Turley Exposes Republicans And Himself As Being Full Of Shionla

[Biff_Poindexter]

The GOP's only impeachment witness on Wednesday contradicted his own previous testimony

I am going to take a different angle on this, because just demolishing Turley's testimony is already trending on Twitter..I am going to ask you Trumpers, what do you feel an elected official should be impeached for??

What Turley did in that hearing was embarrassing, it is what we call "concern trolling" -- he didn't say impeachment was wrong because Trump's actions were justified, he didn't say impeachment was wrong due to any argument made on "CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS" -- he is saying it is wrong because of feelings....feelings that it was moving too fast.... almost as fast as the Jackson impeachment but not as slow as the Clinton impeachment (the only 2 other presidential impeachment hearings in US history..so basically it is moving at a median speed) -- and feelings that people are just so mad and we all need to not be so mad....that is the best witness the republicans could call?? -- On top of that, the Republicans only expert witness actually said "The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

This is the second time Republicans called Turley in as their witness for an impeachment hearing...The first time he was there to make the case in favor of impeachment against Bill Clinton....back then he CORRECTLY said "the accusatory function of the House is essential to maintain a certain deterrence on presidential misconduct..narrowing the scope of impeachable "OFFENSES" <<--(remember that word) can expand the scope of presidential misconduct" -- Basically he was saying if we don't impeach Clinton for lying under oath about a blow job, then that may expand the misconduct of presidents in the future, and he was right....wasn't he??

However, the last impeachment hearing wasn't held in the 90's -- the last impeachment hearing was held in 2010....but I am sure most Trumpers have no idea about it because most Trumpers were too busy putting on funny little tea party hats and claiming they were independents to distance themselves from the embarrassment of George W. Bush.

In 2010, a Clinton appointed federal judge (G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana) was facing impeachment in the Senate for taking bribes...the person representing that corrupt judge was Mr. Turley, the guy who said impeachment is wrong if you don't do it slow enough and if it makes people mad.. The people representing the prosecution in the Senate was republican Bob Goodlatte and democrat Adam Schiff...Turley claimed that the judge was only human and you can't impeach him for being a "moocher" -- however, what Turley called mooching was what the rest of the world called, bribes...like taking payoffs from lawyers in cases where that judge was presiding over their clients, pays offs that influenced decisions he made....The senate voted to convict and remove that judge 96-0...

Fact of the matter is....It is fundamentally and constitutionally impossible to reconcile what Turley's position was in 1998 to what he is claiming today...so when Turley asked "where will you stand" when the wind blows again for a Democratic president to be charged. The answer is simple -- any Democratic president who abuses his power to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign country in order to benefit his own re-election and hurt his political opponent, should be impeached. Simple.

 

[Meathead]

If they're the shinola, you must be the shit.

Fair enough.

 

[Jitss617]

Turley is a democrat,, he’s trying to save you people for the sickness of TDS

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Turley is a democrat,, he’s trying to save you people for the sickness of TDS

Uh huh......I like how you avoided every fact I presented.....

Especially this one...…..""The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

That has already been proven.....this Trump era will not age well for his sycophants....

Hope you still got them cute little tea-party hats and "I'm An Independent" t-shirts in storage somewhere....you will be needing them in your next re-branding campaign

 

[OldLady]

The GOP's only impeachment witness on Wednesday contradicted his own previous testimony

I am going to take a different angle on this, because just demolishing Turley's testimony is already trending on Twitter..I am going to ask you Trumpers, what do you feel an elected official should be impeached for??

What Turley did in that hearing was embarrassing, it is what we call "concern trolling" -- he didn't say impeachment was wrong because Trump's actions were justified, he didn't say impeachment was wrong due to any argument made on "CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS" -- he is saying it is wrong because of feelings....feelings that it was moving too fast.... almost as fast as the Jackson impeachment but not as slow as the Clinton impeachment (the only 2 other presidential impeachment hearings in US history..so basically it is moving at a median speed) -- and feelings that people are just so mad and we all need to not be so mad....that is the best witness the republicans could call?? -- On top of that, the Republicans only expert witness actually said "The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

This is the second time Republicans called Turley in as their witness for an impeachment hearing...The first time he was there to make the case in favor of impeachment against Bill Clinton....back then he CORRECTLY said "the accusatory function of the House is essential to maintain a certain deterrence on presidential misconduct..narrowing the scope of impeachable "OFFENSES" <<--(remember that word) can expand the scope of presidential misconduct" -- Basically he was saying if we don't impeach Clinton for lying under oath about a blow job, then that may expand the misconduct of presidents in the future, and he was right....wasn't he??

However, the last impeachment hearing wasn't held in the 90's -- the last impeachment hearing was held in 2010....but I am sure most Trumpers have no idea about it because most Trumpers were too busy putting on funny little tea party hats and claiming they were independents to distance themselves from the embarrassment of George W. Bush.

In 2010, a Clinton appointed federal judge (G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana) was facing impeachment in the Senate for taking bribes...the person representing that corrupt judge was Mr. Turley, the guy who said impeachment is wrong if you don't do it slow enough and if it makes people mad.. The people representing the prosecution in the Senate was republican Bob Goodlatte and democrat Adam Schiff...Turley claimed that the judge was only human and you can't impeach him for being a "moocher" -- however, what Turley called mooching was what the rest of the world called, bribes...like taking payoffs from lawyers in cases where that judge was presiding over their clients, pays offs that influenced decisions he made....The senate voted to convict and remove that judge 96-0...

Fact of the matter is....It is fundamentally and constitutionally impossible to reconcile what Turley's position was in 1998 to what he is claiming today...so when Turley asked "where will you stand" when the wind blows again for a Democratic president to be charged. The answer is simple -- any Democratic president who abuses his power to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign country in order to benefit his own re-election and hurt his political opponent, should be impeached. Simple.

You're putting a mighty heavy spin on Turley's remarks. And I heard a very different concern from him about the Democrats not having enough evidence that can be considered during a real "trial." Yes, there is circumstantial evidence up the wazoo, but there is obstruction of the investigation by the President and the testimony and evidence that is required will be withheld by Trump's stable of lawyers until well after the 2020 election. The Dems will lose, but not for lack of a crime. They will lose because they do not wish to spend a couple of years battling in the courts for every witness.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Turley is a democrat,, he’s trying to save you people for the sickness of TDS

Uh huh......I like how you avoided every fact I presented.....

Especially this one...…..""The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

That has already been proven.....this Trump era will not age well for his sycophants....

Hope you still got them cute little tea-party hats and "I'm An Independent" t-shirts in storage somewhere....you will be needing them in your next re-branding campaign

NO! It hasn't... nothing has been proven.. except that you all have nothing..

 

[Billiejeens]

Turley is a democrat,, he’s trying to save you people for the sickness of TDS

Uh huh......I like how you avoided every fact I presented.....

Especially this one...…..""The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

That has already been proven.....this Trump era will not age well for his sycophants....

Hope you still got them cute little tea-party hats and "I'm An Independent" t-shirts in storage somewhere....you will be needing them in your next re-branding campaign

It hasn't happened - bippy boy.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

The GOP's only impeachment witness on Wednesday contradicted his own previous testimony

I am going to take a different angle on this, because just demolishing Turley's testimony is already trending on Twitter..I am going to ask you Trumpers, what do you feel an elected official should be impeached for??

What Turley did in that hearing was embarrassing, it is what we call "concern trolling" -- he didn't say impeachment was wrong because Trump's actions were justified, he didn't say impeachment was wrong due to any argument made on "CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS" -- he is saying it is wrong because of feelings....feelings that it was moving too fast.... almost as fast as the Jackson impeachment but not as slow as the Clinton impeachment (the only 2 other presidential impeachment hearings in US history..so basically it is moving at a median speed) -- and feelings that people are just so mad and we all need to not be so mad....that is the best witness the republicans could call?? -- On top of that, the Republicans only expert witness actually said "The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

This is the second time Republicans called Turley in as their witness for an impeachment hearing...The first time he was there to make the case in favor of impeachment against Bill Clinton....back then he CORRECTLY said "the accusatory function of the House is essential to maintain a certain deterrence on presidential misconduct..narrowing the scope of impeachable "OFFENSES" <<--(remember that word) can expand the scope of presidential misconduct" -- Basically he was saying if we don't impeach Clinton for lying under oath about a blow job, then that may expand the misconduct of presidents in the future, and he was right....wasn't he??

