NoCalMike Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 Just now, Llevron said: I wonder how much the paid this dude Do Dems get to question him too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 1 minute ago, Llevron said: Doug Collins just said "irregardless" I laughed thru my Gatorade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 1 minute ago, Llevron said: Doug Collins just said "irregardless" I suspect that we had the same thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 What is going on with Turley? Has he been hired as Trump’s lawyer? Something weird going on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 These goons talking about the constitution is pretty gross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 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". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 You have to admire Jonathan Turley for rising so high in his profession despite being totally blind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 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" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted December 4, 2019 Author Share Posted December 4, 2019 Doug Collins now dumping on interpreting the intent of the founding fathers. No "conservative" ideal is safe in the bootlicking of Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 Law professors are super funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 Turley's argument for coming to a different conclusion then all the other law professors is, "because I said so" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 I’m glad legal scholars are willing to answer the call shame our politicians aren’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted December 4, 2019 Author Share Posted December 4, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted December 4, 2019 Author Share Posted December 4, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.