Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

House Judiciary announces impeachment witnesses

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
    No, but as Sondland testified, everyone was in the loop.
    Yeah, just like everyone at the office is "in the loop" about Bob and Jane's love affair even though nobody has any direct knowledge ("I heard it from Scott who overheard Lori talking to Jane on the phone, and he only heard Lori's half of the conversation, but it sure sounds to me like Bob and Jane are totally having an affair!").

    Of course when Sondland spoke with the President directly, he was told with great emphasis that "the loop" was wrong, and Sondland had to go back to Bill Taylor and tell him, "I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind."
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #47
      A downloadable PDF file of Turley's prepared testimony can be found at a link on this page.
      Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

      Beige Federalist.

      Nationalist Christian.

      "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

      Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

      Proud member of the this space left blank community.

      Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

      Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

      Justice for Matthew Perna!

      Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        They are not there to show balance, CP, they're there to give their perspective as Constitutional scholars who believe that the president violated the Constitution. Turley was there to present an opposite view, but Turley is a fraud and a republican shill, probably the only one they could get to defend Trump. He contradicted his own past stated views including in his 2010 defense of Judge Porteous who was accused, impeached and convicted of bribery as well as his testimony in the Clinton Impeachment trial which he argued for conviction.
        You are such an utter and contemptible ignorant slobbering jackass, providing nothing but fetid brain flatulence in electronic typed form!

        Turley voted against Trump in 2016, and is one of the more circumspect and nonpartisan experts available. They probably *could* have gotten Dersh, also a Hilary voter, who is considerably more flamboyant and less circumspect. I of course always enjoy Dersh's perspective, but go to Turley for something more reasonable and middle of the road.
        Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

        Beige Federalist.

        Nationalist Christian.

        "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

        Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

        Proud member of the this space left blank community.

        Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

        Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

        Justice for Matthew Perna!

        Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Yeah, just like everyone at the office is "in the loop" about Bob and Jane's love affair even though nobody has any direct knowledge ("I heard it from Scott who overheard Lori talking to Jane on the phone, and he only heard Lori's half of the conversation, but it sure sounds to me like Bob and Jane are totally having an affair!").

          Of course when Sondland spoke with the President directly, he was told with great emphasis that "the loop" was wrong, and Sondland had to go back to Bill Taylor and tell him, "I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind."
          Of course, that's what he said, he realized he got caught, he realized that the jig was up, that the whistle was blown, that a quid pro quo was alleged, and that Congress had begun looking into why the aid was being withheld. So, Trump allegedly, according to Sondland, saying that "I don't want nothing, no quid pro quo" was in direct response to his recognition that the jig was up, that he got caught.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
            You are such an utter and contemptible ignorant slobbering jackass, providing nothing but fetid brain flatulence in electronic typed form!

            Turley voted against Trump in 2016, and is one of the more circumspect and nonpartisan experts available. They probably *could* have gotten Dersh, also a Hilary voter, who is considerably more flamboyant and less circumspect. I of course always enjoy Dersh's perspective, but go to Turley for something more reasonable and middle of the road.
            First of all you have no idea who Turley voted for, because Turley is an unprincipled liar. He contradicted his own arguments and past statements. He defended a judge in 2010 who was taking bribes, and lost. He testified in the trial and argued for Clintons Impeachment. He argued that if Clinton wasn't impeached by Congress then they'd be making more expansive the powers of the executive. He also said in an interview that "in order to impeach a president an actual crime needn't be committed. Just the opposite of what he's arguing in this his defense of Trump. The guys a shill, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              Turley was there to present an opposite view... He contradicted his own past stated views including in his 2010 defense of Judge Porteous who was accused, impeached and convicted of bribery as well as his testimony in the Clinton Impeachment trial which he argued for conviction.
              Yeah Turley's testimony was pretty embarrassing for Turley. The contradictions with things he's said previously were pretty stark, and made him look like a partisan fraud. And his overall argument, that Trump is probably a bad person who is guilty, but that Turley's primarily concerned with how fast the impeachment process is moving, is utterly bizarre.
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                I didn't know 11-year olds taught in law school. That's how my daughter would apologize.
                I think you owe eleven year olds an apology.
                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                My Personal Blog

                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                Quill Sword

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  Yeah, just watch FOX NEWS, they'll tell you what happened.
                  That would be an improvement over CNN. But no, Fox isn't where I go for summary info, thanks.

                  It's a symposium - you can waste time watching it if you want - but they aren't progressing the investigation and it's not helping politically, either.
                  "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                  "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                  My Personal Blog

                  My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                  Quill Sword

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                    You talk about the possibility that "one side of the legislative will inevitably become just an extension of the executive due to the partisan nature of politics," but your view has the executive as an extension of the legislative. The Founders had the opportunity to create a parliamentary system, but specifically chose otherwise. This would seem to be a fundamental difference in perspective between "you" and "us."

                    While often inconvenient and inefficient, we generally consider it healthy for the Legislative and Executive branches to each hold on to as much power as possible, and let the Judicial branch sort out intractable conflicts.

                    And no, it should not be easier to remove POTUS or anyone else, and he or she should not always be in fear of being impeached over each and every decision. Impeachment should be only a last resort in the most dire of circumstances. It is good, not bad, that no POTUS has ever been removed from office.
                    Well I’d rather the legislative control the executive than the other way around. If you give one person so much power then I believe that person should also be very conscious of the fact that they can be removed for misusing those powers. It would make them think twice about potential misuse and force them to be more transparent in their actions. You could characterise it as making it easier but it’s about making them accountable.

                    How do you judge when it’s the most dire of circumstances? Do you wait until Rome is literally on fire before thinking ‘maybe we should start impeachment...’? Isn’t that the reason the founders have the house the sole power of impeachment? Left it up to them to decide when enough was enough?

                    If it’s healthy for them to hold on to as much power then you should support the impeachment hearings. You don’t have to support the evidence and should by all means voice disagreement of it if that’s how you feel but by attacking it as illegitimate or a sham etc only serves to weaken this congressional power.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      First of all you have no idea who Turley voted for, because Turley is an unprincipled liar. He contradicted his own arguments and past statements. He defended a judge in 2010 who was taking bribes, and lost. He testified in the trial and argued for Clintons Impeachment. He argued that if Clinton wasn't impeached by Congress then they'd be making more expansive the powers of the executive. He also said in an interview that "in order to impeach a president an actual crime needn't be committed. Just the opposite of what he's arguing in this his defense of Trump. The guys a shill, and you have no idea what you're talking about.
                      Didn't actually read or listen to his testimony, didja?
                      Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                      Beige Federalist.

                      Nationalist Christian.

                      "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                      Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                      Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                      Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                      Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                      Justice for Matthew Perna!

                      Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        Yeah Turley's testimony was pretty embarrassing for Turley. The contradictions with things he's said previously were pretty stark, and made him look like a partisan fraud. And his overall argument, that Trump is probably a bad person who is guilty, but that Turley's primarily concerned with how fast the impeachment process is moving, is utterly bizarre.


                        This sort of silliness is why I almost never even bother to read what you, FF, and The Jims write.

                        Clearly he is somehow not aware of those supposed contradictions, since he copiously references his previous works.

                        Further, you have badly mischaracterized his "overall argument," at least as it appears in his prepared testimony. His concern with the speed of the impeachment is that they seem to be haphazardly assembling it as they go. He does not believe Trump "is guilty," but that he *may* be. At this point, they have established neither the legal nor evidentiary basis for impeachment. *If* they took the time to subpoena more witnesses -- ones with more direct knowledge -- they *might* be able to do so.
                        Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                        Beige Federalist.

                        Nationalist Christian.

                        "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                        Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                        Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                        Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                        Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                        Justice for Matthew Perna!

                        Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                          Of course, that's what he said, he realized he got caught, he realized that the jig was up, that the whistle was blown, that a quid pro quo was alleged, and that Congress had begun looking into why the aid was being withheld. So, Trump allegedly, according to Sondland, saying that "I don't want nothing, no quid pro quo" was in direct response to his recognition that the jig was up, that he got caught.
                          That's a nice story, but it would have to actually be proven in otrder to stand up in court.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                            You are such an utter and contemptible ignorant slobbering jackass, providing nothing but fetid brain flatulence in electronic typed form!

                            Turley voted against Trump in 2016, and is one of the more circumspect and nonpartisan experts available. They probably *could* have gotten Dersh, also a Hilary voter, who is considerably more flamboyant and less circumspect. I of course always enjoy Dersh's perspective, but go to Turley for something more reasonable and middle of the road.
                            It's S.O.P. for these guys to dismiss anyone who says something they don't like as being a "fraud and a republican shill." Awhile back they dismissed Mark Penn as a right winger after he blasted attempts to oust Trump using Michael Cohen when in fact he was Bill Clinton's pollster from 1994-2000 and who Wikipedia describes as "one of the president's most prominent and influential advisers" and later "chief strategist to Hillary Clinton's campaign for president" in 2008. So we are talking about a devoted Democrat and not a conservative apologist for Trump.

                            As for Turley, as Wikipedia puts it:

                            What Turley has called his "socially liberal agenda"[12] has led liberal and progressive thinkers to consider him a champion for their causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law,[14][23] civil rights,[11][24] and the illegality of torture.[25][26][27] Politico has referred to Turley as a "liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian.


                            He is the second most cited lawyer in the country and his blog has been ranked as the top law professor blog and legal theory blog by the American Bar Association Journal's survey of the top 100 blogs. He has also garnered several prestigious awards.

                            While you may disagree with him a knee-jerk brush-off as him being a "fraud and a republican shill" has no basis in reality.


                            I think it was a smart move by the Republicans to have asked for Turley. They could have picked a conservative legal scholar but by picking one from "the other side" they show that the opinion that the impeachment is a farce is something that is believed across the political spectrum and not as the MSM would have you think something only conservatives believe.
                            Last edited by rogue06; 12-05-2019, 05:52 AM.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              No, but as Sondland testified, everyone was in the loop.
                              Your problem Jim, is that you are so invested in ousting Trump that you accept partisan opinion as fact, as long as it agrees with your goals. Try stepping back and being a bit more objective.


                              " My point is only this: it is easy to fall in love with lines that appeal to one’s moral approval. In impeachments, one’s feeling about the subject can distort one’s judgment on the true meaning or quality of an argument. We have too many happy warriors in this impeachment on both sides. What we need are more objective noncombatants, members willing to set aside political passion in favor of constitutional circumspection." --Jonathan Turley
                              Last edited by Sparko; 12-05-2019, 07:15 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                That doesn't even make sense, CP. If you believe it to be a sham on the one hand,
                                It's a sham.

                                then you can't be prepared for whatever is proven with regards to Trump.
                                Even a blind hog can find an acorn once in a while, Jim.

                                You'd have to believe that a conviction would be a sham as well.
                                The "conviction" can only come from the Senate, and the hog would have to not only find an acorn, but take flight.

                                Besides that, Pence isn't safe here either.
                                NO Republican is safe from the bloodthirsty Democrats, Jim.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                103 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                301 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                109 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                357 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X