Official Impeachment Thread 2.0: House Judiciary Committee Hearings

[WEATHER53]

Another day of sore loser farce
People “testifying” who witnessed nothing. Their verbage is commentary only, soley their opinions, no facts, no evidence; just feelings based from dislike of Trump,
One step of additional galling is they have been lecturing trump backers in a condescending manner as if backing trump equates to moral and intellectual deficiencies.
Once this candy assed loser witch hunt reaches the senate, then some long overdue faces get smashed in.

 

[The Original Tree]

Due to the treaty with Ukraine he was BY LAW to ask about corruption in Ukraine.

The only case Trump has is proving that his initiative to investigate the Biden’s was in the interest of the country and not his political campaign. So if this goes to the senate it becomes all about the Bidens as far as the Reps focus.

Worse than that, Slade. As the accused, it isn't up to Trump to prove a thing. The burden of proof is 100% on the Democrats to prove their accusation that Trump's inquiry into Ukraine corruption, Burisma and the Bidens was totally for his personal election benefit! And they will have to SHOW the benefit, not merely claim or surmise it.

AND GUESS WHAT?

If it goes to the Senate, there WILL be 1000X more attention and focus on the Bidens to Trump's benefit than Trump's mere inquiry over a phone call EVER could have produced!

SO GUESS WHAT?
If the Democrats were counting on Biden as their candidate, Nancy and Sluggo just TOOK HIM OUT OF THE RUNNING!

You’re right Trump doesn’t need to do anything. I’m framing the debate and the issue boils down to... did the Biden investigation serve Trump or the USA. That’s what this whole thing is about.

Wrong. The president has an obligation to investigate corruption involving taxpayer money even if it happens to have been committed by some Dem running in 2020. Does Biden get a pass on breaking the law because he's running for office?? Is Biden above the law because he's a 2020 Dem candidate?? I'd shred the Dem's into coleslaw arguing this in front of the SCOTUS.

 

[teddyearp]

So, here's the question of the day Democrats.

Which of these 'witnesses' have actually witnessed anything the President of the United States has done that is an impeachable offense?

 

[The Original Tree]

Turley appeared to be the only one not compromised and was honest and like he said, he did not vote for Trump nor was a Trump supporter.

Everyone else had an axe to grind and that’s why Nadler put them in front of the cameras.

Watching a recorded version of the hearing and Bucks line of questioning. He asked Turley if the other three panelists would consider a list of other acts that other presidents did as an abuse of power under the same standards they are holding on Trump. The other three panelists were siting right there but instead of questioning them he just went off on his own rant pushing his narrative and using Turley as a nodding bobble head .... that was the most pathetic line of questioning I’ve seen yet.

the questions were actually good but he was too scared to actually question the people sitting right in front of him. #Weak

Pathetic, wasn't it? Turley was visibly uncomfortable. Sadly, he didn't find it in himself to retort, "With all due respect, Congressman, my esteemed colleagues are sitting right here, right next to me. So, if you want to hear their opinion on the matters you inquired, why not ask them? I'd also be interested in hearing them out."

Well, just as pathetic was the Democrats' determined effort to ignore Turley. Apparently there was just one with the guts to take him on, at least so far. In my view, they are doing this hearing a great disservice. Personally, I find Turley thoroughly disingenuous in his arguments, and would have loved to see them picked apart. So, they chose to let stand, basically unopposed, the charge there's a thin basis for impeachment, which would be further marred by lack of evidence. Disconcerting, that.

 

[Flash]

Another Democrat nothing burger today.

Three bat shit crazy Democrat supporting TDS afflicted Moon Bats (one of them queer) lying about Trump and misquoting history and the Constitution.

If that is all the filthy ass Democrats have then they have absolutely nothing of substance.

This is all going to come back and bite the stupid Democrats in the ass.

 

[BluesLegend]

Due to the treaty with Ukraine he was BY LAW to ask about corruption in Ukraine.

The only case Trump has is proving that his initiative to investigate the Biden’s was in the interest of the country and not his political campaign. So if this goes to the senate it becomes all about the Bidens as far as the Reps focus.

Worse than that, Slade. As the accused, it isn't up to Trump to prove a thing. The burden of proof is 100% on the Democrats to prove their accusation that Trump's inquiry into Ukraine corruption, Burisma and the Bidens was totally for his personal election benefit! And they will have to SHOW the benefit, not merely claim or surmise it.

AND GUESS WHAT?

If it goes to the Senate, there WILL be 1000X more attention and focus on the Bidens to Trump's benefit than Trump's mere inquiry over a phone call EVER could have produced!

SO GUESS WHAT?
If the Democrats were counting on Biden as their candidate, Nancy and Sluggo just TOOK HIM OUT OF THE RUNNING!

