• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
I only listened to the first couple of hours, but I thought that Tarley (is that his name) earned his money. I think he managed to make a plausible enough case that much of the public will buy the Senate's dismissal of the case. I also thought that the Democrat tactic of basically not talking to him at all was a mistake. Surely the best thing to do would be to have a good lawyer cross-examine him?

Perhaps things changed after I had to stop listening but, from my perspective, this seemed like more of a win for the Republicans than the Democrats.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I only listened to the first couple of hours, but I thought that Tarley (is that his name) earned his money. I think he managed to make a plausible enough case that much of the public will buy the Senate's dismissal of the case. I also thought that the Democrat tactic of basically not talking to him at all was a mistake. Surely the best thing to do would be to have a good lawyer cross-examine him?

Perhaps things changed after I had to stop listening but, from my perspective, this seemed like more of a win for the Republicans than the Democrats.
Click to expand...
The best interpretation I can imagine is that the Dems did not want Turley to rebut their criticism, given that Turley is capable of doing so, it would merely give him more time to make his point. There is a strategy that you try to make the other side play on your side of the field. Not sure if the Intel committee played it that way, though.
 
I listened to maybe 3 hours altogether today, and just tuned in for another few minutes.

Overall the impression was that after the opening arguments, it became tediously repetitious. I thought the Democrats made the same points over and over with their questions, where the Republicans mostly made speeches or guided Turley to making the same points over and over. Their attempts to delay at the beginning were embarrassing. And all their protestations about hearsay evidence is absurd given that the primary sources have been blocked from testifying by Trump.

But I think they scored when quoting Democrat’s prior statements on impeachment. Their hypocrisy is blatant.

But still, a historic day.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I only listened to the first couple of hours, but I thought that Tarley (is that his name) earned his money. I think he managed to make a plausible enough case that much of the public will buy the Senate's dismissal of the case. I also thought that the Democrat tactic of basically not talking to him at all was a mistake. Surely the best thing to do would be to have a good lawyer cross-examine him?

Perhaps things changed after I had to stop listening but, from my perspective, this seemed like more of a win for the Republicans than the Democrats.
Click to expand...
The end is a bit better for the Democrats.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I only listened to the first couple of hours, but I thought that Tarley (is that his name) earned his money. I think he managed to make a plausible enough case that much of the public will buy the Senate's dismissal of the case. I also thought that the Democrat tactic of basically not talking to him at all was a mistake. Surely the best thing to do would be to have a good lawyer cross-examine him?

Perhaps things changed after I had to stop listening but, from my perspective, this seemed like more of a win for the Republicans than the Democrats.
Click to expand...
I downloaded Turley's opening statement and scanned the section on bribery [ETA]abuse of power. Turley doesn't keep track of whether he's considering a criminal, impeachable act or a non-criminal impeachable act. Page 47-8, Abuse of Power, he acknowledges that a president can be impeach for a non-criminal act,

Again, while a crime is not required to impeach, clarity is necessary. In this case, there needs to be clear and unequivocal proof of a quid pro quo.
Click to expand...

but then,

If Trump encouraged an investigation into the Bidens alone, it would not be a viable impeachment claim. The request was inappropriate, but it was not an offer to trade public money for a foreign investigation. President Trump continued to push for these investigations but that does not mean that he was planning to violate federal law.
Click to expand...
But why is a plan to violate federal law the standard here when a non-criminal act may be impeachable?
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I only listened to the first couple of hours, but I thought that Tarley (is that his name) earned his money. I think he managed to make a plausible enough case that much of the public will buy the Senate's dismissal of the case. I also thought that the Democrat tactic of basically not talking to him at all was a mistake. Surely the best thing to do would be to have a good lawyer cross-examine him?

Perhaps things changed after I had to stop listening but, from my perspective, this seemed like more of a win for the Republicans than the Democrats.
Click to expand...


I get the impression from listening to some of these enquiries that a lot of congress people overestimate their ability to ask the right questions and pursue logical lines of investigation with their questions. A few years on ISF might enhance their skills.
 
Belz... said:
Which of course raises the question: does anyone ebelieve that this sort of thing will stop when Trump leaves? Or will it become the new normal?
Click to expand...
It's the old normal. They've been promoting conspiracy theories for decades; and especially so since Obama was elected. Look at all the "Hillary killed Vince Foster" stuff. Trump isn't the cause, he's just the result.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Notice how the Republican is practically shouting. He's outraged! Yep, don't want anyone miss it.:rolleyes: Nadler is a tad disappointing compared to Schiff when it comes to rebutting crap.


I'm waiting for people to really cross-examine Turley. I have a lot of things he should be asked that so far, no one is asking.
Click to expand...

This is what I've noticed. The outrage, the raised voices, the victimhood, etc on the GOP side. Very little interest in actually asking question. It's all repeat the same talking points and grandstanding. They have no interest in the truth; it's protect Trump at all costs.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Gohmert's going with the 'Ukraine did it' CT and claims there are witnesses to that effect that weren't called.


They are also claiming Trump was interested in corruption. The Democrats have not done themselves any favors ignoring a rebuttal of that Trump lie. If it continues it becomes an alt-fact, probably already is.
Click to expand...

Gohmert is an idiot. Always has been, always will be.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Oh, Lordy, I did not even remotely mean to imply that. Only that in today’s proceeding the Democratic hypocrisy was front and center.
Click to expand...

I don't think your point was unreasonable or unclear.


_________________________________________________________

The Republican arguments are all pathetic, but the complaint of no fact witnesses is especially galling. They have utter contempt for their supporters.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Can I just say that subjectively I found the hypocrisy of the Democrats more blatant today without being accused of being a Trump/Republican apologist???

Geez.
Click to expand...

Whoa! Slow down. I was not accusing you of anything. I merely stated that I think they were both hypocrites.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom