Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jonathan Turley demonstrating why GW isn't a very good law school.

Well, he has a point, but I don't agree with him.

What point? That Trump shouldn't be impeached, despite the mountains of evidence, because people are mad?

And as for how quickly it's proceeding, that's a necessity because Trump is accused of interfering in next year's election.

[Anonymous]

The professors' testimony is damning and should be a game changer. Alas, the more educated an expert is, the easier it will be for the GOP to smear them as deep state liberal elites, and, gasp, professors!

It is amazing to hear how the Founders saw this coming, but they didn't forsee the corrupt, anti-fact, craven GOP.

GOP is defending the indefensible and I hope they go down in flames.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jonathan Turley demonstrating why GW isn't a very good law school.

Don’t know anything about the law, but Turley’s presentation was pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jonathan Turley demonstrating why GW isn't a very good law school.

Well, he has a point, but I don't agree with him.

What point? That Trump shouldn't be impeached, despite the mountains of evidence, because people are mad?

And as for how quickly it's proceeding, that's a necessity because Trump is accused of interfering in next year's election.

It is also quick because no facts are in dispute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jonathan Turley demonstrating why GW isn't a very good law school.

Well, he has a point, but I don't agree with him.

What point? That Trump shouldn't be impeached, despite the mountains of evidence, because people are mad?

And as for how quickly it's proceeding, that's a necessity because Trump is accused of interfering in next year's election.

His point is that they should gather more evidence, including primary witnesses, who have so far refused to testify. I understand, but disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jonathan Turley demonstrating why GW isn't a very good law school.

Don’t know anything about the law, but Turley’s presentation was pathetic.

He was given an impossible task. Not sure why he agreed to give it a go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jonathan Turley demonstrating why GW isn't a very good law school.

Well, he has a point, but I don't agree with him.

What point? That Trump shouldn't be impeached, despite the mountains of evidence, because people are mad?

And as for how quickly it's proceeding, that's a necessity because Trump is accused of interfering in next year's election.

His point is that they should gather more evidence, including primary witnesses, who have so far refused to testify. I understand, but disagree.

Trump is blocking tons of additional evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jonathan Turley demonstrating why GW isn't a very good law school.

Don’t know anything about the law, but Turley’s presentation was pathetic.

He was given an impossible task. Not sure why he agreed to give it a go.

When you offer your dog’s perspective at one of the most important hearings in American history, you might be floundering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jonathan Turley demonstrating why GW isn't a very good law school.

Well, he has a point, but I don't agree with him.

What point? That Trump shouldn't be impeached, despite the mountains of evidence, because people are mad?

And as for how quickly it's proceeding, that's a necessity because Trump is accused of interfering in next year's election.

His point is that they should gather more evidence, including primary witnesses, who have so far refused to testify. I understand, but disagree.

Trump is blocking tons of additional evidence.

Yeah, that’s a great plan. If a guilty person blocks evidence despite subpoena, oh well, just let then run free....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jonathan Turley demonstrating why GW isn't a very good law school.

Don’t know anything about the law, but Turley’s presentation was pathetic.

He was given an impossible task. Not sure why he agreed to give it a go.

When you offer your dog’s perspective at one of the most important hearings in American history, you might be floundering.

Ha!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jonathan Turley demonstrating why GW isn't a very good law school.

Don’t know anything about the law, but Turley’s presentation was pathetic.

He was given an impossible task. Not sure why he agreed to give it a go.

When you offer your dog’s perspective at one of the most important hearings in American history, you might be floundering.

When the law, facts, and history are not on your side, you talk about your feelings and how mad you are.

[Anonymous]

“If this isn’t impeachable, then nothing is.”

Bingo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jonathan Turley demonstrating why GW isn't a very good law school.

Don’t know anything about the law, but Turley’s presentation was pathetic.

He was given an impossible task. Not sure why he agreed to give it a go.

When you offer your dog’s perspective at one of the most important hearings in American history, you might be floundering.

When the law, facts, and history are not on your side, you talk about your feelings and how mad you are.

His argument that Democrats are doing this because they are angry, makes him either stupid or dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jonathan Turley demonstrating why GW isn't a very good law school.

Don’t know anything about the law, but Turley’s presentation was pathetic.

He was given an impossible task. Not sure why he agreed to give it a go.

When you offer your dog’s perspective at one of the most important hearings in American history, you might be floundering.

When the law, facts, and history are not on your side, you talk about your feelings and how mad you are.

His argument that Democrats are doing this because they are angry, makes him either stupid or dishonest.

He apparently wants to get the "impeachment expert" slot on Fox News.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jonathan Turley demonstrating why GW isn't a very good law school.

Don’t know anything about the law, but Turley’s presentation was pathetic.

He was given an impossible task. Not sure why he agreed to give it a go.

When you offer your dog’s perspective at one of the most important hearings in American history, you might be floundering.

When the law, facts, and history are not on your side, you talk about your feelings and how mad you are.

His argument that Democrats are doing this because they are angry, makes him either stupid or dishonest.

What he slides past is what people are legitimately angry about. I for one am angry that we have a President who thinks he is above the law, who abused his office for political gain, and put our national security at risk, and that he openly defied Congress and asked federal employees to violate laws and ignore subpoenas. There is a lot to be angry about, frankly. And that's OK. Mr. Rogers would agree that we are allowed to have emotions.

But emotions aside, our rational, logical, legal, and historical framework also informs us that these same things that make us mad, are impeachable offenses. So we don't need to just squeeze a lump of play dough to manage our feelings, we are compelled by our Constitution to take action to remedy the wrong done to our nation. So that is what we are witnessing.