Turley Exposes Republicans And Himself As Being Full Of Shionla

[BWK]

I tell you what...….remember when you morons kept saying "if the dems want to impeach, let them...they will regret it" -- they are impeaching him, instead of complaining, make them regret it...

When the trial starts in the Senate...have Trump present his witnesses, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Giuliani, anyone he feels has this explosive evidence that will exonerate him...have them give this exonerating testimony under oath...and you will totally own the Democrats....


Your excuse for not doing this so far was "we can't have witnesses for Trump testify in the House because democrats are yucky" --- fine....what will be the excuse for them not testifying under oath in the Senate?? It is Republican controlled...so what will be the new excuse??


If someone was on trial for murder, let's say some thug black teen, like a Trayvon or someone scary........and they claim they have 2 witnesses who could TOTALLY prove his innocence...but he refuses to have them testify because he wants the prosecutor to testify instead.... he refuses to present this exonerating evidence, because he wants the son of the assistant police chief to testify instead?? Are you telling me you are going to be like "hmm, that makes perfect sense!!" **** no...you are going to say that thug is acting like he is guilty..but since it is your cult leader making that exact same argument, you throw common sense out the window

Heavens, Biff, this is your thread. It wasn't supposed to be about the Republicans' shenanigans before the House Committees, it's also not about the sleaze they will inflict upon the Senate. You forgot? This was about disproving Turley's argument, and, so far, I haven't seen any argument from you - and that lazy Business Insider articles doesn't get there, either.

In short, Turley's question is this: Do you really want to set a precedent for future presidents in the form of impeachment without a solid core in the form of an established-beyond-reasonable-doubt statutory crime, and with incomplete evidence, witnesses central to the cause not heard, and with arbitrary deadlines imposed to accommodate electoral interests?

We are way beyond reasonable doubt with Trump, Mulvaney, Sondland, and along with about twelve witnesses cementing a Quid Pro Quo election conspiracy to collude with a foreign government. There is absolutely zero reasonable doubt to question Trump's guilt. And no one on the Right has produced such a doubt. Nor will they. The problem I see, Republicans really don't give a shit what Trump does or did. And this is what I have been witnessing with this party, even before Trump. It's a party that identifies with self interests and enrichment. It has no other function or interest.

 

[BWK]

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

So far, there's absolutely zero evidence to support the claim that Trump's request was politically motivated.

You clowns need to find a law book on what does and doesn't constitute evidence.

Keep living in your alternate universe while the rest of the world leaves you behind. What a *****. You couldn't even challenge Biff Poindexter on the substance.

 

[Dana7360]

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, you misunderstand me. I have no question in my mind that Trump is guilty as charged. What I had difficulty with was the very biased article you put up that dismisses the observations of a very experienced Constitutional lawyer. I think it is very clear to all that the Senate will not impeach the President; we all know that, but I am not sure it is SOLELY for partisan reasons. The evidence required in a trial is being obstructed by the President, YES, and the Dems have chosen to let him out of consideration for the time it would take to wrestle his cooperation.

I wish I was wrong and that Trump would be impeached by the Senate and removed from office for his behavior, but there is a game to be played here, first, and the Dems do not have winning hand. If this were their last full-blown attempt to change the voting public's mind before the election, it seems to have failed. At least polls show that people simply heard what they wanted to hear in all the testimony....it did not change many minds about the President at all.

Sorry days.

Just keep clear eyed about this and do not let yourself be sucked down into the ridiculous swamp of ad homs that the Republicans use to discredit the opposition.

Does that make sense to you?

When Clinton was impeached, the voting public was only 29% in favor of impeachment....not one republicans said anything about "impeachment is for changing the voting public's mind"

When Nixon resigned, at that point, the voting public was maybe 40% -- and that was before courts forced him to release the tapes...when that happened, he resigned because he knew...and even after the tapes were released, you still had people who didn't want him impeached -- those people are party sycophants and are irrelevant when it comes to impeachment....

Nearly 50% favor impeachment now, if Mulvaney, Giuliani, Bolton, Pompeo testified under oath -- the public would be well over 50% for impeachment, because none of them will lie under oath to protect Trump.....

But as I said before, impeachment isn't about the voting public, it is about making sure the next president DOES NOT think Article 2 gives them power to do whatever they want -- which is exactly what Trump actually said....

I have no concerns about future presidents possibly being impeached for impeachable offenses, because if they committed impeachable acts, they should be impeached....I am not a party sycophant so it wouldn't bother me....

impeachment isn't about the voting public, it is about making sure the next president DOES NOT think Article 2 gives them power to do whatever they want -- which is exactly what Trump actually said....
Yes. I agree.

Interesting about the % of the public that was behind our last two impeachment investigations. I know it isn't about votes--or it shouldn't be--but it is an election year and I do wonder why Pelosi is rushing this forward...could it be the Republicans are partly right? Yes, the President did wrong and got caught with his hand in the cookie jar up to his elbow. But to wrap this up before the voting booths open? The Dems will take advantage of the opportunity, don't you think?

There are too many facts in this case that support impeachment, and no one has been rushing. We have the mueller report that was enough as well, and we received that report a long time ago.

Okay. I hope you all are right and we get the old bastard out of 1600 Pennsylvania before any further damage is done. And at the rate they're going, we won't have to wait very long.

No we're going to have to wait until 2021. That is if the election is honest and fair.

The senate won't vote to convict trump. Not even one republican will vote to impeach or convict him. No matter what evidence is presented,

If the election is honest and fair, trump won't win.

If he wins reelection, everyone better start praying to their higher power that we can get through those 4 years with the least amount of damage as possible.

 

[Oddball]

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

So far, there's absolutely zero evidence to support the claim that Trump's request was politically motivated.

You clowns need to find a law book on what does and doesn't constitute evidence.

Keep living in your alternate universe while the rest of the world leaves you behind. What a *****. You couldn't even challenge Biff Poindexter on the substance.

Where's the evidence, Gomer?

The fifth-hand say-so of a bunch of butthurt bureaucrats doesn't count.

 

[Dana7360]

Turley can say what ever he wants...what Turley can not do is dictate how me or anyone else reacts to what he says...

And me and anyone else didn't have to make up what Turley said, all me and anyone else had to do was present Turley's own words to him...and ask him how that reconciles with anything Constitutionally..the other witnesses argued constitutional facts...he didn't....which is why he is being laughed at today...

So, Turley tried to dictate to you (or anyone) how you (they) react? Really?

Yeah, I read that lazy "Business Insider" article, and the silly gotcha nonsense, too. Turley never said a crime is necessary to impeach - only that it would be uncommon (Turley's written statement), and following the same or reasonably similar evidentiary standards as would a criminal case would help solidify the case for impeachment. That argument is not entirely compelling as it stands - or so I would think - but those who would just laugh at Turley aren't very convincing either.

Pointing out, as Turley did, that Congress not insisting on lines not to be crossed extends the scope of executive malfeasance, is certainly correct. Also, on principle, insisting that incomplete evidence damages the case for impeachment, is also correct. Moreover, wile both taken together seemingly pose a dilemma, they can very well coexist.

All told, I found it pathetic that the Democrats almost completely ignored Turley, most disappointingly even the majority counsel followed that, when they should have taken full advantage of Turley finding out flaws in their case for impeachment, or possible other lines of attack. But not one, seemingly, was well enough prepared to do that, much less was anyone prepared to pick apart Turley's argument, which I find is the biggest defect of the inquiry so far. You plainly cannot leave the witness for the other side to the other side, leaving everyone watching with the impression Democrats have no compelling argument against him. I think Turley's argument can be validly countered, but that requires prudent work, and I am not seeing that happening. Sadly enough.

Remember when Turley never argued the facts of what Trump did??

Remember when Turley never gave a constitutional basis for why impeachment is wrong in this case??

The founders never said anything about "don't impeach too fast" or "don't impeach when everyone is mad"

There was one law professor said it best when she simplified exactly what Trump did so the average everyday person could understand it without the spin.....

