Posted on 12/04/2019 7:13:37 AM PST by pulaskibush
Judiciary Hearing on Constitutional Framework for Impeachment. The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing with legal experts to discuss the constitutional framework for potentially drawing up articles of impeachment against President Trump.
FAcebook livestream CSPAN facebook
Conservative Breitbart livestream with likely better comments
She reminds me of that old Reagan phrase, about liberals, “they know so much that is not true.”
Excellent
More poll tested buzz words.
Democrats have NO evidence of wrongdoing. They’re going to impeach anyway.
Its a Passion Play. Everyone knows how it will end.
Well, she needs to stand up. For all we know she’s a “butterface”
LOL.... this woman answered a question SO FAST just now, it’s very obvious that she is a well trained seal.
Bobbelhead Fieldman.
.
Hard for me to watch these schmoes try to destroy my President and take away my vote from 2016.
And what she is providing the public is what ingesting that turkey has “moved” her to produce.
Nothing but a Stalinesque show trial.
Turley, one yes or no question. LMAO
Will we get as much time?
Then it goes to five minutes each.
And he made it clear this time that only the leader or counsel gets to ask questions during the first 45 minutes.
I’m watching this and it’s silly I could get a higher level of discussion on any liberal talk show station.
I hope I am not wrong, but I think you are right. He is the only adult in the room that understands the true long term cause and effect of what this emotional fiasco is going to set.
I think putting on professors as their 1st witnesses is preposterous.
Wow. They are really doubling down on impeachment with these “expert witnesses”.
I was starting to think the Democrats were going to back off, save face, and go with something like censure to avoid a Senate smack down.
It now I’m not sure. To be honest I’m glad they are doing this if it means a Senate trial.
Being impeached in an exclusively Democrat vote will not tarnish the President one bit. In fact, it’s more likely a feather in his cap - all he has to do is refer to it as the “Democrat impeachment”.
Also, I look forward to a Senate trial as a the perfect opportunity to call Spygate witnesses and finally turn the tables on the Democrats.
This woman is a scholar of the law of democracy? What the h*** is that?
Goodness, “Prof Pamela S Karlan” is not helping the dems case. She is angry, self-important, emotionally fragile and arrogant, unable to believe in anything but her own righteousness and talks down to and attacks those that dare have a contrary opinion. I’d hate to think of how many students she has brow-beat and insulted. She is hardly an example of a thoughtful academic.
These dem lawyers are ignorant.
Look, for Security Assistance (Foreign Military Sales), the president has an obligation to continually verify the recipient country is not corrupted, and Trump was hearing from all (never-Trumper’s, dems and “everyone” else) that Ukraine was corrupt, therefore, he had a legal obligation to suspend the program to compel the country to improve, but before that, he called the new president of Ukraine to explain what was at risk.
Acting on credible information, the president could halt Security Assistance programs to Ukraine. If he did that, he could only re-start the program when he verified that Ukraine is making good faith efforts to improve.
Again, until that happened, the president could suspend funding/deliveries. Consequently, our president’s call to the new president of Ukraine was fair warning about how close Ukraine is to losing Security Assistance programs and to receive assurances from the new Ukrainian president that he was actually working to clean up the Ukraine, that cleaning up corruption was not just a campaign slogan.
Indeed, when funds are allocated for a Security Assistance program, the president must submit to congress a statement assuring the funds will not be misapplied and the country is not fundamentally corrupt. Our president couldn’t make that assurance until he actually called the new Ukrainian president and let him know what was at risk.
I worked Security Assistance and corruption is a real thing in most of those countries. Security Assistance was my world for years. The ignorance of the dems when it comes to Security Assistance is astounding, they have NO CLUE about Security Assistance.
****Oh, and it is amusing to see Rep Hank Johnson on this committee, when he is demonstrably the most ignorant of the ignorant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q This was not a slip of the tongue, it was his “thoughtful” question. Watch and be amazed and amused.
THEY ASK THE FIRST THREE THEIR OPINIONS, SKIP TURLEY AND THEN START OVER WITH THE FIRST THREE. THE ONE question they held turley to yes or no, but not the other witnesses.
Kangaroo court indeed sir! Cannot be said enough. Rinse and repeat.
When a bunch of biased so called Constitutional Experts have to explain what is Constitutional to the People that Legislate Law in this Country, we are in deep doo doo.
a disciple and contributor to warren she should have recused.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.