Is Turley known to be fair? I heard that he tends to be a Rhino.
I love it when they accuse him of “demanding”, when he did no such thing, and what he asked for was not done.
Whenever leftists use the word, “demand”, to describe the requests made by R’s, they are projecting.
Each Republican, when called on should shout for his or her five minutes, over and over....”You LOST, Get Over It”. Then laugh uncontrollably. TDS is a wonderful thing!
What ??? No reference to Scottish law?
In his statement, Gerhardt will claim that “the record compiled thus far shows that the president has committed several impeachable offenses, including bribery, abuse of power in soliciting a personal favor from a foreign leader to benefit his political campaign, obstructing Congress, and obstructing justice.”
He will add: “When we apply our constitutional law to the facts found in the Mueller Report and other public sources, I cannot help but conclude that this president has attacked each of the Constitution’s safeguards against establishing a monarchy in this country.”
In 1999, following the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, whom the Senate declined to remove from office, Gerhardt wrote an essay in the Maryland Law Review arguing that future impeachments should be more bipartisan:
[M]embers of Congress should agree, at the very least, to have bipartisan support before authorizing congressional subpoenas or investigations. … Bipartisan agreement to investigate is essential to avoid abusive practices. … At the very least, members of Congress should require committee chairs and ranking minority members of committees to agree before initiating investigations or issuing legislative subpoenas.
Turley is sounding very reasonable in his preface to his position on this.
It’s early but watching Nadler in the early going suggests why @SpeakerPelosi wanted @RepAdamSchiff and the Intel Committee to do the heavy lifting.— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) December 4, 2019
OK, who is the smart ass smirk guy on the right behind Nadler’s counsel???
They are accusing Trump of what Biden did years ago to protect Hunter Biden regarding Burisma corruption.
God I hope the Republicans do not drop the ball when it is in their court like they did with the Schiff hearings. They far too many times either did not follow up when they should have, or they never asked the correct blunt questions they should have asked.
Schiff’s committee hearings did not legally count, this one does indeed legally count.
Nothing but a Stalinesque show trial.
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.
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.
All this is is more typical little child liberalism: “Everybody know Trump is guilty so he is, and here are some of our friends to say so.”
These people are exposing a raw bias driven opinion in each and every case. I really am enjoying this and look forward to the R’s questioning.
I’ve been on two technical civil suit juries. In both cases, the defendant looked to be in BIG trouble when the plaintiff made their case, but in both cases the defendant won.
Noah Feldman is such an ass!
He reminds me of an unfunny Gavin Belson from Silicon Valley.
Also, I notice Jonathan Hurley hasn’t been asked a single question. I guess the Democrats don’t think he will regurgitate their preordained talking points.
Rush’ intro monologue was one for the ages.
and Benedict Cumberbatch
TA-DA!