Below is my column in USA Today on the effort to impeach President Joe Biden over his freezing of arms shipments to Israel. While one can strongly disagree with the policy or the motivation behind the action, it is not a high crime and misdemeanor in my view.
Here is the column:
After the two impeachments of former President Donald Trump, Congress seems to be on a hair-trigger for anything that can be plausibly, or even implausibly, defined as a high crime and misdemeanor. The latest example is the impeachment resolution introduced against President Joe Biden over his decision to withhold arms from Israel in an attempt to prevent an operation in Rafah to destroy Hamas’ remaining military units.
While there is much to question about Biden’s motivations and his means to pressure Israel, it is not an impeachable offense.
The sponsor of the impeachment resolution, Florida Republican Rep. Cory Mills, maintains that “President Biden abused the powers of his office by soliciting a ‘quid pro quo’ with Israel while leveraging vital military aid for policy changes. This egregious action not only compromised the credibility of the United States but also undermined the interests of our longstanding ally.”
On the surface, there is an obvious appeal for Republicans to use these grounds to impeach Biden. After all, in 2019, Democrats impeached Trump on the basis of a phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in which the president threatened to withhold military aid to that country. Democrats insisted that Trump used the threat to deny aid as a way to encourage Zelenskyy to investigate Biden for corruption in Ukraine.
Political analysts on the left and the right have acknowledged that Biden’s hardened stance toward Israel is due to his faltering poll numbers and the threat that he could lose Michigan and Minnesota in the upcoming election. A loss in Michigan, where the state’s large Muslim population has rejected Biden’s past support for Israel, would likely doom his chances for reelection.
Presidents often make decisions based on politics
Even assuming that Biden’s recent changes were motivated by politics in Michigan (which I believe is a fair assessment), it would not be a high crime and misdemeanor. Presidents routinely act out of political interests. Indeed, a democracy involves using one’s voting power to influence politicians like Biden to change policy. The more than 100,000 “uncommitted” votes in Michigan’s Democratic primary clearly spooked the Biden White House.
To impeach presidents for such discretionary conduct would make impeachment a type of “vote of no confidence” device used in countries like the United Kingdom. That is not the purpose of impeachment, which was meant to be a rarely-used measure to address the most egregious forms of presidential misconduct.
The recent resolution falls into a type of “just desserts” rationale for impeachment. I testified in the first Trump impeachment and opposed it on constitutional grounds. I warned Democrats that they would rue the day that they lowered the standard and short-circuited the process for impeachment.
At the time, I told the House Judiciary Committee: “President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided.”
Democrats were wrong then; Republicans are wrong now
After ignoring that warning, Democrats went a step further in the second impeachment in 2021 and used what I called a “snap impeachment” in an attempt to punish Trump for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Campus protests:Columbia cancels graduation ceremony because of student protests. It’s the wrong choice.
It would be an easy thing to say “well, turnabout is fair play, so a pox upon their house.” The problem is that this is the people’s house and we all are harmed by the destruction of the impeachment process. Democrats were wrong in 2019 and 2021 to impeach Trump, but yielding to the same political motives now is no virtue.
Ironically, the new impeachment resolution does precisely what Biden is accused of doing: using constitutionally bestowed powers for raw political purposes.
The White House has insisted that this latest effort is “ridiculous.” Except that isn’t ridiculous given Democrats’ past actions. But it is equally wrong.
In 2023, I testified in the Biden impeachment hearing and said that I believed that there was sufficient basis − and potential impeachable conduct − to justify an inquiry into the Biden corruption scandal. Without prejudging the outcome of that investigation, it was clear that, if proven, some of the allegations would meet the demanding standard under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
The new allegations would not. Even if Biden were shown to be hampering Israel’s war to help him win Michigan, it would not be sufficient. The line between politics and policy has always been imprecise, if not imperceptible. All presidents are first and foremost political creatures. They often use the most noble sentiments to hide the most base interests.
There is a place to render a verdict on such cynical calculations, but it is not on the floor of the House. It is rather in thousands of polling places on Nov. 5.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on X, formerly Twitter: @JonathanTurley
Turley is absolutely correct, and completely wrong.
There is no check on the impeachment power in the constitution. While the text provides constraints on impeachment, the courts have no jurisdiction. Therefore the house can impeach for whateever reasons it wishes, and the senate can remove or not for whatever reasons it wishes.
I do not expect this resolution to carry or even come to a vote in the house, much less reach the senate.
But it SHOULD. The only way we can reign in this nonsense is if both parties grasp that what they do to the other can be done to them.
Biden should be impeached for this – might as well add the bribery counts at the same time, and weaponizing govenrment while we are at it.
The impeachment will fail in the senate but that is OK.
Absolutely this is the house acting politically.
But it is NOT exactly the same thing. The house and to a lessor extent the Senate ARE political by constitutional design.
The presidency is less so.
Yes, Turley is correct that President do things for political reasons and that MOSTLY should not be impeachable.
But Democrats impeached Trump twice for purely political reasons.
And Republicans ARE entitled to their pound of flesh for the hypocracy of democrats.
This type of bad conduct does not end until there are consequences.
So Impeach Biden NOW!!
@John Say,
“Biden should be impeached for this – might as well add the bribery counts at the same time, and weaponizing govenrment while we are at it.”
It’s not an impeachable offense to delay military aid. According to republicans and professor Turley. There is zero evidence of bribery committed by President Biden. We know the allegations were based on a lie admitted by a former FBI source who tried to flee the country once the FBI figured out he was not being truthful.
Impeachment will fail in the House, for the simple reason that delaying military aid is not a crime or a bribe. Homeland Secretary Mayorkas was impeached on the flimsiest of evidence and only after the first attempt to impeach failed to pass the House in an embarrassing spectacle.
Republicans are brandishing threats of impeachment for anything they don’t like or allege to be a crime without providing evidence. Such abuse is an insult to our founders original intent.
Republicans are the hypocrites here. Not democrats. Their goal is always vengeance and retribution for the audacity of democrats holding them to account for their behavior and abuses of power. Republicans abdicated their responsibility just today when some decided to go cheer and support Trump in court and ignored their obligation to attend a scheduled committee chaired by Comer. He was forced to cancel the committee hearing because members chose to go to Trump’s trial and bad mouth the judge and the case. It shows Trump is very likely to get convicted. They are helping trump violate his gag order by proxy and judge Merchan is bound to hold a hearing on it soon. Trump could be held in contempt of court because of that.
The trial is not going well for Trump. Defense lawyer Blanche is getting desperate and is trying to provoke Cohen into an overreaction by becoming more aggressive and raising his voice. Cohen to his credit has remained cool and collected throughout the questioning. It’s not looking good for the defense.
@George
Pbblt! I said about as much as you, but with a great fewer words. 😝😝😝
@James,
Well that’s reassuring. John Say is fond of writing long wordy comments that don’t say much other than to express a gripe or grievance about the ‘left’.
My replies might be wordy, but the claim that they do not sayu much is nonsensically false.
It is stupid lying.
You may not agree with what I say. But that is not the same as that I have said nothing of consequences.
That is more of the typical fallacious arguments of the left.
Insult your opponents.
Make fun of them.
Make fun of their arguments.
Or dismiss them as without consequence – without addressing them.
All of that is fallacy.
I do it to those of you on the left all the time.
But I do it because you all so rarely make actual arguments.
There is little left to do but insult and make fun of you.
I would prefer to actually debate you.
But you rarely make actual arguments.
I will credit you with making an actual argument regarding impeachment – though you fail Dershowitz’s “shoe on the other foot” test, because the arguments you are making regarding impeaching Mayorkas and Biden you completely ignored when it was YOU impeaching trump.
Again
“MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
When you do not give the devil the benefit of the law.
You will not get the benefit yourself, when the devil turns on you.
I would personally prefer that what you claim regarding impeachment was true – and it is definitely the plain meaning of the text of the constitution.
But the only enforcement mechanism for that text is the willingness of those in the house to adhere to it – even when they greatly desire to impeach opponents they are certain are the devil incarnate.
When you impeached Trump – you did not adhere to the plain text of the constitution regarding impeachment.
And there is no enforcement mechanism for that text.
So YOU have hewn the law down, and the Devil turned round on you, and you have nowhere to hide, the laws all being flat?
Or a more modern aphorism
You have made your bed, now you must lie in it.
You are pretty close to correct as to what the constitution says.
But once you sought to get arround that with Trump and found you could, because there is no enforcement mechanism,
You made that text in the constitution meaningless.
Your the ones who time after time have hewn down norms only to find they are no longer there to protect you when the devil has turned on you.
We need desperately to restore those norms.
But that is not possible until YOU learn that breaching them has a cost to YOU.
Until you are prepared to follow and enforce the norms, law and constitution as it is written, even though you do not agree with them until you can lawfully change them you can not expect those who disagree with you to do the same.
That means that you do not impeach presidents or others absent clear and convincing evidence of bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors.
That means that you read the constitution and laws broadly with respect to individual liberty and narrowly with respect to government power.
That means that you keep your commitments. Democrats agreed to build the southern boarder wall almost 4 decades ago with the Reagan immigration reform law. One of the reasons that Trump could use emergency funds to build the border wall is because the president has been authorized to build it by law for 40 years. Democrats during that time have refused to honor that commitment and fund building the wall. There is video of every major democrat in this country speaking of the necessity of building the southern border wall – Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, Obama, …..
There is also video of all the same democrats challenging voting machines, terminals and tabulators.
There is video of all the same Democrats challenging mailin elections, and last minute changes to election laws.
Mayorkas has not enforced federal immigration law.
He has the resources to do so. Trump was able to do so.
Even Obama did so far better than Biden.
If you want new Immigration laws – that is fine. I want new immigration laws too.
Both my children are immigrants. My ancestors – like those of almost all americans were immigrants.
While this country has a long history of ill treatment of immigrants and of restriction of immigration,
it is STILL true that no country on earth has been so welcoming of immigrants during its entire history.
You want to change immigration laws ? I have ideas that I think you might actually like.
But whether you do or not, I am not entitled to ignore the law and do as I please just because a party favoring my ideas has been elected.
You follow and enforce the law that is UNTIL you can legitimately change it.
It’s not an impeachable offense to delay military aid
Your didn’t read Johns post.
While it is not an impeachable offense, Congress can impeach, and the Senate can remove. The only check on their impeachment power, is at the ballot box
@Iowan2,
“The only check on their impeachment power, is at the ballot box”
That’s not true. One lone vote can be a check on their impeachment power. Republicans first impeachment attempt was checked by one vote.
John claims Congress can impeach for anything. That’s not really true. They can only impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors, and bribery. Not because you don’t like the president. Mayorkas was impeached not because he committed a high crime or misdemeanor. He was impeached because republicans didn’t like what he was doing. They failed to impeach him on the first attempt because some congressmen correctly believed he did not commit impeachable offenses. Only when many were coerced and jawboned into changing their vote did they succeed despite the fact that they chose to impeach not in any offense, but because they didn’t like the fact that he was doing his job, and not they way they wanted him to do it.
That’s not true. One lone vote can be a check on their impeachment power. Republicans first impeachment attempt was checked by one vote.
Dense, stupid, or just the fall back to pedantry.
The vote you speak of is the vote to launch an impeachment trial. NOT IMPEACHMENT
Obvious to all, is the larger truth,. IMPEACHMENT BY CONGRESS cannot be challenged. Conviction by the Senate cannot be overturned.
What if congress impeach the President for bad hair plugs? and the Senate convicts?
What can be done to restore the President?
Thank you. You made my point more succinctly.
I absoltuely agree with Turley and with George and I suspect almost everyone here does to – that Impeachment SHOULD be limited to the reasons specified in the constitution. And for almost 250 years it has been – sort of.
Andrew Johnson was impeached for pretty much exactly the same reasonm that Mayokas was – with one twist.
The law that Johnson ran afoul of was passed while Johnson was president over his veto for the purposes of “fitting him up” to be impeached and was likely unconstitutional.
The Clinton impeachment was messy. Clinton did obstruct Justice and did lie under oath twice.
But the Subpreme court got it wrong – and I beleive they subsequently corrected.
The Paula Jones case should not have been allowed to proceed while Clinton was president.
Paula Jones and all the women Clinton defamed and abused were entitled to their day in court, but not until after Clinton left office.
Neither of the Trump impeachments meets the constitutional requirements.
The Mayorkas impeachment does, and their should be a trial. Impeaching Biden for bribery does.
Impeaching Biden for using aide to Israel as a political football to win an election is an issue that should be decided by VOTERS not congress.
There may be circumstances in which the courts or congress can block the political acts of presidents but they can not impeach for seeking political advantage.
The allegation regarding Trump in Ukraine is far less offensive than Biden’s conduct with Israel,
But if Trump actually did what was alleged it comes CLOSER to the constitutional definition of an impeachable offence.
Hoever Biden’s weaponization of Government against Trump is WAY over the line. That is worse than bribery.
A lone vote in the house is not a check on the impeachment power of the house.
It is just a person voting not to impeach.
It does not change the actual power.
I do not disagree with you about the text of the constitution.
We have had this debate over what is or is not impeachable according to the constitution for 4 years – actually longer.
I have supported Turley and your argument in the past. You are correct about what the constitution DOES say.
But if the constitution had been followed – Trump would not have been impeached.
When house democrats twice exceeded what the constitution allowed, that made perfectly legally and constitutionally clear than the limits within the constitution are TOOTHLESS – they are MEANINGLESS.
If you want this expressed differently the house can impeach for any reason that they can get 218 votes for.
That addresses you “one lone vote” argument.
Do you disagree with me ?
I agree that Turley SHOULD be right
I agree that the constitution probably does not allow this particular impeachment of Biden.
But it did not allow either of the impeachments of Trump.
Yet they happened.
Whether I, You, or Turley like it the house can impeach for any reason they can get 21 votes for
PERIOD.
That is not merely the real state of the law and constitution – it is REALITY.
I do not personally like it.
Democrats should not have weaponized impeachment against Trump.
But they did.
The violated an unenforceable provision in the constitution.
By doing so without any check or conssequence they made those provisions MOOT.
That is not what I WANT.
That is how it is.
I do not beleive that is what our founders intended. In fact it is pretty clearly not what they intended.
But they provided no check on the impeachment power of the house beyond a majority vote.
They erred and they left no means to fix that error short of amending the constitution.
It is BTW not the first time out founders erred. The constitution was early amended as a result of unforseen consequences of some early proveisions.
This one has taken longer to surface.
“One lone vote can be a check on their impeachment power. ”
No 218 yeas in the house impeaches – even is 217 vote nea.
Republicans first impeachment attempt was checked by one vote.
“John claims Congress can impeach for anything. That’s not really true.”
It is absolutely true. It is just not what our founders intended.
If 2018 members of the house vote to impeach Joe Biden for wearing a gold tie on sunday.
Joe Biden has been impeached. End of story. There is no appeal.
The Senate may not take up the impeachment – as we now see with Mayokas – and again you have empowered future republicans who no loner have to take seriously impeachmentes of democrat houses when republicans control the senate.
“They can only impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors, and bribery.”
That is what the constitution says. But that provision is not enforceable.
As House Democrats demonstrated in 2019 and 2020
“Not because you don’t like the president.”
Please tell me WHAT besides getting 2018 votes in the house prevents the house from impeaching for whatever reason they wish ?
” Mayorkas was impeached not because he committed a high crime or misdemeanor. He was impeached because republicans didn’t like what he was doing.”
Republicans did not like the fact that he was not enforcing the actual law. That is a high crime and misdemeanor.
It is also not liking what he was doing.
Regardless he swore to uphold the constitution and the laws of the land – and he did not.
If the officers of the executive branch do not uphold the laws passed by congress signed into law by the president,
then we are lawless and the House can impeach and the senate should remove.
That is not even a tiny constitutional reach.
Andrew Johnson was impeached for that and nearly removed.
The only reason he was not removed is that Congress set him up – passing a anoyance law that he had poublicly stated he would not follow, specifically for the purpose of creating an impeachable offense.
That is NOT what happened with Mayorkas. They law he refuses to enforce is decades old.
If those in the executive will not enforce the law – we are lawless,
That makes our laws meaningless, and we are done.
Past presidents and their cabinet have been creative in enforcing the law.
But we have never seen anything so egregious as what has occured under Biden.
We are not talking a mere policy difference.
This is about the ACTUAL LAW.
Trump got creative to “build the wall”
he used emergency funds allocated by congress without sufficient strings attached.
I support building the wall. I do not support the way Trump did it.
But congress sis not constrain the funds sufficiently – and that is their job, and the courts did not find Trump violated the law or constitution.
I would prefer if the courts read the discretion of the executive more narrowly – but they have not.
“They failed to impeach him on the first attempt because some congressmen correctly believed he did not commit impeachable offenses.”
No they failed to impeach him because they did not get 218 votes. That is the only reason. Democrats drug in a congressmen from the hospital, surprising republicans who though they had a majority.
The 2nd Time – Republicans drug in a congressmen on an emergency basis and the impeachment passed.
What is truly disturbing is that ANY democrats opposed Mayorkas’s impeachment.
You can not expect Republicans to enforce law democrats like, if democrats are free to refuse to enforce laws republicans like.
Are you so think that you do not grasp you can not make governemnt work that way ?
Most of the country bit**s about the divisiness in government.
But it is this nonsense that causes that.
It is not impeaching people for failing to enforce the law that causes bitter division – it is failure to enforce the law.
The fundimental problem with Democrats today is that they will take the tiniest power that they have – control of a single court, or the executive of one house of congress to get their way.
That is immoral and unethical and unconstitutional.
The constitution gives minorities within the government the power to block government action.
It does NOT give them the power to FORCE government action.
This is the difference between positive and negative rights, and morality.
“Only when many were coerced and jawboned into changing their vote did they succeed despite the fact that they chose to impeach not in any offense, but because they didn’t like the fact that he was doing his job, and not they way they wanted him to do it.”
More verbal nonsense from the left.
First the ONLY thing that Republicans did to pass the Mayorkas impeachment was to bring in a congressmen that was in poor health. This is precisely what Our founders did to pass the declaration if independence.
That is not coercion.
Democrats did exactly the same thing to cause the first vote to fail.
Goose meet gander.
But more importantly – no FORCE was used. No one was hit with a baseball bat.
If you want to be credible – avoid 1984 newspeak.
Having to make choices – sometimes having choices that are not the ones you would prefer is not being “coerced”
It is life.
I would love to own my home and not have to pay a mortgage or utilities.
I did not get coerced into paying the mortgage and utilities, just because I would prefer not to have to pay them.
Almost none of us get exactly the choices we would prefer.
That is life.
It is not because someone forced us, or was evil.
ROFL
I do not need you or Turley to tell me what is or isn’t an impeachable offense – I can read the plain text of the constitution.
Both the impeachments of Trump were outside that text.
The constitution says so.
I say so
Turley said so.
And yet they happened anyway.
Who can Trump appeal to because the House illegitimately impeached ?
No one.
A constraint with no mechanism for enforcement is no constraint at all.
Therefore Turley is incorrect. Understandably so.
The house impeachments of Trump are legitimate – the courts have not expunged them.
Not because they conform to the requirements of the constitution.
But because there is no one but voters to tell the house otherwise.
Therfore the House can impeach Biden for whatever reason it wishes.
The same reasons as Democrats impeached Trump are perfectly fine with me.
Pot meet Kettle.
Goose meet Gander.
One disagreement I have with Turley is his claim that Republicans should NOT do what Democrats have done.
Democrats will not stop until it is clear their are consequences.
Republicans should impeach Biden – repeatedly – not because it is constitutional.
But because as democrats proved – the constitution be dammed they have the power to do so.
Democrats have been short sighted in their abuse of norms.
They need to feel the consequences of having their own standards applied to them.
Yes, I want Republicans to impeach Biden for unconstitutional and trivial reasons.
I am fine with their being open about it.
But Republicans can make a deal with Democrats.
If 100% of all democrats vote to rescind the Trump elections as unconstitutional prior to the 2024 Election,
Then Republicans will not move forward with impeachments on the same grounds.
I would also suggest changes to house and senate rules, but Democrats have already proven that the rules are meaningless to them.
They will change them void them or ignore them as they please.
Therefore Republicans should not agree to restrictive rules changes.
Because only republicans will be expected to conform to them.
@John Say,
“Therefore the house can impeach for whateever reasons it wishes, and the senate can remove or not for whatever reasons it wishes.”
You must think know better than a constitutional scholar like Turley.
You’re not about following the text of the constitution. Your mentality is more of an eye for an eye kind of retribution. It’s not based on any principles or the law.
Turnabout is fair play as the saying goes. That’s not the purpose or the process of an impeachment. You WANT it to be because Trump was held to account for his lawless behavior. It’s a good thing you don’t get to decide for everyone.
This is not about I want.
Trump does have to be held accountable. So does Biden, so does Mayorkas.
Contra the left – Trump stayed within the bounds of the law.
You do not like what he has said. You do not like what he has done.
Fair enough, but it was all constitutional and legal.
Challenging elections not only is legal – it actually MUST be legal, if elections can not be challenged there is no way to trust them and no way to prevent them from being fraudulent. And if you beleive that absent incredibly serious vigilance that we do not really have, that elections that effect trillions of dollars in spending do not have massive incentives for fraud – you are a moron.
US election have had a long history of Fraud. In the 19th century prior to secret ballot laws and state constitutional amendments,
the average voter was paid $3 for their ballot. That is the equivalent of about 300 today. There is ample record of election fraud through the 20th century. When HAV replaced all mechanical voting machines in 2002 I do not beleive a single one was found that did not have teeth filed off gears. There is not an election in my lifetime that some election official in Philadelphia was not convicted of significant election fraud.
You can beleive that Biden won in 2020 if you choose. You can not beleive that the election was secure, fair, honestly or lawfully conducted. NO you do not get to just make up new rules on the fly at the last minute, espeically not in ways that favor your side.
To be clear – I expect Republicans and Democrats to try to game the system. To tilt the laws in their favor. Just like I expect them to hide derogatory information in campaigns and to smear their oponents – truthfully and often not.
The Rule of law exists to make gaming the system by abusing the power of government harder.
That is why those in government promise to uphold the constitution and faithfully execute the laws.
The promise to do that – even if they do not like those laws. Even if they do not like some provisions of the constitution.
You are free as a citizen, as head of DHS, as president to try to change the law or even the constitution.
You are NOT free to ignore it. You are NOT free to fail to follow it or enforce it.
I get that many of you on the left really do not like Trump or his policies.
Had you stuck to the prior norms. To the rules of the house and the senate, you would have had more ability to check the policies that you do not like. The appointments that you do not like.
When you breached those norms – which you were free to do, you ALSO freed Republicans to do the same.
YOU caused our politics to become even more polarized and bitterly divided by undermining the moderating norms to accomlish your policy goals.
“MORE: What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
ROPER: Yes! I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
The norms, the laws the constitution are all there to protect you.
In your Zeal to “get Trump” you have cut them all down – and now you are terrified, because there is nothing to protect you if Trump survives and wins.
And that is how it should be.
Most of us learn through the consequences of our mistakes.
This is not about scholarship.
Turley and I agree on what the constitution says – even you do – except when the target is Trump.
The problem is not what the constitution says. It is what it does not say – which is how the impeachment constraints are to be enforced.
The only enforcement is the willingness of those in the house of representatives to on their own, conform to the impeachment clause even when they desperately wish not to.
The impeachment clause, like the Senate rules regarding the filibuster or house rules regarding the makeup of committees, or numerous other house and senate rules,
Are all enforced by by what I will call Thomas Moore’s law.
We follow the rules for our own protection. Because when we do not, the devil turns on us, and we have no protection.
Democrats have repeatedly demonstrated they do not understand that, do not care, or do not believe that.
No amount of constitutional scholarship will change that. Turley has tried as have many others. You failed to listen.
Because you have not been able to follow rules like the impeachment clause because it is the right thing to do, because we can not have a working society when those with power believe they do not have to abide by the rules – especially when there is no power to enforce them – which in truth if you wield enough political power is always true.
Therefore you must learn through the consequences of your own actions.
You have hewn the forest of laws down in pursuit of your devil.
It is time for the devil to turn on you, with all the forest of laws that would have protected you – cut down by YOU.
“There is zero evidence of bribery committed by President Biden.”
Right, and Russian Oligarchs are giving Hunter Millions and Diamonds and cards because they like his hair.
“We know the allegations were based on a lie admitted by a former FBI source who tried to flee the country once the FBI figured out he was not being truthful.”
False. These4 allegations date back to 2015 – long before the source you refer to.
As to the rest.
I have no idea if the source was truthful.
Nor do you.
An indictment by DOJ is no longer worth the paper it is printed on.
Maybe this source is lying. Sources do lie. That is the nature of such sources.
Until the Biden administration the DOJ does not indict Confidential Human sources over lies, because that is a wonderful way to make all your CHS’s dry up. Should we indict Chrisopher Steele for lying to the FBI ?
But the Biden DOJ was after a headline – so they indicted a CHS.
Now there is no actual evidence that the source lied in this instance,
and in fact there is a great deal of evidence that he did not.
The Biden’s dealings in Ukraine and elsewhere are no longer a secret – despite all the efforts to bury them. Many of those being ACTUAL CRIMES. If as an example the Biden DOJ indictment of this CHS has no foundation – and thus far there is no evidence there is any.
That would be obstruction of justice BY THE DOJ. Hopefully that will be investigated in 2025.
Given that the Biden DOJ has outed this source and brought the issue to the forefront we should ALL be entitled to know the truth.
Again back to THIS source. The FBI has used this source for almost 2 decades.
It has rated this source highly reliable repeatedly through that time.
It has rated this source much more reliable than it rated Steele.
More significantly 3 different FBI offices rated THIS source highly credible on THIS particular claim.
The claim that the source lied did not materialize until after the FBI was FORCED to reveal that they were sitting on credible reports of bribery involving the president of the united states.
So no – you have not proved the source lied by indicting him.
You have just proved that the Biden administration is even more corrupt.
But equally important – while THIS source is damning. It is merely “another brick in the wall”.
Before even the Hunter Biden laptop, We KNEW – from emails received and sent by State department that were gathered by FOIA request that Hunter Biden was involved in shady deals everywhere that Joe went. That Hunter Biden had represented to sleezy people that for money he could deliver action by the Vice president. And we KNEW that Hunter was paid and Joe Acted.
As Turley has said before the laws on bribery do NOT require YOU to personally benefit financially.
It is enough that you excercise the public power vested in you, for the benefit of someone who has paid a relative.
Whether you like that or not – that is the law, and that has been proven in Joe Biden’s case many times over.
So YES there is evidence of Bribery – there is damning evidence.
There is more than enough evidence without this CHS.
There is more than enough evidence without the Hunter Biden laptop.
One of the reasons that it is far more likely that the Biden DOJ is corruptly obstructing justice is the breadth of the evidence.
It is of course always possible this source is lying – sources lie. Sources are rarely mother theresa. But this source came forward BEFORE Guilliani went to eastern Europe, BEFORE the Hunter Biden laptop.
All of these and other bits of evidence REINFORCE each other.
One being false does not make the rest false – they are additive, and independent.
But one being true makes the rest all more likely to be true.
Again ALL of this was established BEFORE this source was revealed.
It is unlikely that Biden will be impeached because Republicans do not have the votes.
There are no honest democrats.
But that does not mean there is not far more than enough evidence to do so.
There is more evidence against Biden than Sen. Gold Bar Menedez.
But you go right ahead and do your best Sargent Schultz
https://youtu.be/-BFY9IkUt8w
I have cited the exchange between Roper and Moore from “a man for all seasons”
It is extremely important.
Moore argues eloquently that it is in YOUR interests to follow and enforce laws that you do not agree with.
But it is MORE than just in your interests.
The social contract – the foundation of government requires it.
If you do not follow and enforce the provisions of the law and constitution that you do not like, no one else will either and soon enough you have what we are slowly moving towards. Bitter divisions, chaos, anarchy and failure.
And what inevitably follows that is authoritarianism.
The left is ludicrously stupid in accusing Trump of being authoritarian.
But they are not wrong in claiming that is where we are headed. Though they do not grasp that THEY are the driving force bringing us there.
Left wing extremism historically ALWAYS leads to totalitarianism. From the French Revolution, to Pol Pot, to Stalin, to Mao, to Allende, to Castro, to Maduro, to Chavez, to …
Sometimes it leads to left totalitarianism, sometimes to right totalitarianism.
But inevitably to totalitarianism.
The driving force is plowing down the traditions, norms, laws and constitutional impediments to changing everything overnight.
The reality is – whether in our personal lives, in free markets or government – change even well intentioned change is hard and fails far more often than it succeeds. You can have rapid change in your own life because you reap the rewords or the consequences.
You can have rapid change in free markets because they are self regulating. Bad ideas will self correct rapidly.
But you can not have rapid change in government without failure – because the incentives in government are almost completely backwards of free markets and the self regulation of govenrment is massively attenuated.
It is better in government to stick with and enforce bad laws, than to change too much too quickly – because regrardless of your intentions. Change to a bad but otherwise working law is significantly more likely to be worse rather than better.
That means we must proceed slowly and be prepared to go back most of the time.
“Republicans are brandishing threats of impeachment for anything they don’t like or allege to be a crime without providing evidence. Such abuse is an insult to our founders original intent.”
Correct. And democrats are EXACTLY the same.
“Republicans are the hypocrites here. Their goal is always vengeance and retribution”
Correct. Republicans seek vengeance for the abuse of power of democrats.
It is not Republicans that first turned supreme court justice hearings (and later other senate confirmations into character assassination.
It is not Republicans that first breached the filibuster.
It is not Republicans that first breached the norms and rules of the house.
And I can go on, and on.
You say they sought to hold Trump accountable for abuses of power – which abuses of power would these be ?
Enforcing immigration laws ?
Would that be weaponizing the FBI and DOJ against first a sitting president, and then against your political oponent ?
Would that be changing all the rules and laws of an election at the last minute ?
Would that be engaging in large scale ballot harvesting ?
Would that be by using government – which IS FORCE, to coerce the media and social media into killing stories and “cancelling” speakers they disagreed with ?
Trump is on Trial in NYC for killing a story that might have altered the outcome of the 2016 election.
That was a legal personal private act. Contra left wing newspeak there was no coercion involved.
In fact the Trial proved that Stormy desperately wanted the money. No one twisted her arm.
In the same election Hillary tried to plant a whole dossier full of phony stories.
But in 2020, the Biden campaign legally sought to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story.
BUT DHS/DOJ/FBI/CISA/ a long list of other alphabet agencies of the government and/or 501C3’s funded by the government sought to suppress the hunter Biden story, dissenting views on COVID, and political views they did not like.
That is an abuse of power we have never seen in this country before.
That is a violation of a core american value enshrined in the constitution that is what separates America from the rest of the world.
If any single thing can be identified as “american exceptionalism”, it is that in the US the government protects the free speech rights of Nazis marching through communities of holocaust survivors.
Because in american alone we understand that
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
You did not try to hold republicans accountable for abuses of power.
You tried to thwart republicans from EXPOSING your own abuses of power.
“The trial is not going well for Trump.”
Really ?
Several former US attorneys have said that 95% of judges would issue a directed verdict in favor of Trump right now.
You rant about Republican abuses of power – but this whole Trial has exposed MASSIVE democrat abuses of power.
No one would touch this case – not Vance, not Bragg, not SDNY – because there is no case.
Until Biden and democrats were desparate to “Get Trump”
In the light most favorable to Bragg – the core of this case is that Trump did something that is perfectly legal, is a way that Bragg is claiming is not quite perfectly legal.
Are you going to claim that NDA’s are illegal ?
Are you going to claim that candidates can not try to court favorable press and supress unfavorable press ?
You used the word “coerce”
Coerce: To restrain by force, especially by law or authority
Did Trump use force against Daniels or anyone else ?
Dangling money in front of people is not FORCE, it is enticement.
Hillary attempted to use FORCE in this election. She tried and succeeded in involving the FBI – the FBI is government, government is force. the FBI is law enFORCEment. Investigations are FORCE.
The reason so many are saying “There is no crime” is because even Bragg has not as of yet said what the allegedly Lawful way to buy Daniels Silence was. Because the unspoken part of this case is that Bragg wants to criminalize ANY means by which a Republican – and specifically Trump manages to supress derogatory stories about them.
But that is NOT the law.
Whether you like it or not Trump buying Daniels silence is legal.
Nor would any rational person want otherwise. It is totalitarian nations that insist that government can arbitrarily decide what two people can privately agree to regarding themselves.
You say the trial is not going well.
I think it is going amazingly well for Trump.
Both in the legal domain and the political domain.
You do not seem to grasp that when you use FORCE to win on some issue – you nearly always lose in the public sphere.
You are doing everything possible to make Trump look like a martyr – and he is really really good at rope-a-doping you.
I think Trump is ecstatic that Merchan has Gagged him. He will push at that Gag in everyway he can.
Bringing house and senate republicans to NYC to speak for him was brilliant.
It makes Merchan and the left look idiotic.
I think Trump is happy that Merchan did not recuse himself.
Trump may not be able to mention this – but lots of people are.
It is unseemly for a judge to sit on a case where his daughter will profit more from one outcome than another.
It would have been easy for Merchan to recuse himself.
There is certainly another Biased Judge in Manhattan with less conflicts.
But Bragg and Merchan could not take that risk.
By exporting the #3 person in the BIDEN DOJ and a former Biden WH advisor and a Former Biden campaign staffer to be the lead prosecutor in this case. You have amplified Trump’s message that this is all coming from “crooked Joe’s” White House.
Again is there no Attorney in Manhattan capable of prosecuting this – that you must bring in a democrat so strongly tired directly to Biden ?
Merchan has made numerous reversable errors.
The defense correctly objected to Daniels testimony as not probative and only predjudical.
When it improperly lost that, it objected to the broad scope Daniels was given.
And then Daniels laid waste to those constraints – and Merchan is now seeking to do the imposibble and fix his own error with a jury instruction. Will he get away with that on appeal – almost certainly not.
But that does not matter – publicly the damage was done.
You rant about Blanche’s cross of Cohen.
I do not know why Blanche crossed Cohen.
Cohen said nothing to make this case.
If Trump had told Cohen – Get an NDA from Daniels to kill this as an election issue and I will pay you back after the election.
That would be LEGAL. But that is NOT what happened even in Cohen’s version.
Regardless Cohen comes before the court preimpeached.
While I think Blanche did a good job of impeaching Cohen – some hits some misses.
How much lower can you drive the credibility of a serial perjurer who has perjured himself again within the last 6 months.
Repentant and Reformed ? Really ? The most unethical person in Cohen’s testimony by far is Micheal Cohen.
Regardless, at the START you had a case so bad it hinged on the testimony of a extortionist porn star and the least credible attorney in the entire country. And even if they gave you everything you claimed they would there would still be NO CRIME.
And they failed even at that.
Will Merchan grant a directed verdict ? Unlikely.
Will the Jury convict ? Probably.
But Bragg, Biden, the LEft has LOST this case before the jury that matters.
Presuming a likely conviction – Trump MIGHT drop a few points in the polls briefly.
Though even that I doubt.
But this case failed. And you know it.
It Damaged YOU, the Left, Democrats and Biden – and made Trump into a Martyr
And in few days you can tell.
Biden agreed to 2 debates. He demanded total control and got everything he wanted.
But that is a massive sign of WEAKNESS, and a dangerous gamble.
If Biden expected to Win – he could easily avoid debating Trump.
There is zero doubt – that even with all the constraints Trump will do well in any debate.
Trump is a masterful public speaker and politician.
He is the best of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama rolled into one.
And Biden’s debate conditions prove how scared Biden is of Trump.
Regardless, Democrats would not risk Joe Biden in a debate with Trump unless they were desperate.
Unless the law-fare had FAILED.
I would further note that We only discussed the Bragg case here.
But with respect tot he election this is all one massive effort to “get Trump”,
and every failure in one case accrues to the others in the view of much of the public.
Is Jack Smith an illegal appointment ? You can claim what you want – but many people wonder.
Regardless, Why didn’t Merchan Recuse himself, Why didn’t Garland appoint an SC where there was no question ?
Why did Willis appoint her paramour ? Why did they play games with public monies ?
Your accusing Trump of calling something a legal expense that sure appears to be a legal expense.