However, the last impeachment hearing wasn't held in the 90's -- the last impeachment hearing was held in 2010....but I am sure most Trumpers have no idea about it because most Trumpers were too busy putting on funny little tea party hats and claiming they were independents to distance themselves from the embarrassment of George W. Bush.

In 2010, a Clinton appointed federal judge (G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana) was facing impeachment in the Senate for taking bribes...the person representing that corrupt judge was Mr. Turley, the guy who said impeachment is wrong if you don't do it slow enough and if it makes people mad.. The people representing the prosecution in the Senate was republican Bob Goodlatte and democrat Adam Schiff...Turley claimed that the judge was only human and you can't impeach him for being a "moocher" -- however, what Turley called mooching was what the rest of the world called, bribes...like taking payoffs from lawyers in cases where that judge was presiding over their clients, pays offs that influenced decisions he made....The senate voted to convict and remove that judge 96-0...

Fact of the matter is....It is fundamentally and constitutionally impossible to reconcile what Turley's position was in 1998 to what he is claiming today...so when Turley asked "where will you stand" when the wind blows again for a Democratic president to be charged. The answer is simple -- any Democratic president who abuses his power to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign country in order to benefit his own re-election and hurt his political opponent, should be impeached. Simple.

You're putting a mighty heavy spin on Turley's remarks. And I heard a very different concern from him about the Democrats not having enough evidence that can be considered during a real "trial." Yes, there is circumstantial evidence up the wazoo, but there is obstruction of the investigation by the President and the testimony and evidence that is required will be withheld by Trump's stable of lawyers until well after the 2020 election. The Dems will lose, but not for lack of a crime. They will lose because they do not wish to spend a couple of years battling in the courts for every witness.

Turley is a disingenuous hack, which is why he is being drugged today.....he even admitted in the hearing that Nixon cooperated with impeachment hearings by not preventing his cabinet members from testifying, he conceded that Clinton cooperated with the impeachment hearings -- Trump is the only one doing everything in his power to block witnesses from testifying....

So when Turley says, we should just wait and wait and wait until maybe one day, the Supreme Court decides to compel witnesses to testify is 1000% BS....this is the same guy who claimed a judge shouldn't be impeached for taking bribes...a judge that was convicted by the Senate 96-0...a Senate in 2010....A senate during the Obama admin....do you know how corrupt you have to be as a judge to be convicted by that margin??

Turley is just another person willing to embarrass himself for the edification of Trump sycophants...

 

[Billiejeens]

The GOP's only impeachment witness on Wednesday contradicted his own previous testimony

I am going to take a different angle on this, because just demolishing Turley's testimony is already trending on Twitter..I am going to ask you Trumpers, what do you feel an elected official should be impeached for??

What Turley did in that hearing was embarrassing, it is what we call "concern trolling" -- he didn't say impeachment was wrong because Trump's actions were justified, he didn't say impeachment was wrong due to any argument made on "CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS" -- he is saying it is wrong because of feelings....feelings that it was moving too fast.... almost as fast as the Jackson impeachment but not as slow as the Clinton impeachment (the only 2 other presidential impeachment hearings in US history..so basically it is moving at a median speed) -- and feelings that people are just so mad and we all need to not be so mad....that is the best witness the republicans could call?? -- On top of that, the Republicans only expert witness actually said "The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

This is the second time Republicans called Turley in as their witness for an impeachment hearing...The first time he was there to make the case in favor of impeachment against Bill Clinton....back then he CORRECTLY said "the accusatory function of the House is essential to maintain a certain deterrence on presidential misconduct..narrowing the scope of impeachable "OFFENSES" <<--(remember that word) can expand the scope of presidential misconduct" -- Basically he was saying if we don't impeach Clinton for lying under oath about a blow job, then that may expand the misconduct of presidents in the future, and he was right....wasn't he??

