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

Page 70 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,360
13,682
146
I gotta be honest, I’m not exactly sure why Judiciary is interviewing law scholars and not fact witnesses. We should be going after every witness/principle who refused a subpoena and continue to get the facts out in the open—not worry about whether the public understands this is a constitutional impeachment proceeding. This seems like a waste of time to me.
I don’t think you are understanding the process here. An impeachment is a political process. What that means is that it’s not about crimes being committed but it’s also about explaining to the public why it’s being done.

These witnesses are explaining why it’s being done.
Yeah, basically this. It's a waste of time for us because we already have the correct conclusions (that this shit was illegal and he needs to be impeached). It's for everyone else to understand why you have to impeach for his factual, cite-able behavior.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,942
9,235
136
So what happens with the outstanding subpoenas to OMB, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Perry, Giuliani, etc. etc.??? They just expire like farts in the wind?? Dems are rushing this thru to the Senate where they know it will die just so they can cross the Ts and dot the Is and say they did their job. But without all the evidence, we the people cannot hold Republicans accountable for failing to do their job.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,273
10,933
136
Yeah, basically this. It's a waste of time for us because we already have the correct conclusions (that this shit was illegal and he needs to be impeached). It's for everyone else to understand why you have to impeach for his factual, cite-able behavior.
This.
 
Last edited:

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,565
15,449
136
So what happens with the outstanding subpoenas to OMB, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Perry, Giuliani, etc. etc.??? They just expire like farts in the wind?? Dems are rushing this thru to the Senate where they know it will die just so they can cross the Ts and dot the Is and say they did their job. But without all the evidence, we the people cannot hold Republicans accountable for failing to do their job.

It’s all obstruction. Another impeachable offense.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,565
15,449
136
Turley is now using federal statute of bribery to define the constitution’s use of bribery.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,273
10,933
136
Going for the recent SCOTUS rulings against politicians accused of bribery. So Turley is here to muddy the waters.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,565
15,449
136
Lol! Now he’s using criminal law to validate or invalidate impeachment, a political process.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I don’t think you are understanding the process here. An impeachment is a political process. What that means is that it’s not about crimes being committed but it’s also about explaining to the public why it’s being done.

These witnesses are explaining why it’s being done.

You mean the Constitutional & moral imperatives behind impeachment? Fuck that. Hail Trump! <insert Trump slogan here>
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,565
15,449
136
Anyone care to let turley know that trump hasn’t been impeached yet and only an inquiry has been done? He apparently doesn’t understand the process.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,565
15,449
136
Wait, so if Obama did it then it’s ok now? Gee, hasn’t the right been complaining about that for ages now? I guess it’s different now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: soundforbjt

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,000
136
So what happens with the outstanding subpoenas to OMB, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Perry, Giuliani, etc. etc.??? They just expire like farts in the wind?? Dems are rushing this thru to the Senate where they know it will die just so they can cross the Ts and dot the Is and say they did their job. But without all the evidence, we the people cannot hold Republicans accountable for failing to do their job.

Because it could take literally years to get them to comply with subpoenas. Trump's entire plan is to delay by any means possible and appeal everything to the Supreme Court. Even if they do that you'll see the witnesses then claim executive privilege on everything and that will send them back to court again. The House could jail these members themselves I guess if they so chose, but outside of that there's no practical way to get them to testify before the election so they decided not to play the game.

Dems played this one very, very smart.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
So what happens with the outstanding subpoenas to OMB, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Perry, Giuliani, etc. etc.??? They just expire like farts in the wind?? Dems are rushing this thru to the Senate where they know it will die just so they can cross the Ts and dot the Is and say they did their job. But without all the evidence, we the people cannot hold Republicans accountable for failing to do their job.

The subpoenas remain in force & the lawsuits grind forward. The evidence at hand is more than sufficient to support the charge. The evidence at hand is also sufficient to level criminal charges against Trump's co-conspirators should Dems win the election. They all knew Trump's actions wrt Ukraine were illegal while they were happening.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,360
13,682
146
Turley:
A crime is not needed to impeach the president.
Also Turley:
The crime must meet the federal statute of a crime cited in article 1 in order to impeach the president.

Which apparently means we can never impeach a president for a crime who's definition was generated after the Constitution.
 

ElMonoDelMar

Golden Member
Apr 29, 2004
1,163
338
136
Republicans: This impeachment is moving WAY TOO FAST!

Also Republicans: You've been impeaching the president since 1/30/17.

It's so hard for them to square that circle.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Turley is a terrible person to testify for the Republicans, but he's the best they can get. When Trump says in his own releases that he's asking for a "favor" with no basis other than "I have heard" of a foreign leader he has met the definition of a crime in the law. Turley's response is that Trump's accusations must be investigated and in effect the law doesn't matter.

IANAL and I know better.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
Turley:
A crime is not needed to impeach the president.
Also Turley:
The crime must meet the federal statute of a crime cited in article 1 in order to impeach the president.

Which apparently means we can never impeach a president for a crime who's definition was generated after the Constitution.
What...what?

He said both
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,000
136
Turley is a terrible person to testify for the Republicans, but he's the best they can get. When Trump says in his own releases that he's asking for a "favor" with no basis other than "I have heard" of a foreign leader he has met the definition of a crime in the law. Turley's response is that Trump's accusations must be investigated and in effect the law doesn't matter.

IANAL and I know better.

I like how Turley says he hasn't seen sufficient evidence for a quid pro quo (as if that matters) despite the fact that the president's chief of staff said there was a quid pro quo on camera to dozens of reporters.
 

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,819
1,578
136
Turley:
A crime is not needed to impeach the president.
Also Turley:
The crime must meet the federal statute of a crime cited in article 1 in order to impeach the president.

Which apparently means we can never impeach a president for a crime who's definition was generated after the Constitution.

This had been driving me mad. Geez. Respect for him has nosedived.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,284
16,766
136
Voters have been turning out in droves and voting Democrat in a majority of districts that Trump won, over the last two years.

I wonder why you are believing something that fundamentally rejects the observable truth?

Because the electoral collage that’s why.