.
 
gbg3 said:
It's my opinion (based on hearing Turley a lot in recent months and watching the entirety of yesterday's hearing) that he thinks all that has been uncovered by the committees is extremely alarming - and if that link to Joe is properly/accurately made, it's a VERY big deal for the country and for the President.
Click to expand...
Extremely alarming and "very big deal?
How did you rate Trump's fake elector scheme?
Or his handling of classified documents..especially in how he respond once they asked him to return them.

More, similar, or less alarming than what appears to be some legal bank and records and phone callas if unknown relevance?
 
Paradoxical said:
Gotcha, and I'm sure me saying that 1-6 was not an insurrection makes ME the conspiracy theorist instead of the nutters who claim that it was an insurrection in spite of no charges for insurrection ever being brought by the KGB.

Click to expand...


Now that you mention it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom