Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

I was promised a recession.

Second rate reporter says what?

“Squeaker” McCarthy

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

A last alliance of elves and men. also pet photos.

“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

Let there be snark.

The GOP is a fucking disgrace.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

This has so much WTF written all over it that it is hard to comprehend.

Thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.

Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity

The poor and middle-class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the wealthy pay politicians.

Is it negotiation when the other party actually wants to shoot the hostage?

They fucked up the fucking up of the fuckup!

Come on, man.

I really should read my own blog.

An almost top 10,000 blog!

If senate republicans had any shame, they’d die of it.

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

You are here: Home / Politics / Impeachment Inquiry / Impeachment Hearings / Judiciary Impeachment Hearings

Reader Interactions

177Comments

  3. 3.

    pat

    Doug Collins has the most annoying voice.  Yelling about everything but what is included in the intel comm report.

  6. 6.

    Spanky

    My god, Collins is babbling on in that live feed. I need to get something useful done, but I’m briefly (I hope) sidelined by sudden vertigo. “Sudden” is probably the only kind, I guess.

     

    Anyway, not gonna watch. Don’t need unnecessary nausea.

  7. 7.

    dmsilev

    I see from the preview image for the live feed that the GOP is continuing with their Poster Slogan strategy. I guess the idea is that Trump can’t read anything longer than what would fit into a single Tweet?

  8. 8.

    H.E.Wolf

    @pat: Doug Collins has the most annoying voice.

     

    Bless his heart, he sounds like a fourth-rate auctioneer.

     

    (It fascinates me that so many Republican leaders have voices like little chipmunks.)

     

    Barbara Jordan’s speech is the perfect antidote. As Molly Ivins used to say, Barbara Jordan sounds like God Herself. :-)

  13. 13.

    Josie

    I would really like to hear the Democrats make the case for impeachment, but I cannot bring myself to listen to the inane babblings of Trump’s defense team.  Two minutes of Collins was all I could take.  I am turning it off and checking here periodically for updates.

    Besides that, I am still pissed about Harris.  It will take me a while to get over that.

  18. 18.

    bemused

    Yelling is akin to pounding the table which is all they have when their arguments have no merit and only look to muddy and obstruct. Just plain old bullying.

  21. 21.

    Kay

    I listen to the hearings because I actually learn a lot, but as far as I’m concerned the perp confessed and if that’s not enough there’s a truckload of evidence. They got him. Republicans will deny it but they all know it’s true.

    For me the better question is what other parts of foreign policy/trade policy have been corrupted by the low quality Trump hires. It would be amazing if it was just Ukraine. “Amazing” as in “not at all credible that it was limited to Ukraine”

    It’s like the lying they all do- they lie about big things and little things. They’re of poor character. That’s usually consistent.

  23. 23.

    Kay

    I hope Nadler is up to this. IMO, the people who have been least effective re: Donald Trump know him best. He does something horrible to people. I feel like one needs actual geographical distance from his poisonous field :)

  24. 24.

    pat

    I think I understand why the hearings took place in Schiff’s committee.  These clowns are impossible.

  26. 26.

    MattF

    @Kay: Nadler is not the best possible public face for this step in the process. I suspect that he hasn’t got a lot of leeway in how to proceed, and that’s a good thing.

  27. 27.

    germy

    I’m glad they put a time limit on opening statements.  I thought Turley was going to read all 54 pages of his into the record.

  30. 30.

    Doug

    @Kay: “For me the better question is what other parts of foreign policy/trade policy have been corrupted by the low quality Trump hires.”

     

    All of them, at least that’s how I am betting.

  31. 31.

    gene108

    @Kay:

     

    There’s the mysterious “catch” and “release” of $105 million of aid to Lebanon.

     

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lebanon-defense/trump-administration-lifts-hold-on-lebanon-security-aid-source-idUSKBN1Y629N

     

    Probably other countries.

     

    I wonder how much of the problem with getting any trade deals done, is how much of those trade deals involve funneling money directly to Trump

     

    Edit: And other countries being too honest (Mexico, Canada) to go along with it.

  32. 32.

    pat

    Prof. Karlan brings it.  Addresses Collins directly.  “I read every transcript..”

     

    I don’t know how anyone can ignore and disrespect these experts.

    Turley should be…interesting.

  33. 33.

    Spanky

    @germy: “I’m not going to take any shit.”

    Sadly, there’s a lot of shit baked into the process. He’ll need to stay on his toes to differentiate the raw shit from the baked shit.

  34. 34.

    germy

    @pat:  He doesn’t seem to take the proceedings seriously.  In his opening remarks, he mentions his dog being upset.  I’m not kidding.

  37. 37.

    FlipYrWhig

    IIRC from the halcyon days of The Daily Howler, Somerby once cracked that Turley had never met a president he didn’t want to see impeached.  I guess that finally changed?

  38. 38.