Basically, If you were traveling the speed limit, doing nothing wrong..and the police pulled you over and said you were speeding...and said if you give him 200 bucks, he won't give you a ticket...you hesitate....then his partner comes up and reiterates that if you give them 200 bucks, you won't get a ticket...and even tho you can't really afford to give them the money, you decide to pay up....and right then, the police sergeant comes up and asks what is going on...both cops say nothing and tell you to move along...no ticket, everything is fine.....those cops still tried to extort money out of you....

and not one single republican refuted that fact....instead they as usual, ***** and complain about everything else other than the facts

Somehow, in your impeachment fervor, you forgot to address a single point I made.

Yes, that little cop story is nice, but Turley's argument is that the evidentiary record is not sufficient to establish either bribery or extortion. Once again, Biff, I believe that argument can be countered, and it should be, but Democrats, as far as I have seen, haven't. Goes without saying, declaring him to be full of shinola doesn't do the trick, either.

Don't be lazy, Biff. Read his text (linked above), and see whether you find a good counter.

I tell you what...….remember when you morons kept saying "if the dems want to impeach, let them...they will regret it" -- they are impeaching him, instead of complaining, make them regret it...

When the trial starts in the Senate...have Trump present his witnesses, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Giuliani, anyone he feels has this explosive evidence that will exonerate him...have them give this exonerating testimony under oath...and you will totally own the Democrats....


Your excuse for not doing this so far was "we can't have witnesses for Trump testify in the House because democrats are yucky" --- fine....what will be the excuse for them not testifying under oath in the Senate?? It is Republican controlled...so what will be the new excuse??


If someone was on trial for murder, let's say some thug black teen, like a Trayvon or someone scary........and they claim they have 2 witnesses who could TOTALLY prove his innocence...but he refuses to have them testify because he wants the prosecutor to testify instead.... he refuses to present this exonerating evidence, because he wants the son of the assistant police chief to testify instead?? Are you telling me you are going to be like "hmm, that makes perfect sense!!" **** no...you are going to say that thug is acting like he is guilty..but since it is your cult leader making that exact same argument, you throw common sense out the window

The trial in the senate will be presided by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. Not any senator or the majority leader. The republicans will vote on the rules for the trial but beyond that, they have no say in the trial beyond being the jury.

I'm sure the republicans will try to turn that trial into a circus. I hope that Judge Roberts will not allow it. We will have to wait and see.

 

[Dana7360]

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, you misunderstand me. I have no question in my mind that Trump is guilty as charged. What I had difficulty with was the very biased article you put up that dismisses the observations of a very experienced Constitutional lawyer. I think it is very clear to all that the Senate will not impeach the President; we all know that, but I am not sure it is SOLELY for partisan reasons. The evidence required in a trial is being obstructed by the President, YES, and the Dems have chosen to let him out of consideration for the time it would take to wrestle his cooperation.

I wish I was wrong and that Trump would be impeached by the Senate and removed from office for his behavior, but there is a game to be played here, first, and the Dems do not have winning hand. If this were their last full-blown attempt to change the voting public's mind before the election, it seems to have failed. At least polls show that people simply heard what they wanted to hear in all the testimony....it did not change many minds about the President at all.

Sorry days.

Just keep clear eyed about this and do not let yourself be sucked down into the ridiculous swamp of ad homs that the Republicans use to discredit the opposition.

Does that make sense to you?

When Clinton was impeached, the voting public was only 29% in favor of impeachment....not one republicans said anything about "impeachment is for changing the voting public's mind"

When Nixon resigned, at that point, the voting public was maybe 40% -- and that was before courts forced him to release the tapes...when that happened, he resigned because he knew...and even after the tapes were released, you still had people who didn't want him impeached -- those people are party sycophants and are irrelevant when it comes to impeachment....

Nearly 50% favor impeachment now, if Mulvaney, Giuliani, Bolton, Pompeo testified under oath -- the public would be well over 50% for impeachment, because none of them will lie under oath to protect Trump.....

