Look at the data, anyone who "thinks" has abandoned that ship. The educated conservative is without a party under Trump's Republican party.
3 left wing intellectuals call for impeachment...SHOCKING!!
- Thread starter Roy L Fuchs
- Start date
Look at the data, anyone who "thinks" has abandoned that ship. The educated conservative is without a party under Trump's Republican party.
You read a lot of law review articles on constitutional theory, huh? And these three professors' in particular. Impressive.
And yet here you are, demonstrating to the world that you cannot even use the word "biased" in a sentence properly.
If it wasn't already clear that this has nothing whatever to do with determining the facts, today's performance removed any doubt.
You could read and try to understand my point, but I realize it's early in the morning. Try again when you're fully awake.Today's topic was "Constitutional Law".
Your point didn't address the topic, nor the testimony of the individuals who testified.
Meanwhile, back in IG-land, the hand-picked prosecutor tasked to "find the conspiracy behind the Trump Campaign investigation", claimed he could find no evidence the Dems or DNC were behind any of it.
'Nuther Nutjob conspiracy of yours goes down in flames.
Yesterday reminded me of this great quote from William F. Buckley, jr. -
“I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the telephone directory, than by the Harvard University faculty.”
Kewl.
Now go look at what the Constitutional scholar at Antonin Scalia Law School said.
OK, I'll explain it in simplest terms.
First, if you read my post, you would be better prepared to understand it. What I wrote was that yesterday's proceedings made it clear that a search for facts was not the goal. This is not inconsistent with anything you wrote in "response."
Second, both sides refused to even pretend to obtain factual information from witnesses who didn't agree with their position. They simply tried to evoke statements that would support their side.
Third, your point underlines mine: There were no fact witnesses called. That is truly bizarre in a committee that is supposed to be determining whether or not to draft articles of impeachment. I may have missed something, as I didn't watch the entire proceeding, but while I was watching, the only one of the three Democrats' witnesses who even allowed for the possibility that all the facts weren't known was Karlan, who sometimes qualified her statements by saying they were based on "what we have seen" and occasionally used the word "if."
Uh, yeah it is.
I corrected your nonsense in demonstrating that "yesterday's proceedings" were about Constitutional Law.
Here you are, backtracking to save face (again).
OK, so you won't read what I write. Please just put me on "ignore" and save me the trouble of going through all this yet again.
Today's topic was "Constitutional Law".
Shocking that Lone Clone doesn't understand the impeachment process, or the point of the Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday. Absolutely shocking.
Any American who cares about our country, our Constitution, the Separation of Powers, the rule of law and the future of our democratic republic is calling for impeachment.
And now is again backtracking.
He won't even visit the threads where the IG outcome blows up his "theory" entirely, or the fact that the handpicked prosecutor has likewise informed the IG there is "no evidence" of any Deep State NSA conspiracy against Trump.
Gotta just pretend all that never ever happened. Run back to Butter Emails Land.
It's like at a trial, where an entire day is spent discussing whether certain evidence is admissable or not, and LC is bitching about "no evidence being presented".
Seems oblivious as to how Rule of Law and legal processes work.
I'd blame our education system, but it really needs to go both ways - education system only works if someone actually tries to learn anything....
The Republicans complained:
The hearings weren't public, they opened public hearings and the Republicans complained about it.
They didn't vote on an impeachment investigation, they voted on it and the Republicans complained about it.
They couldn't have attorneys present, they invited the White House to send attorneys and they refused.
It was going too slowly, now it's going too fast.
"Insulting" their intelligence? No.
I think they're exploiting the lack of it.
Possibly a correlation with why they have so much difficulty with "No Means No"....
Today's topic was "Constitutional Law".
Shocking that Lone Clone doesn't understand the impeachment process, or the point of the Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday. Absolutely shocking.
Maybe its you that doesn't understand. That ever cross your mind
Lol lol the Executive Branch has way too much power now. That ship has sailed dude.
Once again, you try to change the subject to avoid admitting your error.
Your reference to the IG is absolutely classic Joe. First of all, it assumes something we don't know, namely, what the IG says. Second, it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject under discussion. And third -- perhaps most predictable -- it illustrates your lack of knowledge with my position. For a year or so, I have been cautioning Trump supporters not to make the mistake regarding the IG report that you and your ilk made with the Weiseman report and assume it's going to be more damning than it is.
Getting back to what we are supposed to be discussing here -- my post in this thread -- if the House committee members were interested in getting the facts, they would have elicited information from people on both sides. That didn't happen. The Democrats only asked their friendly witnesses questions that would support their preconceptions, and the Republicans did the same with Turley.
In other words, it removed any doubt about whether the members were interested in determining any facts. Which is what I wrote.
It's a topic you won't address. Like the Mueller Report or the Senate Intel Committee Report.
Go back to bed, Joe. Start Thursday over again. You're in too deep and you keep digging your hole.....again.
I keep saying this, but NO ONE besides Hillary is mad that she lost. We are stunned and appalled that Trump won.
LMFAO!!!!
Of COURSE it happened. They've subpoenaed dozens of them, who WILL NOT SHOW UP TO TESTIFY.
When dealing with noted idiots, I don't think so. There's a clear disconnect in intelligence and understanding of facts between "Never Trump" Republicans and Trump cultist Republicans. Let alone Democrats vs Republicans. Ironically, the average Trump supporter proves man's proximity to ape, despite the fact that they are least likely to understand/believe evolution.
So now you have gone to the I am just much smarter card, ya you are brilliant.
The GOP have become the anti intellectual party. They embrace being stupid and incapable of self reflection like a badge of honor.
The facts were laid out during last weeks hearing. Yesterday’s hearing was not intended to be more fact finding. It was a hearing on whether the facts were impeachable.
Last edited:
In addition the Republicans did the same thing during the Clinton impeachment. In fact, two of the scholars that testified yesterday also testified in the Clinton hearing. No surprise, the lawyer chosen by the Republicans yesterday testified that Clinton was worthy of impeachment.
hawkeyetraveler
HR All-American
It is truly remarkable how difficult it is for the Trump cult to follow a very simple process:
Step 1: Gather information about what happened - check
Step 2: Hold hearings to determine if what we think happened is accurate - check
Step 3: Summarize what happened in a report to the judiciary - check
Step 4 (yesterday): Determine if what happened is impeachable according to the constitution - check
Step 5: If step 4 = Yes (which is did) then impeach in the house (pending)
Step 6: If Step 5 = Impeached (which it will) then hold a trial in the senate where Trump's supporters ignore everything that happened and violate their oath of office (pending)
Not sure why the confusion and vitriol from cons...yesterday was step 4 of a very simple process to follow.
Methinks that unless you can put this into "See Dick, See Jane" level language, it's still gonna escape them.
Lone Clone was obviously mystified in his post claiming "no new facts presented" yesterday, as if that remotely mattered. Step 4 simply baffled him.
@rocketclone can you envision any scholar going up there and saying they believe Trump should he impeached and you not dismissing it as an act of a biased person? The mere fact they believe Trump should be impeached disqualifies them in your view as biased. And since they are biased, their opinions don't matter. Do you see a problem with that?
Similar threads