    Roger Moore

    @gene108:

    I wonder how much of the problem with getting any trade deals done, is how much of those trade deals involve funneling money directly to Trump

    There’s probably some of that. I’m sure there’s also the domestic corruption angle; Trump has been using the promise of tariff waivers to get favors, if not outright bribes, from American companies. He can only do that as long as the tariffs are in place, which gives him a strong motivation not to wrap up any deals.  There’s also the suspicion he and his cronies are using statements about trade negotiations to manipulate the stock market for personal gain, which again requires a dispute to negotiate over.  And there’s also the worry that he’s deliberately screwing up our relationship with traditional allies and trade partners to please Putin.  There are enough opportunities for corruption that it’s difficult to track them all.

  39. 39.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @FlipYrWhig: I’ve been googling trying to find the prank one of Turley’s GW students played on him, getting him to give a staged interview on some ridiculous topic or something like that. Jonathan Turley pranked by student isn’t turning anything up.

  41. 41.

    gene108

    IANAL question: Why is the Judiciary Committee getting law professors to testify, instead of actual witnesses?

     

    I thought the big drama during Watergate unfolded during televised hearings of the Judiciary committee questioning witnesses.

  43. 43.

    lee

    Apparently Trump got butthurt over the other world leaders mocking him and canceled a press conference and left the NATO summit early.

  44. 44.

    Joe Falco

    Collins is the knucklehead that so desperately wants to replace retiring Sen. Isakson that Republicans from outside Georgia have sought to influence Governor Kemp on Collins’ behalf. That Kemp decided on a pick that’s more to his strategic thinking rather than the loudest moran working to paint over Trump’s crimes has been a big blow to Collins’ sense of entitlement. Collins knows it’s no fun being in the minority in the House, and he obviously believes he’s owed one for all his work as a dutiful Trump lickspittle. He’s made noises he’ll run for Isakson’s seat anyway in a special election next November if he doesn’t get picked, and I hope he does. Being that the special election will have no primaries beforehand, I hope multiple Republican candidates will split their base’s vote and allow for a single Democrat to win outright without going to a run-off (Georgia Democrats do not fare well in run-offs and haven’t for years).

     

    Doug Collins 2020: Because It’s MY Turn

  46. 46.

    guachi

    Shorter Turley: You can’t impeach someone if you’re angry about the conduct.

     

    That’s like saying you can’t convict someone if you’re angry about someone being murdered. It’s a dumb argument.

  49. 49.

    Baud

    @Kay:

     

    Agreed.  Also too prone to “unconventional” voices.

    Sometimes the Establishment rejects someone for legitimate reason.

  50. 50.

    Mrs. D. Ranged in AZ

    @guachi: Agreed, his argument has literally no substance.  He basically said there’s not enough proof, the process isn’t correct and you’re too angry.  So he’s wrong on the first two points and correct on the third, but the third is immaterial.

  52. 52.

    HalfAssedHomesteader

    Well, I have to confess that the tedium of the Republicans’ motions has finally won me over. (◔_◔)

  53. 53.

    Kay

    @Baud:

    Dem witnesses:
    Noah Feldman (Harvard) 6 pages
    Pamela Karlan (Stanford) 6 pages
    Michael Gerhardt (UNC) 10 pages
    The GOP witness:
    Jonathan Turley (GW) 53 pages

    Insufferable. For myself, as a regular lawyer, if I can’t get it done in 10 pages I have nothing and am just saying shit and hoping it works :)

    My husband says NINE, but he’s a better writer.

    Greenwald writes long too. LOTTA “clearly” in there. CLEARLY. The weasel word of weasels everywhere.

  55. 55.

    Yarrow

    Who is the Turley guy? He looks like one of those Republicans who has the patented “more in sorrow than in anger” demeanor. “So sorry I can’t support impeachment because [blathering reasons that come down to “I’m being paid not to”].

  57. 57.

    Kay

    @Baud:

     

    This is mean and ungenerous but I swear it’s “coolness”. Tulsi is SO INTERESTING.

     

    Chris Hayes. I cringe for him. Please. They’re all sort of brainy government nerds. Stop trying to be cool.

  58. 58.

    schrodingers_cat

    My schadenfreude continues, there is infighting at the state level BJP in Maharashtra, some state level leaders in Maharashtra have complained how BJP sidelines working caste people in favor of Brahmins.

    And the new CM is also going to drop spurious charges against the Bhima-Koregoan accused and husband kitteh is getting  concern trolled from Chennai by Bhakt relatives about the goings on in Maharashtra. I am debating whether to join that family group and give them a piece of my mind.

  63. 63.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Kay: Agreed.  Also too prone to “unconventional” voices.

    This is mean and ungenerous but I swear it’s “coolness”. Tulsi is SO INTERESTING.

    I was thinking of “unconventional voices” in a completely different way: The shouty, angry, (mostly) white (usually) guy who incarnates and validates anger, who “gets it” but doesn’t get much done. Alan Grayson, Anthony Weiner, Cenk Uygur, Michael Moore. there may be…. other examples.

