No Excuses

The Impeachment Thread

Impeachment  

193 members have voted

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



Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, No Excuses said:

 

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 firm has no incentive in bringing on people who can be disbarred or indicted if put under the microscope.

 

Ah. Well that makes a lot of damn sense. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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.

Not to mention, doing so to the ends of helping a group of people actively undermine our democracy

 

unless he was court appointed, he’s not obligated to do that. He’s choosing to. 

9 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

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. 


he was there to provide sound bites that can be cut up to remove context, so that they can backup nonsense headlines and cable news segments and tweets

 

its a microcosm of everything that is fundamentally wrong with our society. 
 

and in a just society with protecting democracy and protecting the country as priority #1, this would not be allowed. 
 

but here we are 

 

we have the government we deserve. This was decades in the making. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

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.


Back when Trump first had a tough time finding a lawyer in DC, (let that sink in for a moment), somebody posted an article quoting an anonymous lawyer saying "He doesn't pay and he won't listen."

 

That might be a factor, too. 
 

- - - - 

 

But, still. Admiring the fact that we're actually having congressional debate on whether it's illegal for a government employee to divert government funds, and then offer to release them, in exchange for a campaign contribution, from someone who cannot legally make a campaign contribution. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am about to the point of resigning to the fact that the combo of Fox News/Right-Wing Radio/Modern day GOP is a bullet proof vest against anything they choose. They know their disinformation machine is enough to give them the political will to just do whatever they want.  They will always  being able to retain roughly 40% of the country due to so many getting their news from those sources and only those sources. 

 

It really doesn't matter anymore what the Mueller report actually says, what the actual testimony provided over the last month.  All that matters is what Fox News's filter tells the people it said. Barr's summary is the  Mueller report to them.  Gym  Jordan and Devin Nune's nonsense is somehow the actual testimony  That is their truth.

 

I am listening to CSPAN callers reacting to today's hearings, and every single called on the Republican line is just repeating the same 3-4 things you can hear daily on Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson.  And this isn't to say every caller on the democrat and independent lines are scholars either, but the Republican phone line is more sad than anything else. 

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

Admiring the fact that we're actually having congressional debate on whether it's illegal for a government employee to divert government funds, and then offer to release them, in exchange for a campaign contribution, from someone who cannot legally make a campaign contribution. 

I'd like to tweet out your statement. May I? I don't have to attribute, but if you want me to I happily will.

Edited by Burgold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noting that in Devin Nunes' crybaby suit against CNN, he calls CNN source Lev Parnas "an indicted criminal... a fraudster and a hustler."

 

Is this the same guy that Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump's personal attorney, partnered with on the President's personal mission?  That guy?  What the hell is the President's personal attorney doing consorting with an fraudster and a hustler?  And why are you calling him eight times on your phone, Devin? 

 

Birds of a feather?

Edited by Dan T.
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

It really doesn't matter anymore what the Mueller report actually says, what the actual testimony provided over the last month.  All that matters is what Fox News's filter tells the people it said. Barr's summary is the  Mueller report to them.  Gym  Jordan and Devin Nune's nonsense is somehow the actual testimony  That is their truth.


yeah man, been that way for a while

 

and honestly it’s not that unique. Majority of people (at least it’s my understanding) get their news from sources they trust. And they don’t fact check it. And they don’t go to the source the “other side” trusts. They accept what their trusted news source tells them, because it’s their trusted news source...

 

i realize that generally speaking the well-informed-politically demographic here on ES skews heavily liberal, but I think you guys have created your own echo chamber on this topic and have come to believe that many people on your side are as (Generally) educated as you guys, put genuine effort into being informed on politics, etc. 

 

in my experience you guys are the exception. The norm is uninformed. And even if the people on the left happen to be on the right side of things, in my experience it’s not really because (as a whole) they’re more informed. My experience is they’re just as basic about it all as their republican counterparts. The chips just fell that way this time. 

Share this post


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

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.

