Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What he did was gas-lighting - this used against woman and POC all the time. Legitimate anger is highlighted to hide valid cause that made someone angry. The flip side of this gas-lighting is what happened in Kavanaugh hearing, hysterical anger of White men is used as their best defense!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Correct.

[Anonymous]

A "humanitarian" recess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Correct.

He is contending for Alan Dershowitz's slot in right-wing media.

[Anonymous]

Turley is a close friend of Bill Barr, I heard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Correct.

How would any of us know? I was driving and WAMU went to commercial when counsel asked him a question. Now, this is a station I used to listen to religiously. I hope he does a spot somewhere - even if he only does podcasts to be placed in a time capsule.

What I find annoying is the foisting on their own petards: I have books where the phrase "elite democracy" has changed as the situation changes. I have shelves of books dealing with what is necessary to change that piece of parchment. Some need to re-read their own books.

[Anonymous]

Shorter: Who will write the book The Legislative Body vs. The American Electorate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Correct.

He is contending for Alan Dershowitz's slot in right-wing media.

I’ve watched Turley for a long time, he was my DH’s professor 20 years ago so we pay attention whenever he’s on TV which is OFTEN. And he seems to have had a very similar 180 as Dershowitz has had in the past few years. I don’t mean to say it’s for the same reasons as Dershowitz, but it’s noticeable and strange. Skim his Wikipedia and you’ll see what I mean.

[Anonymous]

I love Professor Feldman but he totally looks like a WWI poet today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love Professor Feldman but he totally looks like a WWI poet today.

Which means he looks absolutely awesome!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love Professor Feldman but he totally looks like a WWI poet today.

Which means he looks absolutely awesome!

Glad it’s not just me.

[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.

Sondland is a primary witness. Yovanvitch is a primary witness. Hill is a primary witness.
Taylor is a primary witness. Vindmannwas a primary witness.

[Anonymous]

Karlan - another strong, awesome woman setting the men straight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love Professor Feldman but he totally looks like a WWI poet today.

Feldmans a kook. His appearing today will hurt his marketability for any future meaningful political work.

Did he use too many big words for you, PP?