Turley says the quiet part out loud.

[Thunk]

True. But he also said that there is enough evidence for an Impeachment Inquiry.

MORE than enough evidence.

Hey...what was up with that nutty-ass democrat ranting about some guy convicted of pedophilia? I thunk that lunatic lost his ever luvin' mind!

 

[berg80]

They didn't, but then he said the same exact thing to Nanci Pelosi before she impeached Trump.

I'll take your word for that. It sounds right. The difference being the Repubs trotted Turley in to the Trump impeachment hearing to try to give weight to that position. Jon being a teacher of law and all. The thing is, we know what the evidence was. We know what Trump did. Making Turley unequivocally wrong in his opinion. Worse, Turley said it knowing what the evidence was. Which makes him a hired gun for the Repubs.
Perhaps they brought him in to today's hearing to justify the inquiry. Something that may be the end game for House Repubs since they must know by now the investigations will prove to be a dead end. But if they can keep them alive they can keep making baseless allegations. They can keep distorting the truth. They can keep muddying the waters. I suspect they know that's all they're ever going to be able to do.

 

[1srelluc]

The key word is "currently".....There's a long way to go and the DOJ will help with the slow-walking by their obstruction.....I love it!

 

[Orangecat]

How much longer and how many more investigations is it going to take?

How long did the Russian collusion debacle go on?

 

[RhodyPatriot]

“I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment,” Turley said in written testimony submitted ahead of the hearing.

So, what's your point?

That the GOP actually called an unbiased witness?

That Turley also pointed out Trump's second impeachment didn't even entertain so much as a preliminary inquiry?

That this IS an inquiry, and the Dems and their corporate media allies want to completely disregard it as illegitimate, despite mountains of evidence that Turley obviously finds compelling enough to attend said inquiry?

Such binary, tit for tat, Pavlov's dog political tripe.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Squirrelly Turley is a joke!

Donald Trump, is that you?

 

[Dante]

Fox is owned by leftist liberals living in the UK.
Fox is a sham and has been since they fired their producer Roger Ailes.

Turley struck a more nuanced position that Comer and other hard-right Republicans may not have appreciated or anticipated: He said that he supported an impeachment inquiry but that the current evidence did not warrant articles of impeachment.
“I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment,” said Turley. “But I also do believe that the House has passed the threshold for an impeachment inquiry.”

He added that “dishonesty alone” is not sufficient grounds to pursue articles of impeachment — a reference to Biden’s claims that his son Hunter was not accepting money from China and that he did not discuss his business dealings with him.

source: WAPO

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/09/28/biden-impeachment-inquiry-hearing/

 

[RhodyPatriot]

mudwhistle

Fact: Turley is a Fox News Douche.

Fact, he used to appear on MSNBC.

Then you morons lost your ever-lovin' minds.

 

[Dante]

Fact, he used to appear on MSNBC.

Then you morons lost your ever-lovin' minds.

Turley is a FOX News Douche. Notice you did not deny it.

thank you

Turley struck a more nuanced position that Comer and other hard-right Republicans may not have appreciated or anticipated: He said that he supported an impeachment inquiry but that the current evidence did not warrant articles of impeachment.

“I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment,” said Turley. “But I also do believe that the House has passed the threshold for an impeachment inquiry.”

He added that “dishonesty alone” is not sufficient grounds to pursue articles of impeachment — a reference to Biden’s claims that his son Hunter was not accepting money from China and that he did not discuss his business dealings with him.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Turley is a FOX News Douche. Notice you did not deny it.

thank you

Like I said, Pavlov's dog.

I'd have a more intellectual, scintillating discourse with a tree stump.

Good day Sir.

(Or whatever you identify as...)

 

[marvin martian]

As one of their first witnesses, Republicans called on Jonathan Turley, a conservative legal scholar who previously served as a Justice Department tax attorney. Turley was set to act as a content witness to help analyze the Biden family’s business dealings—but even he admitted there’s not enough evidence.

“I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment,” Turley said in written testimony submitted ahead of the hearing.

Turley also said he did believe it was “warranted” for the House to investigate potential connections between Biden and his son Hunter’s business dealings. But Republicans have been doing just that for months, and they still haven’t found proof linking the president to Hunter Biden’s work.

Republicans’ Key “Biden Corruption” Witness Torches Their Entire Claims

If you want to hold a big impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden, maybe make sure your witnesses are on the same page first.

newrepublic.com

Was this something they knew he was going to say?