     

    I don’t listen to Chapo Trap House, but I gather they’re cut from that cloth?

  66. 66.

    Betty Cracker

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Speaking of Uygur, I was never a big fan — he’s a smug prick, which I don’t find appealing, even if I agree with some of what the smug prick is saying. But I had no idea what a sexist ass Uygur is until he threw his hat in the ring to run for Katie Hill’s seat. A daily barrage of old content from his blogs, etc., shows up in my Twitter feed. Just appalling. Sometimes I think “cancel culture” goes too far in digging up old dirt on people. Times and people change and all that. But if Uygur gets canceled, good riddance.

  67. 67.

    Yarrow

    @Yarrow:  I just checked his Twitter feed and his bio says he’s on ESPN. Also, all his recent tweets are about dogs facing their last days at a kill shelter. He’s urging people to adopt.

  70. 70.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Yarrow: Ten or so years ago Turley used to be one of the “liberal but always thinks the Democrats are Doin It Rong” made-men in the media.  He was sort of a less caustic, more academic Greenwald type on executive power issues.  When he guested on Olbermann during the Obama years I had a running joke with my wife about how soon he’d say “I’m concerned, Keith.”  I don’t know what he’s been doing since then.  Seems like nothing good.

  71. 71.

    MisterForkbeard

    @Kay: Evidently Turley even spends time whining about how he’s just mad and his dog is mad and the whole thing is just not okay and the House really needs to go back and re-do their inquiry.

    And neatly avoids the problem that the hearings were expedited and quick partially because Republicans refused to participate at any level. There would have easily been another 10 witnesses if they hadn’t come up with this novel idea of “we don’t even have to show up”.

  72. 72.

    Yarrow

    I really like Pamela Karlan. She’s so passionate about this issue and she talks like a real person when she explains things.

  73. 73.

    patrick II

    Turley: This is not a valid impeachment because it is happening too fast, and too much passion, even Turley’s dog is mad. Perhaps, though, the case for impeachment is so clear it doesn’t take a year to run down every nuance. Lengthening impeachment hearings to give every witness an opportunity to speaks just gives this president the opportunity for obstruction of justice as he has been doing for three years. Mulvaney isn’t going to testify, Pompeo isn’t going to testify, Nunes isn’t going to testify, we will never have a “complete” investigation. However, we already have a clear and damning one.

  75. 75.

    MisterForkbeard

    @Yarrow: Wasn’t Karlan a potential SC Justice during Obama’s term? I seem to remember her being one of the leading candidates. I can see why.

  76. 76.

    Kay

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    I often just don’t find them persuasive. Here’s an example. One of the sort of talking points is you can’t object to the Russian government interfering in elections because the US government has done that. But I’m not actually the US government. I have no beef with ordinary Russians. I am not actually the United States of America in its national capacity sitting at my desk here in Ohio. I’ll go even further- I think ordinary Russians can be mad if the US government interferes in their elections even if their government interfere in ours. 

    It’s this weird conflating of a country and its citizens, but it only works one way. Because if you think this- if you think The United States is a wholly state entity then don’t you have to blame Russians, individually, for the Russian government’s actions? I don’t. Does Greenwald?

  78. 78.

    Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)

    @schrodingers_cat:

    You absolutely should.

    Saw some headline from India Today:

    More trouble in store for Maharashtra? Sharad Pawar says bad behaviour by Congress drove Ajit towards BJP

    There might be more trouble in store for Maharashtra. NCP chief Sharad Pawar, who is being hailed as modern Chanakaya after allegedly orchestrating the unlikely union of Shiv Sena, NCP and Congress to make government in the state, has hinted that Congress has not been the easiest ally.

    In an exclusive interview to India Today TV, Sharad Pawar also expressed dissatisfaction with the power-sharing deal, which was struck after weeks of meetings and negotiations before the Uddhav Thackeray government took the oath.

    “NCP has two seats less than Shiv Sena and 10 seats more than Congress. Sena got the CM post and Congress got Speaker, what has my party got? Deputy CM has no authority,” Sharad Pawar said.

    Expressing solidarity with his nephew Ajit Pawar, who recently staged a short-lived rebellion against his uncle and joined hands with BJP before coming back into the fold, Sharad Pawar said Congress leaders’ bad behaviour in an NCP-Congress meeting drove Ajit to the BJP camp.

    “Ajit Pawar it seems decided to go with the BJP due to his assessment that alliance [Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress] will not work. At one NCP-Congress meeting, there were sharp exchanges between leaders. NCP leaders had to ask me to leave. Ajit Pawar decided to go with the BJP as he thought the alliance will Congress may not work,” Pawar told India Today TV.

    Do you have any opinions on this? Sounds like there’s some BS infighting in the alliance government as well

  79. 79.

    Princess

    @Yarrow: I’m a Pamela Karlan fan too. I love how she gets so excited by legal precedent. I realize that not everyone will love this as much as I do.

  80. 80.

