Switch to full style
General Chit-Chat, comments etc
Post a reply

Re: Impeachment talk thread

Tue Dec 03, 2019 7:09 pm

My bet is this will be over in a couple days. Senate gets it tomorrow is the new reports are right.

Re: Impeachment talk thread

Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:09 am

.

So today they have 4 Constitutional Professors on the stand.

Huh,

Wonder why they didnt ask the famous Barry Obama to testify.?

Isn't he a Constitutional Law Professor?

Re: Impeachment talk thread

Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:57 pm

WaJim wrote:.

So today they have 4 Constitutional Professors on the stand.

Huh,

Wonder why they didnt ask the famous Barry Obama to testify.?

Isn't he a Constitutional Law Professor?

They loaded that board by cherry picking those professors who were clearly anti-trump, as you might expect.

Re: Impeachment talk thread

Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:50 pm

Yhea, If that panel tipped any further left it would have collapsed the building.

Re: Impeachment talk thread

Wed Dec 04, 2019 4:01 pm

WaJim wrote:.

So today they have 4 Constitutional Professors on the stand.

Huh,

Wonder why they didnt ask the famous Barry Obama to testify.?

Isn't he a Constitutional Law Professor?


I remember when they were trying to find ONE person who actually ever saw 0bongo on the campus or knew him when he was a student there.
Seems like SOMEONE would have remembered the first black president of The Harvard Law Review.

In contrast, hundreds of people remember Bill and Hillary from college.

Re: Impeachment talk thread

Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:08 pm

Gaetz "goes off"

Re: Impeachment talk thread

Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:24 pm

jukk0u wrote:Gaetz "goes off"



Now that was worth the 5 mins to watch, in fact I could have watched him all day long....

Re: Impeachment talk thread

Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:00 pm

Guntrader wrote:
WaJim wrote:.

So today they have 4 Constitutional Professors on the stand.

Huh,

Wonder why they didnt ask the famous Barry Obama to testify.?

Isn't he a Constitutional Law Professor?


I remember when they were trying to find ONE person who actually ever saw 0bongo on the campus or knew him when he was a student there.
Seems like SOMEONE would have remembered the first black president of The Harvard Law Review.

In contrast, hundreds of people remember Bill and Hillary from college.



not sure about that, I wouldn't say that there are even a hundred people who KNOW the Clintons that are still alive.

Re: Impeachment talk thread

Wed Dec 04, 2019 10:44 pm

zombie66 wrote:
jukk0u wrote:Gaetz "goes off"



Now that was worth the 5 mins to watch, in fact I could have watched him all day long....


Either Mr. Gaetz or Mr. Collins needs to be the next Speaker of the House.

Re: Impeachment talk thread

Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:00 pm

Great opening statement by Jonahtan Turley :thumbsup2:



In this age of rage, many are appealing for us to simply put the law aside and “just
do it” like this is some impulse-buy Nike sneaker. You can certainly do that. You can
declare the definitions of crimes alleged are immaterial and this is an exercise of politics,
not law. However, the legal definitions and standards that I have addressed in my
testimony are the very thing dividing rage from reason. Listening to these calls to
dispense with such legal niceties, brings to mind a famous scene with Sir Thomas More
in “A Man For All Seasons.” In a critical exchange, More is accused by his son-in-law
William Roper of putting the law before morality and that More would “give the Devil
the benefit of law!” When More asks if Roper would instead “cut a great road through the
law to get after the Devil?,” Roper proudly declares “Yes, I’d cut down every law in
England to do that!” More responds by saying “And when the last law was down, and the
Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This
country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if
you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand
upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my
own safety’s sake!”
Both sides in this controversy have demonized the other to justify any measure in
defense much like Roper. Perhaps that is the saddest part of all of this. We have forgotten
the common article of faith that binds each of us to each other in our Constitution.
However, before we cut down the trees so carefully planted by the Framers, I hope you
consider what you will do when the wind blows again . . . perhaps for a Democratic
president. Where will you stand then “the laws all being flat?”

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/12/Turley-Testimony.pdf
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/04/professor-jonathan-turley-opening-statement-video-and-transcript/comment-page-1/

Re: Impeachment talk thread

Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:05 pm

The demonrats now claim that if Trump isn't removed from office that the 2020 election "isn't safe."

...

https://trib.al/UFvmBz5

Re: Impeachment talk thread

Sun Dec 08, 2019 11:31 pm

The Democrats, knowing there was no path to victory for Trump laughed at the idea he would not accept the election results. Well Trump won. So now that Trump is POTUS, the Democrats are saying Trump will not honor the results of our elections if Trump loses. This, from the party of dead voters, also embracing illegal alien voters.

Re: Impeachment talk thread

Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:09 am

Alpine wrote:The demonrats now claim that if Trump isn't removed from office that the 2020 election "isn't safe."


They are correct. It is not safe. For the democrats, that is.

Re: Impeachment talk thread

Mon Dec 09, 2019 10:18 am

Jewdiciary commiettee :facepalm2:

Nadler, Schiff, Feldman, Goldman, Vindman, Kaplan...
All reported by Tapper, Blitzer, Stelter for Zucker.
Evidently the stakes are so high they can't afford to hide it anymore.

Re: Impeachment talk thread

Mon Dec 09, 2019 7:05 pm

perjury in the Schiff hearings? Multiple corruption investigations in re the Biden's on going in Ukraine?

Post a reply