However, the last impeachment hearing wasn't held in the 90's -- the last impeachment hearing was held in 2010....but I am sure most Trumpers have no idea about it because most Trumpers were too busy putting on funny little tea party hats and claiming they were independents to distance themselves from the embarrassment of George W. Bush.

In 2010, a Clinton appointed federal judge (G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana) was facing impeachment in the Senate for taking bribes...the person representing that corrupt judge was Mr. Turley, the guy who said impeachment is wrong if you don't do it slow enough and if it makes people mad.. The people representing the prosecution in the Senate was republican Bob Goodlatte and democrat Adam Schiff...Turley claimed that the judge was only human and you can't impeach him for being a "moocher" -- however, what Turley called mooching was what the rest of the world called, bribes...like taking payoffs from lawyers in cases where that judge was presiding over their clients, pays offs that influenced decisions he made....The senate voted to convict and remove that judge 96-0...

Fact of the matter is....It is fundamentally and constitutionally impossible to reconcile what Turley's position was in 1998 to what he is claiming today...so when Turley asked "where will you stand" when the wind blows again for a Democratic president to be charged. The answer is simple -- any Democratic president who abuses his power to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign country in order to benefit his own re-election and hurt his political opponent, should be impeached. Simple.

You're putting a mighty heavy spin on Turley's remarks. And I heard a very different concern from him about the Democrats not having enough evidence that can be considered during a real "trial." Yes, there is circumstantial evidence up the wazoo, but there is obstruction of the investigation by the President and the testimony and evidence that is required will be withheld by Trump's stable of lawyers until well after the 2020 election. The Dems will lose, but not for lack of a crime. They will lose because they do not wish to spend a couple of years battling in the courts for every witness.

Who ever it is that is explaining this to you - is not doing you a good service.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Turley is a democrat,, he’s trying to save you people for the sickness of TDS

Uh huh......I like how you avoided every fact I presented.....

Especially this one...…..""The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

That has already been proven.....this Trump era will not age well for his sycophants....

Hope you still got them cute little tea-party hats and "I'm An Independent" t-shirts in storage somewhere....you will be needing them in your next re-branding campaign

It hasn't happened - bippy boy.

Uh huh....Mulvaney disagrees with you.....maybe we should call him to testify under oath and clear things up...oh wait!

 

[Jitss617]

Turley is a democrat,, he’s trying to save you people for the sickness of TDS

Uh huh......I like how you avoided every fact I presented.....

Especially this one...…..""The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

That has already been proven.....this Trump era will not age well for his sycophants....

Hope you still got them cute little tea-party hats and "I'm An Independent" t-shirts in storage somewhere....you will be needing them in your next re-branding campaign

Yes if that was the just of the the conversation absolutely.. it wasn’t it was hey look in to this good bye lol

 

[Billiejeens]

Turley is a democrat,, he’s trying to save you people for the sickness of TDS

Uh huh......I like how you avoided every fact I presented.....

Especially this one...…..""The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

That has already been proven.....this Trump era will not age well for his sycophants....

Hope you still got them cute little tea-party hats and "I'm An Independent" t-shirts in storage somewhere....you will be needing them in your next re-branding campaign

It hasn't happened - bippy boy.

Uh huh....Mulvaney disagrees with you.....maybe we should call him to testify under oath and clear things up...oh wait!

Look you stupid fuck.
The whole idea of foreign aid is - give to get.
No where did Trump try to get what you claim -
You are horseshit dude.

 

[Jitss617]

Turley is a democrat,, he’s trying to save you people for the sickness of TDS

Uh huh......I like how you avoided every fact I presented.....

Especially this one...…..""The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

That has already been proven.....this Trump era will not age well for his sycophants....

