Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Which means he looks absolutely awesome!

are you the two with a bow-tie Brit fetish?

Not judging, just curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, Collins sounds hysterical and stupid at the same time.

Wow, please tell me exactly what he said that sounds hysterical and stupid? That the Founding Fathers' words require interpretation? Now that is nutz.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, Collins sounds hysterical and stupid at the same time.

I think of “Well hi” cat every time he talks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This argument that if the Republicans aren't agreeing with the impeachment that this is partisan and, therefore, illegitimate is nonsense. The partisanship is on the part of the Republicans by refusing to acknowledge the facts in front of their faces. All these attempts to distract and defend this POTUS are the partisanship that is dismantling the fabric of this country.

Yes, it is a circular argument. Yes, impeachment should be nonpartisan because both sides should be honest with the facts and law in front of them. You can't be the side refusing to participate honestly and then also be the ones accusing the process of being partisan. It the same as Trump saying there is no evidence, while he is the one withholding the evidence, and saying not fair I don't get to participate while simultaneously refusing to participate.

[Anonymous]

Rep. Collins said that we have no idea what the founding fathers thought.

So much for Chief Justice Scalia’s “originalism” method of interpreting the Constitution.

And actually, we do have a way of knowing. Ever heard of the Federalist Papers, Rep Collins?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rep. Collins said that we have no idea what the founding fathers thought.

So much for Chief Justice Scalia’s “originalism” method of interpreting the Constitution.

And actually, we do have a way of knowing. Ever heard of the Federalist Papers, Rep Collins?

I thought the whole point of constitutional scholars was to determine how the Constitution should be applied in cases that the writers wouldnt have been able to imagine happening- basically what Karlan said in one of her responses/statements

[Anonymous]

Rep. Swalwell on C-Span: "As to the criticism 'are you moving too quickly'; well, you know what is moving quickly is an upcoming election. In under 60 days first votes will be cast in a presidential election...

Sigh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rep. Collins said that we have no idea what the founding fathers thought.

So much for Chief Justice Scalia’s “originalism” method of interpreting the Constitution.

And actually, we do have a way of knowing. Ever heard of the Federalist Papers, Rep Collins?

The Federalist Papers don't speak to this exact situation and I think we all can reasonably agree on this point.

This is a sad state of affairs. The state of 2 party politics in the US is facing trial. Americans are stuck in the middle. We have a member claiming exerting executive privilege essentially "torpedoes" the balance of power built into the Constitution.

Words mean nothing anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Which means he looks absolutely awesome!

are you the two with a bow-tie Brit fetish?

Not judging, just curious.

I'm getting Benedict Cumberbatch vibes.

[Anonymous]

Not surprisingly, the GOP has lied about Neil Katyal's book

https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1202294800608878592

[Anonymous]

Turley was wrong on Monica Lewinsky. She testified at the Senate impeachment behind closed doors in a deposition questioned by Asa Hutchinson. All of the Senators had access to the transcript.

[Anonymous]

Turley: if you can prove quid pro quo, you might have an impeachable offense.

Cue Mulvaney and Sondland admitting a Quid Pro Quo.

Are we done now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Turley: if you can prove quid pro quo, you might have an impeachable offense.

Cue Mulvaney and Sondland admitting a Quid Pro Quo.

Are we done now?

Proof for these people would be Trump saying AND writing "I was after a quid pro quo with Ukraine".

Actually, that still might not be enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Turley: if you can prove quid pro quo, you might have an impeachable offense.

Cue Mulvaney and Sondland admitting a Quid Pro Quo.

Are we done now?

Proof for these people would be Trump saying AND writing "I was after a quid pro quo with Ukraine".

Actually, that still might not be enough.

No, it wouldn't. Trump said so himself, he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue, and they'd let him get away with it.

[Anonymous]

Turley is educating the American people.

The other three are simply advancing a narrative of "their side." Speaking as if presumptions are facts.

One thing is for sure - both Feldman and Karlan have dramatically lowered my opinion of law school professors. Arrogant and presenting themselves as if they are the only ones who are right - anyone who disagrees with them are stupid.

If I were taking a constitutional law school course, Turley would be my choice of professors. Smart, balanced, and good sense of humor.