Turley: Democrats offering passion over proof in Trump impeachment

  
Via:  Vic Eldred  •  4 months ago  •  96 comments

By:   JONATHAN TURLEY

Turley: Democrats offering passion over proof in Trump impeachment
As I said 21 years ago, a president can still be impeached for abuse of power without a crime, and that includes Trump. But that makes it more important to complete and strengthen the record of such an offense, as well as other possible offenses. I remain concerned that we are lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. Trump will not be our last president.

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


The most dangerous place for an academic is often between the House and the impeachment of an American president. I knew that going into the first hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on the impeachment of  Donald Trump . After all, Alexander Hamilton that impeachment would often occur in an environment of “agitated passions.” Yet I remained a tad naive in hoping that an academic discussion on the history and standards of it might offer a brief hiatus from hateful rhetoric on both sides.

In my testimony Wednesday, I lamented that, as in the impeachment of President Clinton from 1998 to 1999, there is an intense “rancor and rage” and “stifling intolerance” that blinds people to opposing views. My call for greater civility and dialogue may have been the least successful argument I made to the committee. Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with threatening messages and demands that I be fired from George Washington University for arguing that, while a case for impeachment can be made, it has not been made on this record.

Some of the most heated attacks came from Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee. Representative Eric Swalwell of California attacked me for defending my client, Judge Thomas Porteous, in the last impeachment trial and noted that I lost that case. Swalwell pointed out that I said Porteous had not been charged with a crime for any conduct, which is an obviously material point for any impeachment defense.
Not all Democrats supported such scorched earth tactics. One senior Democrat on the committee apologized to me afterward for the attack from Swalwell. Yet many others relished seeing my representations of an accused federal judge being used to attack my credibility, even as they claimed to defend the rule of law. Indeed, Rachel Maddow lambasted me on MSNBC for defending the judge, who was accused but never charged with taking bribes, and referring to him as a “moocher” for the allegations that he accepted free lunches and whether such gratuities, which were not barred at the time, would constitute impeachable offenses.

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank expanded on this theme of attacking my past argument. Despite 52 pages of my detailed testimony, more than twice the length of all the other witnesses combined, on the cases and history of impeachment, he described it as being “primarily emotional and political.” Milbank claimed that I contradicted my testimony in a 2013 hearing when I presented “exactly the opposite case against President Obama” by saying “it would be ‘very dangerous’ to the balance of powers not to hold Obama accountable for assuming powers ‘very similar’ to the ‘right of the king’ to essentially stand above the law.”

But I was not speaking of an impeachment then. It was a discussion of the separation of powers and the need for Congress to fight against unilateral executive actions, the very issue that Democrats raise against Trump. I did not call for Obama to be impeached, but that is par for the course in the echo chamber today in which the facts must conform to the frenzy. It was unsettling to see the embrace of a false narrative that I “contradicted” my testimony from the Clinton impeachment, a false narrative fueled by the concluding remarks of Committee Chairman  Jerry Nadler  of New York quoting from my 1998 testimony. Notably, neither Swalwell nor Nadler allowed me to respond to those or any other attacks. It was then picked up eagerly by others, despite being a demonstrably false narrative.

In my testimony Wednesday, I stated repeatedly, as I did 21 years ago, that a president can be impeached for noncriminal acts, including abuse of power. I made that point no fewer that a dozen times in analyzing the case against Trump and, from the first day of the Ukraine scandal, I have made that argument both on air and in print. Yet various news publications still excitedly reported that, in an  opinion piece  I wrote for the Washington Post five years ago, I said, “While there is a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable,” and it could include “serious misconduct or a violation of public trust.”

That is precisely what I have said regarding Trump. You just need to prove abuse of power. My objection is not that you cannot impeach Trump for abuse of power but that this record is comparably thin compared to past impeachments and contains conflicts, contradictions, and gaps including various witnesses not subpoenaed. I suggested that Democrats drop the arbitrary schedule of a vote by the end of December and complete their case and this record before voting on any articles of impeachment. In my view, they have not proven abuse of power in this incomplete record.

