Jump to content

impeachment inquiry hearings thread

henrygandorf

By henrygandorf
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TexasEd
TexasEd

I voted for Trump/Against Hilary Clinton.   He should be impeached for: Extortion of a foreign government by withholding military assistance to an ally (and benefitting Russia) in exchange

Paul Wesley
Paul Wesley

I'm a couple pages back in this fast-moving thread, but I wanted to respond to this.   I'm pretty close to you in demographics, and I was also a child who echoed his parents' pro-Reagan stance, a

Tailgate
Tailgate

Unreal. Biden’s son can take home $1m a year from a Ukrainian company he knows nothing about...but our president acts like the CEO of a company with leverage in cutting deals and this shit happens?

Posted Images

henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29194

Posted
  • Author
Posted

i know today isn't a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, but i agree with whomever criticized the choice of the scholars (even though they all did fairly well for themselves).

this whole thing is so fucking partisan at every turn, and there are a record number of lifelong conservatives who cannot stand what's happening right now, former prosecutors, whatever, signing shit supporting the mueller findings, obstruction, etc.  

instead of having 3 dems and 1 pub, would it be that hard to find 2 and 2?  or to find 4 "non-partisan" types?  these are background scholar witnesses, not fact witnesses.  they shouldn't be dem witnesses or pub witnesses.  it just plays into their victim narrative and wasn't necessary.

it would've made great tv for someone to start saying "if you don't mind some personal questions, which party are you registered with?  who did you vote for in 1996?  2000?  2004?  2008?" just to get them on the record as a republican, and then ask neutral, non-slanted, non-leading questions.  this country has gotten to the point where when "the other side" is speaking, we tune out all content.  i fucking do it sometimes.  the facts aren't on trump's side.  the constitution isn't on trump's side.  they shouldn't need hillary supporters sworn in to be able to identify how fucking corrupt our president is. 

like jimmyjazz (i think) said - why give them any fucking ammo?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31516

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

look, i'm about as biased as they come, but leave the kid's names out of it. i find it distasteful, and i'm as anti-trump as they come.

Yeah that was a lame attempt to be cute.  The issue is not kings, barons, or marquesses, it's authoritarianism not nobility.

Legal academics are the biggest fucking nerds in the history of nerds.  Make engineering and accounting academics look like Renaissance Men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31516

Posted
Posted

I see now that this is an attempt by the Judiciary Committee to put the findings of the Intelligence Committee in a legal context.

Still, it was a mighty act of hubris for Nadler and his gang of geriatric failed lawyers to think they could take on and effectively question law professors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11345

Posted
Posted

I listened to a lot of the hearing today, but not all of it.  Did anyone ever challenge Turley about his previous testimony on what is an impeachable offense?  Something as simple as...

"Have our Founding Fathers' thoughts on impeachment changed in the last 20 years?  How about the last 5?  Because when you testified in the Clinton impeachment, and as recently as a 2014 op-ed, you argued the exact opposite"

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

Spoiler

Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, testified on Wednesday that he didn't see any proof that President Donald Trump committed a crime and that Trump therefore should not be impeached.

Turley was one of four legal experts — and the only one invited by the Republicans — who testified in the House Judiciary Committee's first public impeachment hearing about Trump.

While the other witnesses laid out the case that Trump abused his power by trying to strong-arm Ukraine into caving to his personal demands while withholding vital military aid and a White House meeting, Turley argued there was no evidence that Trump broke a specific federal statute and that impeaching him would set a dangerous precedent.

But 20 years ago, Turley made the opposite case. At the time, he was one of several GOP legal analysts pushing for President Bill Clinton to be impeached and removed from office.

"If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct," Turley testified in 1998 during Clinton's impeachment hearings. He added that Clinton's actions didn't need to break any laws in order to be considered impeachable conduct.

"While there's a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable," Turley wrote in a 2014 op-ed for the Washington Post. "Serious misconduct or a violation of public trust is enough. And the founders emphasized that impeachments were about what happened in the political arena: involving 'political crimes and misdemeanors' and resulting in 'political punishments.'"

On Wednesday, Turley argued that the mountain of evidence against Trump in the Ukraine scandal didn't matter because it doesn't meet statutory elements for criminal bribery. But the other witnesses pushed back forcefully on his claim.

"Bribery had a clear meaning to the framers," said Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School. "It was when the president, using the power of his office, solicits or receives something of personal value from someone affected by his official powers."

"And I want to be very clear. The Constitution is law," Feldman added. "The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. So, of course, Professor Turley is right that you wouldn't want to impeach someone who didn't violate the law. But the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, specifies bribery as a ground of impeachment, as it specifies other high crimes and misdemeanors. Bribery had a clear meaning."

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chico_SA

Chico_SA 521

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Message Board User said:

 

This reminded me of a former colleague. When his son was applying for college circa 2010, we talked about the process for getting into a Service Academy. Since I had attended USNA, he appreciated my input and I even offered to hook him up with my AFA grad friend so they could talk.  During the process I left the company.  About a year later I asked him about his sons application.  His response, "He decided against it. Didn't want to serve under this Commander in Chief"

WTF?  Biggest bunch of bullshit, OR sour grapes. 

Boy ended up going to aTm,  where he pushed at least one anti-LBGT agenda as part of student government.  He's a councilman in a east/central Texas town now. 

Edited by Chico_SA
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28806

Posted
Posted

Between the Thanksgiving holidays and obsessing over the coaching carousel I haven't paid any attention to the political news in the last 7 days. I have no idea what is going on with these hearings and I usually follow politics fairly closely. I imagine the vast majority of America has no fucking clue about what is going on nor do they really care. These hearings are going to be a fart in the wind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45696

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, F250 said:

Between the Thanksgiving holidays and obsessing over the coaching carousel I haven't paid any attention to the political news in the last 7 days. I have no idea what is going on with these hearings and I usually follow politics fairly closely. I imagine the vast majority of America has no fucking clue about what is going on nor do they really care. These hearings are going to be a fart in the wind.

History will show we at least tried to do the right thing.  It may not amount to a hill of beans and democracy may be destroyed, but I know I was on the right side.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexArcher

TexArcher 37997

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

the whole idea of these proceedings is to help people make up their minds one way or the other.  but if you’re engaged enough to watch, you already know which side you’re on.

Exactly.  Most people are just getting the highlights, selectively chosen by whichever network they prefer, with plenty of lopsided editorializing to confirm how correct their viewers are and what a bunch of idiots the guys watching the other channel are.

The people who really need to hear this and understand this, the ones who aren't in one camp or the other, don't give a shit.  That's why they're not in one camp or another.

We may be the first nation to die of apathy.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46005

Posted
Posted (edited)

As expected, the biggest reaction to yesterday's hearings among my right wing acquaintances is outrage over Karlan's ill-advised example of the nobility clause when discussing limits on a President's allowed behavior.  It's as if nothing else happened during that very long day on the Hill.  They take their talking points like good soldiers and run with them.  No critical thought, no reflection.

I would think any American who is truly curious and concerned would at the very least wonder how 4 constitutional scholars at elite universities couldn't reach unanimous agreement on a standard for impeachment, regardless of whether they think Trump reached that bar.  I'm curious.  I find it fascinating.  Professor Turley might just be a political hack, but I owe it to myself to dig in a little deeper and determine if that's actually the case, and not just a simple way to dismiss his testimony.  The very fact that he took the opposite tack in the Clinton impeachment hearings tells me he probably is just a hack, but it still bears scrutiny.

Edited by jimmyjazz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
horncyclist

horncyclist 1391

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

As expected, the biggest reaction to yesterday's hearings among my right wing acquaintances is outrage over Karlan's ill-advised example of the nobility clause when discussing limits on a President's allowed behavior.  It's as if nothing else happened during that very long day on the Hill.  They take their talking points like good soldiers and run with them.  No critical thought, no reflection.

I would think any American who is truly curious and concerned would at the very least wonder how 4 constitutional scholars at elite universities couldn't reach unanimous agreement on a standard for impeachment, regardless of whether they think Trump reached that bar.  I'm curious.  I find it fascinating.  Professor Turley might just be a political hack, but I owe it to myself to dig in a little deeper and determine if that's actually the case, and not just a simple way to dismiss his testimony.  The very fact that he took the opposite tack in the Clinton impeachment hearings tells me he probably is just a hack, but it still bears scrutiny.