But at the same time thoughout all these cases – they ethics of DOJ or the prosecutors, of the judges is under question.
You do not think people are asking – Why is it wrong for Trump to call paying for an NDA a legal expense, but OK for Smith to tamper with evidence, lie to the public, why is it OK for Willis to either engage in self dealing or be so stupid as to appear to be engaged in self dealing. Why is it OK for Merchan to sit as the judge on a case that hinges on allegedly questionable ethical choices when he is making questionable ethical choices. Why is it necescary for a Senior Democratic WH lawyer to leave the #3 spot at DOJ to prosecute a state case in Manahattan ?
You want to torpedo Trump for claiming that something is a legal expense that looks and smells and tastes like a legal expense.
But you have made a long list of dubious choices to get there.
Violating someones constitutional rights under color of law is a serious federal crime.
It is the crime the police officers that beat up Rodney King were convicted of.
Merchan’s gag order violates Trump’s rights to free speech, AND it is prior restraint – the most egregious violation.
And worse still – you have accomplished nothing. Every consequential republican in the country is coming to Manhattan to stand beside Trump and say what Trump can not say.
How well did that work out ?
You do not seem to grasp how badly you have slimed yourself.
And you think that the possibility that a Manahattan Jury will convict will change public perception ?
Since my prior posts on this I have reviewed the live streaming of the Micheal Cohen Cross – What world do you live in – certainly not the real one.
Cohen is being massacred in Not one but TWO forums concurrently.
Blanche exposed atleast 3 and possibly 4 perjuries that Cohen committed in his direct testimony.
Cohen will not be prosecuted for these, because one of the purposes of cross examination is to challenge testimony and if a witness corrects their perjury they can not be charged.
Regardless Blanche has used Cohen to further undermine the prosecutions case by eliciting testimony favorable to Trump that the prosecution did not address.
In addition as is pretty typical of impeachment, Blanche got Cohen to provide evidence of many benefits he will get from his testimony – particularly if Trump is convicted – ranging from financial profit to reconsideration of his supervised release arrangement.
One very big deal that was exposed is related to the Taxi Medaliions. Cohen transfered them to his wife and family members – because as a convicted felon he can not own a taxi medalion. But aparently there is a felony investigation pending regarding his wife, and he indicated that favorable testimony might lead to favorable treatment regarding his wife.
I would further note – that Cohen is NOT the only person in a Trump case that “rolled” after prosecutors went after his family.
Flynn has testified that his plea agreement was because Mueller had threatened to prosecute Flynn’s son.
Flynn was at this point essentially bankrupt from Mueller and was COERCED into a plea deal.
In Cohen’s cross by Blanche he testified that his “flipping” on Trump occured when the SDNY threatend to go after his wife – that was in 2018.
But it gets worse.
In the House Weaponization hearing in DC Attny Costello – who Cohen testified was part of a scheme to get Cohen to stay loyal to Trump by dangling a pardon in front of him, Costello totally completely obliterated Cohen as a witness. Further Costello testified that he had PREVIOUSLY provided Bragg and the grand jury all of what he was providing to congress, as well as to SDNY and more recently to Bragg and Branch because Cohen was lying on the standa about their communications with each other and that he had phone records, texts, emails, and witnesses to their convesations that would prove that Cohen was lying.
So who is Costello ? Costello is a very reputable former US Attorney, and he was also Micheal Cohen’s lawyer up until Cohen agreed to cooperate with the SDNY/Mueller and signed a waiver of Attorney Client priviledge to allow Costello to allegedly cooroborate Micheal Cohen. Costello did NOT corroborate Cohen with SDNY – Cohen’s decision to waive priveledge with Costello may have been one of the stupidest in his life – because that meant Costellow was OBLIGATED to tell SDNY everything he knew – which is likely responsible for many of the SDNY charges against Cohen. Costello later testified before Bragg’s grand Jury. Costello confirmed to the house weaponization committee – that Bragg and the attornies prosecuting Trump had Costello’s Grand Jury testimony and therefore KNEW that Cohen was lying when he testified in Manhattan – that is a HUGE Ethical problem for Bragg’s office. That is also why he is testifying to the weaponization committee.
Costello also testified to several other things.
That Cohen had told him that Cohen did not beleive Daniels story, That Cohen said that he had personally negotiated the deal with Daniels without Trump’s involvement, that he did so to avoid embarrassment to Melania, and that he did so to get in Trumps good graces hoping for an appointment to the Trump administration. That Again Cohen actually expected to be WH Cheif of Staff or AG and that not only was Cohen angry when that did not happen – but that his Family was angry about it.
Costello Testified that Cohen got the money from he HELOC so that he did NOT have to tell his wife, and so that Trump would not find out about it until after the election.
Again Costello also testified to all of this before the SDNY Grand Jury – which is probably why Cohen plead to federal election law violations. And again Bragg knows this all – because Costello testified to Braggs GJ.
But that is NOT the only OOPS in Washington today.
Trump’s former attorney Trusty testified before the House weaponization committee,
And he testified that the SC Smith AML investigation was the most corrupt he had ever seen in his life.
That Smith’s team violated DOJ ethics standards, guidelines and legal ethical standards at every single turn.
That NARA – in coordination with the Biden administration started this – despite the fact that EVERY SINGLE PRIOR PRESIDENT had classified material when they left office. That the DC FBI tired to get a warrant very early on and failed – because that was unethical and not done and there was no basis for one. That he had never seen a criminal subpeona used in the way DOJ in DC had done to try to “Get Trump”. That DOJ had repeatedly infront of the DC GJ – dozens of times tried to get Attorney’s to waive priviledge – which is a very serious violation of legal ethics. That the raised the Crime fraud exception in front to the GJ which is a violation of legal ethics. and that they asked the attorney’s if their clients had nothing to hide why they had not already waived priviledge – another violation of legal ethics.
Most of us are familiar with the Judges jury instruction that a Jury can not draw any conclusions about guilt because a person raised the 5th amendment. But priviledges – like the 5th and attorny client priviledge had more legal guardrails than that.
An opposing attorney can not ask an attorney infront of a jury to waive priviledge. They can not imply to a jury anything because any priviledge was waived. These are all ethics violations and they are all reasons for4 a mistrial – but that can not occur in a Grand Jury because there is no defence attorny present to ask for a dismissal of the GJ when the prosecutors have been unethical.
So who is Trusty besides a Trump layer ? He is ANOTHER Former US Attorney who served under 7 different US attorney Generals – both democrats and republicans. He has a very long list of successful prosecutions as US Attorney (as does Costello).
This is one of the so called crappy attorney’s hired by Trump.
Trusty no longer represents Trump – because once you have been made a witness against your own client – regardless of whether your testimony helped them or not, you can no longer represent them.
Which is another Ethics violation on the part of DOJ – and more corruption by the DC courts. When Judge Howell waived Trump’s Attorney Client privilege using bogus crime fraud exception claims, That effectively removed those attorney’s from representing Trump.
Regardless, Trusty is a long serving former US attorney and his testimony AGAINST the SC/DOJ attorney’s was DAMNING.
In other news of the day Comer said publicly that FBI Whistleblowers testified that they had evidence of overseas bank accounts held by the Biden’s including Joe. But the IRS is forbidden by law of sharing that information with any house committed except ways and means. Comer confirmed that Ways and Means has subpeonad all information the IRS has on foreign bank accounts held by the bidens and expect that information soon.
Separately Joe has made his tax returns public and has not listed foreign bank accounts, so any foreign bank accounts that Joe is a signator on would constitute tax fraud.
You want wrong? Purport that Blackstone defined “natural born citizen.” That is irrefutably wrong.
Of course, Blackstone contemplated ONLY the dictatorship of the monarchy and defined ONLY its “natural born subjects,” the furthest thing from the American instance.
The sole and only definition of the phrase used in the Constitution, “natural born citizen,” exists in the Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758, which was ubiquitous in America by 1762.
If one endeavors to discover the meaning of “natural born citizen,” one can only go to that legal text and reference of the era.
Every single president before Obama did precisely that, enjoying two parents and a father who were citizens at the time of birth of the candidate.
Well now, Biden is trying to save the Muslim vote in Michigan by cutting off military aid to Israel. He is too dense to understand that quite a few purple states have a large population of Jewish voters. Maybe he’s calculating that the Jewish vote is already baked in the cake. When he is willing to now throw the Jew under the bus what will he do to the Jew if he’s reelected. Is there any red line for the Jewish community before they understand that Joe stands with the kill every Jew from the river to the sea Hamas Party. If one could look into Joe’s closet they would find that to get reelected he keeps a keffiyeh scarf for every day of the week. I believe that he thinks that abortion is more important to the American Jew than Israel. Maybe he’s right.
There was a recent man on the street poll of College Student Pro Hamas protestors.
80% were unable to name the river or the sea.
The majority of colleges students including conservatives have a poor grasp of geography or even the names of state capitals. Polls like that are meaningless, useless. Jay Leno proved long ago that a majority of Americans are quite ignorant about world geography or politics and even basic science.
Polls like that are meaningless
Not this particular poll. The targeted the students supporting hamas. These students were chanting “from the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free.”
