WATCH LIVE: Public Impeachment Hearings (House Judiciary)

Democrats trying to impeach and convict knowing before hand that the answer will be no is insane and a waste of political effort imo.

This situation would be like a girl telling a guy "i will never under any circumstances date you" and the guy driving 30 miles to a florist and giving flowers to the girl anyway...

 

Nope.

Zelensky was talking about missiles that they are/were planning to buy with their own money.

 

Which is exactly what I just said.

What branch does DoD fall under? Oh yeah. Executive branch.

Congress can send Ukraine money.

Congress can't make the POTUS sell them weapons.

That's why Obama was able to stop the arms sales to help Putin when Ukraine was invaded.

 

You mean authorize the sale of U.S. weapons. But, Ukraine didn't have the money without the aid money and Congress may specify how their appropriated aid may be spent. DoD had already cleared the weapon purchases. In fact, it was a DoD employee who raised the issue of whether or not the aid could be legally withheld.

 

No...if the case presented in the House impeachment process and in the Senate trial is strong enough, then Senate Republicans will vote at their own risk for the principle that the President is above the law.

 

It's gonna be a Republican lead Senate trial so the above is just a pipe dream. We can say whatever kinda justification for why Republicans vote no but at the end of the day the answer is simply Politics is about power and voting yes gives up power. Its not a republican or a Democrat thing (see Democrats stance on Impeachment when the shoe was on the other foot) its the game they're all playing. So why do all this work knowing you'll almost assuredly get no tangible results? Seems illogical to me


Her: i will never go out with you

Him: hey she didn't cuss at me so there's a chance

 

All of the "witnesses" (three Democratic witnesses, one Republican witness) agreed that given today's impeachment standard used by the Dems, that at least six presidents should have been impeached (Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, and Obama). They said each case would have been a slam dunk.

The Democratic response will probably be: so what? Even if we're using a different standard on Trump, he's the president now. To hell with applying equal justice.

 

It’s your claim. It’s up to you to prove your claim.

 

They were 100% a waste of time. If they have no evidence, then they don't belong there. We can find dozens of Law Professors that will dispute them. This is just pure opinion and has no place in an Impeachment Hearing.

 

The "witnesses" today had no evidence to present. They just opined.

 

Correct. A witness should have actually witnesses something, anything relevant. All of them, by their own admission had no personal knowledge of any material facts. All they have is what others told them.

Democratic Party Massive Fail... it was hilarious.

 

The proceeding today was a lot like masturbation. No evidence needed to satisfy the dem clown show.

 

It wasn't withheld, they got it.

 

It was like reading the New Republic but less interesting. To think that dingbat that attacked Barron was on the list of Dem. SCOTUS nominees. She's nothing but a liberal Dem. political activist.

 

The 'Republican' witness voted for Hillary.

 

The FBI finally recovered them off the data files. Who knows maybe the Russians helped.

The fact remains the leftist try to conflate those with the DNC emails which the intelligence services say it was Russians but others experts say they can't really say and none of the people Mueller indicted will never see a day in court.

 

If they want to ignore him OK ask the others questions but when you start going down the line asking a single question and the STOP at Turley, that's just shows you this is not about an open discussion by both sides or they are even interested in a differing view.

 

Testimony from legal experts espousing on the standard for impeachable conduct and whether the alleged behavior reaches that standard happens at every impeachment.

 

So does testimony by prosecutors like Ken Star. Schiff for brains refuses to testify.

 

You will hear from the House Intelligence Committee Staff next week.

But keep holding out hope that you will be able to use impeachment to pin something against trump's domestic political opponent.

 

But not Schiff for brains. What is he afraid of? Starr didn’t send his staff.

 

Now we hear Prof. Karlan said when she walks past a Trump hotel she crosses to the other side of the street, she hates him so much. What a joke this farce was today, a bunch of Dem. political activists pretending to be unbiased.

 

Not like this. They don't cherry pick 3 hardcore Leftists Law Professors and then have them provide their whacked opinions on elements that have not been established as fact. You having Legal in your name makes your post even worse.

 

Schiff is not a special prosecutor.

He is a congressman with zero first hand knowledge of trump's behavior. Can you say the same of Mulvaney or Pompeo?

 

The amount of legal experts differs, but I can promise you that each side presented scholars that the other side declared to be hardcore partisans who opined about opinions which were not factually established.

In short: Yes, exactly like this.