    Kay

    @MisterForkbeard:

     

    Turley doesn’t have any facts so he’s arguing process. It’s fair game in legalworld but he’d rather argue facts, because anyone would.

    It’s no more complicated than that. They can’t defend the President on the merits, so they’re going to take it to 30,000 feet. You don’t have to be esteemed lawyer to do that- we all do it. Every day. Well, hopefully not every day. You wouldn’t want Turley’s shitty case every day :)

    He doesn’t have it! If he did he would argue it!

  82. 82.

    catclub

    @Kay: Here’s an example. One of the sort of talking points is you can’t object to the Russian government interfering in elections because the US government has done that. But I’m not actually the US government. I have no beef with ordinary Russians.

     

    Interfering in the elections of other nations is the Russian Government’s JOB.  You can still object to it when they interfere in US elections and break US laws to do it.  Similarly it was the US Government’s JOB to interfere in other nations’ elections.

    And their citizens probably objected to that. But it does not follow that you have to approve of the Russian government interfering in the US elections.

  83. 83.

    Kay

    @MisterForkbeard:

     

    And “this” is key. They can’t defend THIS President. So they take it to “Presidents”, even though it isn’t a court we’re in and there won’t be any binding precedent having to do with “speed” or whatever the fuck he’s babbling about. So it doesn’t really work even as a due process argument for everyone accused of anything, but please proceed gentlemen. Whatever.

    They have to cloak themselves in something and it ain’t gonna be “I’m a cable tv lawyer” so it’s the due process rights of the accused. Sort of. Because that’s noble enough, if you squint and don’t think it thru.

  85. 85.

    Yarrow

    @MisterForkbeard:  I don’t know. Would have to look that up.

     

    @Princess:  She’s so enthusiastic about the Constitution. It’s catching. If she’s this excited it must be important!

     

    I also like Noah Feldman. He’s equally passionate about the issue, just has a different style.

  86. 86.

    Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)

    @Kay: 
    That argument, “it’s ok because the US does it too”, ignores the possibility that an American citizen can be against the US interfering in other nation’s elections and still be mad when it’s done to us. They’re not mutually exclusive positions to hold.

    It reminds me of the whole “You hang n*gros” rebuttal that the Soviet government would always trot out when called out on their human rights abuses. Like, guys, that doesn’t invalidate the criticism itself.

    Not only is it whataboutism, but tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy) a logical fallacy.

  87. 87.

    catclub

    @Kay: They have to cloak themselves in something and it ain’t gonna be “I’m a cable tv lawyer” so it’s the due process rights of the accused.

     

    What due process rights does the person being investigated have in grand jury investigations?  Can’t there even be grand jury investigations where the person does not even know they are being investigated?

    I certainly have not heard of the accused being represented in the grand jury room.

  88. 88.

    Kay

    @catclub:

     

    They make it very personal. It’s “hypocrisy!” On the part of individuals? How?

     

    It’s weird, right? Just in the context of how they present themselves, as valiant warriors to the right of the individual to speak against the state. A state. I gave that up? Me personally? This seems problematic if applied across the board.

  89. 89.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    are any of the law professors addressing the coup rhetoric? IANAL, I’m just a simple country internet rando, but I do hope somebody points out that in this country the word “coup” pretty much cannot be used to describe a process outlined by the Constitution.

  90. 90.

    Kay

    @catclub:

     

    Well, I’m with you- I would analyze it as “this is like THIS more than THIS” if there’s no law on it, but they’re not doing that. They’re taking a different set of laws and rules and just applying them willy nilly, when it helps their argument. You can’t do that. I mean, you CAN but it doesn’t mean anything in terms of due process broadly.

    If they were in a courtroom or a grand jury proceeding the whole set would apply, those that may help Trump and those that may hinder him. I don’t think it’s intended as a legal argument. I think it’s an argument intended to explain why Turley, this lawyer, is THERE, doing this. He can’t be there because he’s a hack. He needs a Big Purpose.

  91. 91.

    Gelfling 545

    @pat: it might be time to declare a moratorium on electing Collinses to office. This guy, Susan Collins, Chris Collins: they’re all a mess.

  92. 92.

    schrodingers_cat

    Brief diversion from impeachment hearings.

    The price of onions is skyrocketing in India, a staple for most except the ultra orthodox (Hindus and Jains). So guess what Mami Antoinnette (Finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman) said when asked about the skyrocketing prices. She smugly answered that in her household they eschew onions and garlic.

  93. 93.

    Kay

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

     

    The impeachment process and our system actually plans for this, and protects against it. Pence would be President, and the Trump voters elected him. It’s nonsense just on its face. A coup would install Hillary Clinton.

    They have bad arguments because they can’t defend this. They got him dead to rights. He got caught.

  94. 94.

    H.E.Wolf

    I like the euphemism “10-minute humanitarian recess” for “bathroom break”.

     

    I may take a Sanity Recess when the Republicans start in to waste their 45-min. allotment.

     

    (Hah! Just muted Rep Collins, who is yammering in front of microphones and cameras in a Congressional corridor.)

