Imagine not knowing what your own witness is going to say
I'm not a lawyer, but even I know that in court (or hearings like this one) you never ask a person a question if you don't know what they are going to say.
So either the Republicans missed Legal Questioning 101 (and have never watched a Legal Eagle video) or their "evidence" is so flimsy that "there isn't enough to impeach" was their best opening.
I'm gonna go with the unmentioned third option, which is that this was all just a petty charade from the start. They knew there was nothing impeachable here, but they're doing the bare minimum just to keep up appearances and rile up their base with the rallying cry of impeachment. They have no real intention of impeaching Biden, they just want their supporters to think they do.
But also Comer is a colossal moron.
Like I think he might actually give Boebert a run for lowest IQ.
This, so much this. Everything right niw, the Biden impeachment, the Trum court processes, the whole Speaker thing...
They want to turn the country into a circus and mock and damage the institutions of democracy and law as much as possible while rallying up their base. They hope to be able to destroy the institutions eventually and replace them with an autocracy.
Well, that too. They have a few tiny shreds of things which, if taken out of context and squinted at just right while ignoring all logic, might make conspiracy theorists declare a link, but even Republicans are admitting that this is far from what is needed to impeach.
No one really understands (or cares) what impeachment means, myself included.
There was a big noise about it for Trump, and he was somehow tarnished by it but ultimately nothing happened.
They can manufacture the same stink on biden without actually impeaching him.
Impeachment is saying and "proving" someone is guilty of a thing.
The problem is, it's entirely separate from the consequences... You can be impeached and also suffer nothing except for the knowledge that you are publicly guilty of what you did.
Impeachment is saying and "proving" someone is guilty of a thing.
It's more like an indictment of sorts. An investigation was done and it seems that a crime has been committed. It begins a trial in the Senate that determines whether it warrants punishment.
Por que no Los dos?
"There isn't enough to impeach" implies that there actually is some evidence, instead of just GOP delusions.
Edit: I should have been clearer. By saying this the way they did, they are sending the message to their audience that there is evidence, just not enough to convict. While there is no evidence at all.
There's not enough evidence to convict you of raping and murdering a dozen puppies yesterday.
A lack of evidence is not evidence.
No. It’s delusions.
“High crimes and misdemeanors” doesn’t mean “serious crimes.” It doesn’t mean felonies. It’s the political equivalent of what we call “Conduct Unbecoming an Officer.” That may be a literal crime, of course, like the multiple Hatch Act violations during the Trump administration. It could be the appearance of accepting bribes from foreign officials when they rent your real estate at exorbitant prices. It could be trying to overthrow an election. It could be strong-arming a foreign leader to manufacture dirt on your political opponent. There’s a lot of latitude there.
High crimes means that a public official, in their capacity as a public official, betrayed the public trust.
"High," in the legal and common vocabulary of the 17th and 18th centuries of "high crimes," is the activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that is not shared with ordinary persons. A high crime can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or demanding criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover an extensive range of crimes.
What they’re saying is that they have bupkis. Zilch. Nada.
Well, first off, a lawyer can find evidence for everything, even if it's flimsy af.
Chemtrails? Everyone sees the white dust from air planes.
Flat earth? Well if earth is underneath me, and the ground is flat...
So there might be some teeny tiny evidence for that, but obviously not enough for any solid case.
Also consider the fact that "not enough evidence" can also mean none at all. That's not mutually exclusive.
Oh, there's definitely no evidence, but when the Republicans are saying they "don't have enough evidence" you know that they are reaching. They're willing to accept wild leaps of logic based on the flimsiest of foundations, but even they are admitting that it isn't enough for impeachment.
They know they can’t have Biden removed, it doesn’t matter. They’ve already succeeded in convincing their base and any who would swing their way that Biden is a criminal. Better vote Trump just to be safe…
There's barely enough to get Hunter in a court room. And they've probably created more legally actionable offenses trying to pursue it than actionable offenses exist against the president (actually almost certainly add the second number is almost certainly 0), but nobody will pursue those crimes because it might look like it's politically motivated, just ignore the accusations from the right when you read the previous statement.
Nah, per the latest gun ruling they don't even have that. Shall not be infringed is the only part of gun law that matters anymore.
There are 9 headlines at the hill and they are all about Republicans.
Probably because Republicans can't stop fucking up?
Well I guess it'll be the hill they'll die on.
Are you claiming this article, about the democratic president impeachment, is a gop article? Yeah the GOP are involved, but it's pretty disingenuous to say this is about the gop
The article about a gop witness at a gop hearing accusing biden of nothing substantial?
Overall, we rate The Hill Least Biased based on balanced editorial positions and news reporting that is low-biased. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High, due to previous opinion columns promoting unproven claims.
I never claimed they were breitbart, just that they have a slant. Play a little jazz. Music isn't just the notes you play, it's also the notes you're not playing. News bias is the same.
I love how they are so desperate for narrative, then they are willing to admit that they don't have one they just want him punished
It's smoke and mirrors. They want attention off trump and the House right now
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Jonathan Turley, a go-to witness for conservatives in Congress, at one point told lawmakers some of the details they’d gathered “really do gravitate in favor of the president.”
“But I also believe that the House has passed the threshold for an impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Biden.”
“The key here that the committee has to drill down on is whether they can establish a linkage with the influence peddling, which is a form of corruption, and the President whether he had knowledge, whether he participated, whether he encouraged it.
“But without that type of nexus, then no, I don’t,” he added in response to whether he would back a vote to impeach President Biden.
Later in the hearing, Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) repeated portions of Turley’s testimony, saying, “Boy, that’s awkward.”
There’s no reason why we should be talking about actual articles of impeachment until this investigation moves forward,” he added.
