It's not a transcript.
Re: It's not a transcript.
Whatever you say, Igor.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."
-- Author unknown
-- Author unknown
Re: It's not a transcript.
I m a russianB0T, and that s 0K......
Re: It's not a transcript.
You might as well be...
Re: It's not a transcript.
d0 y0u think that it is g0ing well f0r y0u, and the Dems, Jim?
Re: It's not a transcript.
Have we lost apostrophes now as well?
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."
-- Author unknown
-- Author unknown
Re: It's not a transcript.
wes--If it's that silly, why are you watching?p
Personally, I think all the witnesses presented some pretty teresting information. Gohmert's silly attempt to obscuring the issues by bringing up witnesses having nothing to do with the issues at hand. I can think of tons more useless witnesses who were not heard from--and I can also think of number of highly relevant witnesses who weren't heard from because Trump blocked their testimony.
The sad thing is that when it goes to the Senate, Trump won't testify-- he's too much of a coward and cannot defy his handlers who won't let him. It's certainly his right, but he'd rather "testify" at his rallies and to the press, where he is not subject to any silly requirement to tell the truth. I'd pay to watch that, but it will never happen.
Personally, I think all the witnesses presented some pretty teresting information. Gohmert's silly attempt to obscuring the issues by bringing up witnesses having nothing to do with the issues at hand. I can think of tons more useless witnesses who were not heard from--and I can also think of number of highly relevant witnesses who weren't heard from because Trump blocked their testimony.
The sad thing is that when it goes to the Senate, Trump won't testify-- he's too much of a coward and cannot defy his handlers who won't let him. It's certainly his right, but he'd rather "testify" at his rallies and to the press, where he is not subject to any silly requirement to tell the truth. I'd pay to watch that, but it will never happen.
Re: It's not a transcript.
all us 0ld pe0ple are watching. it is 0ur duty t0 be inf0rmed citizens and v0ters.
still, it is just silly.
still, it is just silly.
Re: It's not a transcript.
If Professor Turley’s grasp of the Constitution is evidence of the value of a GW law degree, their alumni should be requesting refunds.
He must’ve just wanted his 15 minutes of fame? I really don’t get it.
He must’ve just wanted his 15 minutes of fame? I really don’t get it.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
~ Carl Sagan
Re: It's not a transcript.
While I vigorously disagree with Turley, he is essentially making the argument that Trump's defenders should have been making all along: "Yes, what Trump did was wrong, it was improper, but it doesn't rise to the level of an Impeachable offense"....
Of course they have been prevented from making this argument by Il Boobce himself who insists that his boot licking sycophants echo his preposterous claims about how "perfect" his conduct has been...
Turley's argument is the one argument defending Trump in this that can be made without being either a complete ignoramus, a total moron, or a shameless liar...
Things like, "His behavior was perfect", "He did absolutely nothing wrong", "He was only concerned about corruption and American tax payers", "The DNC servers were really hacked by the Ukrainians", "The real scandals are Hunter Biden and/or the whistle blower" are "arguments" that can only be made if one is completely ignorant of the facts, too stupid to understand the facts, or too dishonest to care about the facts...
Or some combination thereof...
Of course it's impossible to know which category wes falls under, since he refuses to offer any kind of defense for Trump whatsoever...(or anything else of substance on this topic for that matter...)
All he offers are deflections and diversions...(and of course non sequiturs)
Hey wes, I hear there's a Town Councilman in Bugtussle TN who's been stealing change out of the town hall vending machine...
You might want to start a thread about it...
Of course they have been prevented from making this argument by Il Boobce himself who insists that his boot licking sycophants echo his preposterous claims about how "perfect" his conduct has been...
Turley's argument is the one argument defending Trump in this that can be made without being either a complete ignoramus, a total moron, or a shameless liar...
Things like, "His behavior was perfect", "He did absolutely nothing wrong", "He was only concerned about corruption and American tax payers", "The DNC servers were really hacked by the Ukrainians", "The real scandals are Hunter Biden and/or the whistle blower" are "arguments" that can only be made if one is completely ignorant of the facts, too stupid to understand the facts, or too dishonest to care about the facts...
Or some combination thereof...
Of course it's impossible to know which category wes falls under, since he refuses to offer any kind of defense for Trump whatsoever...(or anything else of substance on this topic for that matter...)
All he offers are deflections and diversions...(and of course non sequiturs)
Hey wes, I hear there's a Town Councilman in Bugtussle TN who's been stealing change out of the town hall vending machine...
You might want to start a thread about it...
Re: It's not a transcript.
It was heartening to see that Republicans were able to stay focused on the important issues:
If you watch a video of his rant about his chair, and the way he was staring off into space during most of the hearing, it's a ready made opposition campaign ad. "Oh woe is me, it's so uncomfortable sitting in this chair while I am being paid $174,000 per year to conspire to subvert the Constitution."Doug Collins complains about uncomfortable chair, cold during impeachment hearing
One Republican Wednesday added two new complaints about the impeachment inquiry: room temperature and chairs.
As the House Judiciary Committee resumed its impeachment hearing, the panel’s ranking Republican made a point to note the room’s chilly temperatures and uncomfortable chairs.