But as I said before, impeachment isn't about the voting public, it is about making sure the next president DOES NOT think Article 2 gives them power to do whatever they want -- which is exactly what Trump actually said....

I have no concerns about future presidents possibly being impeached for impeachable offenses, because if they committed impeachable acts, they should be impeached....I am not a party sycophant so it wouldn't bother me....

impeachment isn't about the voting public, it is about making sure the next president DOES NOT think Article 2 gives them power to do whatever they want -- which is exactly what Trump actually said....
Yes. I agree.

Interesting about the % of the public that was behind our last two impeachment investigations. I know it isn't about votes--or it shouldn't be--but it is an election year and I do wonder why Pelosi is rushing this forward...could it be the Republicans are partly right? Yes, the President did wrong and got caught with his hand in the cookie jar up to his elbow. But to wrap this up before the voting booths open? The Dems will take advantage of the opportunity, don't you think?

I'm not sure who said it yesterday but I agree with them.

The same point was brought up at the hearing and for full disclosure I used to have that view too. However, I agree with whoever said, trump needs to be stopped from cheating in the election next year. Who knows what else he's been up to? We need to make sure this coming election is as fair and honest as possible, We can't do that if we don't make it very clear to trump that his cheating will not be tolerated.

We can't run the risk of him cheating more in this election to get reelected.

I think Pamela Karlan said that.

I thought so too but wasn't sure.

 

[Olde Europe]

We are way beyond reasonable doubt with Trump, Mulvaney, Sondland, and along with about twelve witnesses cementing a Quid Pro Quo election conspiracy to collude with a foreign government. There is absolutely zero reasonable doubt to question Trump's guilt. And no one on the Right has produced such a doubt. Nor will they. The problem I see, Republicans really don't give a shit what Trump does or did. And this is what I have been witnessing with this party, even before Trump. It's a party that identifies with self interests and enrichment. It has no other function or interest.

Is quid pro quo a crime?

Turley's argument is that, since Trump didn't threaten to withhold military assistance in exchange for investigations in that phone call, the requirements for a bribery or an extortion charge are not met.

Did you read his text?

Again, this thread is not about what Republicans do or don't do, it's about Turley. For me, it is about the question whether or not he did serious damage to the case for impeachment, or any effective counter-arguments to marshal against him. Reading here and listening to lawmakers interviewed today, or to Committee members yesterday, the best case they make is we need to remove Trump (though we can't) because election. Oh, and "oath of office". It so happens I find that weak.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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

And yet not a single person with knowledge of the phone call will step forward and say there were impeachable offenses.

 

[cnm]

It's amazing how fast the democrats will turn on and eat their own if they don't TOW THE LINE, and happen to say something that's outside their programming or agenda.

Or even toe the line.

 

[Synthaholic]

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

No he isn’t. He argued in favor of Clinton’s impeachment. He now says Democrats are moving too fast. Clinton was impeached in 72 days.

Today is day 72 of the Trump impeachment.

And for those who don’t know - an impeached president CANNOT be pardoned. This is why Nixon resigned before they could impeach him.

 

[cnm]

And yet not a single person with knowledge of the phone call will step forward and say there were impeachable offenses.

What on earth has that to do with anything?

 

[cnm]

Turley's argument is that, since Trump didn't threaten to withhold military assistance in exchange for investigations in that phone call, the requirements for a bribery or an extortion charge are not met.

Then Turley's argument must be that the phone call exists in isolation, which is rubbish.

 

[Jitss617]

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

No he isn’t. He argued in favor of Clinton’s impeachment. He now says Democrats are moving too fast. Clinton was impeached in 72 days.

Today is day 72 of the Trump impeachment.

And for those who don’t know - an impeached president CANNOT be pardoned. This is why Nixon resigned before they could impeach him.

You poor guy

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

And yet not a single person with knowledge of the phone call will step forward and say there were impeachable offenses.

What on earth has that to do with anything?

This is exactly what I was talking about when I explained my disdain for the left with our new sock.
It's the same old shit.

 

[whitehall]

The strange thing is that the democrats declined to depose their only real witness, the alleged "whistle blower", and the other witnesses had nothing to say.