Hope you still got them cute little tea-party hats and "I'm An Independent" t-shirts in storage somewhere....you will be needing them in your next re-branding campaign

It hasn't happened - bippy boy.

Uh huh....Mulvaney disagrees with you.....maybe we should call him to testify under oath and clear things up...oh wait!

How come you don’t play the clarification

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Turley is a democrat,, he’s trying to save you people for the sickness of TDS

Uh huh......I like how you avoided every fact I presented.....

Especially this one...…..""The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

That has already been proven.....this Trump era will not age well for his sycophants....

Hope you still got them cute little tea-party hats and "I'm An Independent" t-shirts in storage somewhere....you will be needing them in your next re-branding campaign

It hasn't happened - bippy boy.

Uh huh....Mulvaney disagrees with you.....maybe we should call him to testify under oath and clear things up...oh wait!

Look you stupid fuck.
The whole idea of foreign aid is - give to get.
No where did Trump try to get what you claim -
You are horseshit dude.

Yes, he solicited Ukraine -- not to investigate Biden -- but to just "ANNOUNCE" that you are investigating Biden....

Why?? Because he did not care about an actual investigation, he just wanted the appearance of an investigation to give him a political advantage..

The fact yo dumb ass don't want to admit it isn't my problem....

Just like yo dumb ass will be trying to claim John Durham, William Barr and anyone else who doesn't placate your conspiracy theories are now the Deep State....

 

[shockedcanadian]

I didn't watch much of it, but that of which I did, I respect Nadler more than Schiff. He is far more objective in his role. Schiff did more damage to their inquiry than anyone else in my estimation. All people saw was a guy who seemed overly aggressive. The question is, "why"? If you have so much evidence it wouldn't be necessary.

 

[justoffal]

The GOP's only impeachment witness on Wednesday contradicted his own previous testimony

I am going to take a napdifferent angle on this, because just demolishing Turley's testimony is already trending on Twitter..I am going to ask you Trumpers, what do you feel an elected official should be impeached for??

What Turley did in that hearing was embarrassing, it is what we call "concern trolling" -- he didn't say impeachment was wrong because Trump's actions were justified, he didn't say impeachment was wrong due to any argument made on "CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS" -- he is saying it is wrong because of feelings....feelings that it was moving too fast.... almost as fast as the Jackson impeachment but not as slow as the Clinton impeachment (the only 2 other presidential impeachment hearings in US history..so basically it is moving at a median speed) -- and feelings that people are just so mad and we all need to not be so mad....that is the best witness the republicans could call?? -- On top of that, the Republicans only expert witness actually said "The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

This is the second time Republicans called Turley in as their witness for an impeachment hearing...The first time he was there to make the case in favor of impeachment against Bill Clinton....back then he CORRECTLY said "the accusatory function of the House is essential to maintain a certain deterrence on presidential misconduct..narrowing the scope of impeachable "OFFENSES" <<--(remember that word) can expand the scope of presidential misconduct" -- Basically he was saying if we don't impeach Clinton for lying under oath about a blow job, then that may expand the misconduct of presidents in the future, and he was right....wasn't he??

However, the last impeachment hearing wasn't held in the 90's -- the last impeachment hearing was held in 2010....but I am sure most Trumpers have no idea about it because most Trumpers were too busy putting on funny little tea party hats and claiming they were independents to distance themselves from the embarrassment of George W. Bush.

In 2010, a Clinton appointed federal judge (G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana) was facing impeachment in the Senate for taking bribes...the person representing that corrupt judge was Mr. Turley, the guy who said impeachment is wrong if you don't do it slow enough and if it makes people mad.. The people representing the prosecution in the Senate was republican Bob Goodlatte and democrat Adam Schiff...Turley claimed that the judge was only human and you can't impeach him for being a "moocher" -- however, what Turley called mooching was what the rest of the world called, bribes...like taking payoffs from lawyers in cases where that judge was presiding over their clients, pays offs that influenced decisions he made....The senate voted to convict and remove that judge 96-0...

