Live: House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Inquiry Hearing
- Thread starter ElectricBlanketFire
- Start date
He actually was moved to the intel committee just for impeachment.
I just wish those asking these republicans questions would just be like stop fucking lying and quit bullshitting. Call them out at every turn on their untruths.
He actually isn't even on the Intelligence committee and was added in late
Well, it was somewhat short-sighted for the Dems to ignore him during their round of questions.
Not really why give him time to bloviate and waste time when the other expert witness can layout why Trump needs to be impeached much better.
I thought he would have gone to Turley and asked something along the lines of:
"Does impeachment have to be unanimous approval by the House?"
"No"
"What percentage of the House is required to impeach?"
"Simple majority"
"And what percentage of the Senate is required to convict?"
"Two-thirds supermajority."
"How many expert witnesses are present today?"
"Four"
"And what percentage of them are testifying that they believe the President committed impeachable acts?"
"Three-fourths"
Something like that.
For sure. I agree. But it also allows an opening for the GOP to claim an unfair questioning process.
They can call more time to cross examine. Works in their favor this way
OP
OP
Serious question/out of curiosity: why/how are these 4 witnesses selected?
I mean I get Harvard and Stanford being top ranked schools and all, but George Washington and UNC are probably fine schools but (at least to me) not known for their law schools in particular.
So Any specific reason these people were chosen?
I mean I get Harvard and Stanford being top ranked schools and all, but George Washington and UNC are probably fine schools but (at least to me) not known for their law schools in particular.
So Any specific reason these people were chosen?
UNC is one of the oldest law schools in the country. Makes sense, since this is about constitutional law.
GW School of Law has a conservative lean, at least on the spectrum of the highly liberal-leaning world of law school academia.
UNC I don't know.
they're going to turn this "monetary" bribery argument against him when they bring up the amount of money foreign nationals give to Trump estates.
I imagine it's less to do with the school specifically and more that Turley is one of the few notable scholars you're likely to find who would even begin to argue slightly against this impeachment.
He's convincing those who needed no words at all to be convinced, and it fills the time, and that's really all they need.
Hell even if he's right, sure throw the bribery charge away entirely. The open and flaunted obstruction of congress in the course of the investigation has been so indefensible that he can be impeached for that alone anyway. I'm curious to see how Turley tries to worm around that, once it gets back to majority questions.
