Info PSA- Public impeachments start today- UPDATE 2/5/2020- Trump wins.

Page 68 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
It is kind of bonkers that one of Trump's likely co-conspirators was allowed to help conduct the impeachment inquiry. There's a non-trivial chance Nunes ends up in prison by the time this is all done, which would be very satisfying.

Add this to the insulation from Barr in the criminal referral and attempt to suppress the whistleblower report. I mean, someone actively conspiring with people whose job it is to hold him responsible for such conspiracy is kind of a red flag, no?
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,273
10,933
136
Add this to the insulation from Barr in the criminal referral and attempt to suppress the whistleblower report. I mean, someone actively conspiring with people whose job it is to hold him responsible for such conspiracy is kind of a red flag, no?
Barr needs impeachment next.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,000
136
Add this to the insulation from Barr in the criminal referral and attempt to suppress the whistleblower report. I mean, someone actively conspiring with people whose job it is to hold him responsible for such conspiracy is kind of a red flag, no?

Haha it sure is! Barr should absolutely be impeached.

Our country is held together by everyone generally agreeing that the system is more important than winning any one political fight. That appears to have broken down though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
I hear what you're saying but the only alternative is that Trump was lying about his justification for withholding aid and we both know that can't possibly be true.


This is a bit of a red herring. Trump cannot hold up funds FOR ANY REASON without going through the ICA of 1974 process AND gets the OK from those with the power of the purse after 45 days. This was not done and so he broke the law, period.


Funds blocked on July 25
Funds released September 11th.

That exceeds the legal limit and violates the law.

That Trump released the funds eventually for any reason (including getting caught) does not forgive him.

The Reps want to argue process and not the law? Let's argue both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,273
10,933
136
So far it looks like Turley of all people is going to be defending Trump. Strike you off on the list of people I really used to like.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
He doesn’t seem to command the knowledge and the ins and outs of Parliamental procedures. He knows them but he’s not as quick as Schiff is at countering them. That’s just my first impressions though.

Let’s not forget, he’s the guy that thought it was smart to use a bucket of chicken as a prop.

That wasn't Nadler-


This is Nadler-


It's the last chance for the House GOP to play games before it goes to a floor vote & then on to the Senate, I think. These hearings are a formality, an artifact of House rules. The judiciary committee will create the formal writ of impeachment. I'd like to see it on McConnell's desk before Christmas. Happy Holidays.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,565
15,449
136
So far it looks like Turley of all people is going to be defending Trump. Strike you off on the list of people I really used to like.

So far he’s so full of shit I can smell it through the tv. He’s making an emotional appeal against impeachment vs the facts. He cited the impeachment case against Jackson as the most relevant which is bull shit as this impeachment isn’t based on hate at all, no matter how many different ways he tries to say it is.
 

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,819
1,578
136
Why is it with all things Republicans, their arguments seem so BS. I learned a lot from the first 3, esp. the 1st witness. Turley? I'm not sure what his argument is? In fact, the first witness clearly defined what High crimes and misdemeanor was, yet Turley seems to ignore that historical record.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,000
136
The contrast with Turkey’s statement about impeachment in 1998 when the offense was lying in a civil deposition about a personal matter is...remarkable.

I hope Democrats will be repeating his past statements back at him.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,273
10,933
136
Rule 11 is being used to delay the hearings with votes by Republicans. Still got nothin. And Turley can blxw me.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,565
15,449
136
Why is it with all things Republicans, their arguments seem so BS. I learned a lot from the first 3, esp. the 1st witness. Turley? I'm not sure what his argument is? In fact, the first witness clearly defined what High crimes and misdemeanor was, yet Turley seems to ignore that historical record.

Yeah, third witness totally pre-countered turley’s whole argument.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,165
30,117
146
So far he’s so full of shit I can smell it through the tv. He’s making an emotional appeal against impeachment vs the facts. He cited the impeachment case against Jackson as the most relevant which is bull shit as this impeachment isn’t based on hate at all, no matter how many different ways he tries to say it is.

yeah but his dog is angry and he doesn't want his dog to be angry. It's a labradoodle! Those dogs don't get angry! This is so unfair!
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,000
136
Turley: I’m not a fan, nor did I vote for him, but I’m here to defend him at any cost.

Turley in 1998: if we allow the president to get away with illegal activity it is corrosive to the country as a whole and encourages future presidents to do the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,565
15,449
136
Turley in 1998: if we allow the president to get away with illegal activity it is corrosive to the country as a whole and encourages future presidents to do the same.

I was actually looking forward for a reasonable argument against impeachment, one based on historical facts or a counter to existing facts and testimony. What we got was what we always get from the right, feelings because reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Xcobra

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2004
3,662
412
126
Turley in 1998: if we allow the president to get away with illegal activity it is corrosive to the country as a whole and encourages future presidents to do the same.
Makes me wonder how he's been convinced/bribed to defend this indefensible douchebag.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,000
136
I was actually looking forward for a reasonable argument against impeachment, one based on historical facts or a counter to existing facts and testimony. What we got was what we always get from the right, feelings because reasons.

Because there is no reasonable argument against impeachment.

The president used his powers of office to extort an ally into giving him illegal campaign assistance so he could win the next election.

If you had to draw up an example of impeachable conduct for a textbook how different would it look than that.