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.

 

Pofessor At Nadler's Circus Show States Shipshod Impeachment Effort Is WRONG

page: 1
44
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+16 more 
posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Professor Jonathon Turley was at today's House Judiciary Committee impeachment inquiry, to give his opinion.

After watching most of the hearing, IMO, Professor Jonathon Turley isn't blinded by any noticeable bias or dislike for President Trump, unlike the other three law professors who were at this hearing. He's just stating his "opinion" based on the evidence he reviewed.

However, MSM and the Democrats will most likely ignore and disapprove Turley's testimony, because it pokes holes in the Dems impeachment effort. MSM will instead, focus and highlight any witness testimony that supports the Dems weak impeachment effort.

No doubt the following clip of a grouchy, unhinged and BIASED Professor will be replayed many times on the news.

But, how much weight will Professor Turley's statements have in the eyes of Democrats, or MSM for that matter? Probably not much, since he made quite a few negative statements in regards to the "slipshod" impeachment effort by the Democrats.

His opinion certainly doesn't fit their narrative and I'm sure many were caught off guard by Turley's statements at today's hearing. All the more reason to write a thread concerning those statements, because they should not be ignored.


"This impeachment is wrong because this is not how you impeach an American President."

Turley states that this impeachment lacks any "compelling evidence" of a commission of a crime and is an "incomplete and inadequate" record in order to impeach a President.



+8 more 
posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Funny, I watched the cranky woman, and all I could think of is "where the fluck was she during the 2016 election when the Steele Dossier was released? Or is that different because of .....reasons?


+4 more 
posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Looking at the words of the President... he asked for an investigation "because if it is true it would be horrible". I think we all can agree that if Biden did favors to make his son a multi-millionaire that would be horrible. The interesting thing that no ones actually brings up is that Trump didn't randomly go to Ukraine to look for dirt, or pay someone to create fake dirt using foreign bad actors, he only went to Ukraine because that is where it all went down with Biden's son. Whether it was a company in America of overseas it would be bad either way, but because it was overseas the left is suggesting it is off limits, and with that I disagree 100%.

If it is nothing then no harm no fowl, if not then we should know. Its not like Trump was asking for a creation of a dossier. just investigation into something that doesn't smell very good.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:00 PM
link   
At least someone on Capitol Shill has a modicum of ethics.



+10 more 
posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

She was giving an interview saying that Trump needs to be impeached a few weeks after he got in.

As were the other two lawyers...lol

When they weren't commentators on CNN or NBC.

I kid you not... you should see the background on those "experts".

Turley had it right.

👍



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:06 PM
link   
The evidence is clear... Nobody can deny it.

Trump monkeys will say no big deal.

But like their pochantos princess likes to say..

your opinion does not matter, nor does hers....

Nobodys opion here matters...stars and flags though,,, lol



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

dailycaller.com...



Democrats reportedly selected Norm Eisen on Tuesday to lead the questioning of witnesses, not Barry Berke as was expected. Eisen is a co-founder of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and served in the Obama administration before joining the Brookings Institution. He is also a frequent CNN commentator.




The Democrats’ witness list also raises questions about potential bias against the president, as two out of the three witnesses they called are, in additional to being constitutional lawyers, Democratic donors. Pamela Karlan has donated over $10,000 to numerous Democratic candidates, such as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Doug Jones, while Michael Gerhardt donated $1000 to Barack Obama in 2007.




The New York Times describes Karlan as a “legal leader to progressive causes,” pointing out that she is on the board of the “left-leaning” American Constitution Society and that she signed a letter in 2016 from constitutional law scholars expressing “concerns” about Trump’s rhetoric. Gerhardt, meanwhile, worked on Al Gore’s Senate campaign and helped with Bill Clinton’s transition team.(RELATED: White House Declines House Judiciary Impeachment Hearing Invitation)


Turley only honest one out of the lot.


+12 more 
posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: tinner07




The evidence is clear... Nobody can deny it.


We've heard the same snip about Russia,Climate change, and Gun violence.

Give it up.

We're not buying the snip anymore.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

It all comes down to "intent".

How can the dems prove "intent".



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:11 PM
link   
She was giving an interview saying that Trump needs to be impeached a few weeks after he got in.

trump asked if he could pardon himself too right? like right when he got in?



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   
He said his dog was angry. lol


+7 more 
posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Watching Mr 'Guams gonna tip over' speak now.....

This hearing is a snapshot of #clownworld. How any American watching this can come away believing it's for the betterment of the country is delusional.

No, what we are witnessing here is known as Precedent, and precedent has a funny way of coming back to haunt the originators.

A POTUS can only maintain the oval office for a max. of 8 years, precedent lasts much much longer.

I have faith that the American people are not as stupid as what the MSM wishes (and says) they were and come November 8th next year, we'll know for sure.

BTW, who is going to be running against Trump? Must be the first time in recent history that no clear democrat front runner has emerged 10 months out from the most important day of that parties life....weird!!



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: shawmanfromny

It all comes down to "intent".

How can the dems prove "intent".



In other words.

Thought crime.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:14 PM
link   


She was giving an interview saying that Trump needs to be impeached a few weeks after he got in.

As were the other two lawyers...lol

When they weren't commentators on CNN or NBC.

I kid you not... you should see the background on those "experts".

Turley had it right.
a reply to: Lumenari

But like you said... Your opinion does not matter here ...


+2 more 
posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft


What the democrats are doing is called, "An Abuse of Power".

They know the Senate won't vote for impeachment, so they'll try to influence the 2020 election this way.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Never underestimate the stupidity and gullibility of the average citizen.

We already know at least half of them are useful idiots.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Thankfully Democrats continue to ignore all reasonable explanations.

We need to get to the Senate where the real crimes will be exposed.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Looking at the words of the President... he asked for an investigation "because if it is true it would be horrible". I think we all can agree that if Biden did favors to make his son a multi-millionaire that would be horrible. The interesting thing that no ones actually brings up is that Trump didn't randomly go to Ukraine to look for dirt, or pay someone to create fake dirt using foreign bad actors, he only went to Ukraine because that is where it all went down with Biden's son. Whether it was a company in America of overseas it would be bad either way, but because it was overseas the left is suggesting it is off limits, and with that I disagree 100%.

If it is nothing then no harm no fowl, if not then we should know. Its not like Trump was asking for a creation of a dossier. just investigation into something that doesn't smell very good.



In May 2017, Trump talked about investigating them. After the election, Ukraine came to us to give us evidence, they got turned away by 44 and his administration. So therefore, I see nothing wrong with what Trump did.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:17 PM
link   
All the R's have to do is replay the Schiff parody and his throne comment and slice it with Turleys testimony, and run it every day for the next year for their political ads.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: shawmanfromny

It all comes down to "intent".

How can the dems prove "intent".



In other words.

Thought crime.


Exactly.

The dems see Trump kneel down to pick up a penny he saw on the floor because, "hey!" Trumps thinks, "A Penny!"

But the dems see Trump kneeling down to pick up a penny as a signal to Putin to Nuke San Francisco and eat borsht and dance on "Dancing with the Stars" and as a signal for all his voters to reject democrat thought-waves broadcasted by Maxine Watters.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join