     

    [ETA: edited to fix weird paragraph spacing.]

  95. 95.

    Mrs. D. Ranged in AZ

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: No one has addressed it in the hearings but I hope they do.  And this is a particularly annoying item for me…every time they say “coup” I want to yell at the computer/tv/radio.  I suspect you’ll hear the GOP nutters use the term in their summary because that’s when they can’t be “crossed” (so to speak), but not when asking these professors a question. Then again, I hope they’re stupid enough to do so because I get the feeling that they will get smacked down for it.

  96. 96.

    Kay

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

     

    Trump voters may be sad they get Pence because they like the nasty bully they worship, but that is who they chose to stand in when their crook is unavailable due to (excessive) crime-committing.

  97. 97.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    Brian Beutler‏Verified account @brianbeutler

    I understand the objection, but I kinda think Dems should call the GOP’s bluff and let them bring Schiff in to testify. Be careful what you wish for, etc, etc.

    May be wrong, but I think Schiff before the Judiciary Committee might pay the same kind of immediate political dividends as Obama gained from taking questions at the House GOP conference retreat almost 10 years ago
    Also would set a great precedent for compelling Nunes’s testimony.

    I could be wrong, but I think Schiff’s quietly dignified, barely-veiled contempt for his questioners would be great theatre for the Ds

  98. 98.

    Baud

    @Kay:

     

    A coup would install Hillary Clinton.

     

     

    Are we completely sure the Constitution does not provide for a coup? Maybe on the back or something? Has anyone checked?

  99. 99.

    Mrs. D. Ranged in AZ

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: LOL Schiff would drive them crazy with his calm demeanor.  He’d just raise an eyebrow and look down at them and quietly destroy their ridiculous questions.  GOPers should be careful what they wish for

     

    ETA:  Might be a dangerous precedent though, as a means to take up Reps and Senators time in future. Plus Nunes doesn’t have an honorable bone in his body.  Just because Schiff showed up doesn’t mean Nunes would.

  102. 102.

    Aleta

    “A President who cared about our Constitution would say, “Russia, if you’re listening, BUTT OUT OF OUR ELECTIONS.” 

    –Prof. Karlan

  104. 104.

    randy khan

    @Kay:

     

    The impeachment process and our system actually plans for this, and protects against it. Pence would be President, and the Trump voters elected him. It’s nonsense just on its face. A coup would install Hillary Clinton.

    Sounds like a coup wouldn’t necessarily be a bad idea.

  105. 105.

    Raoul

    BTW Rudy Colludy is in Budapest right now, reportedly just met with fired Ukrainian prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko, with OANN in tow.

     

    I guess we all knew Trumpocalypse, The Ratfuckening was going to be in the offing. But do we really need more sequels? The writers are getting so tired.

  108. 108.

    Kay

    @Baud:

     

    Go tell our Legal Eagle there, Mr. Turley, about this obscure provision from Wiki:

     

    The vice president of the United States is the second-highest office in the executive branch[5][6] of the U.S. federal government, after the president of the United States, and ranks first in the presidential line of succession. The vice president is also an officer in the legislative branch, as president of the Senate. In this capacity, the vice president is empowered to preside over Senate deliberations, but may not vote except to cast a tie-breaking vote. The vice president also presides over joint sessions of Congress.[7]

    The vice president is indirectly elected together with the president to a four-year term of office by the people of the United States through the Electoral College.[7]

  109. 109.

    Mrs. D. Ranged in AZ

    Rank Member Collins is complaining about no exculpatory evidence….it’s not a trial you eedjit.

     

    And completely OT but my 16 year old cracks me up.  She just texted me complaining about the girl’s gym locker room, describing it as the “Siege of Constantinople”.

  111. 111.

    Kay

    @Baud:

    I feel like people have discredited the constitution by claiming to be defending it so much. With friends like this it doesn’t need enemies.

  113. 113.

    H.E.Wolf

    @schrodingers_cat:

    Alas, I don’t think I fixed my white-space ratio successfully.

     

    (I prefer *some* white space, as it’s helpful to my reading comprehension, but I agree that the huuuge paragraph spacings aren’t my favorite option.)

  116. 116.

    Kay

    @Baud:

     

    Plus, there isn’t any.

     

    That’s what he’s thinking – I saw Klobachur on tv and she’s good on this. She smiles her (mean) smile and says “I am ready to listen to any of the President’s witnesses. He won’t let them testify”

  117. 117.

    H.E.Wolf

    @H.E.Wolf:

     

    My faith in The Constitution is whole. Is Absolute. Is Complete.

     

    I have watched that speech over and over.

    Me too. She’s one of the great orators in our country’s history. I revere her memory.

  119. 119.

    Kay

    Paul Begala
    @PaulBegala
    ·43m
    “If this – what we are talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable.” Prof. Michael Gerhardt, constitutional law professor.