“This chair is terrible,” said Doug Collins of Georgia.
The complaint has become a frequent go-to for Mr. Collins during the hearing. He also griped about his chair in his opening remarks.
“We may have a new hearing room, we may have new pics and we may have chairs that aren’t comfortable, but this is nothing new folks,” he said while alleging Democrats are advancing impeachment without new evidence.
The hearing is being held in the House Ways & Means Committee room in the Longworth Office Building instead of the Judiciary Committee’s usual meeting space in the Rayburn Office Building.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."
-- Author unknown
-- Author unknown
Re: It's not a transcript.
Jim--I think Turley's stronger argument (I don't buy his position on what constitutes an impeachable offense, and side with Ford on that (it's whatever Congress decides it is)) is that it is premature and that more fact testimony is needed. This is clearly true, as most relevant witnesses with actual knowledge have been blocked from testifying by the WH. I don't think his argument of having to go to the courts to resolve this was all that compelling, but I do think his argument that a case based on hearsay and inferences is premature is not a complete one and that additional time should be taken to develop it is a viable argment.
That being said, I do understand the dems position of wanting to proceed. If we accept the analogy of impeachment in the House being akin to a Grand Jury Indictment, an indictment can be based on hearsay etc., but it is not a good idea to move forward unless you have a reasonable chance of winning; however, this is where the analogy breaks down. Impeachment is a political act, not a prosecution of a statutory crime, and political considerations come into play. Here, it is unlikely the House could ever assemble a case where the Senate would vote for removal, so the second best thing would be to get as much information out in front of the American people so they can, if they are so disposed, do what the Senate would not. A trial in the Senate is the best chance for that, as it would expose Trump's defenses for the BS that they are. That's the politcal nature of an impeachment.
Indeed, I found one exchange quite telling on how impeachment is a political process; a questioner (I forget who) asked if Lincoln's arrest of Maryland legislators (and the attendant suspension of habeas corpus, presumably) was an impeachable offense. The answer should be, "Hell yes." That he wasn't impeached was because Congress (the branch closest to the people) was with him on that issue, so he was given a pass, even though he clearly violated the Constitution. That is the evidence of the political nature of impeachment, it can, and does, swing both ways.
That being said, I do understand the dems position of wanting to proceed. If we accept the analogy of impeachment in the House being akin to a Grand Jury Indictment, an indictment can be based on hearsay etc., but it is not a good idea to move forward unless you have a reasonable chance of winning; however, this is where the analogy breaks down. Impeachment is a political act, not a prosecution of a statutory crime, and political considerations come into play. Here, it is unlikely the House could ever assemble a case where the Senate would vote for removal, so the second best thing would be to get as much information out in front of the American people so they can, if they are so disposed, do what the Senate would not. A trial in the Senate is the best chance for that, as it would expose Trump's defenses for the BS that they are. That's the politcal nature of an impeachment.
Indeed, I found one exchange quite telling on how impeachment is a political process; a questioner (I forget who) asked if Lincoln's arrest of Maryland legislators (and the attendant suspension of habeas corpus, presumably) was an impeachable offense. The answer should be, "Hell yes." That he wasn't impeached was because Congress (the branch closest to the people) was with him on that issue, so he was given a pass, even though he clearly violated the Constitution. That is the evidence of the political nature of impeachment, it can, and does, swing both ways.
- MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 20706
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: It's not a transcript.
Didn't Lincoln say something akin to: "Am I to allow the entire Constitution to be destroyed in order to uphold one small part of it"???
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: It's not a transcript.
It sounds like him. But then I'd bet similar statements were used by despots throughout history to justify their actions as being in the interest of the people.
Re: It's not a transcript.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."
-- Author unknown
-- Author unknown
Re: It's not a transcript.
403 ERROR
The request could not be satisfied.
Request blocked. We can't connect to the server for this app or website at this time. There might be too much traffic or a configuration error. Try again later, or contact the app or website owner.
If you provide content to customers through CloudFront, you can find steps to troubleshoot and help prevent this error by reviewing the CloudFront documentation.
Generated by cloudfront (CloudFront)
Request ID: KOukmE89S0sIjjEQDkICiWRbh33jkMVcgKK7rrM5uo7wegyk_1wM8w==
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."
-- Author unknown
-- Author unknown
Re: It's not a transcript.
It got that message earlier but now I get an image...
- Econoline
- Posts: 9555
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
- Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans
Re: It's not a transcript.
I still can't see the image in Joe's post...FWIW this seems to be what wes was trying to post:
ETA: OK, now it's there.
In light of the facts presented under oath by sworn witnesses, the cartoon makes no sense whatsoever.
ETA: OK, now it's there.
In light of the facts presented under oath by sworn witnesses, the cartoon makes no sense whatsoever.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God @The Tweet of God
— God @The Tweet of God
Re: It's not a transcript.
And Trump has never been that thin. The picture must be photoshopped.
It's not a transcript.
I doubt if the Trumpster can even flip on a light switch without some help.Joe Guy wrote:And Trump has never been that thin. The picture must be photoshopped.
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.”