 

[cnm]

And yet not a single person with knowledge of the phone call will step forward and say there were impeachable offenses.

What on earth has that to do with anything?

This is exactly what I was talking about when I explained my disdain for the left with our new sock.
It's the same old shit.

What, it's got nothing to do with anything? Well, we knew that.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I tell you what...….remember when you morons kept saying "if the dems want to impeach, let them...they will regret it" -- they are impeaching him, instead of complaining, make them regret it...

When the trial starts in the Senate...have Trump present his witnesses, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Giuliani, anyone he feels has this explosive evidence that will exonerate him...have them give this exonerating testimony under oath...and you will totally own the Democrats....


Your excuse for not doing this so far was "we can't have witnesses for Trump testify in the House because democrats are yucky" --- fine....what will be the excuse for them not testifying under oath in the Senate?? It is Republican controlled...so what will be the new excuse??


If someone was on trial for murder, let's say some thug black teen, like a Trayvon or someone scary........and they claim they have 2 witnesses who could TOTALLY prove his innocence...but he refuses to have them testify because he wants the prosecutor to testify instead.... he refuses to present this exonerating evidence, because he wants the son of the assistant police chief to testify instead?? Are you telling me you are going to be like "hmm, that makes perfect sense!!" **** no...you are going to say that thug is acting like he is guilty..but since it is your cult leader making that exact same argument, you throw common sense out the window

Heavens, Biff, this is your thread. It wasn't supposed to be about the Republicans' shenanigans before the House Committees, it's also not about the sleaze they will inflict upon the Senate. You forgot? This was about disproving Turley's argument, and, so far, I haven't seen any argument from you - and that lazy Business Insider articles doesn't get there, either.

In short, Turley's question is this: Do you really want to set a precedent for future presidents in the form of impeachment without a solid core in the form of an established-beyond-reasonable-doubt statutory crime, and with incomplete evidence, witnesses central to the cause not heard, and with arbitrary deadlines imposed to accommodate electoral interests?

We are way beyond reasonable doubt with Trump, Mulvaney, Sondland, and along with about twelve witnesses cementing a Quid Pro Quo election conspiracy to collude with a foreign government. There is absolutely zero reasonable doubt to question Trump's guilt. And no one on the Right has produced such a doubt. Nor will they. The problem I see, Republicans really don't give a shit what Trump does or did. And this is what I have been witnessing with this party, even before Trump. It's a party that identifies with self interests and enrichment. It has no other function or interest.

This is hilarious! You idiots couldn't find your ass with both hands and help. Sondland destroyed your whole premise and he is the only FACT WITNESS.. Even Sondland stated that he PRESUMED things that were not true and you ******* idiots are going to run with it anyway.... The ***** slap coming is going to be epic!

The TDS is strong with you fools..

 

[BWK]

I tell you what...….remember when you morons kept saying "if the dems want to impeach, let them...they will regret it" -- they are impeaching him, instead of complaining, make them regret it...

When the trial starts in the Senate...have Trump present his witnesses, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Giuliani, anyone he feels has this explosive evidence that will exonerate him...have them give this exonerating testimony under oath...and you will totally own the Democrats....


Your excuse for not doing this so far was "we can't have witnesses for Trump testify in the House because democrats are yucky" --- fine....what will be the excuse for them not testifying under oath in the Senate?? It is Republican controlled...so what will be the new excuse??


If someone was on trial for murder, let's say some thug black teen, like a Trayvon or someone scary........and they claim they have 2 witnesses who could TOTALLY prove his innocence...but he refuses to have them testify because he wants the prosecutor to testify instead.... he refuses to present this exonerating evidence, because he wants the son of the assistant police chief to testify instead?? Are you telling me you are going to be like "hmm, that makes perfect sense!!" **** no...you are going to say that thug is acting like he is guilty..but since it is your cult leader making that exact same argument, you throw common sense out the window

Heavens, Biff, this is your thread. It wasn't supposed to be about the Republicans' shenanigans before the House Committees, it's also not about the sleaze they will inflict upon the Senate. You forgot? This was about disproving Turley's argument, and, so far, I haven't seen any argument from you - and that lazy Business Insider articles doesn't get there, either.