That 80% do not understand what they are marching for, tells us they are not protesting for a cause. They are joining a mob. That is one data point, where Administrators can ignore the ideal of free speech and shut down the mobs that are only there for the sake of the mob.
@Iowan2,
No, the poll is till a meaningless exercise. When you choose to describe the students as “Hamas supporters” you are already showing your bias agains them. I’m sure the poll was taken by others with the same sentiment as yours. Push polls are handy for those with a heavy bias against students legitimately protesting for their cause.
When you choose to describe the students as “Hamas supporters” you are already showing your
bias
I have seen multiple videos where the Students say “WE ARE HAMAS” But that only validates my position that the Students have NO IDEA, about the Subject. They have no idea, “From the River to the Sea” translates to the elimination of the entirety of the Jewish People. Genocide on a scale that makes the Nazi’s proud.
That is the point.
Push polls are handy for those with a heavy bias against students legitimately protesting for their cause.
There are hundreds of videos by reporters asking members of the mob what they wanted. Few could communicate a cogent position, many deferred the reporters to the ‘communication team’ Nothing says “protesting for their cause” by being wholly ignorant about the conflict on going for more that 50 years.
First this is not a push poll.
That is absurd.
“heavy bias against students legitimately protesting for their cause.”
How can a student be legitimately protesting – if they are that ignorant about their own cause ?
Certainly they have the right to protest – in that sense they are legitimate.
But if you do not understand your own cause you make a fool of yourself publicly. or should I say you “legitimately” make a fool of yourself publicly
regardless, again the point is you are engaged in more 1984 newspeak.
Few are challenging the right of students to peacefully protest.
What is being discussed is the FACT that they are “legitimately” making fools of themselves.
And your fixated on their right to protest – which is not being challenged,
Rather than their piss poor education and lack of understanding of things that THEY have decided are important to them.
Would you place much credibility in a negotiator who did not understand their own position ?
Yet they are demanding that university’s negotiate with them.
you can not negotiate with people who do not know what they want.
That is not a moral prohibition, it is just reality.
“When you choose to describe the students as “Hamas supporters” you are already showing your bias against them.”
How so ? That is what they are. To a very large extent admittedly and openly so.
Regardless even those few who are not openly Hamas supporters – if they are chanting “from the river to the sea” that IS what they are.
“from the river to the sea” is not peaceful accommodation.
It is not a two state solution.
It is not any form of any settlement of this dispute that does not involve Palestinian rule of the entirety of Israel, the west bank and Gaza, which can not be accomplished without genocide.
Do you have a better name for that than “pro-hamas”
It is not “bias” to call a duck a duck.
The majority of college students today are ignorant or geography and many other things – but I will bet you they could name a dozen different genders.
The polls are not meaningless. They tell us how that particular generation has been educated and how they have not.
I would be shocked if more than 20% of my graduating high school class did not know the bodies of water that bordered Israel.
That would be high school students – not pro-hamas protestors at the most elite colleges in the united states.
This is not about the ignorance of the majority of americans.
It is about the ignorance of people who will become the leaders of the country all too soon.
Nor is this like the Jay Leno interviews.
This is questioning highly educated/indoctrinated students about an important fact regarding their own beliefs.
While I do not think you should be in college if you do not know which bodies of water border Israel.
You certainly should not be chanting “from the river to the sea” if you are so ill informed you do not know hat river or what sea.
Here is an excellent editorial from a UVA professor explaining an even more consequential failure of our education system
https://www.thefp.com/p/to-the-class-of-2024-you-are-all-diseased
I am in the camp that thinks weaponizing impeachment is a disaster, but again, Professor, this was the work of the dems. I appreciate that you defend the integrity of our system; the party you ally yourself with sure doesn’t, and for the life of me I cannot understand why that does not come into the conversation. I and many others here have very clearly stated we have nothing remaining for the dems; only the most idiotic sheep still thinks there is anything there worth redeeming. And in a country with a 2A (thank goodness, preserve it with everything you’ve got) if they really insist on being totalitarians to this degree, which they do, they are going to FAFO.
If as a generational dem one feels differently, then prove it at the polls, and demand transparency and accountability from the DNC; the Biden administration is even culling other dem candidates. The ‘debates’ that the White House have proposed are nothing more than the J6 reality show part two, and I hope Trump declines; it also makes me furious that these privileged people can be so callous. Kennedy absolutely deserves to be there. Understand, brainwashed, elite, dems: you are not on the side of good, and it is not going to go well for you if you continue to refuse to relent in your privilege. And history is going to look back very poorly at you, indeed.
Once again – I am a lifelong unaffiliated voter (i.e. ‘Independent’), and I will never vote for a democrat again as long as I live; I want to see that party as it is currently constituted burned to the ground. There are lots of us. A veritable army. There is no way in Hades a Biden victory in November is clean.
Perhaps legally withholding arms asn’t an impeachable offense but under the new standards enshrined by Democrats with Trump, the law no longer has anything to do with it. Now a President can be impeached for being in the wrong party and anyone can be criminally charged with anything.
If Trump gets in the White House again I hope he makes Democrats and government bureaucrats [same thing] suffer under the new rules. They have earned it.
@Young
I am at the point I don’t care. Impeachment has been trivialized by the dems into a wrist slap, it is irrelavent; I want to see THE PEOPLE being aware and making a change. Every young idiot that thinks the Soviet Union was a good idea was very, very obviously not alive then, or at least not of a cognizant age. Nuclear weapons to that cohort are a concept in a video game. Ditto for the little sh*ts that scream ‘apartheid’ for the Middle East, for those of us that were alive when Nelson Mandela was freed. We are in big trouble if we do not do an about face right the bloody heck now.
These are the people brainwashing your children, and it isn’t a joke, or an isolated occurrence; these are the ‘agitators’ on campuses, and as someone that had to deal with Nazi skinheads in real life in the late 80s-90s (they put two of my friends in the hospital, one a tiny 90 lb woman, the other a man who has permanent brain injury as a result, just for thinking or looking wrong to these neanderthals); there is nothing to distinguish them from those people but for their generational money and modern conveniences. *Exact* same rhetoric, down to the verbiage. Wake. The. Eff. Up. Because unlike back then, they have fully captured a great many of our institutions, and have money flowing like water to them. There is zero ‘grassroots’ at work here. Most gen z college kids didn’t even know what a ‘Palestine’ was a few years ago:
https://revcom.us/en
@ James
Well said. You captured my sentiments. I have love for the law but nothing but contempt for our legal system as it now operates under woke judges and prosecutors and, admittedly, too many civil lawyers. I routinely vote NO on all judges running for election. Clean the courts.
@Anonymous
Agreed, and seriously, read the link. These are the people at work in our country, and that isn’t hyperbole or hysteria, they very much do it openly, it isn’t a secret.
It’s a whole whale of a conversation, but at least for the university portion, that is what parents are paying for in 2024.
That by Young
Jonathan: Today, the cross examination of Michael Cohen continues. And it has not gone well for Todd Blanche who seems to be focused on some bad things Cohen said about him. It’s a no-no for any defense attorney. You don’t want a trial to turn into a PERSONAL dispute with a witness. And today DJT drafted another 21 MAGA House members to attend the trial to attack the judge, the prosecutors and Cohen. More violations of the gag order since DJT gave them all their talking points.
As a put down of this charade Seth Myers had Jimmy Kimmel on his show. They both thought it would be a great idea for them to also attend the trial to cause DJT all sorts of heartburn. Kimmel said they could show up and give DJT some packets of catsup! Kimmel even suggested, that if DJT is convicted, he might commit some crimes in the NY tri-state area so he could get an adjoining cell next to DJT and taunt him with some of his late night monologues. Seth was all in with that proposal. “We’ll drive him crazy”.
The response from viewers was immediate. One viewer posted this: “Kimmel, Seth, Colbert and John Oliver NEED to go to the court house as a group and be part of the media crowd so the tantrum toddler can’t miss them and has to respond to them. That would be gold!”. Probably won’t happen but wouldn’t that be worth the price of admission?
Apparently you have been watching a different Trial.
While I am not sure that any Cross of Cohen was even necescary –
Is there a person on the planet that does not know that Micheal Cohen is an unrepentant liar ?
It has gotten so bad that he is now lying under oath about what he lied under oath.
Numerous legal scholars have noted several different perjuries in Cohen’s current testimony.
Cohen claims to have repented and reformed, but he not only has been caught in obvious lies in this trial, but in the EnMoron Trial and in his recent appearances in ongoing matters involving his own legal issues.
But again – I do nto think it was necescary for Blanche to impeach Cohen
First he comes before us all pre-impeached.
But ultimately, Cohen’s testimony did no damage.
Cohen was a flop as a witness.
@John Say,
Cohen has not been caught perjuring himself on the stand. You don’t name any of these purported “numerous legal scholars” that claim he perjured himself. Turley tried to make that claim without evidence.
Cohen has not denied that he has lied in the past or that he has lied to judges and others. Even the prosecution made it a point that, yes, Cohen has lied. Because it’s completely irrelevant. What Cohen brings to this trial is the unique insight of being the one who planned and orchestrated the whole scheme with Trump. Trump is directly implicated in this and that is the point. The documentation in evidence and Cohen’s corroboration on the workings of the scheme and admission that the invoices were false and that Trump knew they were is what will matter most to the Jury. Because this is not about Cohen. It’s about Trump. Cohen already went to prison for his part. Now it’s Trump’s turn to face the consequences of being directly involved and he doesn’t have the immunity of the office of the president. He’s private citizen Trump now.