You’re right Trump doesn’t need to do anything. I’m framing the debate and the issue boils down to... did the Biden investigation serve Trump or the USA. That’s what this whole thing is about.

Wrong. The president has an obligation to investigate corruption involving taxpayer money even if it happens to have been committed by some Dem running in 2020. Does Biden get a pass on breaking the law because he's running for office?? Is Biden above the law because he's a 2020 Dem candidate?? I'd shred the Dem's into coleslaw arguing this in front of the SCOTUS.

And we are talking about corruption as the very highest levels of government. And corruption that damages America's image and security abroad. How can any president ignore that?

 

[Slade3200]

You were already bitch slapped on your lies about Due Process. Did you come back for more abuse Commie Tard?

No he didn’t. He said that bribery was wrong and that they didn’t have enough proof to back up the accusations. He thinks the White House witnessed should testify and the process should not be rushed. Try and be more accurate

Yes, he did. Why lie about it when his testimony is posted?

Show me the quote where he said it was wrong. I missed it

You miss a lot. It isn't my responsibility to hold your hand.

I don’t need my hand held. I was just asking you to back up your claims. Appears that you can’t do so.

you bitch slapped a strawman that you made up. Hope you feel better. But if you ever want to address the things I actually say then we can have a debate. I don’t think your ego will allow that to happen though.

 

[Nostra]

So, here's the question of the day Democrats.

Which of these 'witnesses' have actually witnessed anything the President of the United States has done that is an impeachable offense?

Um, they read the OPINIONS of other "witnesses" who heard the OPINIONS of other "witnesses"..............then gave their OPINIONS on those OPINIONS.

 

[Ame®icano]

I knew I had seen her before....

She has been a news commenter before. She only matters in her circles.

Completely unhinged. I'm surprised Dems keep asking her questions.

Are they really that clueless about optics?

 

[Flash]

Here is the TDS afflicted queer:

Angry liberal professor Pam Karlan was clearly TRIGGERED by having to listen to a Republican speak!#JerryRigged #SchiffShow #ImpeachmentHearings pic.twitter.com/SwE3bWZ8es

— Trump War Room (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@TrumpWarRoom) December 4, 2019

 

[Slade3200]

The only case Trump has is proving that his initiative to investigate the Biden’s was in the interest of the country and not his political campaign. So if this goes to the senate it becomes all about the Bidens as far as the Reps focus.

Worse than that, Slade. As the accused, it isn't up to Trump to prove a thing. The burden of proof is 100% on the Democrats to prove their accusation that Trump's inquiry into Ukraine corruption, Burisma and the Bidens was totally for his personal election benefit! And they will have to SHOW the benefit, not merely claim or surmise it.

AND GUESS WHAT?

If it goes to the Senate, there WILL be 1000X more attention and focus on the Bidens to Trump's benefit than Trump's mere inquiry over a phone call EVER could have produced!

SO GUESS WHAT?
If the Democrats were counting on Biden as their candidate, Nancy and Sluggo just TOOK HIM OUT OF THE RUNNING!

You’re right Trump doesn’t need to do anything. I’m framing the debate and the issue boils down to... did the Biden investigation serve Trump or the USA. That’s what this whole thing is about.

Wrong. The president has an obligation to investigate corruption involving taxpayer money even if it happens to have been committed by some Dem running in 2020. Does Biden get a pass on breaking the law because he's running for office?? Is Biden above the law because he's a 2020 Dem candidate?? I'd shred the Dem's into coleslaw arguing this in front of the SCOTUS.

The only case Trump has is proving that his initiative to investigate the Biden’s was in the interest of the country and not his political campaign. So if this goes to the senate it becomes all about the Bidens as far as the Reps focus.

Worse than that, Slade. As the accused, it isn't up to Trump to prove a thing. The burden of proof is 100% on the Democrats to prove their accusation that Trump's inquiry into Ukraine corruption, Burisma and the Bidens was totally for his personal election benefit! And they will have to SHOW the benefit, not merely claim or surmise it.

AND GUESS WHAT?

If it goes to the Senate, there WILL be 1000X more attention and focus on the Bidens to Trump's benefit than Trump's mere inquiry over a phone call EVER could have produced!

SO GUESS WHAT?
If the Democrats were counting on Biden as their candidate, Nancy and Sluggo just TOOK HIM OUT OF THE RUNNING!

You’re right Trump doesn’t need to do anything. I’m framing the debate and the issue boils down to... did the Biden investigation serve Trump or the USA. That’s what this whole thing is about.