    That’s the precedent Trump’s defenders would set. That’s what they hope to stick you with- impeachment as dead letter.

  120. 120.

    Mrs. D. Ranged in AZ

    Turley’s argument is now that because the GOP doesn’t agree that what Trump did was a crime, then you can’t impeach on it.  So we can all just deny to accept the definition of any crime in court and we can do whatever the hell we want. It’s a specious argument.

     

    Also, too, his specific example of King Louis’ bribe to Charles II owns itself.  It basically boils down to Charles receiving personal benefit in the form of money, a mistress, etc.  It doesn’t matter that Trump didn’t receive money, a mistress, etc.  He demanded personal benefit.  Period.  Full stop.

  121. 121.

    H.E.Wolf

    @H.E.Wolf:

     

    Gorrammit, that was rikyrah whose comment I meant to recognize. My apologies! I’m making all kinds of formatting errors today.

  122. 122.

    rikyrah

    @Mrs. D. Ranged in AZ:

     

    And completely OT but my 16 year old cracks me up.  She just texted me complaining about the girl’s gym locker room, describing it as the “Siege of Constantinople

     

    I don’t know what that means, but, it cracks me up too..just thinking that a 16 year old would use Constantinople as a reference point for ANYTHING.

  123. 123.

    Martin

    @gene108:Edit: And other countries being too honest (Mexico, Canada) to go along with it.

    We’re not the only country with laws, you know. That’s the trick with bribery – it requires two parties willing to break the law.

  124. 124.

    Leto

    This Turkey guy is worthless. Long winded, rambling, paper thin on substance. Perfect witness for the Republicans.

    This dipshit is bogged down on going to the courts, totally ignoring the other corruption that’s happening, and ignoring that the courts are telling all the Trumpov lackeys to obey the subpoenas.

    *Leaving the autocorrect because it’s fitting.

  127. 127.

    japa21

    @schrodingers_cat:

    The right column isn’t blank until after John’s Twitter feed.  Not sure if there is even a way for it to move over after that point.  The whole top portion of the blog would have to be changed.

  128. 128.

    Jay

    This is a great story because Ahmad “Andy” Khawaja donated money to both Clinton and Trump. That means both sides can accuse the other of using Erik Prince's kiddy fiddler meeting planner buddy George Nader to funnel dirty money. Let the games begin. https://t.co/ySAJwaB7i5— Robert Young Pelton (@RYP__) December 4, 2019

    "One customer was a debt collector that threatened to jail people if they didn't pay back loans that they never took out. Another was an offshore gambling operation that hid bets behind innocuous-sounding websites, including one dedicated to orange cats."— Robert Young Pelton (@RYP__) December 4, 2019

  129. 129.

    Mike in DC

    Full disclosure: Prof. Turley was my torts professor in law school.   I even interviewed him while writing a paper. ..on investigation of high level executive branch wrongdoing.   His performance today is disgraceful.   He is providing cover for the most corrupt president in American history.

  130. 130.

    J R in WV

    I don’t have more than 1/4 inch of white space on the left hand side, while there’s quite a bit of white space on the right had side. I am informed that that white space is take up by the material showing at the top of the page, to wit:

     

    Recent Comments

    Support Our Site

    Amazon

    Balloon Juice Posts

    Featuring

    etc, etc.

     

    I like more white space as opposed to less white space. I also use the cntl+ command to enlarge the text to 150% because my glasses do not suit the distance to my screen well. But that’s my crummy vision plus not the best lenses I’ve ever had.

  131. 131.

    Kay

    You all probably don’t need reminding but Turley is a reliably horrible hack. I would submit that anyone who takes him seriously at this point is not familiar with his work.
    I know people are never discredited in this country once they have made their “hack bones” or whatever and we give them fucking lifetime sinecures, but his work is garbage.

    The Washington Post referred to Turley as a “liberal Democrat who voted for Clinton in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 1996.” Similar to his December 2019 testimony, Turley testified before the Republican-led Judiciary Committee in November 1998 to argue in favor of impeachment. Turley said at the time, “I don’t know where the idea came from that I am some kind of a right-wing extremist. I have always been a liberal Democrat and I voted for Bill Clinton.”

    We need better quality elites. They are sub-par. The merit system is broken.

  132. 132.

    trollhattan

    @schrodingers_cat:

    From my typography skewling 40 to 65-character columns are best for readability and this format seems to fall within that range. What the web designer can’t control is the user’s browser typeface overrides, which can affect how many characters/line bigly.

  134. 134.

    Roger Moore

    @patrick II:

    Lengthening impeachment hearings to give every witness an opportunity to speaks just gives this president the opportunity for obstruction of justice as he has been doing for three years.

    This.  Also, too, if the President wants the people who were close to the issue to speak in his favor, he should stop blocking them from testifying.  You cannot reasonably claim that someone’s failure to testify is prejudicial to your case when you’re the one preventing them from testifying.

  135. 135.

    J R in WV

    @Martin:

     

    That’s the trick with bribery – it requires two parties willing to break the law.