You "forgot" to include the rest of the quote. LOL

 

[g5000]

“I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment,” -- Jonathan Turley, Fox News Douche

Jonathan Turley, House GOP clown show witness.

The first rule of a prosecutor is "Always know the answer to a question before you ask it."

What a bunch of fucking bozos!

 

[marvin martian]

Jonathan Turley, House GOP clown show witness.

The first rule of a prosecutor is "Always know the answer to a question before you ask it."

What a bunch of fucking bozos!

LOL

 

[RhodyPatriot]

You "forgot" to include the rest of the quote. LOL

Oh.

It's OK, because as one Left wing looney poster put it, Turley is a "FOX News douche".

Ergo, he cannot be trusted.

Therefore, according to Lefty's own simplistic "logic", these offenses are most definitely impeachable - because Turley stated otherwise.

Not two neurons to rub together.

 

[Dante]

Like I said, Pavlov's dog.

I'd have a more intellectual, scintillating discourse with a tree stump.

Good day Sir.

(Or whatever you identify as...)

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Jonathan Turley, House GOP clown show witness.

The first rule of a prosecutor is "Always know the answer to a question before you ask it."

What a bunch of fucking bozos!

So you disagree, and the evidence is indicative of impeachable offenses.

Got it.

Thanks for clearing that up

 

[g5000]

As one of their first witnesses, Republicans called on Jonathan Turley, a conservative legal scholar who previously served as a Justice Department tax attorney. Turley was set to act as a content witness to help analyze the Biden family’s business dealings—but even he admitted there’s not enough evidence.

“I do not believe that the evidence currently meets the standard of a high crime and misdemeanor needed for an article of impeachment,” Turley said in written testimony submitted ahead of the hearing.

Turley also said he did believe it was “warranted” for the House to investigate potential connections between Biden and his son Hunter’s business dealings. But Republicans have been doing just that for months, and they still haven’t found proof linking the president to Hunter Biden’s work.

Republicans’ Key “Biden Corruption” Witness Torches Their Entire Claims

If you want to hold a big impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden, maybe make sure your witnesses are on the same page first.

newrepublic.com

Was this something they knew he was going to say?

The House Republicans know there isn't a shred of evidence to impeach Biden. That's precisely why McCarthy did not hold an impeachment inquire vote as he promised he would.

There are a significant number of Republicans who know this is all bullshit and McCarthy would have ended up with a large mass of egg on his face if he asked for a vote.

So he bypassed the vote and just arbitrarily declared the inquiry, all in a limp-dick move to please the ass clowns in the Freedom Caucus.

 

[mudwhistle]

Turley struck a more nuanced position that Comer and other hard-right Republicans may not have appreciated or anticipated: He said that he supported an impeachment inquiry but that the current evidence did not warrant articles of impeachment.
“I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment,” said Turley. “But I also do believe that the House has passed the threshold for an impeachment inquiry.”

He added that “dishonesty alone” is not sufficient grounds to pursue articles of impeachment — a reference to Biden’s claims that his son Hunter was not accepting money from China and that he did not discuss his business dealings with him.

source: WAPO

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/09/28/biden-impeachment-inquiry-hearing/

What Turley said isn't important....other than the fact that nobody has been allowed to actually produce any evidence, so the question isn't important other than for someone trying to intentionally ridicule the process.
It's premature to say there's no evidence when they haven't even begun to present it. So what we're being subjected to is the biased and disingenuous rantings of Democrats every other 5 mins.

 

[Dante]

Oh.

It's OK, because as one Let wing looney poster put it, Turley is a "FOX New douche".

Ergo, he cannot be trusted.

Therefore, according to Lefty's own simplistic "logic", these offenses are most definitely impeachable - because Turley stated otherwise.

Not two neurons to rub together.

cult circle jerk

 

[two_iron]

Did Turley (a lifelong democrat) say anything about the 21 shell companies? Or the 171 Suspicious Activity Reports from international banks, totaling $100 million? Or the hundreds of fake names and illegal private email addresses including Robert L Peters at the PA Dept of Corrections? Or the source of the (6) "opulent" mansions the Bribens own on a government wage? Or the $10 million extra income in 2017 on the Briben 1040 with no source listed? Anything about the FBI FD-1023 reports that detail the Briben racketeering, money laundering and extortion? In particular, the one that quotes the CEO of Burisma saying "$5 million for one Biden, and $5 million for the other Biden"?

Anything?