It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
TURLEY: Well, I think the Democrats had a particularly good day. Ambassador Taylor proved to be the witness that they hoped they had in Mueller. He proved to be lucid and quite compelling on television. He - most of us felt that he is precisely the type of person you want as ambassador of Ukraine.
And so they made a lot of progress in establishing that the view of virtually everyone involved was that there was a quid pro quo connecting the military aid to an investigation of the Bidens.
And also, I think they also made a nice connection at the very end of the hearing, when Chairman Schiff said that it's true that the military aid was indeed given to Ukraine without those demands being fulfilled. But it actually occurred 48 hours after it became known that the IG report involving this whistleblower had gone to Congress, and so the White House was aware that this was about to blow open into the public sphere.
the Republicans noted that and established a timeline of their own. And the most important, in my view, was that it's clear that the Ukraine did not know about the hold on the aid until around August 29, when a political article ran. And Taylor pretty much confirmed that by saying that as soon as that article ran talking about the hold, he got a virtually immediate call from the Ukraine.
Now, the aid was released only about 10 or 11 days after that. So the question for a lot of people is going to be, how significant, really, is that? They didn't really know about the quid pro quo, if there was one. And more importantly, the aid got to them. And so the argument is sort of like - you know, in Watergate, they made it into the office. You know, they actually did a criminal act. Here, it's not clear.
TURLEY: I'm afraid history does not support Chairman Schiff on his suggestion of a bribery article of impeachment. His position is that bribery was defined differently during the colonial times and had this much broader meaning. On the face of it, I thought that was a little bit humorous because, you know, Chairman Schiff seems to support a living Constitution, so suddenly, he sounds like an originalist. But the problem is that it was not the case - that bribery was defined differently, but it was not as broadly defined as Chairman Schiff suggests.
I think if they use a bribery article of impeachment, it will undermine them dramatically from a constitutional standpoint. You will follow tragedy with farce, in my view.
TURLEY: Well, there's obviously a rather last-minute paradigm shift in what is being argued as impeachable. For three years, Democratic members have argued that impeachable and even criminal acts are well-established on the record, particularly from special counsel Mueller. None of that stuff is being proposed as an article of impeachment thus far. And instead, they're focusing solely on this Ukrainian controversy. That would be the narrowest foundation of any impeachment in history, particularly for a president.
You know, if you take a look at the three past impeachments, the gold standard is Nixon, which is ironic because it didn't result in an impeachment. But it was broad. It was so strong that he resigned.
This is very similar to the Johnson impeachment. Even though there were 11 articles there, they were all based basically on the same types of claims dealing with the Tenure in Office Act (ph) and the termination of the secretary of war. That failed. It failed because even members of the opposing party felt that it was an abuse of the impeachment process.
And Clinton was also quite narrow. This would be even narrower still.
He also thinks Chairman Schiff did a good job challenge Republican claims that no crime could have occurred because the money was released with out reciprocation from the Ukrainians.
originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: DanDanDat
Seeing as he was being interviewed by notoriously Left leaning NPR, he had to hand out a little praise for the Dems so as not to trigger the interviewer.
But in the end as a law professor, he knows the law....and the Dems dumpster fire isn’t even close.
originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: DanDanDat
Seeing as he was being interviewed by notoriously Left leaning NPR, he had to hand out a little praise for the Dems so as not to trigger the interviewer.
But in the end as a law professor, he knows the law....and the Dems dumpster fire isn’t even close.
originally posted by: ChefFox
a reply to: DanDanDat
He also thinks Chairman Schiff did a good job challenge Republican claims that no crime could have occurred because the money was released with out reciprocation from the Ukrainians.
Again that i still see no crimes being committed. The Ukrainians got the aid they wanted to aid with their militant groups.
originally posted by: Caractacus
originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: DanDanDat
Since they are currently basing their entire impeachment on heresy
Heresy.
originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: DanDanDat
Since they are currently basing their entire impeachment on heresy and the opinion of non-elected governmental officials, I personally don't think it's doing as well as he thinks.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: DanDanDat
Since they are currently basing their entire impeachment on heresy and the opinion of non-elected governmental officials, I personally don't think it's doing as well as he thinks.
Thank you for that refreshing level of honesty.
I don’t know of many Ardent Trump Supporters who would so openly admit how they feel about someone criticizing the President ... but HERESY! You come right out, eh?
Burn the Unbelievers!
(Lol)