Fact of the matter is....It is fundamentally and constitutionally impossible to reconcile what Turley's position was in 1998 to what he is claiming today...so when Turley asked "where will you stand" when the wind blows again for a Democratic president to be charged. The answer is simple -- any Democratic president who abuses his power to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign country in order to benefit his own re-election and hurt his political opponent, should be impeached. Simple.

This is a street fight. Street fights are never won by the rules.

Do you think the one moment before he entered this office he didn't already know what it was all about?

The one thing he probably underestimated was how many traitors were left behind from the previous administration.

Trump is an expert Street fighter the DNC sucks at it unless they're screwing one of their own.

Aside from being torturously boring
Your posts are childishly wishful.

The next election is already over.

Jo

 

[CWayne]

The GOP's only impeachment witness on Wednesday contradicted his own previous testimony

I am going to take a different angle on this, because just demolishing Turley's testimony is already trending on Twitter..I am going to ask you Trumpers, what do you feel an elected official should be impeached for??

What Turley did in that hearing was embarrassing, it is what we call "concern trolling" -- he didn't say impeachment was wrong because Trump's actions were justified, he didn't say impeachment was wrong due to any argument made on "CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS" -- he is saying it is wrong because of feelings....feelings that it was moving too fast.... almost as fast as the Jackson impeachment but not as slow as the Clinton impeachment (the only 2 other presidential impeachment hearings in US history..so basically it is moving at a median speed) -- and feelings that people are just so mad and we all need to not be so mad....that is the best witness the republicans could call?? -- On top of that, the Republicans only expert witness actually said "The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

This is the second time Republicans called Turley in as their witness for an impeachment hearing...The first time he was there to make the case in favor of impeachment against Bill Clinton....back then he CORRECTLY said "the accusatory function of the House is essential to maintain a certain deterrence on presidential misconduct..narrowing the scope of impeachable "OFFENSES" <<--(remember that word) can expand the scope of presidential misconduct" -- Basically he was saying if we don't impeach Clinton for lying under oath about a blow job, then that may expand the misconduct of presidents in the future, and he was right....wasn't he??

However, the last impeachment hearing wasn't held in the 90's -- the last impeachment hearing was held in 2010....but I am sure most Trumpers have no idea about it because most Trumpers were too busy putting on funny little tea party hats and claiming they were independents to distance themselves from the embarrassment of George W. Bush.

In 2010, a Clinton appointed federal judge (G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana) was facing impeachment in the Senate for taking bribes...the person representing that corrupt judge was Mr. Turley, the guy who said impeachment is wrong if you don't do it slow enough and if it makes people mad.. The people representing the prosecution in the Senate was republican Bob Goodlatte and democrat Adam Schiff...Turley claimed that the judge was only human and you can't impeach him for being a "moocher" -- however, what Turley called mooching was what the rest of the world called, bribes...like taking payoffs from lawyers in cases where that judge was presiding over their clients, pays offs that influenced decisions he made....The senate voted to convict and remove that judge 96-0...

Fact of the matter is....It is fundamentally and constitutionally impossible to reconcile what Turley's position was in 1998 to what he is claiming today...so when Turley asked "where will you stand" when the wind blows again for a Democratic president to be charged. The answer is simple -- any Democratic president who abuses his power to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign country in order to benefit his own re-election and hurt his political opponent, should be impeached. Simple.

funny that you think Turley's testimony is being demolished. He is one of your own, the problem with Turley is that he is sensible, with eyes wide open and clear.

When he speaks about a Democrat standing when the winds blow, he is specifically referring to the fact that no longer will facts and/or crime be necessary for impeachment.

From the moment that the vote is taken to impeach, no president going forward will be safe from factless impeachment for political expediency.

 

[Olde Europe]

So when Turley says, we should just wait and wait and wait until maybe one day, the Supreme Court decides to compel witnesses to testify is 1000% BS....this is the same guy who claimed a judge shouldn't be impeached for taking bribes...a judge that was convicted by the Senate 96-0...a Senate in 2010....A senate during the Obama admin....do you know how corrupt you have to be as a judge to be convicted by that margin??

