Gunnar wrote:Do you also believe the earth is flat, subby? Even that is no more irrational than denying Trump's corruption and deserving of impeachment. In fact, I would bet that the percentage of Republicans who believe the world is flat is rather high compared to the percentage of the general public who believes that nonsense.
Great story...irrelevant but still great. Glad to see you are still on board with the DNC 2020 platform of insult and snark. With regard to impeachment, irrational would be solely at your feet whereas without actual evidence and in the face of contrary eyewitness testimony and in spite of the illogical nature of the Democratic argument you truly believe that there is bona fide cause for impeachment. I am guessing that the Democrats will conclude their campaign of death by a thousand accusations with a vote by a thousand morons.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Literally a report today stating "professors: Trump guilty of bribery, obstruction"...like seriously parading some liberal elite academics to proclaim "guilt", because Democrats know their base is just that stoopid.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
I just logged in to post that the democrats made a huge mistake by brnging in constitutional law professors to testify, because the Republicans will dismiss them as elitist, deep state operative, libs, shills, etc. who are all part of the conspiracy but subs beat me to it. LOL. Those of us who trust actual experts as expert witnesses are already on board. They need to convince the Republicans in the Senate, and more importantly, their constituents. Constitutional law professors from respected universites aren't going to cut it. They need alt-right youtube personalities and social media stars to testify in their favor. Nothing is more convincing than a youtube video featuring a really loud guy using small words and showing pictures. Unfortunately they won't be able to find a guy like that who supports impeachment.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
DarkHelmet wrote:...Those of us who trust actual experts as expert witnesses...
a conclusion you made simply by the fact that they are on tv and are professors...you literally know nothing of their qualifications and the topic they are speaking about...whereas there are countless other "professors" who have the same depth of knowledge about impeachment/Constitution that would gladly state "innocent". These 3 professors are not qualified to proclaim guilt or innocence before the Senate or before a box of rocks. Point being - you are a rube.
for example - from one of your "experts" today: “I get it. You're mad. The President's mad. My Republican friends are mad. My Democratic friends are mad. My wife is mad. My kids are mad. Even my dog seems mad and Luna is a golden-doodle and they don't get mad. So, we're all mad. Where has it taken us? Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad or will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration? That is why this is wrong...it's wrong because this is not how you impeach and American president," Turley argued, adding that the evidence Democrats are using is severely lacking, the process is rushed and that a number of witnesses haven't been subpoenaed. "I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided,” he said.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Watch the opening statement of all four witnesses. Feldman and Karlan were particularly convincing. Gerhardt seemed a bit in awe of the situation but made some good points. Turley's points about a highly charged atmosphere were true, but ultimately irrelevant to the facts. Facts don't change. Just because some Democrats want to get the President does not mean he is therefore innocent. I thought Turley made a good point about obstruction of justice NOT meaning that because you take a subpoena to court should be considered obstruction of justice. But does that mean that every subpoena must wend its way through the Judicial system until the Supreme Court hears it?
One thing that was fascinating was the dynamic between Turley and Gerhardt during breaks. They were both comfortable with each other, laughing and joking at one point. Their differences were as legal scholars, not as political opponents.
I thought the case was convincingly made that the behavior of Trump was exactly what the founding fathers were worried about when they wrote the impeachment clause.
Today was a great day of testimony to hear, not just for the facts of the case, but as a history lesson, to remind us why we have an impeachment clause and the type of behavior that worried the founders.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization." - Will Durant "We've kept more promises than we've even made" - Donald Trump "Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist." - Edwin Land
MeDotOrg wrote:Watch the opening statement of all four witnesses. Feldman and Karlan were particularly convincing. Gerhardt seemed a bit in awe of the situation but made some good points. Turley's points about a highly charged atmosphere were true, but ultimately irrelevant to the facts. Facts don't change. Just because some Democrats want to get the President does not mean he is therefore innocent. I thought Turley made a good point about obstruction of justice NOT meaning that because you take a subpoena to court should be considered obstruction of justice. But does that mean that every subpoena must wend its way through the Judicial system until the Supreme Court hears it?
One thing that was fascinating was the dynamic between Turley and Gerhardt during breaks. They were both comfortable with each other, laughing and joking at one point. Their differences were as legal scholars, not as political opponents.
I thought the case was convincingly made that the behavior of Trump was exactly what the founding fathers were worried about when they wrote the impeachment clause.
Today was a great day of testimony to hear, not just for the facts of the case, but as a history lesson, to remind us why we have an impeachment clause and the type of behavior that worried the founders.
Yes, it is nice to have actual experts who know what they're talking about testifying. However, after reading subs post, you might be a rube for actually listening to all 4 witnesses and taking into consideration what they have to say, because they're "not qualified to proclaim guilt or innocence before the Senate or before a box of rocks." I actually wasn't aware that these witnesses were there to proclaim guilt or innocence before the Senate. Are they testifying before the senate?
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
MeDotOrg wrote:Watch the opening statement of all four witnesses. Feldman and Karlan were particularly convincing. Gerhardt seemed a bit in awe of the situation but made some good points. Turley's points about a highly charged atmosphere were true, but ultimately irrelevant to the facts. Facts don't change. Just because some Democrats want to get the President does not mean he is therefore innocent. I thought Turley made a good point about obstruction of justice NOT meaning that because you take a subpoena to court should be considered obstruction of justice. But does that mean that every subpoena must wend its way through the Judicial system until the Supreme Court hears it?
One thing that was fascinating was the dynamic between Turley and Gerhardt during breaks. They were both comfortable with each other, laughing and joking at one point. Their differences were as legal scholars, not as political opponents.
I thought the case was convincingly made that the behavior of Trump was exactly what the founding fathers were worried about when they wrote the impeachment clause.
Today was a great day of testimony to hear, not just for the facts of the case, but as a history lesson, to remind us why we have an impeachment clause and the type of behavior that worried the founders.
TL:DR MetDog agrees with those that agree with him and dismisses the one guy that doesn't echo the MetDog shout.
All u meed to know is that it was yet another failure of Democrats trying pretend they are impeaching when even they know they are not....mostly because they don't have actual evidence but also because if they had actually held a vote for this current "performance" they would take a bath in 2020...see also "trying to save their seat in their districts with majority of voters that don't support impeachment circus".
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
DarkHelmet wrote:.... Are they testifying before the senate?
Nice how you sidestepped the "expert testimony" quoted above. I didn't realize that you had no idea what the professors said today (shocker)... But here ya go, magical "non-testimony"?
HARVARD UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR NOAH FELDMAN, SAYING:
“On the basis on testimony and evidence before the House, President Trump has committed impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency.”
PROFESSOR PAMELA KARLAN, SAYING:
But based on the evidentiary record, that is what President Trump has done.”
and of course, this EXPERT WITNESS (as is admitted above)
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR JONATHAN TURLEY, SAYING:
“This would be the first impeachment in history where there would be considerable debate and, in my view, not compelling evidence of the commission of a crime…I believe this impeachment not only fails to satisfy the standard of past impeachments, but would create a dangerous precedent for future impeachments
But just so we all understand...expert witnesses invited to speak at Senate were not actually testifying....what were they doing then?...were they filming the most boring live-action schoolhouse rock episode ever?
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Dr. Shades wrote:Smokey,... why did you put the word "Jew" into blue font multiple times?
For illustrative purposes. The Tribes of Israel gets to be confusing, hence the purpose of the thread, and so it’s good to be clear.
Smokey’s playing games by highlighting in different colors. This racist, bigoted nonsense is banned from reddit, even. Why it’s allowed to continue here is beyond me.