Blanche is still struggling to paint Cohen as untrustworthy by rehashing the same line of meandering questioning from yesterday. Cohen’s testimony offered no help to the defense. Blanche could not get Cohen to admit he is lying now. From the looks of things Blanche is not really making any progress.
The defense has hinted that Trump may, may, testify to counter Cohen’s testimony. But I believe that will be a huge mistake. Trump will end up perjuring himself if he does. Because he has no self control.
What Cohen brings to this trial is the unique insight of being the one who planned and orchestrated the whole scheme with Trump.
You were ok, until the last 2 words “with Trump”
I have seen zero reporting tying Trump to any of this. That is what the legal scholars . . . on CNN and MSNBC are saying. They to are waiting, like an ugly prom date, for this mythical apparition to appear
“Cohen has not been caught perjuring himself on the stand. You don’t name any of these purported “numerous legal scholars” that claim he perjured himself. Turley tried to make that claim without evidence.”
The evidence is trivial read the transcripts, they come out 24hours after testimoney and they are publicly available.
If you are impatient, multiple sources are live streaming the testimony as it occurs.
“Cohen has not denied that he has lied in the past or that he has lied to judges and others.”
Correct – but that is not what I have said. He has lied about his lying.
It is one thing to say “I have committed perjury”.
It is another to say under oath that what you said under oath was a lie is you are now saying is true.
If this is confusing – that would be because cohen has lied, recanted, recanted his recanting, and recanted is recanting his recanting.
“Even the prosecution made it a point that, yes, Cohen has lied.”
Correct, but not the point.
The point is that he has lied under oath pretty much every single time he has testified.
“Because it’s completely irrelevant. ”
Nope it is completely relevant. The value of any testimony rests on the credibility of the witness.
Two factors establish that. Their record for telling the truth and the extent to which their testimony is corroborated by others.
Cohen’s testimony is only corrobroated to the extent that it atleast partially agrees in some point with that of other witnesses.
But that agreement has nothing to do with criminal acts. And even there there are many differences to – the coroboration is only partial.
“What Cohen brings to this trial is the unique insight of being the one who planned and orchestrated the whole scheme with Trump. ”
Correct, the only contribution to this trial Cohen can make is that testimony where there is no means to verify his veracity.
For someone with the unbeleivably bad record of Cohen for truthfulness, that makes his “unique insights” worthless.
I would separately note that today under oath in DC Attorney Costello – Cohen’s attorney who Cohen has signed a release (SDNY required that when they tried to flip Cohen) testified that pretty much everything Cohen has testified to that is part of his “unique insight is a lie” That cohen told Costello and entirely dfferent story, that Cohen told SDNY an entirely different story, and that Cohen perjured himself in court regarding his interactions with Costellow, and that Costello has the emails, texts, phone records, and in some cases eye witnesses to prove it.,
That is independent of the fact that Cohen backtracked on several items in his testimony on cross, as well as testifying to ample reason for him to be lying.
The cross did not go well – FOR Bragg.
“Trump is directly implicated in this and that is the point.”
Nope.
While Cohen is not credible. That is not really your worst problem.
The only Problem Trump has – if everything Cohen said was true, is that Cohens story differs from The defenses opening statements – it also differs from what Cohen told others – like his lawyer and SDNY. And worse still Bragg KNOWS this, that means he has KNOWINGLY put on perjured testimony.
Regardless Cohen’s own version of the story. Is STILL not a crime.
“The documentation in evidence and Cohen’s corroboration on the workings of the scheme and admission that the invoices were false”
You are smearing lots of things together that are separate.
Cohen created the involces – not Trump. Whether they are false or not is a question of fact – not Cohen’s opinion.
As Andrew McCarthy noted, Cohen’s invoices were for a retainer.
Retainers can cover – past services, future services, current services. You can even pay a lawyer a retainer and on the cahnce that you will need their services.
Put more simply – Retainer is way to broad a term to claim that it was used fraudulently here.
Separately from that – Micheal Cohen is the maker of the invoices. Even if they are fraudulent – that responsibility lies with Cohen not Trump.
The ONLY person you have saying that Trump and Cohen discussed these invoices is Cohen.
So what you have based on Cohen’s testimony is an allegation that Trump and Cohen conspired to have Cohen craft invoices that whether you like it or not accurately describe the services Cohen provided, even if they are not detailed enough for your liking.
If you discount Cohen’s testimony – no one else has claimed Trump had anything to do with the invoices.
Next you have the checks. The Checks were signed by Trump. They say who they are too. They do not say what they are for.
Regardless, Trump signed them – he did not write them.
Finally you have the postings to the Trump Organization ledgers. Trump’s accounts has testified that the decision to code them as legal expenses was made entirely by him. Based on Cohen’s invoices and notes from Weisleberg.
So again you do not have false, and you do not have Trump.
BTW another attorney pointed out that the coding is NOT legal fees, but legal expenses.
It is easily arguable that legal fees is a perfectly legitimate classification.
It is beyond any doubt that legal expenses is far more than broad enough to include this.
Related to that – and established by Cohen’s testimony. Cohen was Trump’s lawyer through 2017. He performed legal services for Trump, for Melania and for the Trump organization during that time. He received no other payment than these checks for that service.
Further the payments to Cohen included expenses for other legal research that Cohen did in 2016. other legal services Cohen did in 2016, his personal profits, Bonus, as well as The 130K to Daniels 0- again this is ALL from Cohen’s testimony.
So what you have is Cohen providing the Trump organization a variety of services that include the Daniels NDA, and all individually and in agregate fit under the catagory legal expenses.
There is actually much much more problems with Bragg’s case and the argument that that anything fraudulent was done here.
Because the label retainer – that was Cohen’s label – is broad enough to fit. The term legal fees is broad enough to fit. And the actually used term legal expenses is far more than broad enough to fit.
I regularly invoice others for my work. I have a variety of different fee arrangements, but the bills say “software development services”
Sometimes that is for my time. Sometimes it includes time or expenses I paid others, Sometimes it includes other expenses. Sometimes it is just an amount that the client and I agreed on to cover everything I did. None of this is fraud – an no one but a biased DA would try to claim otherwise.
So while you may have proved that various people have have testified so far all use different language to categorize the services Cohen provided. You have not proved that the ANY of the categorizations used are fraudulent.
Finally Cohen is trying to spin his testimony and an attempt to deceive. WHO is it that Cohen and Trump conspired to deceive ?
There are no tax consequences to this.
Cohen’s claim that there was a conspiracy to deceive fails because there is no such thing as a conspiracy to deceive no one.
The financial records of a private company are not public. The Government does not have access to them merely because they want them. They have to allege a tax issue or a criminal issue just to look at them. So there would be no expectation that anyone outside the Trump organization would see these.
You might be able to argue that Trump was trying to hide this from Melania – several witnesses have testified that is likely.
And there goes your whole case.
But finally – lets assume by the magic of wishful thinking these records are false.
To convict Trump, they have to cover up another felony. What felony is that ?
Absolutely no one has testified to any other felony. Bragg has charged no other felony.
And whjat is fairly well established as the FACTS, no not constitute a crime of any kind. NDA’s are legal.
So No Coehn even if you beleive everything he said did not establish any crime.
“that Trump knew they were is what will matter most to the Jury.”
And what is it that Trump supposedly knew that was a crime ?
“Because this is not about Cohen.”
Accept it is, because nearly all of this was done by Cohen and even most of Cohen’s testimony does not involve Trump in much of it until after the fact.
You have a non-crime performed primarily by Cohen catagorized fairly accurately you have no testimony at all that there was any attempt to deceive anyone but melania.
“It’s about Trump.”
Correct. And you have nothing.
” Cohen already went to prison for his part.”
No Cohen went to prison for a long list of crimes. none of which had anything to do with trump.
Regardless the specific crime that Cohen plead guilty to is ONLY a crime if Trump is not a part of it.
And really not even then.
“now it’s Trump’s turn to face the consequences of being directly involved and he doesn’t have the immunity of the office of the president. He’s private citizen Trump now.”
Correct and the consequences for paying for an NDA are …. NOTHING it is perfectly legal.
“Blanche is still struggling to paint Cohen as untrustworthy ”
Read the transcripts – you are spinning and way off base.
” Blanche could not get Cohen to admit he is lying now.”
Incorrect – Blanche got Cohen to correct 4 lies from his direct testimony – again read the transcripts.
“The defense has hinted that Trump may, may, testify to counter Cohen’s testimony.”
Where did you here that ? Purportedly The Defense has notifed the court they have only one witness. And purportedly that witness is Costello.
Costello would be a very important witness.
First, he has an impecable reputation.
Next he Was Cohen’s lawyer – and Cohen signed a release in 2018 allowing him to speak – so there is no priviledge.
Next Cohen Told Costello everything in 2018 and told a VERY different story.
Next Cohen told SDNY the SAME story – with Costello present in 2018.
And finally because Cohen implicated Costello and Guilliani and Trump in a conspiracy to obstruct justice
by dangling a pardon in front of Cohen for his silence.