Turley is just another person willing to embarrass himself for the edification of Trump sycophants...

Quite uncharacteristically, you are being unreasonable and unfair here. Even a thoroughly odious figure, such as former judge Porteous, is entitled to a vigorous defense, and Turley was duty-bound to mount it.

You are on much firmer ground, I believe, attacking Turley on granting legitimacy to Trump's efforts to run out the clock, when U.S. v. Nixon should have settled that question as to witnesses' obligation to show up when served a valid Congressional subpoena. After all, litigating that question, again, and again, and again, right up to the Supreme court, and, once the witness finally shows up, litigating every material question over the assertion of Executive privilege, again, up and down the court system, would render Congress's impeachment power practically inoperable.

All that is particularly striking while it is obvious that the assertion on the part of Trump that he has absolute immunity against any and all checks by the legislature, and that this immunity extends to everyone working, or having worked, for him, is on its face frivolous.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

The GOP's only impeachment witness on Wednesday contradicted his own previous testimony

I am going to take a napdifferent angle on this, because just demolishing Turley's testimony is already trending on Twitter..I am going to ask you Trumpers, what do you feel an elected official should be impeached for??

What Turley did in that hearing was embarrassing, it is what we call "concern trolling" -- he didn't say impeachment was wrong because Trump's actions were justified, he didn't say impeachment was wrong due to any argument made on "CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS" -- he is saying it is wrong because of feelings....feelings that it was moving too fast.... almost as fast as the Jackson impeachment but not as slow as the Clinton impeachment (the only 2 other presidential impeachment hearings in US history..so basically it is moving at a median speed) -- and feelings that people are just so mad and we all need to not be so mad....that is the best witness the republicans could call?? -- On top of that, the Republicans only expert witness actually said "The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

This is the second time Republicans called Turley in as their witness for an impeachment hearing...The first time he was there to make the case in favor of impeachment against Bill Clinton....back then he CORRECTLY said "the accusatory function of the House is essential to maintain a certain deterrence on presidential misconduct..narrowing the scope of impeachable "OFFENSES" <<--(remember that word) can expand the scope of presidential misconduct" -- Basically he was saying if we don't impeach Clinton for lying under oath about a blow job, then that may expand the misconduct of presidents in the future, and he was right....wasn't he??

However, the last impeachment hearing wasn't held in the 90's -- the last impeachment hearing was held in 2010....but I am sure most Trumpers have no idea about it because most Trumpers were too busy putting on funny little tea party hats and claiming they were independents to distance themselves from the embarrassment of George W. Bush.

In 2010, a Clinton appointed federal judge (G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana) was facing impeachment in the Senate for taking bribes...the person representing that corrupt judge was Mr. Turley, the guy who said impeachment is wrong if you don't do it slow enough and if it makes people mad.. The people representing the prosecution in the Senate was republican Bob Goodlatte and democrat Adam Schiff...Turley claimed that the judge was only human and you can't impeach him for being a "moocher" -- however, what Turley called mooching was what the rest of the world called, bribes...like taking payoffs from lawyers in cases where that judge was presiding over their clients, pays offs that influenced decisions he made....The senate voted to convict and remove that judge 96-0...

Fact of the matter is....It is fundamentally and constitutionally impossible to reconcile what Turley's position was in 1998 to what he is claiming today...so when Turley asked "where will you stand" when the wind blows again for a Democratic president to be charged. The answer is simple -- any Democratic president who abuses his power to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign country in order to benefit his own re-election and hurt his political opponent, should be impeached. Simple.

This is a street fight. Street fights are never won by the rules.

Do you think the one moment before he entered this office he didn't already know what it was all about?

The one thing he probably underestimated was how many traitors were left behind from the previous administration.

Trump is an expert Street fighter the DNC sucks at it unless they're screwing one of their own.

Aside from being torturously boring
Your posts are childishly wishful.

The next election is already over.

