What you actually have is evidence on the ground that it snowed. There isn't even a shred of evidence on the ground in this impeachment nonsense.
A better analogy is this: You woke up bleary eyed, thought you saw snow on the ground when there wasn't any and presumed that God made it snow because he hates you.
That pretty much covers all of the witness testimony.
So how come you didn't know that?
Turley's actual argument was that the Dems were going too fast. According to Turley they needed to slow down. They are winning cases in court. They need to get more of these witnesses giving testimony before Committee.
That argument went over like a lead balloon. You could see the color draining from Doug Collins face.
Oh yea.....the Repugs REEEALY wanted to hear that from their guy.
Prof. Turley failed to mention the scope of this president's willful obstruction of congress, and contempt of congress. His argument was to criticize the bribery arguments being presented by the house.
Set that Bribery aspect aside, and we are still left with Contempt of Congress, and Obstruction of Congress. It was mentioned and is true that an impeachable offense, if committed, does not necessarily rise to the level requiring removal of office. I believe the relevant fact is, if we do not impeach, what are the probable consequences? As to whether or not an offense rises to an impeachable act worthy of conviction depends entirely on the gravity of the offense, as determined by a plethora of the evidence provided, which can include, but not limited to, direct, indirect, observations, communications, records, recollections, and the body of evidence, considered as a whole.
I've heard the argument presented on this forum that those testifying who used the term "presume", that it doesn't rise to "impeachable". That false argument can easily be refuted, as follows;
"If I wake up in the morning and there is snow all over the grown, and all over everything in sight, I can correctly 'presume' it snowed the night before".
Moving on...
It is true that prior presidents have committed contempt of congress and obstruction, or allowed a subordinate to commit same, who were not impeached, but no prior president has done it in the blanket, en masse, without consideration to circumstance, as this president has done. That, in my view, rises to a level that is impeachable, for the following reason, which has to do with the consequences if we do not impeach;
If this president is not impeached for these offenses, it will destroy Congress's power to conduct oversight of the executive branch as such powers have been vested to Congress by the Constitution, offenses which this president has committed in plain view, which is therefore indisputable, noting that the primary arbiter of that power is Congress. Sure, challenges can be made, but courts have traditionally sided with Congress on such matters, because it's inescapably clear as expressed by the Constitution and is no doubt derived on the concept that the arbiter of that power is a body of men and women who were elected.
If we do not impeach and convict this president for these offenses he will be emboldened, including future presidents of his mold, to do more of the same, which have have the absolute effect of destroying the constitutional concept of separation of powers, and will march AMerica towards a president who is above the law, which is what the term, "dictator" means and seeds of tyranny can only grow from there.
I welcome reasoned counter arguments. Those that go something like "TDS" "Quit whining, you lost the election", "yawn" name calling, flaming, etc., or other incompetent rebuttals having nothing to do with contributing to this discourse, will be ignored.
Note that "incompetent rebuttal" doesn't mean "disagreement", it's a rebuttal that offers nothing to the discourse, as described above.
Please abstain from weasel words ( 'everyone knows' etc ) , ad hominems (including ad homimen embedded nouns, like 'shillery' or 'Obummer' etc ) , flaming, artificial constructs ( TDS ) created for want of a stronger argument, etc.
Im not saying i agree with those professors but isn't the point of these procedures is to put forth the best argument possible. They recruited ivory league scholars to make their case. Ultimatepy its up to us to vote.Why they chose 3 of the most unappealing radical law professors out of all the radical law professors is a mystery.
Goes to show you that they think if someone appeals to them, radical as they are, they must appeal to the rest of the country.
Tactical mistake indeed.
What makes you think I didn't know Congress has the sole power of impeachment?
I also knew they don't have the power of judicial review.
That's something you still don't grasp.
In other words the evidence against Trump in the testimonies was overwhelming and you have nothing to say but worthless drivel in his defense. There is no helping you guys. You are too far up Trump's ass to see daylight.
I'm glad to see you finally grasped it. It took long enough.
If lying about a blow job was an impeachable offence in Turley's opinion, then extortion and bribery certainly are.
Lying under oath is frowned upon. It doesn't matter what prompts the lie. It's the willful act to mislead after swearing an oath to be truthful. That Clinton lied about something you view as insignificant doesn't matter.
Extorting a foreign country for an election interference bribe seems a bit more serious than lying about a blow job. However, perhaps Benito McCheeto can explain himself under oath. I'm sure that's something we could all agree to support.
If Trump lies under oath, I endorse the same sanction Clinton received.
There's a reason the charges from the left against Trump have nearly continuously changed. It's because there isn't any evidence to support them. If Trump had extorted or bribed Ukraine, that would be fairly simple to prove through evidence, if any existed. This a why the left is now reduced to vague notions of abuse of power.
His guilt isn't in dispute except among those who live in their own custom realities. However, I completely support putting Tweety under oath. I hope that they do so.
The basis of our Republic is a system of checks and balances between three branches of government. Congress doesn’t get to decide the lawfulness of its own subpoenas or make determinations as to the constitutionality of an application of Executive Privilege. That is for the Judiciary to decide.
The basis of our Republic is a system of checks and balances between three branches of government. Congress doesn’t get to decide the lawfulness of its own subpoenas or make determinations as to the constitutionality of an application of Executive Privilege. That is for the Judiciary to decide.
To be kind, you have absolutely no damn idea what "Trump Republicans, Republicans in general or, basically anyone but yourself believe in. I don't know WHAT you think you've seen stated but the vast majority of us on the right believe in a constitutional government, with a dynamic balance between the three branches and a STRICT adherence to the Constitution and subordinate laws. Your entire believe system appears to be built around your hatred of Trump and an visceral drive to "get" him at any cost rather than respect for those statutes.
The Executive Branch does not have absolute immunity and the Congress does not have absolute authority. It is for the Judiciary to decide where they must meet in the middle. Not for Congress to attempt to remove a President for not satisfying their unbounded curiosity.
If Trump was guilty of bribery or extortion, as I said, it would be easy to prove. What we have, instead, are the opinions of the same partisans that were absolutely certain Trump was guilty of collusion and obstruction. To cite their opinions as any sort of "evidence" is laughable.
If Trump should lie under oath, I'd support impeachment, as I said. - mindful that president-elects take an oath to be sworn in as president.
The Executive Branch does not have absolute immunity and the Congress does not have absolute authority. It is for the Judiciary to decide where they must meet in the middle. Not for Congress to attempt to remove a President for not satisfying their unbounded curiosity.
Turley was spot on.
The other hand picked talent were just more of the same entitled bunch of pathetic liberals that we've seen before.
Just wait until the Dems Pandora's Box crushes the next Dem President in the White House.
As Turley correctly pointed out, the Dems have set the stage for destruction.
In real reality, he admitted it on tv, as did other people. However, trying to convince Tweety's fans of reality is as fruitless as 9/11 truth discussions. Enjoy whatever alternate reality that you have created for yourself.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?