The Sham Impeachment Inquiry & Whistleblower Saga: A Race to Get Ahead of the OIG

[Kevbeau]

The Democrats are tanking, right? Looking for that high 2024 first round pick?

[DC Tom]

46 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Long term consequences are foremost on their minds, if a president can pressure foreign countries to help his/her reelection our republic is in serious trouble 

 

IF PROVEN.

 

You'll notice that, ever since this farce started, I've been very consistent on that very point: make the distinction between a valid foreign policy request and a personal request in this case.  You can't. 

 

You, specifically, can't, because you're a moron.  But nothing in these hearing has made that distinction, either.  

[Warren Zevon]

23 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I loved it how none of these so called scholars ever mentioned that the founding fathers apparently never considered what would happen when a sitting president uncovers the fact that the PREVIOUS administration may have committed a crime.THAT is the central legal question that should govern this debate. (Scholars, my butt!) If they had considered it I’m pretty sure they would have said the sitting President is under an OBLIGATION to ask that the Attorney General look into it immediately!  Which...is exactly what Trump did. These geniuses are total clowns. 

 

What actual crime did the previous administration commit?

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

IF PROVEN.

 

You'll notice that, ever since this farce started, I've been very consistent on that very point: make the distinction between a valid foreign policy request and a personal request in this case.  You can't. 

 

You, specifically, can't, because you're a moron.  But nothing in these hearing has made that distinction, either.  

 

Too bad Schiff didn't call on a scholar like you to speak to the nation yesterday

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Gary Busey said:

 

Too bad Schiff didn't call on a scholar like you to speak to the nation yesterday

 

Turley made my point very clearly.

[Warren Zevon]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

Turley made my point very clearly.

 

I'm at least glad you'll consider new facts as new witnesses are introduced. 

[Tiberius]

8 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

IF PROVEN.

 

You'll notice that, ever since this farce started, I've been very consistent on that very point: make the distinction between a valid foreign policy request and a personal request in this case.  You can't. 

 

You, specifically, can't, because you're a moron.  But nothing in these hearing has made that distinction, either.  

It's been proven 

 

"but first I need a favor, though." 

 

And the "get over it" comment

 

stop being so blindly stupid, oh wait, you can't 

6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Turley made my point very clearly.

The point that since Trump won't allow evidence to be produced or witnesses to testify that you can't prove anything? 

 

Do do you chase your tail like a dog? 

[RochesterRob]

  It's quite obvious that the Dems are trying to live out some kind of Salem Witch Trial type fantasy where people can be condemned based on whim or preference (lack of).  I guess that they fell asleep during class when the discussion turned to how indiscriminate the process turned out to be.  Can't wait for Pelosi to be tied to the dunking chair and then told "if guilty you will just use your witchcraft to escape drowning and if you drown your status as a good Christian will be confirmed).

[B-Man]

IT’S A SAFE BET HE WOULDN’T FEEL SO WEARY IF IMPEACHMENT WERE A WINNER: 

 

Democrat announces retirement, says Russia probe and impeachment inquiry ‘have rendered my soul weary.’

 

 

 

 

 

"It’s always a constitutional crisis when liberals don’t get what they want."

That can serve as my reaction to yesterday's hearing with the law professors, and it's why 3 other lawprofs urging panic, anguish, and quick, dramatic action were outweighed by Jonathan Turley's telling everyone to calm down:

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

5 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

I'm at least glad you'll consider new facts as new witnesses are introduced. 

 

There hasn't yet been a witness that's related any facts.  Just personal opinions.  That's the entire problem.  

 

Of all four "witnesses" called yesterday, not one had any direct knowledge of events.  Everything they knew was from other people's reports.  You know what that makes them?  "Not witnesses."  Their testimony was at best equivalent to an amicus brief, which is meaningless in the absence of a demonstrated crime.  

[John Adams]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

There hasn't yet been a witness that's related any facts.  Just personal opinions.  That's the entire problem.  

 

Of all four "witnesses" called yesterday, not one had any direct knowledge of events.  Everything they knew was from other people's reports.  You know what that makes them?  "Not witnesses."  Their testimony was at best equivalent to an amicus brief, which is meaningless in the absence of a demonstrated crime.  

 

More like expert testimony actually. 

[SoCal Deek]

11 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

What actual crime did the previous administration commit?

 

Too bad Schiff didn't call on a scholar like you to speak to the nation yesterday

First of all, you don’t know if a crime has been committed until you look into it....which is EXACTLY what President Trump asked the Ukrainian President to do in conjunction with the US Attorney General. The exact right thing to do. 
 

