House Judiciary announces impeachment witnesses

[JimL]

That's right, Jimmy, keep spouting that talking point so when the Senate finds no reason to convict, you can stand on the rooftops and scream, "Coverup!" until you're hoarse.

No, the Presidents actions were the cover-up, the Republican Senate, should they not convict, would be betraying their oath to protect and defend the Constitution. In other words they'd be traitors to the Constitution.

[JimL]

In other words, the Democrats are doing what you want, and the Republicans oppose what you want. CLASSIC signs of bubble thinking.

Well yeah, of course. I want them to do the right thing, to defend the Constitution and protect the country from domestic enemies, and the defenders of the lawless, treasonous, wannabe dictator are not doing the right thing.

[Cow Poke]

No, the Presidents actions were the cover-up, the Republican Senate, should they not convict, would be betraying their oath to protect and defend the Constitution. In other words they'd be traitors to the Constitution.

Jim, even some of your 'principled Democrats' believe that what Trump did was wrong, but does not rise to the level of impeachment and removal. I bet, though, that that qualifies them as 'unprincipled' in your book.

The Senate can believe that what Trump did was crass, stupid, dumb, wrong, ill-intended -- but simply doesn't rise to the level that should result in removal.

[Cow Poke]

Well yeah, of course. I want them to do the right thing, to defend the Constitution and protect the country from domestic enemies, and the defenders of the lawless, treasonous, wannabe dictator are not doing the right thing.

Your sophmoric abuse of the English language always makes me smile. Very bubble-like. Kinda like Tassman --- just throw a bunch of misused and exaggerated adverbs and adjectives in there....

You really should try to model yourself after my friend, FF.

[JimL]

The Democrats are corrupt - and you're supporting them. The 'evidence' is garbage - and the Senate trial will be brutal because real evidence, fair procedures and transparency will show exactly how corrupt the Dems are to the American people.

I've seen estimates of upwards of fifty vulnerable seats - the Dems have one day left to pull a rabbit out of this hat - then if their own members don't revolt they will commit political hari-kari.

Failed coup.
Failed investigations.
Failed party.

Only the true blue lemmings still buy into this nonsense - and you guys will simply blindly follow your evil, corrupt party over the cliff.

Well, you've been wrong in all of your predictions so far, Tea, why stop now.

[JimL]

Jim, even some of your 'principled Democrats' believe that what Trump did was wrong, but does not rise to the level of impeachment and removal. I bet, though, that that qualifies them as 'unprincipled' in your book.

The Senate can believe that what Trump did was crass, stupid, dumb, wrong, ill-intended -- but simply doesn't rise to the level that should result in removal.

Don't make excuses for them, CP, it only makes you look worse.

[Cow Poke]

Don't make excuses for them, CP, it only makes you look worse.

Sure, Jim.

[Sparko]

No, actually their stances in this impeachment inquiry is indicative of, and distinguishes between, the principled and the unprincipled, and the principled ones are the defenders of Democracy and the Constitution, the unprincipled are the defenders of the lawless, treasonous, wannabe dictator.

Yep. Totally objective and not in any bubble whatsoever.

[Teallaura]

Well, you've been wrong in all of your predictions so far, Tea, why stop now.

Keep hoping there, Jim!

[Mountain Man]

I said earlier in the thread, "I'm not sure what these so-called 'witnesses' have to do with anything."

Well Doug Collins has the answer: "They were there because Jerry Nadler had to figure out something to do. He has no plan."

Wednesday on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) offered his theory on the day’s impeachment hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, which featured four so-called constitutional scholars weighing in on the constitutional basis of President Donald Trump’s impeachment.

The Georgia Republican, who also is the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, told host Sean Hannity the point of the hearing was to make a case where he believed the facts did not lend themselves to impeachment.

“They were there because Jerry Nadler had to figure out something to do,” he explained. “He has no plan. As I said today, the clock and the calendar, not the facts, are driving this, Sean. And, look, you know, we showed it today. Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, John Ratcliffe, we just blew holes in it because it’s so easy.”

“We have the facts on our side,” Collins continued. “All they have is hatred of President Trump. All they have is not liking a man who came to office to do what he said he was going to do, and he’s actually doing it. When you got facts on your side, truths on your side, it will win every time.”

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019...esident-trump/

[Cow Poke]

So, if they Democrats are so confident about impeachment, why did they need a panel of left-wing activist lawyers pushing them forward?

[JimL]

So, if they Democrats are so confident about impeachment, why did they need a panel of left-wing activist lawyers pushing them forward?

As I've already explained, the purpose was to better inform the public as to why the impeachment clause exist, i.e. to protect and defend the Constitution from enemies within, and to explain why Trump fits into that category of an enemy within, andof course the need to cut out that cancer out before it metastasizes and destroys the Republic altogether. Btw, I belive his name was Feldman, one of your so called left wing activists, was against impeachment after the Mueller report came out, and only became for it when Trumps Ukrainian antics became known. Hardly a left wing activist.

[Cow Poke]

As I've already explained,

Perhaps you're unaware that a previous explanation from you doesn't make the current explanation any less relevant?

the purpose was to better inform the public ....

The purpose was to try, yet again, to get the public to jump on board in overwhelming numbers to pressure their representatives to vote for impeachment.

Fail. Jim, they brought in wild-eyed partisan pro-impeachment HACKS who talked FAR more about the need to impeach than the constitutionality of impeachment.

It's a circus with no tent, but plenty of poop.

[JimL]

So, if they Democrats are so confident about impeachment, why did they need a panel of left-wing activist lawyers pushing them forward?

Also, the Democrats are not at all confident about impeachment succeeding. As a matter of fact the thought is more that the Senate will not convict, but doing the right thing doesn't always mean it will be a benefit to you. That's the difference between the two parties at this time, the Dems are principled patriots, the Republicans are unprincipled power mongers.

[JimL]

Perhaps you're unaware that a previous explanation from you doesn't make the current explanation any less relevant?



The purpose was to try, yet again, to get the public to jump on board in overwhelming numbers to pressure their representatives to vote for impeachment.

Fail. Jim, they brought in wild-eyed partisan pro-impeachment HACKS who talked FAR more about the need to impeach than the constitutionality of impeachment.

It's a circus with no tent, but plenty of poop.

You obviously weren't paying attention, or didn't watch at all, and are simply parroting the right wing talking head propagandists.