Jo

I like how you failed to refute any facts

People with the facts on their side don't have to say shit like "can't win it by the rules"

There is a reason you folks argue your sycophantic feelings about your cult leader and avoid arguing any facts.....

and if the dems suck at whatever it is you whining about -- why is it anytime reality pops your delusion bubble -- you blame it on the Dems and their Deep State??

Tells me that the Dems control everything...even Trump's own personal attorney, trump's own campaign manager, national security advisor, both of his attorney generals, FBI director, secretary of state, 3 chiefs of staff....at what point do you dumb asses quit finding excuses??

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

The GOP's only impeachment witness on Wednesday contradicted his own previous testimony

I am going to take a different angle on this, because just demolishing Turley's testimony is already trending on Twitter..I am going to ask you Trumpers, what do you feel an elected official should be impeached for??

What Turley did in that hearing was embarrassing, it is what we call "concern trolling" -- he didn't say impeachment was wrong because Trump's actions were justified, he didn't say impeachment was wrong due to any argument made on "CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS" -- he is saying it is wrong because of feelings....feelings that it was moving too fast.... almost as fast as the Jackson impeachment but not as slow as the Clinton impeachment (the only 2 other presidential impeachment hearings in US history..so basically it is moving at a median speed) -- and feelings that people are just so mad and we all need to not be so mad....that is the best witness the republicans could call?? -- On top of that, the Republicans only expert witness actually said "The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

This is the second time Republicans called Turley in as their witness for an impeachment hearing...The first time he was there to make the case in favor of impeachment against Bill Clinton....back then he CORRECTLY said "the accusatory function of the House is essential to maintain a certain deterrence on presidential misconduct..narrowing the scope of impeachable "OFFENSES" <<--(remember that word) can expand the scope of presidential misconduct" -- Basically he was saying if we don't impeach Clinton for lying under oath about a blow job, then that may expand the misconduct of presidents in the future, and he was right....wasn't he??

However, the last impeachment hearing wasn't held in the 90's -- the last impeachment hearing was held in 2010....but I am sure most Trumpers have no idea about it because most Trumpers were too busy putting on funny little tea party hats and claiming they were independents to distance themselves from the embarrassment of George W. Bush.

In 2010, a Clinton appointed federal judge (G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana) was facing impeachment in the Senate for taking bribes...the person representing that corrupt judge was Mr. Turley, the guy who said impeachment is wrong if you don't do it slow enough and if it makes people mad.. The people representing the prosecution in the Senate was republican Bob Goodlatte and democrat Adam Schiff...Turley claimed that the judge was only human and you can't impeach him for being a "moocher" -- however, what Turley called mooching was what the rest of the world called, bribes...like taking payoffs from lawyers in cases where that judge was presiding over their clients, pays offs that influenced decisions he made....The senate voted to convict and remove that judge 96-0...

Fact of the matter is....It is fundamentally and constitutionally impossible to reconcile what Turley's position was in 1998 to what he is claiming today...so when Turley asked "where will you stand" when the wind blows again for a Democratic president to be charged. The answer is simple -- any Democratic president who abuses his power to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign country in order to benefit his own re-election and hurt his political opponent, should be impeached. Simple.

funny that you think Turley's testimony is being demolished. He is one of your own, the problem with Turley is that he is sensible, with eyes wide open and clear.

When he speaks about a Democrat standing when the winds blow, he is specifically referring to the fact that no longer will facts and/or crime be necessary for impeachment.

From the moment that the vote is taken to impeach, no president going forward will be safe from factless impeachment for political expediency.

Was Turley one of "my own" when he argued in favor of impeaching Clinton??

Was Turley one of "my own" when he tried to claim a judge shouldn't impeached for taking bribes because he is only human??

Funny how Trump's own attorney, own Attorney General, own this, own that -- all of these people can be convicted, and suddenly -- they are all deep state when that happens, not "one of his own" ....

Turley isn't an elected Democrat official, so he is not "one of my own"

Try a different excuse because we damn sure see you can't argue any facts