However, rather than address the specific concerns I raised over this incomplete record and process, critics have substituted a false attack to suggest that I had contradicted my earlier testimony during the Clinton impeachment. They reported breathlessly that I said in that hearing, “If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct.” What they left out is that, in my testimony then and again this week, I stressed that the certain act in question was perjury. The issue in the Clinton case was whether perjury was an impeachable offense. Most Democratic members of Congress, including Nadler, maintained back then that perjury did not meet the level of an impeachable offense if the subject was an affair with an intern.

I maintained in the Clinton testimony, and still maintain in my Trump testimony, that perjury on any subject by a sitting president is clearly impeachable. Indeed, as I stated Wednesday, that is the contrast between this inquiry and three prior impeachment controversies. In those earlier inquiries, the commission of criminal acts by Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and  Bill Clinton  were clearly established. With Johnson, the House effectively created a trapdoor crime and he knowingly jumped through it. The problem was that the law, the Tenure of Office Act, was presumptively unconstitutional and the impeachment was narrowly built around that dubious criminal act. With Nixon, there were a host of alleged criminal acts, and dozens of officials would be convicted. With Clinton, there was an act of perjury that even his supporters acknowledged was a felony.

While obviously presented in a false context, the quotation of my Clinton testimony only highlights the glaring contrast of those who opposed the Clinton impeachment but now insist the case is made to impeach Trump. I have maintained that they both could be removed, one for a crime and one for a noncrime. The difference is that the Clinton crime was accepted by Democrats. Indeed, a judge reaffirmed that Clinton committed perjury, a crime for which thousands of other citizens have been jailed. Yet the calls for showing that “no one is above the law” went silent with Clinton.

As I stated Wednesday, I believe the Clinton case is relevant today and my position remains the same. I do not believe a crime has been proven over the Ukraine controversy, though I said such crimes might be proven with a more thorough investigation. Instead, Democrats have argued that they do not actually have to prove the elements of crimes such as bribery and extortion to use those in drafting articles of impeachment. In the Clinton impeachment, the crime was clearly established and widely recognized.

As I said 21 years ago, a president can still be impeached for abuse of power without a crime, and that includes Trump. But that makes it more important to complete and strengthen the record of such an offense, as well as other possible offenses. I remain concerned that we are lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. Trump will not be our last president. What we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. These “agitated passions” will not be a substitute for proof in an impeachment. We currently have too much of the former and too little of the latter.


04-jonathan-turley-.w700.h700.jpg

Jonathan Turley is the chair of public interest law at George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel in a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a Republican witness in House Judiciary Committee hearing in the Trump impeachment inquiry.


Article is Locked


 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Vic Eldred
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    4 months ago

The values and beliefs of one of the 4 democratic legal experts called by the House Judiciary Committee.

The only one who was not an unhinged progressive radical

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    4 months ago

 only one who was not an unhinged progressive radical

And the unhinged progressive radicals are threatening him for it.  

The mob is in control. 

 
 
 
Cerenkov
1.1.1  Cerenkov  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1    4 months ago

Yep. He's receiving the customary liberal death threats and cancel culture. 

 
 
 
lib50
1.1.2  lib50  replied to  Cerenkov @1.1.1    4 months ago

Where does it say death threats? 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
1.1.3  Jasper2529  replied to  lib50 @1.1.2    4 months ago
Where does it say death threats? 

Here are two articles:

In an op-ed for  The Hill , Turley wrote Thursday that before he had finished his testimony, his home and office were "inundated with threatening messages and demands that I be fired from George Washington University for arguing that, while a case for impeachment can be made, it has not been made on this record."

https://www.foxnews.com/media/andy-mccarthy-brian-kilmeade-jonathan-turley-death-threats-impeachment-inquiry-president-trump

A law professor   called by Republicans as a witness   in this week’s impeachment proceedings said he’s received threats over his testimony.

Jonathan Turley said the nasty messages began rolling in before he could even finish telling the House Judiciary Committee that impeaching President Trump was a bad idea on Wednesday.

“My call for greater civility and dialogue may have been the least successful argument I made to the committee,” Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, tweeted on Thursday. “Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with threatening messages and demands that I be fired from GW.”

https://nypost.com/2019/12/06/law-scholar-john-turley-threatened-after-testimony-in-trump-impeachment-hearings/

 
 
 
lib50
1.1.4  lib50  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.1.3    4 months ago

Death threats are never ever acceptable.  From anybody. 

 
 
 
cjcold
1.2  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    4 months ago

Trump has been a compulsive liar, thief and rapist of young girls his whole life. The only thing that kept him out of prison was his father's money. His folks sent him to military school in the hope that they could 'fix' him. It didn't take. He has only become a worse human.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  cjcold @1.2    4 months ago

Even if you believe all that, being a shitty human being is not constitutional grounds for impeachment.

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.2.2  Don Overton  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.1    4 months ago

Bull shit it just proves he needs kicked out

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump Fan #1
1.2.3  Donald J. Trump Fan #1  replied to  cjcold @1.2    4 months ago

1. Impeach 266,000.                               2. Impeach  28,000.                                  3. Impeach 3.1%.                                      4. Impeach 3.5%!                                      We can’t stand all this prosperity.  Impeach President Trump and his economy.  

 
 
 
cjcold
1.3  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    4 months ago

[DELETED]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  cjcold @1.3    4 months ago

Tell us something we don't know. 

=======================

Trump is a evil, stupid child who doesn't deserve to be POTUS.

but-hillarys-emails-6189694.png

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.3.2  It Is ME  replied to  cjcold @1.3    4 months ago
Trump is a evil, stupid child who doesn't deserve to be POTUS.

And what did he do to YOU ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jasper2529
1.3.3  Jasper2529  replied to  cjcold @1.3    4 months ago
Trump is a evil, stupid child who doesn't deserve to be POTUS.

Well, that's a constitutionally sound reason to impeach him!  jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.4  MUVA  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.3.3    4 months ago

Hate it’s obvious.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.3.5  gooseisgone  replied to  MUVA @1.3.4    4 months ago
Hate it’s obvious.

Hey.........don't talk to Nancy that way.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
1.3.6  Jasper2529  replied to  gooseisgone @1.3.5    4 months ago
Nancy

I loved her phony Roman Catholic meltdown!

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.3.7  Don Overton  replied to  It Is ME @1.3.2    4 months ago

bought his way into being elected

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.3.8  Don Overton  replied to  MUVA @1.3.4    4 months ago

I'm glad you are figuring trump out, taken a while 

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.4  Don Overton  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    4 months ago

Be nice if you ever  payed attention to what's going on and facts presented to you, which, Vic, you always ignore

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2  XDm9mm    4 months ago

What's even better is that he acknowledged that he did not vote for Donald Trump and in fact voted for Obama and Clinton.

He also self describes as a Liberal Democrat of course not a raving lunatic Trump hating insane progressive/socialist.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @2    4 months ago

Much like Dershowitz now,  Turley is no longer considered a liberal.   Thats allright, everyone has a right to change their beliefs. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    4 months ago
Much like Dershowitz now

You mean they are both old fashioned Liberals who are true to their ideals?  I think so too!


Turley is no longer considered a liberal.

By whom?  And for what reason?


 Thats allright, everyone has a right to change their beliefs. 

So said Stalin's executioner

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    4 months ago
Much like Dershowitz now,  Turley is no longer considered a liberal. 

You should tell him that.  He's the one who is describing himself as a liberal. 

Of course, being liberal is not being a bat shit crazy extremist rabid progressive socialist liberal as is all to common today.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    4 months ago
Turley is no longer considered a liberal

By who and since when? It looks to me like the "who" is people who want to impeach Trump at all costs and the "when" was Tuesday at about 9am Eastern Standard Time. This is the guy who said Bush and Cheney should be prosecuted as war criminals. Not a liberal? OK. jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jasper2529
2.1.4  Jasper2529  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.3    4 months ago
This is the guy who said Bush and Cheney should be prosecuted as war criminals. Not a liberal? OK.

It seems that there are a lot of folks who haven't read Professor Turley's articles and opinions and don't know how much he criticized Republicans in the past.  All they're interested in is that Professor Turley didn't fit their progressive, far-left impeachment agenda this week.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.5  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    4 months ago

That is such complete Bull shit.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.1    4 months ago
By whom?

By raving batshit lunatic idiot leftists who have to cross the street to avoid getting near Trump hotels and who demand an apology when somebody calls them "well-spoken".  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.6    4 months ago

You summed it up perfectly.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  JohnRussell    4 months ago

This article is all about Turley's ego and his need to defend himself from whatever criticism came to his appearance before the impeachment committee. 

Hardly worth reading unless you are a Turley fan. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 months ago
Hardly worth reading unless you are a Turley fan. 

You seem to be jumping out of your seat with it. Obviously you read it.

 
 
 
WallyW
3.2  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 months ago
Impeachment_Tree_Small20191206023855.jpg
 
 
 
Tacos!
3.3  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 months ago

So he should just shut up and let people attack him without answering?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4  JohnRussell    4 months ago

I counted 35 uses of the word " I "  in this short article, and probably missed a couple. 

Didnt count the "my" s , but there was a bunch of them too. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @4    4 months ago
I counted 35 uses of the word " I "  in this short article, and probably missed a couple.

Did you count how many times the other witnesses used "I"?  He IS indicating his OWN PERSONAL HISTORY, so what term should he use?

 
 
 
Cerenkov
4.1.1  Cerenkov  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1    4 months ago

His preferred pronouns are so boring...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4    4 months ago
I counted 35 uses of the word " I "  in this short article, and probably missed a couple. 

Charles Krauthammer once said that every time a writer uses the word "I" it's a defeat. To Jonathan Turley's defense, he isn't really a writer, he is a legal expert. The substance of the article is what counts. It is a warning to the Trump-haters in the House that they are setting up a terrible precedent which can be applied to virtually any president in the future.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2    4 months ago

The point is that Turley wrote the seeded article to defend his own reputation, not so much to advance Trumps cause. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.1    4 months ago

I don't see that in there, nor do I think the reputation of Jonathan Turley was ever at risk. As a matter of fact, after the testimony he gave, I think his reputation has been enhanced. I do think the 3 radical professors exposed themselves to the American people and whether you believe it or not, people were angered that these leftist ideologues were teaching some of our brightest students.

 
 
 
Ronin2
4.3  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @4    4 months ago

So you had the same problem with Obama the king of "I" and "my" correct?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.3.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ronin2 @4.3    4 months ago

You forgot "me" and his thinly veiled "us" and "we" meaning he who knew what EVERYONE wanted us to be. I've got a list of "That's no who we are" quotes that he used to try and convince people..................and it worked on those with less stones. And they reference the emperor's new clothes against Trump.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5  Sean Treacy    4 months ago

Trump's being impeached for beating Hillary.

 
 
 
Don Overton
5.1  Don Overton  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    4 months ago

[DELETED]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6  seeder  Vic Eldred    4 months ago

"My call for greater civility and dialogue may have been the least successful argument I made to the committee. Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with threatening messages and demands that I be fired from GW.".......Jonathan Turley


Americans need to condemn leftist intimidation.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
7  The Magic Eight Ball    4 months ago

they try to impeach a president based on nothing more than hate, theory, supposition, and speculation followed by a lecture from partisan hacks.

result?  they have only exposed quid pro joe to serious problems and handed re-election to trump

are you not entertained?  

I am  :)

 
 
 
lib50
7.1  lib50  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @7    4 months ago

Some of us just don't feel like the goP (gov't of Putin) is good for America.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @7.1    4 months ago
Some of us just don't feel like the goP (gov't of Putin) is good for America.   