 

I hear you.  I can't see the hearing live, I'm only getting the highlights from Twitter and WaPo, so you may be right.  The legal code of ethics demands that a lawyer be "a zealous advocate" but also that one not make bad faith or frivolous arguments.  It's a very fine line and reasonable people can disagree on how to categorize things.  

 

31 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.  

 

Most people hear lawyer and they think Better Call Saul, i.e., a TV character who is interesting because he is shady AF.  Most lawyers aren't fixers.  They are professionals who know that their livelihoods (beyond their current client) depend on their ability to be taken seriously, and once they lose that they lose their livelihood.  If you are pegged as someone who makes bad faith arguments or straight up lies, then you lose your legitimacy, and you can't get it back.  If you work at a bigger firm (who handle most of the important ****), then you damage your whole firm's credibility, and your partners are not going to stand for that because you are ****ing with their money at that point.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the time Trump asked for his "favor," Giuiliani and Sondland had already laid the groundwork to make clear that the defense money and the Oval Office meeting were contingent on that favor.

Edited by Dan T.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really just want some member of Congress, during these hearings, to say "It's no surprise that the Congressman that didn't care about his wrestling getting sexually assaulted doesn't care about the safety of the whistle blower. "

 

I have to mute it when he speaks now. I'd actually rather listen to Trump for 30 seconds than Gym Jordan for 30 seconds. 

I do want the Dems to ask Turley questions. Let him expose himself. I'm tired of Dems making any statements. Just ask ****ing questions. Let the witnesses speak as much as possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Buck is a ****ing moron. His attempt to say making a recess appointment by Obama is an abuse of power made himself look dumb to even his witness. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Hersh said:

I really just want some member of Congress, during these hearings, to say "It's no surprise that the Congressman that didn't care about his wrestling getting sexually assaulted doesn't care about the safety of the whistle blower. "

 

I have to mute it when he speaks now. I'd actually rather listen to Trump for 30 seconds than Gym Jordan for 30 seconds. 

I do want the Dems to ask Turley questions. Let him expose himself. I'm tired of Dems making any statements. Just ask ****ing questions. Let the witnesses speak as much as possible. 

Yeah, I hate when hearings become moments of endless speechifying. That's one thing that I thought was done very well in the Intelligence Committee hearing. The Dems actually asked questions of the experts.

 

I guess these aren't actually witnesses though. They're just constitutional scholars.

Republicans still don't know that quid pro quo and bribery  in this case amount to the same damn thing!

 

Ugh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stipulating that no one should actually be punched, Jonathan Turley's face is so, so punchable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bcl05 said:

Stipulating that no one should actually be punched

objection

Edited by tshile
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Republicans on this committee know they are full of it, but that is the entire strategy, just throw so much out there, create doubt, repeat the same lie over and over.  That is the one thing they get credit for, messaging.  It is on point. It's nonsense, but they don't care.  In this case all they are trying to do is create doubt. 

 

When a guy like Gym Jordan goes into his "Wait, you mean to tell me this person told that person, then they whispered to this guy, then he said something to her, we are supposed to take that as anything othere than hearsay?"  It means one of two things, either he is a total buffoon, or he is just rambling a mile a minute to cloudy things up that are actually pretty clear.  I am not ruling out that he is indeed a buffoon, but I also think the other part is true as well. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tshile said:

objection

 

I rescind my original statement for Matt Gaetz.  

Edited by bcl05
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bcl05 said:

Stipulating that no one should actually be punched

 

 

this strips me of one of my most effective interventions----one long proven to be extremely efficacious for behavioral modification in non-clinical settings

 

science-denier

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, bcl05 said:

no one should actually be punched

Motion to table.

 

 

edit: tshile copied my joke right before I said it. Real mature, t.

Edited by Sacks 'n' Stuff
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woah Matt gates. I would love to have a fair pissing contest with him. He couldn’t pull up half the dirt on me I could pull in him. Talking about an ivory tower while escaping his 4th dui or some ****. They would have to hold me in contempt. 

Just now, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Motion to table.

 

Aye 

  • Haha 1

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.