The original article contains 326 words, the summary contains 153 words. Saved 53%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
This is good for the GOP. The length of the inquiry will be in proportion to how aimless it is.
Imagine not knowing what your own witness is going to say
I'm not a lawyer, but even I know that in court (or hearings like this one) you never ask a person a question if you don't know what they are going to say.
So either the Republicans missed Legal Questioning 101 (and have never watched a Legal Eagle video) or their "evidence" is so flimsy that "there isn't enough to impeach" was their best opening.
I'm gonna go with the unmentioned third option, which is that this was all just a petty charade from the start. They knew there was nothing impeachable here, but they're doing the bare minimum just to keep up appearances and rile up their base with the rallying cry of impeachment. They have no real intention of impeaching Biden, they just want their supporters to think they do.
But also Comer is a colossal moron.
Like I think he might actually give Boebert a run for lowest IQ.
This, so much this. Everything right niw, the Biden impeachment, the Trum court processes, the whole Speaker thing...
They want to turn the country into a circus and mock and damage the institutions of democracy and law as much as possible while rallying up their base. They hope to be able to destroy the institutions eventually and replace them with an autocracy.
Well, that too. They have a few tiny shreds of things which, if taken out of context and squinted at just right while ignoring all logic, might make conspiracy theorists declare a link, but even Republicans are admitting that this is far from what is needed to impeach.
No one really understands (or cares) what impeachment means, myself included.
There was a big noise about it for Trump, and he was somehow tarnished by it but ultimately nothing happened.
They can manufacture the same stink on biden without actually impeaching him.
Impeachment is saying and "proving" someone is guilty of a thing.
The problem is, it's entirely separate from the consequences... You can be impeached and also suffer nothing except for the knowledge that you are publicly guilty of what you did.
It's more like an indictment of sorts. An investigation was done and it seems that a crime has been committed. It begins a trial in the Senate that determines whether it warrants punishment.
Por que no Los dos?
"There isn't enough to impeach" implies that there actually is some evidence, instead of just GOP delusions.
Edit: I should have been clearer. By saying this the way they did, they are sending the message to their audience that there is evidence, just not enough to convict. While there is no evidence at all.
There's not enough evidence to convict you of raping and murdering a dozen puppies yesterday.
A lack of evidence is not evidence.
No. It’s delusions.
“High crimes and misdemeanors” doesn’t mean “serious crimes.” It doesn’t mean felonies. It’s the political equivalent of what we call “Conduct Unbecoming an Officer.” That may be a literal crime, of course, like the multiple Hatch Act violations during the Trump administration. It could be the appearance of accepting bribes from foreign officials when they rent your real estate at exorbitant prices. It could be trying to overthrow an election. It could be strong-arming a foreign leader to manufacture dirt on your political opponent. There’s a lot of latitude there.
High crimes means that a public official, in their capacity as a public official, betrayed the public trust.
What they’re saying is that they have bupkis. Zilch. Nada.
Well, first off, a lawyer can find evidence for everything, even if it's flimsy af.
Chemtrails? Everyone sees the white dust from air planes.
Flat earth? Well if earth is underneath me, and the ground is flat...
So there might be some teeny tiny evidence for that, but obviously not enough for any solid case.
Also consider the fact that "not enough evidence" can also mean none at all. That's not mutually exclusive.
Oh, there's definitely no evidence, but when the Republicans are saying they "don't have enough evidence" you know that they are reaching. They're willing to accept wild leaps of logic based on the flimsiest of foundations, but even they are admitting that it isn't enough for impeachment.
They know they can’t have Biden removed, it doesn’t matter. They’ve already succeeded in convincing their base and any who would swing their way that Biden is a criminal. Better vote Trump just to be safe…
There's barely enough to get Hunter in a court room. And they've probably created more legally actionable offenses trying to pursue it than actionable offenses exist against the president (actually almost certainly add the second number is almost certainly 0), but nobody will pursue those crimes because it might look like it's politically motivated, just ignore the accusations from the right when you read the previous statement.
Nah, per the latest gun ruling they don't even have that. Shall not be infringed is the only part of gun law that matters anymore.
There are 9 headlines at the hill and they are all about Republicans.
Probably because Republicans can't stop fucking up?
Well I guess it'll be the hill they'll die on.
Are you claiming this article, about the democratic president impeachment, is a gop article? Yeah the GOP are involved, but it's pretty disingenuous to say this is about the gop
The article about a gop witness at a gop hearing accusing biden of nothing substantial?
Isn't the hill a right wing rag?
Not according to mediabiasfactcheck.com
I never claimed they were breitbart, just that they have a slant. Play a little jazz. Music isn't just the notes you play, it's also the notes you're not playing. News bias is the same.
I love how they are so desperate for narrative, then they are willing to admit that they don't have one they just want him punished
It's smoke and mirrors. They want attention off trump and the House right now
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Jonathan Turley, a go-to witness for conservatives in Congress, at one point told lawmakers some of the details they’d gathered “really do gravitate in favor of the president.”
“But I also believe that the House has passed the threshold for an impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Biden.”
“The key here that the committee has to drill down on is whether they can establish a linkage with the influence peddling, which is a form of corruption, and the President whether he had knowledge, whether he participated, whether he encouraged it.
“But without that type of nexus, then no, I don’t,” he added in response to whether he would back a vote to impeach President Biden.
Later in the hearing, Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) repeated portions of Turley’s testimony, saying, “Boy, that’s awkward.”
There’s no reason why we should be talking about actual articles of impeachment until this investigation moves forward,” he added.
The original article contains 326 words, the summary contains 153 words. Saved 53%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
This is good for the GOP. The length of the inquiry will be in proportion to how aimless it is.