• 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.
kellyb said:
Yeah, that Turley guy was hilariously disingenuous. He didn't even seem to be trying, honestly. Not sure what his deal is, but his heart wasn't even in his words, it seemed to me, at least.
Click to expand...

It is depressing. If you're gonna lie to me at least have the decency to do it in a way where I go "Holy crap. You're actually going sit there, look me in the eye, and really act like you believe it?"

It's no fun they aren't even into it.
 
BobTheCoward said:
He isn't. "your" president unless you work for the executive branch. We are not in some chain of command. He can't give us orders.
Click to expand...
One doesn't work "for" the executive branch, one has a job that is part of the institution. And, no one "gives" orders; orders are communicated from superior to subordinate.


Sorry, I couldn't resist.
 
kellyb said:
Yeah, that Turley guy was hilariously disingenuous. He didn't even seem to be trying, honestly. Not sure what his deal is, but his heart wasn't even in his words, it seemed to me, at least.
Click to expand...

Haven't watched much, but I don't like the lawyer who is leading the questioning right now.

"Did you write such-and-such?"

"Yes, but there was a significant caveat..."

"It was a yes or no question. Did you write such and such?"

(Not perfect quotes, obviously.) I would've preferred that Turley could include his caveat. Else, the quoted passage may well have been very misleading.
 
The only dissenting Constitutional expert of four, Prof. Turley, stated that there was a "paucity of evidence" supporting Trump having committed an impeachable offense.
I honestly don't know what more evidence he would require than what we already have.
 
alfaniner said:
We're only at the Ranking Member's opening statement and if only reinforces my opinion that I ******* hate Republican politicians.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Stacyhs said:
The only dissenting Constitutional expert of four, Prof. Turley, stated that there was a "paucity of evidence" supporting Trump having committed an impeachable offense.
I honestly don't know what more evidence he would require than what we already have.
Click to expand...

And what adds to my annoyance with that BS, he made the same statements long before the witnesses testified in the hearings.

He also repeated the GOP line that Trump hasn't been able to defend himself. Turley seemed to think the SCOTUS needs to answer the subpoena refusals before one could call it obstruction.

But it's ridiculous because Trump just moves the goal post again and again. What does Turley say about that? Nothing.


The GOP questioner is bringing up Biden's actions with Ukraine aid but left out the personal gain and attacking one's political rival.

The GOP members keep repeating the talking point the public is tired of this yada yada. No they aren't.
 
Last edited:
The Judiciary Committee has always been a clown-show because it is so public compared to the Intelligence Committee.
"Nothing new" is the best Republicans can hope for, and they might get it.
 
In the proceeding, Karlan's "Barron" comment about kings was funny but unwise.
Karlan said:
Trump can name his son Barron, but he can't appoint Barons.
Click to expand...
Hay will be made. These evil people are dragging in an innocent child!
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
I think it is clearer than you think.

1) Is trump alleged to have done something people think is wrong?

Yes. Not even trump seems to think what he is accused of is acceptable.

2) is there evidence for it?

Yes.

3) would pursuing it be in line with legislative checks against the executive?

Yes.

Then its far less evidence for Graham's position.

In that way, we are one step closer to believing the Democrat intent compared to Graham.
Click to expand...

You forgot,
4. Does Dear Leader make the Sun to shine?
If so disregard points 1 through 3.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Even a year ago I would have argued that even the Republicans wouldn't fully buy into a full on conspiracy theory just to kneejerk defend their tribe.

Now it's a near certainty. They are actually going to argue some sort of shadowy deep state is out to get Trump.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Even a year ago I would have argued that even the Republicans wouldn't fully buy into a full on conspiracy theory just to kneejerk defend their tribe.

Now it's a near certainty. They are actually going to argue some sort of shadowy deep state is out to get Trump.
Click to expand...

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?
 
JoeMorgue said:
It is depressing. If you're gonna lie to me at least have the decency to do it in a way where I go "Holy crap. You're actually going sit there, look me in the eye, and really act like you believe it?"

It's no fun they aren't even into it.
Click to expand...

Low-energy liars. The boss will not be happy.
 
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...

I don't know. This is like the political singularity, we can't see what's beyond it.

If "Post-Truth" as a concept gets fully established and it works or even seems to... it might be the new norm.

I want to think that simple intelligence to base concept that "facts exist" will swing us back to center sooner or later but "There are this things called facts and what they are tends to matter" is a point I keep having to defend a lot in a lot of different contexts more and more... *shrugs.*

Again this is what skeptics have been dealing with forever but now it's going to apply to literally everything. Full scale, across the board reality denial.

If this goes worse case scenario reality is going to become functionally identical to a Jabba or Figbooter thread.
 
Last edited:
There is much more at stake for Republicans than the Trump Presidency: it is their entire ideology that Federal Government cannot work and must therefore be defanged, defunded and deregulated.
If Democrats manage to make the system work, if they can actually pull off an Impeachment supported by evidence, this would prove that only Republicans are incapable of governing.
 
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...

He is interested in corruption, he is very much for it. See his attacks on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom