House Judiciary announces impeachment witnesses

[JimL]

I'm not sure what these so-called "witnesses" have to do with anything. Just more people to give their opinions when we should be focusing on the facts. Of course if Democrats focused on the facts, then they wouldn't have a case, hence the need for more smoke and mirrors.

Well, they're not just more people, MM, they're constitutional scholars, and if your ears could only hear, you might actually learn something new, but, there are none so deaf.............

[JimL]

Likely they are there to declare that the impeachment is legitimate which when you think of it is an admission of just how bad things are going for the Democrats if they feel a need to make that case.

Kinda. They're there to school you on the Constitution with regard to impeachment, what the Founders intent was, it's purpose, reasons for starting an inquiry, what are the crimes that are encompassed in the clause, and how and why Trumps actions figure into that, or not. But it's not because things are going bad for the Dems, far from it, the evidence of Trumps abuse of power is overwhelming, but they do want to inform the American people as to why this action is so important in the defense of the Constitution, Democracy itself, and its future.

[rogue06]

Kinda. They're there to school you on the Constitution with regard to impeachment, what the Founders intent was, it's purpose, reasons for starting an inquiry, what are the crimes that are encompassed in the clause, and how and why Trumps actions figure into that, or not. But it's not because things are going bad for the Dems, far from it, the evidence of Trumps abuse of power is overwhelming, but they do want to inform the American people as to why this action is so important in the defense of the Constitution, Democracy itself, and its future.

As already noted it is too bad that we don't have anything from them, say in the constitution, about that.

[Cow Poke]

The facts are pretty well established and we know that Trump is obstructing further investigation because he would only unveil more damaging details. He is going to rely on his “witch hunt” defense because he has nothing else.

Let me splain how all this works in these here Untied States....

This entire impeachment sham is political. People will try to tell you otherwise, but we have Nadler lecturing us on how impeachment should never proceed without widespread bipartisan support, and how very dangerous it is to launch impeachment without it. (Well, that, of course, was when he was defending Clinton instead of attacking Trump).

Nancy has been all over the map on whether to impeach or not, whether to call it impeachment or not.... And Nancy had also declared it would only happen with bipartisan support.

You will get terribly uninformed armchair pundits tell you this is about ethics or the Constitution or principle --- but what it's about is getting rid of orange man.

The Democrats have tried all kinds of things -- collusion, Mueller report to prove collusion, Obstruction, Bribery....

They've messed it up so bad that they're having a bunch of liberal lawyers come in to try to convince the American people they're right to impeach Trump.

They're floundering, my friend. That's all you really need to know.

[Cow Poke]

They're singing a way different tune today...

[JimL]

Let me splain how all this works in these here Untied States....

This entire impeachment sham is political. People will try to tell you otherwise, but we have Nadler lecturing us on how impeachment should never proceed without widespread bipartisan support, and how very dangerous it is to launch impeachment without it. (Well, that, of course, was when he was defending Clinton instead of attacking Trump).

Nancy has been all over the map on whether to impeach or not, whether to call it impeachment or not.... And Nancy had also declared it would only happen with bipartisan support.

You will get terribly uninformed armchair pundits tell you this is about ethics or the Constitution or principle --- but what it's about is getting rid of orange man.

The Democrats have tried all kinds of things -- collusion, Mueller report to prove collusion, Obstruction, Bribery....

They've messed it up so bad that they're having a bunch of liberal lawyers come in to try to convince the American people they're right to impeach Trump.

They're floundering, my friend. That's all you really need to know.

Impeachment is a political process, but that doesn't make it a sham. Calling it a sham is just you're way of hand waving away the evidence in your continued and unprincipled defense of Trump.

[Cow Poke]

Impeachment is a political process,

Agreed!

but that doesn't make it a sham.

Correct -- Schiff did that.

Calling it a sham is just you're way of hand waving away the evidence in your continued and unprincipled defense of Trump.

Nope - I'm fully prepared for whatever is proven with regards to Trump. I'm ready for President Pence, if it comes to that.

Politics, however, is the number one thing driving this impeachment sham. For you to deny that is just your way of hand waving away the political circus the Democrats have foisted on the American people.

It's politics - on BOTH sides.

[Sparko]

Agreed!



Correct -- Schiff did that.



Nope - I'm fully prepared for whatever is proven with regards to Trump. I'm ready for President Pence, if it comes to that.

Politics, however, is the number one thing driving this impeachment sham. For you to deny that is just your way of hand waving away the political circus the Democrats have foisted on the American people.

It's politics - on BOTH sides.

But Pence hates women because he won't be alone with them! He would be impeached too!

[Mountain Man]

But Pence hates women because he won't be alone with them! He would be impeached too!

Not true. He has no problem with being alone with his wife.

[Mountain Man]

What I'm seeing so far is that the liberal law professors are invoking very loose, ad hoc definitions of otherwise specific and well-defined legal terms in order to make the case that Trump should be impeached.

[Cow Poke]

The liberal law professors don't even seem to be TRYING to show any "balance", but seem to be gung-ho pushing for impeachment. Now, I've not seen the whole thing, but the times I've peeked in, it's like the only reason they're there is to amen and encourage the political speeches the liberals are giving.

[Watermelon]

What I'm seeing so far is that the liberal law professors are invoking very loose, ad hoc definitions of otherwise specific and well-defined legal terms in order to make the case that Trump should be impeached.

I just caught about 30 minutes of it just then which was the 5 minute question stage and I was pretty disappointed that no one is taking the opportunity to explore and clarify concepts but just using it to make their political points, which I think in hindsight was naive of me to think otherwise.

I’ll go back and hear their opening statements later but I was just thinking what are the republicans doing? They are part of congress and they are arguing that they should limit their powers. It seems crazy to think that anyone would willingly argue to put restrictions on themselves. They should be arguing solely about why this particular action isn’t impeachable instead of saying things that hurt the legitimacy of their impeachment power.

The position of president is a huge amount of power given to one person and impeachment and removal should always be on the first thing on the presidents mind when making any decision. Any reductions to impeachments only increases the presidents potential to abuse their power.

It was argued in the past that one side of the legislative will inevitably become just an extension of the executive due to the partisan nature of politics. It’s why the executive and legislative are merged in Australia. The opposition party has the official job of criticising the majority party and given a shadow position with the same security access and briefings for every executive position. Just a thought.

[Mountain Man]

Turley seemed to be the only one who was trying to explain the Constitutional framework for impeachment. The other three were acting like prosecutors.

[rogue06]

Turley seemed to be the only one who was trying to explain the Constitutional framework for impeachment. The other three were acting like prosecutors.

Gotta admit I only saw about an hour or so this morning but from that they gave the impression that they really hate Trump for a number of reasons and that's good enough to impeach him for. I'll watch more of it tomorrow to get a better picture of it.

[Cow Poke]

Turley seemed to be the only one who was trying to explain the Constitutional framework for impeachment. The other three were acting like prosecutors.

The woman, in particular, looked like a very angry prosecutor.