Second, you idiot, Schiff didn’t call on anyone yesterday! This was the Judiciary Committee chaired by Nader....but if Humpty Dumpster had asked me to speak I’d have been better prepared then those three cartoon characters that they had bloviating under ‘oath’.

[Warren Zevon]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

There hasn't yet been a witness that's related any facts.  Just personal opinions.  That's the entire problem.  

 

Of all four "witnesses" called yesterday, not one had any direct knowledge of events.  Everything they knew was from other people's reports.  You know what that makes them?  "Not witnesses."  Their testimony was at best equivalent to an amicus brief, which is meaningless in the absence of a demonstrated crime.  

 

Expert witnesses are called all the time.

[Foxx]

2 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

More like expert testimony actually. 

directly influenced by personal opinion, for three of the 'witnesses' anyways. which for all intent and purposes, renders their 'expert testimony' meaningless.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Foxx

[DC Tom]

Just now, Gary Busey said:

 

Expert witnesses are called all the time.

 

Not to testify that hearsay is fact.

[Warren Zevon]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

Not to testify that hearsay is fact.

 

Like you said - their testimony was equivalent to an amicus brief.

 

There will be more hearings and fact witnesses. 

[Tiberius]

6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

There hasn't yet been a witness that's related any facts.  Just personal opinions.  That's the entire problem.  

 

Of all four "witnesses" called yesterday, not one had any direct knowledge of events.  Everything they knew was from other people's reports.  You know what that makes them?  "Not witnesses."  Their testimony was at best equivalent to an amicus brief, which is meaningless in the absence of a demonstrated crime.  

Well Tom, that's because they were not factual

witnesses, they were constitutional experts 

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

Expert witnesses are called all the time.

I’m glad they called an ‘expert’ on the origins of the President’s sons birth name. We needed that expert incite.

I’ve actually been an expert witness. That comment alone would have RUINED me as an expert in anything!

[Warren Zevon]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

directly influenced by personal opinion, for three of the 'witnesses' anyways. which for all intent and purposes, renders their 'expert opinion' meaningless.

 

For all 4 'witnesses'

[Foxx]

1 minute ago, Gary Busey said:

 

Like you said - their testimony was equivalent to an amicus brief.

 

There will be more hearings and fact witnesses. 

the next fact witness called will be the first.

[Warren Zevon]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

incite.

 

 

insight

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Gary Busey said:

 

insight

Thanks! 

[Foxx]

1 minute ago, Gary Busey said:

 

For all 4 'witnesses'

nah. if one were being objective, they would have to admit Turley was mostly impartial in his opines.

[Warren Zevon]

Just now, Foxx said:

nah. if one were being objective, they would have to admit Turley was mostly impartial in his opines.

 

Mostly?

 

So all 4 'witnesses'

 

They were all "mostly impartial." That's not impartial.

[Deranged Rhino]

22 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Turley made my point very clearly.

So did Comey when he chose not to indict Hillary because they could not prove intent. 
 

They can’t prove intent now — yet they go anyway. Why? They’re terrified and it’s their only play. It won’t work the way they wish. 

[SoCal Deek]

Nobody has still answered the question: What is the President supposed to do if he suspects the previous Vice President extorted a foreign country for truly personal gain? 

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’m glad they called an ‘expert’ on the origins of the President’s sons birth name. We needed that expert incite.

I’ve actually been an expert witness. That comment alone would have RUINED me as an expert in anything!

How horrible

she brought that up as an example! #false outrage

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Tiberius said:

How horrible

she brought that up as an example! #false outrage

Yes it is completely inappropriate. The kid is a minor and has to go to school tomorrow, you hack! And if I get you correct, the premise is that over a decade before a private real estate developer ever considered running for President he set out to make his son the son of a ‘King’? You’ve really got to be kidding me.

[Foxx]

4 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

Mostly?

 

So all 4 'witnesses'

 

They were all "mostly impartial." That's not impartial.

there was very little in the way of impartiality of the other three, 'witnesses'. all four of which, did not vote for Trump.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Foxx said:

there was very little in the way of impartiality of the other three, 'witnesses'. all four of which, did not vote for Trump.

None of which witnessed anything. 

[Warren Zevon]

Just now, Foxx said:

there was very little in the way of impartiality of the other three, 'witnesses'. all four of which, did not vote for Trump.

 

Agree to disagree - almost Friday! 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

Yes it is completely inappropriate. The kid is a minor and has to go to school tomorrow, you hack! And if I get you correct, the premise is that over a decade before a private real estate developer ever considered running for President he set out to make his son the son of a ‘King’? You’ve really got to be kidding me.

