Turley Exposes Republicans And Himself As Being Full Of Shionla

[blastoff]

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.

Amen.

But whatever happened to all the evidence pencil neck assured the world he had for two or so years? LOL...if ya got it, flaunt it!

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

I think you misunderstood his point.....which was anger is not an excuse for impeachment.

 

[Taz]

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.

What's "shionla"? Is that something Carrot Face puts on his Big Macs?

 

[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.

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

Turley is a Democrat. By his own admission, he is a democrat. He just happens to be an old school democrat; clear-eyed and honest.

The same cannot be said of the democrat party members who hold office right now. Not one of them.

 

[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.

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...

You CANNOT judge a lawyer by the cases he defends. That is his job, to make arguments on behalf of his client.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

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.

I bring up Porteous because his defense was not vigorous, it was abysmal....to the point that 96-0 voted for removal...that means his defense didn't sway basically ANYONE...

I bring up Turley also being called "AS A WITNESS FOR REPUBLICANS" during the Clinton impeachment because it highlights the levels he would go to embarrass himself -- there is no way he can argue what he did in 98 and then argue today that impeachment is wrong because its going too fast and people are mad and his dog is mad....Those folks getting on their soap boxes (Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnel) over the importance of impeachment then didn't age well at all.... they were not talking about feelings back then....they were not talking about their wife and their dog then....they were not complaining about how fast it was moving or how mad people are....those are not constitutional arguments against impeachment, which is what he was SUPPOSED to be called to the House to argue...

Every other legal scholar that testified did it while arguing constitutionally historical facts -- which is why NO ONE is refuting a single word they said...

 

[Crepitus]

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

Lol, the "clarification" where he tried and failed to walk back his comment?

Go for it, it's hilarious.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

An IG found it to be credible enough to "blow the whistle".

 

[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...

You CANNOT judge a lawyer by the cases he defends. That is his job, to make arguments on behalf of his client.

and if his arguments are complete bullshit -- that tells you a lot about what he believes about impeachment in general....he definitely didn't claim during his defense of that judge that "don't impeach him because you are doing it too fast...and my dog is mad"

 

[RealDave]

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.

Witnesses are not circumstantial.


Turley kept on about the timing. Republicans would love to push this back a couple months so they could argue it is too close to the election.

Republicans & Trump not participating & blocking testimony is only a sign of guilt.

Republicans could have ended it months ago if they had proof that no crime was committed.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

WTF is "shionla"? You'd screw up a wet dream!

 

[RealDave]

Bill Clinton was accused of witness tampering. Trump is sending piles of campaign cash to Republican Senators. Trump is publicly trashing witnesses all the time.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

So which was it 1998, or 2010? I don't recall any President being impeached in 1998 or even 2010.

 

[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.

Witnesses are not circumstantial.


Turley kept on about the timing. Republicans would love to push this back a couple months so they could argue it is too close to the election.

Republicans & Trump not participating & blocking testimony is only a sign of guilt.

Republicans could have ended it months ago if they had proof that no crime was committed.

Some folks try so hard to appear "objective" that it makes them look sad....

They feel that if the tables were totally switched -- that these republicans that they are trying so hard to bend over backwards for -- will be just as fair and objective to them.....

You are 1000% right that republicans are blocking testimony, blocking witnesses, blocking additional evidence not because it proves Trump's innocence but because it will prove Trump's guilt beyond any reasonable doubt....even OldLady's ...as much as I respect her opinions...

 

[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.

So which was it 1998, or 2010? I don't recall any President being impeached in 1998 or even 2010.

I know reading is hard for you but I said the last "IMPEACHMENT" took place in 2010...

Presidents are not the only positions that someone can be removed from by Congress...

I bet you are someone who thinks they know the constitution huh??

 

[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.

An IG found it to be credible enough to "blow the whistle".

I'm no lawyer, daniel. When a lawyer with the years of experience that Turley has says there is a problem, I give him the benefit of the doubt.
I didn't pay a great deal of attention to all the arguing that went on when Nixon or Clinton were in the hotseat, and I don't know if there were as many people on both sides of the impeachment fence then as there are now, but it seems crazy to me that such completely different understanding of the "facts" can be so well represented in this situation.
It's wearying, is what it is.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

Proven? That is one thing that has been definitively disproved. There was no quid pro quo, the Ukrainians never started an investigation and the aid was released. You libtards keep covering your ears and screaming "Lalalalalala" so you can claim you didn't know!

I want to know when the impeachment inquiry starts because Trump withheld military funding for Lebanon? That funding was approved at about the same time as for Ukraine. You do know that funding was released only last week!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

So which was it 1998, or 2010? I don't recall any President being impeached in 1998 or even 2010.

I know reading is hard for you but I said the last "IMPEACHMENT" took place in 2010...

Presidents are not the only positions that someone can be removed from by Congress...

I bet you are someone who thinks they know the constitution huh??

The rules for the President are different, dumbass! The Chief Justice does not preside over a federal judges impeachments. You knew that and ignored it just to troll.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

An IG found it to be credible enough to "blow the whistle".

I'm no lawyer, daniel. When a lawyer with the years of experience that Turley has says there is a problem, I give him the benefit of the doubt.
I didn't pay a great deal of attention to all the arguing that went on when Nixon or Clinton were in the hotseat, and I don't know if there were as many people on both sides of the impeachment fence then as there are now, but it seems crazy to me that such completely different understanding of the "facts" can be so well represented in this situation.
It's wearying, is what it is.

Thank you for admitting you are a dumbass so we can ignore any future rants from you on this topic.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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....

They didn't announce or investigate Biden, did they? No laws broken.

No harm, no foul.