Wrong. The president has an obligation to investigate corruption involving taxpayer money even if it happens to have been committed by some Dem running in 2020. Does Biden get a pass on breaking the law because he's running for office?? Is Biden above the law because he's a 2020 Dem candidate?? I'd shred the Dem's into coleslaw arguing this in front of the SCOTUS.

you are ahead of the curve... that is the argument that all the Trumpsters will eventually get to. Validating the Biden investigation is what it’s all going to boil down to..

 

[Slade3200]

Watching a recorded version of the hearing and Bucks line of questioning. He asked Turley if the other three panelists would consider a list of other acts that other presidents did as an abuse of power under the same standards they are holding on Trump. The other three panelists were siting right there but instead of questioning them he just went off on his own rant pushing his narrative and using Turley as a nodding bobble head .... that was the most pathetic line of questioning I’ve seen yet.

the questions were actually good but he was too scared to actually question the people sitting right in front of him. #Weak

Pathetic, wasn't it? Turley was visibly uncomfortable. Sadly, he didn't find it in himself to retort, "With all due respect, Congressman, my esteemed colleagues are sitting right here, right next to me. So, if you want to hear their opinion on the matters you inquired, why not ask them? I'd also be interested in hearing them out."

Well, just as pathetic was the Democrats' determined effort to ignore Turley. Apparently there was just one with the guts to take him on, at least so far. In my view, they are doing this hearing a great disservice. Personally, I find Turley thoroughly disingenuous in his arguments, and would have loved to see them picked apart. So, they chose to let stand, basically unopposed, the charge there's a thin basis for impeachment, which would be further marred by lack of evidence. Disconcerting, that.

i agree... I don’t like the 3 on 1 and I don’t like how each side is using the witnesses to push their agenda instead of challenging them with questions and good debate.

I would love to see Turley and the guy on the left end have a sit down debate/discussion about it. Get these soapbox politicians out of the way.

 

[Rambunctious]

This whole thing is an act...a sham...both the dems and the republicans are working to destroy Trump...don't buy it that the GOP is on Trumps side....by the time the senate gets this case they will find something for the republicans to endorse impeachment.....and Trump will be removed....its in the cards its all over...if the GOP wanted this to stop they would of found a way....they are fucking in on it!!!

 

[White 6]

The only case Trump has is proving that his initiative to investigate the Biden’s was in the interest of the country and not his political campaign. So if this goes to the senate it becomes all about the Bidens as far as the Reps focus.

Worse than that, Slade. As the accused, it isn't up to Trump to prove a thing. The burden of proof is 100% on the Democrats to prove their accusation that Trump's inquiry into Ukraine corruption, Burisma and the Bidens was totally for his personal election benefit! And they will have to SHOW the benefit, not merely claim or surmise it.

AND GUESS WHAT?

If it goes to the Senate, there WILL be 1000X more attention and focus on the Bidens to Trump's benefit than Trump's mere inquiry over a phone call EVER could have produced!

SO GUESS WHAT?
If the Democrats were counting on Biden as their candidate, Nancy and Sluggo just TOOK HIM OUT OF THE RUNNING!

You’re right Trump doesn’t need to do anything. I’m framing the debate and the issue boils down to... did the Biden investigation serve Trump or the USA. That’s what this whole thing is about.

Wrong. The president has an obligation to investigate corruption involving taxpayer money even if it happens to have been committed by some Dem running in 2020. Does Biden get a pass on breaking the law because he's running for office?? Is Biden above the law because he's a 2020 Dem candidate?? I'd shred the Dem's into coleslaw arguing this in front of the SCOTUS.

It had already been investigated for current corruption and controls on how it was to be spent by DoD and signed off by NSC. The President did not have a problem with corruption when he signed the bill. He did not reject the inspection by DoD or NSC, or ask them for further facts and assurances. This would have been the correct path if he had doubts, not applying pressure to start a politically conspiracy theory, witch hunt over 4 year old BS that had already been shot down. Asking the President of Ukraine who we and he officially support to investigate his political rival as a condition to getting the aid already approved but being withheld is just a cheap shake down. You guys on the right may get to keep your crook, but impeachment basically labels him as a crook. I look forward to the trial in the Senate.

 

[Slade3200]

Turley appeared to be the only one not compromised and was honest and like he said, he did not vote for Trump nor was a Trump supporter.

Everyone else had an axe to grind and that’s why Nadler put them in front of the cameras.

Watching a recorded version of the hearing and Bucks line of questioning. He asked Turley if the other three panelists would consider a list of other acts that other presidents did as an abuse of power under the same standards they are holding on Trump. The other three panelists were siting right there but instead of questioning them he just went off on his own rant pushing his narrative and using Turley as a nodding bobble head .... that was the most pathetic line of questioning I’ve seen yet.

the questions were actually good but he was too scared to actually question the people sitting right in front of him. #Weak

Pathetic, wasn't it? Turley was visibly uncomfortable. Sadly, he didn't find it in himself to retort, "With all due respect, Congressman, my esteemed colleagues are sitting right here, right next to me. So, if you want to hear their opinion on the matters you inquired, why not ask them? I'd also be interested in hearing them out."

Well, just as pathetic was the Democrats' determined effort to ignore Turley. Apparently there was just one with the guts to take him on, at least so far. In my view, they are doing this hearing a great disservice. Personally, I find Turley thoroughly disingenuous in his arguments, and would have loved to see them picked apart. So, they chose to let stand, basically unopposed, the charge there's a thin basis for impeachment, which would be further marred by lack of evidence. Disconcerting, that.

so is it your position that the ideas and statements coming from those with bias are not to be listened to or considered?

 

[Slade3200]

So, here's the question of the day Democrats.

Which of these 'witnesses' have actually witnessed anything the President of the United States has done that is an impeachable offense?

Is that what you think they were called in for? First hand testimony?! Man you’re clueless

 

[The Original Tree]

Why haven’t you answered my questions about this hearing being ran by a Neutral Person as required by law?

And what is Neutral about Nazi Nadler stacking the deck with a 3-1 advantage?

Turley appeared to be the only one not compromised and was honest and like he said, he did not vote for Trump nor was a Trump supporter.

Everyone else had an axe to grind and that’s why Nadler put them in front of the cameras.

Watching a recorded version of the hearing and Bucks line of questioning. He asked Turley if the other three panelists would consider a list of other acts that other presidents did as an abuse of power under the same standards they are holding on Trump. The other three panelists were siting right there but instead of questioning them he just went off on his own rant pushing his narrative and using Turley as a nodding bobble head .... that was the most pathetic line of questioning I’ve seen yet.

the questions were actually good but he was too scared to actually question the people sitting right in front of him. #Weak

Pathetic, wasn't it? Turley was visibly uncomfortable. Sadly, he didn't find it in himself to retort, "With all due respect, Congressman, my esteemed colleagues are sitting right here, right next to me. So, if you want to hear their opinion on the matters you inquired, why not ask them? I'd also be interested in hearing them out."

Well, just as pathetic was the Democrats' determined effort to ignore Turley. Apparently there was just one with the guts to take him on, at least so far. In my view, they are doing this hearing a great disservice. Personally, I find Turley thoroughly disingenuous in his arguments, and would have loved to see them picked apart. So, they chose to let stand, basically unopposed, the charge there's a thin basis for impeachment, which would be further marred by lack of evidence. Disconcerting, that.

so is it your position that the ideas and statements coming from those with bias are not to be listened to or considered?

 

[Zorro!]

“The Current Legal Case for Impeachment Is Not Just Woefully Inadequate – But Dangerous” – Prof. Jonathan Turley — a Democrat — Destroys Impeachment Hearing with Historic Speech

 

[The Original Tree]

The idea is that none of these people should be listened to as Due Process requires this proceeding deal with Material Facts and Evidence. Their opinions don’t matter anymore than a weatherman’s opinion on what the weather will be like next week.

Turley appeared to be the only one not compromised and was honest and like he said, he did not vote for Trump nor was a Trump supporter.

Everyone else had an axe to grind and that’s why Nadler put them in front of the cameras.

Watching a recorded version of the hearing and Bucks line of questioning. He asked Turley if the other three panelists would consider a list of other acts that other presidents did as an abuse of power under the same standards they are holding on Trump. The other three panelists were siting right there but instead of questioning them he just went off on his own rant pushing his narrative and using Turley as a nodding bobble head .... that was the most pathetic line of questioning I’ve seen yet.

the questions were actually good but he was too scared to actually question the people sitting right in front of him. #Weak

Pathetic, wasn't it? Turley was visibly uncomfortable. Sadly, he didn't find it in himself to retort, "With all due respect, Congressman, my esteemed colleagues are sitting right here, right next to me. So, if you want to hear their opinion on the matters you inquired, why not ask them? I'd also be interested in hearing them out."

Well, just as pathetic was the Democrats' determined effort to ignore Turley. Apparently there was just one with the guts to take him on, at least so far. In my view, they are doing this hearing a great disservice. Personally, I find Turley thoroughly disingenuous in his arguments, and would have loved to see them picked apart. So, they chose to let stand, basically unopposed, the charge there's a thin basis for impeachment, which would be further marred by lack of evidence. Disconcerting, that.

so is it your position that the ideas and statements coming from those with bias are not to be listened to or considered?

 

[OKTexas]

Nadlers closing statement indicated the decision has already been made, so why the dog and pony show?

.