Great! I suggest you stop voting for Putin then!

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
7.1.2  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  lib50 @7.1    4 months ago

your feelings do no matter and you can think what ya like. 

256

cheers :)

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
7.1.4  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.1.3    4 months ago

the question of the day.

  • why would putin want the usa to have a stronger economy, a stronger military and stronger borders in exchange for more sanctions on russia?

have to admit, the question leaves me a bit befuddled.

LOL

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @7.1.4    4 months ago
'have to admit, the question leaves me a bit befuddled.'

[Deleted]

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
7.1.6  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.5    4 months ago

so instead of trying to answer "the question of the day" ya go for the personal attack

you are predictable... LOL

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @7.1.6    4 months ago

What else do they have?

LMFAO!

 
 
 
WallyW
7.1.8  WallyW  replied to  lib50 @7.1    4 months ago
And let Crimea be annexed without a whimper
cb120619dAPR20191205104618.jpg
 
 
 
Tacos!
7.1.9  Tacos!  replied to  lib50 @7.1    4 months ago
Some of us just don't feel like the goP (gov't of Putin) is good for America.

Maybe the most absurd aspect of the last few years has been watching members of the Democratic Party and the liberal media pretend they care more than anyone else about threats from Russia after spending the last several decades mocking Republicans for actually caring.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.9    4 months ago

What do republicans actually care about other than lining their own pockets?

That's fucking hilarious.  

 
 
 
MUVA
7.1.11  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.10    4 months ago

I would be willing to bet my wife gives more to charity a year  than most of the democrats base makes in a year she gives almost all her money she makes off her inheritance to Chesapeake bay academy.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.1.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.1    4 months ago
I suggest you stop voting for Putin then!

I suggest you stop voting the way Putin wants you to.

“President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?” - reporter Jeff Mason

“Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.–Russia relationship back to normal.” - Vladimir Putin

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
7.1.13  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.12    4 months ago
President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?”

BULLSHIT!!! for the most part....................

"But I've heard from a number of Russian speakers who point out that Putin’s actual comments in Russian concerning who he wanted to win the election are much less ambiguous than the way they were translated. He seems to have not used the phrase Yes, I did once, let alone twice. Instead, in Russian, Putin roughly said, “Yes, I wanted him to win, because he talked about the normalization of Russian–American relations.” In other words, he was apparently answering the first part of Mason’s question but not the second about whether he directed help Trump’s way. It’s unclear if that’s because Putin didn’t hear the second half of the question, it wasn’t translated into Russian accurately, or he simply chose to ignore it."

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/07/putin-trump-election-translation/565481/

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.12    4 months ago
gest you stop voting the way Putin wants you to

Imagine thinking  Putin should have  power over who people vote for.  If Putin says he wants Biden to beat Trump, I guess you'll have to vote for Trump. 

Do you think these things through before you type them? 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.1.15  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.14    4 months ago
If Putin says he wants Biden to beat Trump, I guess you'll have to vote for Trump. 

If Putin spends $1.25 million a month on surreptitious ads for Biden, illegally hacks the GOP email servers and releases embarrassing emails in an effort to hurt Trump, pushes conspiracy theories and lies via RT and Sputnik that were picked up and incessantly repeated by left wing media, then yeah, I might consider voting for someone other than Putin's pick. No, it won't be Trump. I know dishonest Donald is a worthless scumbag no matter what his followers try to falsely claim about him. So if Putin started an active campaign to get Biden elected, and Biden was openly asking Russia for help in the upcoming election, I would definitely not vote for Biden but would likely be forced to vote 3rd party. But that actually happening would be ludicrous, right? How could that ever happen to a US candidate for President? Oh yeah, it did already happen, but some apparently are so disloyal to American values they simply don't care and will vote for Trump anyway.

 
 
 
lib50
7.1.16  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.9    4 months ago

Right now, presently, in the moment, at this very time........Trump and the entire goP are choosing to undermine and harm our own national security and use Putin's PROPAGANDA to try to keep their power.  They are lying. Trump's decision with the Kurds and Syria hurt US security and interests, but helped Russia, Turkey, Syria and Iran.  We bombed our own bases in our haste to follow the tweet, and now troops are back to avert disaster.  Trump and his people talk on cell phones monitored by Russia at minimum while our own government knows less.  Not good for security, ........but her emails, right?   The goP is right now pushing Putin's propaganda to blame Ukraine for what the Russians did.  So stuff those fake words of 'caring', they care more for their own power than the USA.  That is treason.  I've never said that about any other president.  I've never seen treason in front of our faces and the entire party is on board with the lies.  Whatever reputation republicans used to have with Russia (and Reagan),  that is irrelevant now, they don't choose the USA today, they don't care, and they say it out loud, from Hannity to Trump to the republicans in the house and senate.  Oh, and with a lot of help from Putin, who provides the talking points and back up trolls and bots.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.15    4 months ago

So you let Putin decide who you will vote for. 

Sad. 

Putin's goal (ask Fiona Hill) was to get people to act like you are. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.1.18  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.1.13    4 months ago

Righttttttttttt….. Putin's "Yes" was just a mistranslation. The fact remains, even in your attempt at obfuscation and deflection, that Putin said "Yes" in reply to Jeff Masons question. Trying to claim he didn't hear all the question or was replying to just part of it is pure partisan conjecture and wishful thinking. Just admit it already, all US intelligence agencies say Putin did direct a concerted campaign to get Donald Trump elected and hacked private US citizen emails and spent millions a month in that campaign. Putin said "Yes" when asked if he did such things. Trying to twist the facts to fit some warped RT talking point of deflection is really sad to watch. I mean, really sad. If clues were coins I'd toss one in your obviously empty cup.

 
 
 
Ender
7.1.19  Ender  replied to  lib50 @7.1.16    4 months ago

And Giuliani is over there again. How this is allowed to continue...

 
 
 
lib50
7.1.21  lib50  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.17    4 months ago

FYI, we aren't the ones who have a problem identifying the truth.  The right swallow and regurgitates Trump's daily lies and misinformation.  They follow the talking points that originate with Putin.  Conservatives may want to establish some capacity to understand facts when they are right in front of their faces before they expect anybody to believe what they say.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
7.1.22  r.t..b...  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.1.13    4 months ago
In other words, he was apparently answering the first part of Mason’s question but not the second about whether he directed help Trump’s way. It’s unclear if that’s because Putin didn’t hear the second half of the question, it wasn’t translated into Russian accurately, or he simply chose to ignore it."

[emphasis added]

The only winner in this entire fiasco is one Vladimir Putin. He has sown the seeds of discontent and is relishing in watching us deal with the aftermath. As we fiddle-fuck around with partisan 'procedure' while being ridiculed by our traditional allies, the despotic leader of a second-tier player is pulling the strings of what once was the unquestioned leader of the democratic free-world. It is weakness, plain and simple, that we acquiesce, however one chooses to parse words or defend the indefensible.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
7.1.23  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  lib50 @7.1.21    4 months ago
They follow the talking points that originate with Putin.

You type crap like that and in the same comment as identifying the truth? 

hahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
7.1.24  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  lib50 @7.1.16    4 months ago

That's quite the made for TV pilot you have going there. Any networks jumping on it?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.1.25  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.1.20    4 months ago

What does "Foreign Policy News" supposed bias have to do with my comment?

I read the Atlantic article, never read anything from the site you list. In fact the Atlantic is where I copied the original quote from. No where does it prove Putin didn't hear the last part of the question and the differing translations were mere opinions by others as to what Putin "might" have meant.

So the fact remains, Putin wanted Trump to win and is laughing his ass off at how successfully he bamboozled Republicans and continues to do so. He must just giggle himself into fits listening to Republicans carelessly regurgitate the hand crafted conspiracy theories Putin has disseminated via the Russian State media controlled "RT". It really is sad how many supposed Americans have become willing stooges of the Kremlin. I never thought I'd see this day after growing up during the cold war. It really is stunning to see so many throw away their patriotism and loyalty to American values all for the ear tickling promises of protecting some fantasy white Christian nation.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
7.1.26  r.t..b...  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.25    4 months ago
I never thought I'd see this day after growing up during the cold war.

The apologists, in some sort of self-justification for defending this most self-obsessed of leaders, are beyond the pale. My Goldwater loving father, may he rest in peace, would shudder...but in fact, given that so many of his peers have chosen to inexplicably look the other way, he may have been just as likely to forget and/or ignore the fundamental tenets of his party and the defining principles of his ethos. Strange daze, indeed.

 
 
 
cjcold
7.1.27  cjcold  replied to  MUVA @7.1.11    4 months ago

Are you a student there?

 
 
 
MUVA
7.1.28  MUVA  replied to  cjcold @7.1.27    4 months ago

No my handicapped son went there you should go to their site and see what good work they do.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
7.1.29  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.25    4 months ago

No, no you didn't..........maybe. Funny I googled it and it went directly to FP even quoting the "reporter", Jeff Mason from Reuter's as saying that............

Jeff Mason from Reuters : President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?  [The words in red were omitted from the White House transcript]

And obviously he got his wires crossed while trying to lie. It wasn't the words in red they supposedly left out of the quote.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/07/18/heres-what-trump-and-putin-actually-said-in-helsinki/

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.1.30  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.1.29    4 months ago
No, no you didn't..........

I read the Atlantic article when it was first written back in July of 2018. When I'm looking for the quote to use I Google 'Putin admits helping Trump Atlantic' and it comes up first every time.

"Funny I googled it and it went directly to FP "

I Googled "it" and it went directly to the "It" IMDB movie page from 2017...

"quoting the "reporter", Jeff Mason "

From the Atlantic: "The Reuters reporter Jeff Mason asked, “President Putin...". Not sure why you're stuck trying to prove I read some other website that you believe is biased, especially when I was simply quoting the reporter and the response according most translators. I did not include any opinion or perspective, so your continued complaints of bias are irrelevant.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.31  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1.12    4 months ago
I suggest you stop voting the way Putin wants you to.

I will vote for whoever I chose to like I always have. But if I decide I need your advice, I'll let you know, mmmkay?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
7.1.32  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.7    4 months ago
What else do they have?

less than they think...

the friday cliff hanger:   

 it should be interesting to see what the lawless demoncrats do now.

https://twitter.com/RepDougCollins/status/1202990604675952640

original

I think collins just pissed in schiffs cornflakes... 

 
 
 
lib50
7.1.33  lib50  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @7.1.32    4 months ago

Lawless democrats?   You are losing your shit, ball.  The humor has been replaced with a desperate kind of grasping for a way to flip the script to projection.  Just freaking stop.  Trump and the gop have tried to stop every part of all the investigations since the beginning, THAT is breaking the law.  He bribes and extorts, lies, fucks up foreign policy, kisses Putin ass, and has been acting as if he is above the law.  All of you have.   Just stop the bullshit and try to come up with a less pathetic defense of Trumps crimes.  The mofo got caught.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
7.1.34  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  lib50 @7.1.33    4 months ago
Lawless democrats?

you heard me... I did not stutter.

ya caught me goin out the door.

have a great night.

cheers :)

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
7.1.35  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @7.1.6    4 months ago

That, along with deflection when she gets cornered, are her main modus operandi. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.36  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.31    4 months ago
I suggest you stop voting the way Putin wants you to.
I will vote for whoever I chose to like I always have.