And Tibs....I think your professor hero needs to google the definition of ‘Baron’. In modern era it refers to a captain of industry!  Nothing at all to do with your father considering himself a King.  (And even in the original English...a Baron is the LOWEST level of nobility.) That professor is a partisan clown.

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

there was very little in the way of impartiality of the other three, 'witnesses'. all four of which, did not vote for Trump.

 

More to the point, their only appeals were appeals to emotion.  

 

I'd actually agree with the few objective statements they made...if their presumption of guilt were proven.  The problem being, again, that the only proof of guilt is even more presumption.  All of the testimony supporting impeachment is nothing more than people stating their opinions of Trump.

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Yes it is completely inappropriate. The kid is a minor and has to go to school tomorrow, you hack! And if I get you correct, the premise is that over a decade before a private real estate developer ever considered running for President he set out to make his son the son of a ‘King’? You’ve really got to be kidding me.

Lol, whatever 

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

And Tibs....I think your professor hero needs to google the definition of ‘Baron’. In modern era it refers to a captain of industry!  Nothing at all to do with your father considering himself a King.  (And even in the original English...a Baron is the LOWEST level of nobility.) That professor is a partisan clown.

Yes! So obviously they can't tell if Trumpo committed abuse of power! 

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Lol, whatever 

Well you’ve finally gotten to the core of prosecution’s case in a single word:  “whatever”

 

As Mr Hand said to Spikoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High: “May I write that on the board for all my classes to admire?”

[Foxx]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

More to the point, their only appeals were appeals to emotion.  

 

I'd actually agree with the few objective statements they made...if their presumption of guilt were proven.  The problem being, again, that the only proof of guilt is even more presumption.  All of the testimony supporting impeachment is nothing more than people stating their opinions of Trump.

if you noticed... before the many breaks they had yesterday, the three of them made statements as matter fact. yet after the breaks, they began to incorporate more and more the caveat of, 'if you have proven...' to their blatant biases. me thinks someone must have said this was bad optics. with the possible exception of Karlan who just seemed to become more unhinged as the day wore on. 

[DC Tom]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

And Tibs....I think your professor hero needs to google the definition of ‘Baron’. In modern era it refers to a captain of industry!  Nothing at all to do with your father considering himself a King.  (And even in the original English...a Baron is the LOWEST level of nobility.) That professor is a partisan clown.

 

This is the stupidest line of criticism.  She was an blockheaded, trying to create a viral moment with a tendentious metaphor using a strained pun that only proved again that the left can't meme.  That people are even making an issue out of this is thoroughly moronic.

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Foxx said:

if you noticed... before the many breaks they had yesterday, the three of them made statements as matter fact. yet after the breaks, they began to incorporate more and more the caveat of, 'if you have proven...' to their blatant biases. me thinks someone must have said this was bad optics. with the possible exception of Karlan who just seemed to become more unhinged as the day wore on. 

Karlan should find a pink slip on her desk when she gets back to California.

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

if you noticed... before the many breaks they had yesterday, the three of them made statements as matter fact. yet after the breaks, they began to incorporate more and more the caveat of, 'if you have proven...' to their blatant biases. me thinks someone must have said this was bad optics. with the possible exception of Karlan who just seemed to become more unhinged as the day wore on. 

 

Karlan has to be the easiest A at Stanford.  I know the type.  All you have to do is parrot back whatever she says, and praise her occasionally.  

 

I'll bet in at least on of her classes, the final grade will be based on submitting an "analysis" of her testimony yesterday - which "analysis" will be nothing more than parroting back her statements to prove you watched her.

[keepthefaith]

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

And Tibs....I think your professor hero needs to google the definition of ‘Baron’. In modern era it refers to a captain of industry!  Nothing at all to do with your father considering himself a King.  (And even in the original English...a Baron is the LOWEST level of nobility.) That professor is a partisan clown.

 

I find it hysterical that the Dems actually did what they did yesterday - that is paraded 4 academics out into a public hearing to express their opinions of the President.  What I heard was like a panel from a Meet the Press or similar Sunday show.  Just lacked commercial breaks. 

Edited December 5, 2019 by keepthefaith

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

This is the stupidest line of criticism.  She was an blockheaded, trying to create a viral moment with a tendentious metaphor using a strained pun that only proved again that the left can't meme.  That people are even making an issue out of this is thoroughly moronic.

Tom, she’s not there to meme. This isn’t the Colbert Show. She’s supposed to be a serious legal mind. She proved otherwise. Outrageous and unprofessional.