This is dangerous and possibly brainwashing people. Telling them not to watch the impeachment trail. This is dangerous. Let me repeat this again this is dangerous
Heck, fox news has decided the show trial isn't important enough anymore... the fix is in, and the cover up complete.
We're way past dangerous when it comes to Trump and his sycophants. The question becomes do we have a functioning Democracy any longer? This cult of personality is intent on disavowing facts and blurring reality with an enormous media apparatus in its back pocket, It's frankly shocking as hell.
I doubt it, but you're out of chances anyway. I'm not going to read the crap you post on this topic. Maybe I'll have time on my hands to read the stuff later but not right now. I'll read your articles on climate change because they are usually substantive. But the crap you post in this thread just isn't worth discussion. Maybe this one article is amazing. Maybe I'll get to it later.
Surprised that Os Frigonomics hasn't posted his fave Turley's latest take... Viewpoint: 'No crime, no impeachment' is a shaky defence The White House now contends that the ongoing impeachment trial against President Donald Trump is invalid because Mr Trump has not committed any criminal acts. But this argument is deeply flawed, writes legal scholar Jonathan Turley. Forty-five years ago, Cowboys quarterback Roger Staubach said: "I closed my eyes and said a Hail Mary." The so-called Hail Mary pass is now a mainstay of American football where a quarterback, in the final seconds of a close game, throws the ball into the end zone on a hope and a prayer. As the NFL play-offs wrap up and the Senate impeachment trial proceeds, Staubach's strategy came to mind. The White House has decided to frame its defence around a constitutional Hail Mary pass in arguing that the impeachment itself is invalid because articles of impeachment must be based on alleged criminal acts. The "quarterback" in this play is Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz who believes that the Senate should simply dismiss the case as constitutionally invalid. Hail Mary passes make for great football, but perfectly lousy impeachment trials. The problem is that this pass is not going into the constitutional end-zone but well beyond the stadium. The argument is based on a literal reading of the standard "high crimes and misdemeanors." Those are criminal terms, to be sure, but they were never viewed as such in England, where the standard was first forged, nor in the United States in past judicial and presidential impeachments. American impeachments stand on English feet and English impeachments often stood on non-criminal allegations. Indeed in 1604, John Thornborough, Bishop of Bristol, was impeached for writing a book on the controversial union with Scotland. Michael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, was impeached in 1386 for such offences as appointing incompetent officers and "advising the King to grant liberties and privileges to certain persons to the hindrance of the due execution of the laws". Others impeachments were based on "giving pernicious advice to the Crown" and "malversations and neglects in office; for encouraging pirates; for official oppression, extortions, and deceits; and especially for putting good magistrates out of office, and advancing bad". The English standard was so vague and broad that the Framers [of the US Constitution] were uncomfortable with replicating that process in the United States. Indeed, when the then-ongoing impeachment trial of Governor General Warren Hastings of the East India Company was raised by a Framer, James Madison immediately objected that the standard in the US should not include terms like "maladministration" that would effectively leave presidents as serving "at the pleasure of the Senate". The result was the adoption of the English standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors" with a narrower scope of individuals covered (judicial and executive officers). However, it was never limited to criminal acts. Limiting impeachment to the criminal code would have been a remarkable abridgment since there were few crimes recognised at that time. More importantly, the Framers discussed the need to deal with violations of public trust and other non-criminal violations perpetrated by a president. They wanted a narrower standard, but not a purely criminal-based standard. If so, they could have simply stated it - and made the criminal code the scope of impeachment. Finally, such a standard would create a nightmare where a president could engage in outrageous acts and remain unimpeachable - by staying just short of indictable. It is not surprising therefore that virtually every impeachment in US history has contained non-criminal allegations including the two presidential impeachments. My disagreement with this argument puts me in a rather ironic position. During Trump's impeachment hearing, I argued against four articles of impeachment being touted by the the leadership of the House of Representatives, including bribery. The problem is that the allegations against Trump fall well outside of definitions and case law of these crimes. While such definitions are not controlling, Congress has always looked to criminal cases on the meaning of such offences. The reason is simple. The criminal code offers an objective and neutral source for defining acts free from political manipulation. Not only do such cases put a president on notice of the range of impermissible conduct, but it shows the public that the president is being held to a clearly defined and understood standard. Ultimately, I was relieved when the House Committee rejected those four articles and went forward with the two that I testified would be legitimate, if proven. Now I have the inverse concern with the White House argument. By framing the defence around this unwarranted interpretation, the White House is putting Republican senators in a terrible bind. Many will not want to catch this Hail Mary pass and simply pray that no president in the future will ruin the Republic with unimpeachable but non-criminal acts. Jonathan Turley is professor of constitutional law at George Washington University He also testified with other constitutional experts in both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings.
Encouraging people to watch the trail compared to fox saying don't bother watching it we will recap it for you. Really I thought you were smarter than that.
When I start seeing posts like these and meme’s being tossed around, it just shows that there is no real substantive defense for Trump. Everyone knows he is a crooked lying conman.... but it doesn’t matter, because everything will fall down party lines.
Anyone curious or care why Schiff is keeping Michael Atkinson's testimony sealed? His is the only testimony that has not been released. Lot's of stuff coming out of the right wing media outlets. It sounds pretty unbelievable except what has previously sounded unbelievable has played out to be true. Why keep the IG's testimony secret? There's some Schiffty stuff going on and if this stuff is true at some point you gotta admit this guy is corrupt. We'll see as more comes out. Maybe it's just right wing conspiracy propaganda like the FISA abuse/mishaps.
Protecting whistle blowers are not shifty Unlike Trump who hates when people tell facts and the truth