Are you sure that came out the way you wanted it to? jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
8  Tacos!    4 months ago

I feel for Turley. Unfortunately, in the current political climate, if you aren't in lockstep with the most extreme elements of one side, then they treat you as though you are fully supporting the other side.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @8    4 months ago

Oh I think Turley believes what he says,  but no one should defend Donald Trump, ever. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1    4 months ago
no one should defend Donald Trump, ever

See, that's a problem. If Trump has not done something wrong, he deserves to be defended when someone says he has. We don't throw out things like truth, law, and due process just because we don't like someone. People have been saying Trump should be impeached without being able to actually make an objective case for it. That's not justice and it's not right.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
8.1.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Tacos! @8.1.1    4 months ago
If Trump has not done something wrong, he deserves to be defended when someone says he has.

Hence the coming trial in the Senate, where every opportunity to defend the accusations will be given proper consideration. The partisan nature of an impeachment proceeding has been well established and the pending trial will balance the scales in the political sense...here's hoping the facts will be incontrovertible and the truth will out.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @8.1.1    4 months ago
People have been saying Trump should be impeached without being able to actually make an objective case for it. That's not justice and it's not right.

Trump has committed many impeachable offenses. Google it.  The idea that he is being railroaded is beyond bizarre. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  r.t..b... @8.1.2    4 months ago

Are you actually going to vote for someone who has the baggage he does? 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
8.1.5  r.t..b...  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.4    4 months ago
Are you actually going to vote for someone who has the baggage he does? 

I will never cast a ballot for the most ill-qualified, ill-mannered, and ineloquent candidate imaginable. I also feel the impeachment proceedings are justified. But ultimately, I still have faith in the system and will abide by the decisions rendered (agree or disagree) and then move on...hopefully to bigger and better things than the morass in which we currently find ourselves.

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.3    4 months ago
Trump has committed many impeachable offenses. Google it.

How many had he committed on January 20, 2017? Or in December 2016? Or in April 2016? Because have been talking about impeaching him for that long.

Google it.

The idea that he is being railroaded is beyond bizarre. 

The fact that you think so is one of the worst cases of denial I have ever seen.

2016, John. 2016! He wasn't even president yet. How can you possibly justify that? How can you look at that record and say there isn't something about this that has been dishonest, unfair, or partisan?

 
 
 
Jasper2529
8.1.7  Jasper2529  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.3    4 months ago
Trump has committed many impeachable offenses.

When asked, neither Schiff's nor Nadler's "witnesses" could name even ONE impeachable offense/crime. 

 
 
 
lib50
8.1.8  lib50  replied to  Jasper2529 @8.1.7    4 months ago

Um, hello, Bueller.  It is not and was not their place to name anything, they are not there in that capacity.  As they said.  Way to make a false statement.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
8.1.9  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  lib50 @8.1.8    4 months ago
It is not and was not their place to name anything,

a witness does not have to witness anything. just have assumptions and feelings?

okay then... LOL

 
 
 
lib50
8.1.10  lib50  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @8.1.9    4 months ago

You and Jasper are the ones feeling and assuming it matters what the witnesses think of that question, as they are NOT there in that capacity to make that judgement.  Lol indeed.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
8.1.11  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.3    4 months ago

And yet nobody has managed to prove anything in a court of law and zero convictions have been handed down. The idea that the left just keeps trying is in fact truly bizarre and it does in fact show attempt at railroading.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
9  seeder  Vic Eldred    4 months ago

In Conclusion:

I think the objective observed can now conclude that democrats have made the claim, without evidence, that Trump was trying to get Ukraine to meddle in the 2020 election by asking for their cooperation in investigating Ukrainian efforts to meddle in the 2016 election.

Furthermore, they claim that this is such a dire threat that Trump must be removed from office and disqualified from running in 2020. 

It is undeniably an attempt to weaken the President in the 2020 election. With the onslaught of negative stories being spun by the leftist media even a president with such impressive economic achievements can be weakened. They may succeed. It could also backfire in a big way. Time will tell.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

bbl-1
bccrane
loki12
Donald J. Trump Fan #1
Tacos!
Texan1211
Freedom Warrior
devangelical
CB
lady in black


47 visitors