Turley's biggest disagreement wasn't about the standard for impeachment. He admitted that it did not have to be a crime and that a quid-pro-quo withholding foreign aid or an official act to compel an investigation of a political opponent would be impeachable. He disagreed that democrats had sufficiently met their burden of proving that, and that they should wait on the courts to compel the witnesses to testify and the Whitehouse hand over documents. He also said that Congress not letting the courts decide it was an abuse of power. The problem with both of those lines of thinking is that it ignores the baselessness of Trump's arguments for withholding EVERYTHING. And that, even though the arguments are baseless, Trump could use the courts to run out the clock. Considering part of the offense is inviting foreign interference in the 2020 election, it seems reasonable that democrats would want to move before that election, even if there is evidence still out there that they could eventually get. Democrats have also put together a really strong case, despite the obstruction.

 

 

Edited by horncyclist
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46005

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

Turley's biggest disagreement wasn't about the standard for impeachment. He admitted that it did not have to be a crime and that a quid-pro-quo withholding foreign aid or an official act to compel an investigation of a political opponent would be impeachable. He disagreed that democrats had sufficiently met their burden of proving that, and that they should wait on the courts to compel the witnesses to testify and the Whitehouse hand over documents. He also said that Congress not letting the courts decide it was an abuse of power. The problem with both of those lines of thinking is that it ignores the baselessness of Trump's arguments for withholding EVERYTHING. And that, even though the arguments are baseless, Trump could use the courts to run out the clock. Considering part of the offense is inviting foreign interference in the 2020 election, it seems reasonable that democrats would want to move before that election, even if there is evidence still out there that they could eventually get. Democrats have also put together a really strong case, despite the obstruction.

OK, let's run with that.  Professor Gerhardt was just on CNN and he clearly believes there is no specified role of the courts in impeachment proceedings.  He cites the language of the Constitution as evidence, with an emphasis on the word "sole":

The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

So how do two scholars differ so widely on that simple point of fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18258

Posted
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

OK, let's run with that.  Professor Gerhardt was just on CNN and he clearly believes there is no specified role of the courts in impeachment proceedings.  He cites the language of the Constitution as evidence, with an emphasis on the word "sole":

The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

So how do two scholars differ so widely on that simple point of factlaw?

Edited by BrickHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4667

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

So how do two scholars differ so widely on that simple point of fact?

I actually see them differing simply in terms of the burden of producing evidence.   To me, the Dem witnesses are saying that the President can choose not to produce evidence at his peril.  Turley is making (to me), the unreasonable argument that the Dems must meet some production test that i can't figure (exhaust efforts through the courts).  But underlying that, he seems to be arguing almost what some of were laughing about over the last few weeks -- that there must be some magic words spoken by the President to proof intent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
horncyclist

horncyclist 1391

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

OK, let's run with that.  Professor Gerhardt was just on CNN and he clearly believes there is no specified role of the courts in impeachment proceedings.  He cites the language of the Constitution as evidence, with an emphasis on the word "sole":

The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

So how do two scholars differ so widely on that simple point of fact?

It's a legal question, not a fact question. And scholars disagree. I don't know enough about this area or Turley's views to weigh in, but it strikes me as odd to suggest that the courts must weigh in to determine if Congress can pursue a given basis of impeachment. That is counter to the Consitution giving Congress the sole power of impeachment, and with similar questions, the Courts have typically stayed out it, citing a prudential doctrine of avoiding what they refer to as "political questions." Beyond that, I can't really critique Turley's views, though I'm sure the other scholars disagreed yesterday and explained why. As others have said, the democrats not calling a conserative legal scholar that would have sided with them was a mistake. The media seems to be reporting this as another partisan divide, and it's not that. Turley's views would be a small minority among legal scholars. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45696

Posted
Posted

I wish they would also talk about how this isn't the only impeachable act he has committed.  You don't have to bring articles for everything because we don't have the time, but the public needs to understand this is one of many shittastic things he has done that have betrayed this country.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Schiff?

Ask Val Demings to do it; she serves on both of the pertinent committees and has a direct manner of speaking that gets to the point.

I saw that the Senate released their calendar for 2020 and left January off, so McConnell knew this was coming soon.

Edited by Mrs Whiggins
Addition
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5077

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Still, it was a mighty act of hubris for Nadler and his gang of geriatric failed lawyers to think they could take on and effectively question law professors.

According to this thread, they avoided challenging Turley and stuck to the friendly witnesses.  A lot of posters are frustrated by that, but it sounds like you agree with the approach.  I tend to as well, not because they couldn't find cracks (or canyons) in his logic, but because there was a decent chance he'd have some 2 sentence retort that showed their ignorance on some fine point and it would make them look foolish.  The goal isn't to convince people watching the entire exchange; they are looking to avoid negative headlines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...