    I think you’re wrong about that. If the Speed Cop asks for $20 to drop your speeding ticket, and you say, “Gosh, I don’t have $20 on me!” and the Cop says, “Well, OK, you can go on, then anyhow…” the Speed Cop has still solicited a bribe, has still committed a crime.

     

    You may be free and clear since you didn’t pay the Cop, but the Cop, in this story Trump, is still guilty as hell even though Ukraine didn’t pay Trump the bribe of announcing the corruption investigation of the Bidens!

     

     

    ETA:  Have stopped the audio feed from WV Public Radio now… This Turkey/Turley guy is terrible to listen to, and full of crap as well.

  137. 137.

    Omnes Omnibus

    Turley can go fuck himself.  I cannot be the only person who remembers the ‘90s when Turley argues that Clinton needed to be impeached over a blowjob.  He was wrong then and he is equally wrong now.

  139. 139.

    MisterForkbeard

    @J R in WV: And in this case, it works out like this:

    <TrumpCop> If you do me a favor and give me $20, I’ll drop the ticket and won’t impound your car.
    <Victim, slowly reaching for wallet> I don’t really want to, but I don’t have a choice….
    <TrumpCop’s Boss walks by> Hey man, you left your radio on and apparently you’re asking for bribes now. We’re going to go talk to HR.
    <TrumpCop> But he didn’t GIVE me anything so I’m totally clear. Also, I didn’t use the words “Quid Pro Quo”. Best. Defense. Ever.

  141. 141.

    Martin

    @Kay:The impeachment process and our system actually plans for this, and protects against it. Pence would be President, and the Trump voters elected him. It’s nonsense just on its face. A coup would install Hillary Clinton.

    They have bad arguments because they can’t defend this. They got him dead to rights. He got caught.

    Actually, I think it’s more an admission that they know Pence was involved in this scheme and if Trump is subject to removal from office, then likely so is Pence, Barr, Pompeo, Perry, and Mulvaney.

    They’re actually gaming out a President Pelosi, not Clinton.

  142. 142.

    Yarrow

    @schrodingers_cat:  Not according to the thread last night. You asked the question, I gave my opinion and lots of other people weighed in.

    @Betty Cracker:

    The default in comments seems to be too little paragraph spacing, IMO. But if you add a hard return, it’s too much!

    Yep. You frontpagers get the proper paragraph spacing. We lowly commenters get not enough or two much with two returns. It’s obvious available because you guys get it. Why can’t we have it in comments?

  144. 144.

    Martin

    @patrick II: Someone needs to remind Turley that the process would have taken longer if the WH hadn’t refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas.

    Oh yeah, that’s one of the impeachable offenses. It’s also one that with irrefutable evidence. A witness was called. The witness didn’t appear. The witness reported that the WH ordered them to not testify. The WH confirmed that.

    That’s the ballgame right there. The hearings were short because the WH was violating the constitution.

  146. 146.

    Soprano2

    I heard like one minute of Turley on the TV in our lunchroom, and I was already talking back to that idiot.  Saying that they need to wait and let the country “catch up” and support impeachment – THEY ALREADY SUPPORT IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL, YOU FOOL!!  I found myself wondering which segment of Hannity he’ll appear on tonight.

  148. 148.

    Jay

    Wow. Germany has expelled two Russian diplomats over the recent murder of a Georgian man in Berlin, saying there is "sufficient evidence" to indicate that the man's murder was carried out on the behalf of the Russian state or by Chechnya. https://t.co/d2D1KDogYR— Caroline Orr (@RVAwonk) December 4, 2019

  149. 149.

    cain

    @Mrs. D. Ranged in AZ: Turley’s argument is now that because the GOP doesn’t agree that what Trump did was a crime, then you can’t impeach on it. So we can all just deny to accept the definition of any crime in court and we can do whatever the hell we want. It’s a specious argument.

    Then they should ask if it was true Clinton as well? We can make these assholes attack their 90s selves when Clinton was in the hot seat. It will make more amusing testimony and then have Clintons come out and talk about being exonerated by Republican testimony – it will drive everyone in the party bat shit!

  150. 150.

    Yarrow

    @dh:

    Turley is obviously compromised, probably by his sexual misdeeds.

    Seems likely. Certainly worth investigating why he’s doing this. Is someone paying him? Was he also friends with Epstein?

  151. 151.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @BobS:

    Schiff’s reply to the Republican ‘invitation’ could be that he would be happy to appear- immediately after Mulvaney, Pompeo, Giuliani, Pence, and Trump.

    Good for him

     

    @Mrs. D. Ranged in AZ:

    Rank Member Collins is complaining about no exculpatory evidence….it’s not a trial you eedjit.

    as you and your (de facto) boss block all the witness you claim would exculp him from appearing….

  152. 152.

    Martin

    @J R in WV: I mean, a successful bribery. Yes, soliciting a bribe can be done as a solo act. In fact, usually is because the other party usually busts them.

