No Excuses

The Impeachment Thread

Impeachment  

190 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Donald Trump be impeached for obstruction of justice?



Recommended Posts

Just now, NoCalMike said:

 

Do Dems get to question him too?

 

 

Yea I think after the minorities 40 min then they open it up to 5 min questions back and forth. I think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Llevron said:

Doug Collins just said "irregardless" 

 

I suspect that we had the same thought. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is going on with Turley?  Has he been hired as Trump’s lawyer?  Something weird going on here.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said:

These goons talking about the constitution is pretty gross.

 

I particularly like the "You cant assume what the founders were thinking. But I can." part. 

 

And it only took them 20ish minutes to get to Hunter Biden. Lets see what this clown says. This will out him for sure as a goon. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Not sure the argument Turley is trying to make when he says you can't impeach based on "hypothetical bribery?"  It wasn't hypothetical.  It was "do this or you don't get that" plain and simple. 


Probably "Trump is innocent, because he got caught before Ukraine paid the bribe". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to admire Jonathan Turley for rising so high in his profession despite being totally blind.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Turley admits that he has come to a different conclusion than his colleagues it would be nice if he explained why instead of just saying, "I don't see it in there"  like how about addressing the actual testimony and explain why you think it falls short.  

 

Also Collins:  "Stop assuming what the founding father's would think, except Turley, you can guess"

 

Edited by NoCalMike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug Collins now dumping on interpreting the intent of the founding fathers. No "conservative" ideal is safe in the bootlicking of Trump.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

You have to admire Jonathan Turley for rising so high in his profession despite being totally blind.

He seems like the kind of guy who "slept" his way to the top. Many law firms like a lawyer who'll take any position and who has no ethical line whatsoever. Who isn't burdened by things like ethics, the Constitution, precedent, law, or societal good.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of course the gopers call a dumbass tv hack like turley seeing they lack the necessary brains/integrity to find better...i've been seeing turley for years and he's a consistent numbnutz for the left and the right if it gets him publicity

 

another great showing for the gop... per both parties being garbage, it's not even close to a "both sides suck equally" issue...the gop have left the lamo lefties in the dust and far far behind  in the "just needs to be destroyed" category

 

in terms of desirability , "republican" is still a step above "sexual offender" but there's not a lot of space left between the two 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

You have to admire Jonathan Turley for rising so high in his profession despite being totally blind.

 

School is out now for winter break, but I kind of want to show up to his first 1L Torts class next semester and see if he gets booed walking in (and also boo him when he walks in). :)

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

another great showing for the gop... per both parties being garbage, it's not even close to a "both sides suck equally" issue...the gop have left the lamo lefties in the dust and far far behind  in the "just needs to be destroyed" category

Good way of putting it.  Like, I think it would be an overall net positive if there was no democratic party… Or republican party… Or any party. Still, there’s a wide gap between “we’d be better off without” versus “clear and present danger to our democracy”.

11 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

in terms of desirability , "republican" is still a step above "sexual offender" but there's not a lot of space left between the two 

Ignoring that there’s already a ton of overlap, what kind of offense are we talking about? I put the GOP above child pornographers but probably a step below necrophiliacs.

Edited by Sacks 'n' Stuff
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Many law firms like a lawyer who'll take any position and who has no ethical line whatsoever. Who isn't burdened by things like ethics, the Constitution, precedent, law, or societal good.

 

 

 

This is not true.  Lawyers have a code of ethics that are very much concerned about the Constitution, precedent, etc.  They are also bound by that code of ethics, sometimes, to make arguments in the best interests of their client, even if they aren't good arguments and even if the lawyer doesn't really believe them him/herself.  I can't watch the hearings live, but it seems like Turley was picked to advance the Republican position to the best of his ability, and that's what he's doing.  

 

Edit:  Not saying Turley's arguments aren't terrible, or even that he shouldn't feel like a schmuck for saying them.  They are and he should.  But what he's doing isn't unethical and. most importantly, good law firms do not want to employ unethical lawyers for many reasons. 

Edited by PleaseBlitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were king I’d implement a forced citizenship transfer policy

 

nunez, Collins, your citizenship has been transferred to these illegals that have been here for 5 years working their ass off to be a part of and appreciate the country and to make it better

 

you have 12 hours to leave before we decide where you go and send you there ourselves. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Burgold said:

He seems like the kind of guy who "slept" his way to the top. Many law firms like a lawyer who'll take any position and who has no ethical line whatsoever. Who isn't burdened by things like ethics, the Constitution, precedent, law, or societal good.

 

 

 

Turley is a professor at GW. He's infamous at GW for falling to a hoax during the Clinton hearings where he wouldn't respond to student's calling for office hour appointments, but students posing as ABC executive producers wanting to book him immediately received repeated follow up calls.

  • Haha 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

This is not true.  Lawyers have a code of ethics that are very much concerned about the Constitution, precedent, etc.  They are also bound by that code of ethics, sometimes, to make arguments in the best interests of their client, even if they aren't good arguments and even if the lawyer doesn't really believe them him/herself.  I can't watch the hearings live, but it seems like Turley was picked to advance the Republican position to the best of his ability, and that's what he's doing.  

 

Edit:  Not saying Turley's arguments aren't terrible, or even that he shouldn't feel like a schmuck for saying them.  They are and he should.  But what he's doing isn't unethical and. most importantly, good law firms do not want to employ unethical lawyers for many reasons. 

Being serious. Most lawyers I know are very ethical and are incredibly serious about never lying.

 

I disagree that Turley isn't being unethical. I think he's intentionally crafting an argument that he knows can't stand up in the light of day. He's intentionally building what he considers to be not only a flawed argument but a fraudulent one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

most importantly, good law firms do not want to employ unethical lawyers for many reasons. 

 

I would like to know these reasons one day just cause I always heard the opposite and never got the other side of it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear the GOP call witnesses whose sole purpose is to just offer up soundbites for Fox news to cut & chop up to aid their prime time pundits in their nonsense defense.

 

Nothing Turley said had much substance to it, he talked out of both sides of his mouth saying how it was unreasonable to assume what founding fathers would think, then the very next sentence he starts doing exactly like that.  Dude was tap dancing around the actual evidence and pushing philosophy which from what I have read seems to constantly change depending on the situation and how it can get him some air time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

I would like to know these reasons one day just cause I always heard the opposite and never got the other side of it.  

 

The other side of this is why Donald Trump has third rate lawyers like Michael Cohen working for him. A good lawyer will stay away from the kind of client who would want them to engage in unethical conduct that endangers their own livelihood. Law firms have no incentive in bringing on people who can be disbarred or indicted if put under the microscope.

Edited by No Excuses
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.