In short, Turley's question is this: Do you really want to set a precedent for future presidents in the form of impeachment without a solid core in the form of an established-beyond-reasonable-doubt statutory crime, and with incomplete evidence, witnesses central to the cause not heard, and with arbitrary deadlines imposed to accommodate electoral interests?

We are way beyond reasonable doubt with Trump, Mulvaney, Sondland, and along with about twelve witnesses cementing a Quid Pro Quo election conspiracy to collude with a foreign government. There is absolutely zero reasonable doubt to question Trump's guilt. And no one on the Right has produced such a doubt. Nor will they. The problem I see, Republicans really don't give a shit what Trump does or did. And this is what I have been witnessing with this party, even before Trump. It's a party that identifies with self interests and enrichment. It has no other function or interest.

This is hilarious! You idiots couldn't find your ass with both hands and help. Sondland destroyed your whole premise and he is the only FACT WITNESS.. Even Sondland stated that he PRESUMED things that were not true and you ******* idiots are going to run with it anyway.... The ***** slap coming is going to be epic!

The TDS is strong with you fools..

How are they not true? He testified under oath that they were all in the loop. Sondland is far from the only fact witness chief. Get out of your Republican bubble.

 

[BWK]

We are way beyond reasonable doubt with Trump, Mulvaney, Sondland, and along with about twelve witnesses cementing a Quid Pro Quo election conspiracy to collude with a foreign government. There is absolutely zero reasonable doubt to question Trump's guilt. And no one on the Right has produced such a doubt. Nor will they. The problem I see, Republicans really don't give a shit what Trump does or did. And this is what I have been witnessing with this party, even before Trump. It's a party that identifies with self interests and enrichment. It has no other function or interest.

Is quid pro quo a crime?

Turley's argument is that, since Trump didn't threaten to withhold military assistance in exchange for investigations in that phone call, the requirements for a bribery or an extortion charge are not met.

Did you read his text?

Again, this thread is not about what Republicans do or don't do, it's about Turley. For me, it is about the question whether or not he did serious damage to the case for impeachment, or any effective counter-arguments to marshal against him. Reading here and listening to lawmakers interviewed today, or to Committee members yesterday, the best case they make is we need to remove Trump (though we can't) because election. Oh, and "oath of office". It so happens I find that weak.

It's still a crime even though the money was eventually sent. The fact that they were using the money as leverage before they got caught, is a 100% clear cut case of classic bribery.

 

[Billy_Bob]

We are way beyond reasonable doubt with Trump, Mulvaney, Sondland, and along with about twelve witnesses cementing a Quid Pro Quo election conspiracy to collude with a foreign government. There is absolutely zero reasonable doubt to question Trump's guilt. And no one on the Right has produced such a doubt. Nor will they. The problem I see, Republicans really don't give a shit what Trump does or did. And this is what I have been witnessing with this party, even before Trump. It's a party that identifies with self interests and enrichment. It has no other function or interest.

Is quid pro quo a crime?

Turley's argument is that, since Trump didn't threaten to withhold military assistance in exchange for investigations in that phone call, the requirements for a bribery or an extortion charge are not met.

Did you read his text?

Again, this thread is not about what Republicans do or don't do, it's about Turley. For me, it is about the question whether or not he did serious damage to the case for impeachment, or any effective counter-arguments to marshal against him. Reading here and listening to lawmakers interviewed today, or to Committee members yesterday, the best case they make is we need to remove Trump (though we can't) because election. Oh, and "oath of office". It so happens I find that weak.

It's still a crime even though the money was eventually sent. The fact that they were using the money as leverage before they got caught, is a 100% clear cut case of classic bribery.

Bwhaaaaaaaaaa you fuckin idiot.

Quid Pro Joe Biden got a cool couple of million for his actions and so did his son... What did trump get? NOTHING BECAUSE HE ASKED FOR NOTHING...