    I was referring to the lack of trade agreements involving bribery as potentially being evidence that other nations are unwilling to bribe Trump.

    And I know Trump hasn’t given any thought to this at all, but what does he do when the next administration comes in and is asked ‘where do we direct all of these bribes?’. That’s why dictators can pull it off – they never intend to leave power.

  154. 154.

    catclub

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: but I think Schiff before the Judiciary Committee might pay the same kind of immediate political dividends as Obama gained from taking questions at the House GOP conference retreat almost 10 years ago

     

    There were unfortunately, no political dividends to that

    performance – which was incredible! A total beatdown of their lack of ideas. He moved no votes and lost bigtime in the fall 2010 elections.  It did make Democrats happy that he was great stage presence.

  155. 155.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @dh: definitely gives off a that-boy-ain’t-right vibe, but I think he’s addicted to 1) smarmy contrarianism and 2) klieg lights

  156. 156.

    Martin

    @BobS: Schiffs reply should be that he’ll show up jointly with Nunes. ‘Hi, I’m Shiela Jackson Lee and I’m a hammer. Rep Nunes, you look like a nail.’

  157. 157.

    trollhattan

    @schrodingers_cat:

    Probably a 16:9 display. Great for hi-res movies on Netflix, sub-optimal for reading and composing text. My 15″ laptop has that ratio as well. A large 16:9 desktop monitor accommodates reducing the browser width, which with fluid page design will shrink the blank areas away nicely. Laptops generally don’t have enough area unless one has falcon eyes.

  158. 158.

    Yarrow

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:  If he’s giving off the boy-ain’t-right vibe, then trust your gut on that. The boy ain’t right. He’s hiding stuff he doesn’t want people to know about. Don’t know what it is but that doesn’t matter. He doesn’t want people finding out about it. His job is to do what he’s doing and he’s doing it. He’ll be compensated either monetarily or by avoiding embarrassing information being released.

  159. 159.

    SFAW

    I could only stomach about three minutes of Turley on NPR; when he started with the “Clinton’s and Nixon’s impeachments were justified, but this one is more like the Radical Republicans with Andrew Johns-” click.

     

    And then some Rethug moran (around 12:30 or so) saying that “there were actual, real, honest-to-Grid crimes that Clinton and Nixon committed, but there’s no crime committed by Dear Leader.” Click.

     

    Fucking Rethugs will be the death of me. And of this country.

  161. 161.

    burnspbesq

    @Kay:

     

    LOTTA “clearly” in there. CLEARLY. The weasel word of weasels everywhere.

    One of my law school profs said that “if it really is clear, there’s no need to say so. If it’s not, saying it is doesn’t make it so.”

  164. 164.

    Roger Moore

    @Kay:

    So they take it to “Presidents”, even though it isn’t a court we’re in and there won’t be any binding precedent having to do with “speed” or whatever the fuck he’s babbling about.

    This is a critical point: Trump isn’t on trial in the House.  The impeachment proceedings are more like a grand jury deciding whether to indict someone than they are like a criminal trial.  That means all the process arguments are bunk; Trump’s team will have a chance to present their arguments in full if and when there is a full trial in the Senate.

    These complaints are really about two things:

    1. Putting out the Republicans’ defense of Trump as early as possible to prevent the Democrats’ accusations from forming The Narrative
    2. Working the refs
  165. 165.

    Barbara

    @Mrs. D. Ranged in AZ: This is the same as the “I’m not a taxpayer” argument.  There is a provision of the IRC that says something like, “All taxpayers shall pay taxes in the manner specified, etc.”

    Clever, pro se clients being charged with tax evasion trumpet the argument that since they aren’t “taxpayers” the provisions of the IRC don’t apply to them.

  166. 166.

    rikyrah

    @Martin:

     

    Actually, I think it’s more an admission that they know Pence was involved in this scheme and if Trump is subject to removal from office, then likely so is Pence, Barr, Pompeo, Perry, and Mulvaney.

    They’re actually gaming out a President Pelosi, not Clinton.

     

     

    UH HUH

    UH HUH

  168. 168.

    Kay

    @Roger Moore:

     

    Right. But impeachment is partly a political process and was intended to be. If they wanted to impeach the president in a court with that process they would have said so.

    Because it isn’t in a court doesn’t mean they have license to just invent a bunch of fuzzy rules they pulled out of their ass that are favorable to Donald Trump and insist they apply. That isn’t how the actual rules work. They bind both sides.

  173. 173.

    catclub

    @Kay: That isn’t how the actual rules work. They bind both sides.

     

    The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, or to steal bread.

     

    can …. not… resist

  174. 174.

    Ruckus

    @Kay:

    From the republican point of view, they speak in unison and their followers believe everything their crappy leaders tell them to believe so to them they are the state – and the only real people. They don’t separate the two.

  177. 177.

    Ruckus

    @Martin:

    I think there may be something of substance to your point.

    Although it seems that there is a very good possibility that your list is too short.

Comments are closed.