That never should have gotten in – it is another alleged crime not charged.
But it did get in and there is excellent reason to refute it.
And Costello testified to the House that it is not only false, but he has the texts, emails, phone records and ear witnesses to prove it.
So given a choice between a highly reputable US attorney who has never represented Trump, never worked for Trump, and did work for Cohen and who did work for SDNY and Micheal Cohen – who are you going to beleive ?
“But I believe that will be a huge mistake. Trump will end up perjuring himself if he does. Because he has no self control.”
Constantly we get this nonsense from those of you on the left.
People who have succeeded in a dozen different and diverse fields – Succeeded to the extent of being one of the top 400 richest people in the world, who made 4B while being hounded by all the power that democrats in government could muster,
Are not
stupid
crooked
unable to control themselves.
untrustworthy
or whatever the idiotic claim you wish too make today.
They are not those things because if they were they never would have been able to accomplish what they have.
The fact that you would not do business with or vote for Trump proves this.
People do not do business with people they do not trust. You prove that.
Trump has made an enormous amount of money for himself and others.
That is proof that others do trust him AND that your judgement is poor.
Approx. 75M people voted for him. That is proof that about half the country rejects your claims.
Trump is not going to testify – I think you are correct about that.
It is a perjury trap – but as we saw in the EnMoron and Kaplan trials – it is not necessary for Idiots from Manhattan to have evidence to conclude that Trump lied. Bragg will come after Trump again for perjury if he testifies no matter what he testifies to.
BTW I forgot that Cohen also told Costello that he did not beleive Daniels story. That she was just trying to extort money using the leverage of the election.
John Say: I haven’t been “watching” the trial and neither have you. That’s because DJT’s trial is not televised–dummy!
As to your claim that “Cohen’s testimony did no damage”. Beg to differ. On direct Cohen tied everything up in a big bow. He linked DJT to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and showed that DJT was primarily concerned that if Daniel’s story got out it would be “disastrous” for his campaign. Cohen was the lynchpin to prove both the business fraud and election interference. That was BIG “damage” to DJT’s defense.
Now you make claims about “numerous legal scholars” who “noted several different perjuries in Cohen’s current testimony”. Cohen testified on direct about his lying to Congress and in other court proceedings to protect DJT. But those admissions about prior lying in other contexts is not perjury in the present trial! So please point out the instances in which Cohen perjured himself in THIS trial. Maybe you could cite the “numerous legal scholars” you are referring to so we can judge for ourselves. We won’t hold our breath because, based on my prior attempts to get you provide evidence to support your specious claims, you always fail to deliver!
prove both the business fraud and election interference.
Election interference is not in the indictment. Nor can this court adjudicate such a crime.
But those admissions about prior lying in other contexts is not perjury in the present trial
You did not give Cohen time to hit his full stride. Cohen testified he called Trump’s body guard informing Trump about the completion of the NDA (not hush money).
The problem, text and call logs do match up with a call to the body guard, but the texts prove the subject was about a 14 year old harassing powerful Cohen. The call was only 1.5 minutes. Not near long enough for both subjects, and handing off the phone.
Thats a lie he told in THIS TRIAL. It actually got a visual response from the jury, according to those in the court room.
Dennis – read the transcripts, or if you must have up to the second follow one of the live streams.
No you can not “watch” the Trial – a pity.
But you can follow it in real time if you wish or you can read the live streams after the fact or review the transcripts 24hrs later.
Regardless, there are reliable records of the testimony, as opposed to Rachel Maddow and MSNBC – though even they are sensing this is a loser.
There has never been any question as to how much Daniels was paid 130K and by whom – Micheal Cohen.
There has never been any question how much Cohen was paid – 430K and by whom – Trump.
There is some debate over precisely Why Trump paid Coehn exactly what he did, though honestly that debate is not important
You can entirely beleive Cohen – even though he is contradicted by several witnesses including his own lawyer testifying in congress yesterday – IN FRONT OF A CAMERA., regardless. If you beleive Coehn Trump paid cohen to reimburse what he paid to Daniels.
All perfectly legal.
If you do not beleive Cohen Trump paid Cohen for services rendered in 2017 and 2018 including bonuses, the Daniels payment, other expenses and as a retainer for services that potentially coiuld have been required.
All perfectly legal.
“Now you make claims about “numerous legal scholars” who “noted several different perjuries in Cohen’s current testimony””
For the think among us.
NEW PERJURIES.
several of these Cohen corrected yesterday in his cross by Blanche
you no the one that did not touch Cohen.
When a witness corrects false testimony under cross – that clears the perjury.
Though there are several potential perjuries that remain.
Technically Attny Costello is not a “legal Scholar” he is merely the attorney that Cohen hired to represent him wth SDNY.
But he is a former US attorney serving under as I recall 7 Attorney Generals of both parties.
He testified in Congress yesterday, and the gist of his testimony from end to end was:
Cohen lied on the stand REPEATEDLY, That he contradicted his statements to Costello, that he contradicted his statements to SDNY/Mueller, that he contradicted his statements to both the SDNY GJ and the Bragg GJ.
And that Costello himself notified BOTH Bragg and Trump’s attorney’s of that perjury.
Costello notified Bragg because presenting perjured testimpony is an ethics violation.
Because Cohen was required to waive Attorney Client privilege in order to enter a sooperation agreement with SDNY/Mueller
\and that as such and as an officer of the court he was OBLIGATED to notify Bragg of Cohen’s perjury.
And because Cohen had falsely implicated Costello in a crime in his testimony.
Absolutely the appearance of all these others saying what Trump can not say “violates the gag order”.
But all that does is highlight the unconstitutionality of the order.
The courts have no power to engage in prior restraint of speech.
I would hope that even you are not so big a moron as the believe that Judge Merchan has the power to silence members of congress who are not parties to this case.
This was a brilliant strategy on the part of Republicans – They should have started it before,
They should keep it up.
They should be in front of the court house speaking out about this comic horror show and unconstitutional disaster.
They should be on Social Media posting, and they should be posting into Trump’s social media feeds.
They should be doing everything they p[ossibly can to point out the complete totla absurdity and unconstitutionality of Merchan’s Gag order and the Corruption of Courts, Prosecutors Judges and Democrats for proposing this garbage, for supporting this garbage for not speaking out against this garbage.
This is NOT WHO WE ARE as a country.
This is one of the CORE distinctions between the US and the rest of the world. Between the US and Europe.
Freedom of speech in the US is nearly absolute.
That is a significant part of what distinguishes the US from the rest of the world.
That is a significant part of american exceptionalism.
It is a significant part of what makes america great.
In Europe and England you can go to jail for denying the holocaust.
In the US Jewish lawyers will defend the right of NAZIs to march through communities of holocaust survivors telling them that the holocaust never happened.
That is what Makes America Great.
YOU want various left wing nut comics to go to the courthouse and taunt Trump.
Go For it!
That is what Free speech means.
I would warn you that I expect it will backfire.
But if I am wrong – SO WHAT !
If Kimmel Colbert And Meyers can make Trump apoplectic with their antics – that is how free speech works.
No Judge in the country has the legitimate power to silence them.
No judge int he country has the legitimate power to silence Trump.
No judge int he country has the legitimate power to silence Republicans.
Various Republicans saying what Trump can not say makes that crytal clear.
Meyers, Colbert and Kimmel playing court jester at the Manahattan courthouse sends EXACTLY the same message.
So PLEASE – Do it.
The appeals court does not concur with your opinion. Merchan’s gag order is lawful.
Thats why their are superior courts
The Supreme court Concurs with my opinion and has for almost 200 years.
The concur both on the specifics – Judicial gagg orders of defendants are unconstitutional.
And more generally – prior restraint of free speech is pretty close to universally unconstitutional.
You seem to think that having a bunch of left wing nut courts rule BLATANTLY unconstitutionally bolsters your argument.
Need I remind you that SCOTUS ruled 9-0 against The Colorado Supreme court on the 14th amendment issue.
Another issue that all those people you like to cite were sure Trump was going to lose.
The also ruled against Smith’s attempt to jump the Queue on immunity, and it is near certain that they are going to vacate and remand the DC appealate courts immunity decision.
The question is not Whether these lower and appealate court rulings against Trump are reversed, just when.
DNCRoboDennista, whatever will you do on November 6?
This is precisely what the American Founders had in mind as a “citizen,” undiluted solemn voter, and participant in American self-governance.
Or not.
Ironically, the Communist Chinese have the exact republican form of representative government the American Founders prescribed, WITHOUT the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
True. But he did when he stole the election. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-voter-fraud-organization-video-gaffe
https://justthenews.com/government/state-houses/israel-releases-video-armed-men-united-nations-complex-rafah?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
Sometimes the best longterm solution for our children and grandchildren is not popular today with voters.
The fastest and best way to enact reforms (for our kids) is offer conditional-immunity to today’s government officials but in exchange for real future reforms.
Both sides break the law and violate their oath of office, they aren’t going to prosecute themselves. It’s not fair but conditional-immunity in exchange for reforms is the best play here.
While everyone’s attention is being diverted, did you notice your child now owes about $100,000 or more in their portion of the national debt? Did you notice the 4th Amendment was overturned without a constitutional-amendment?
“There is a place to render a verdict on such cynical calculations, but it is not on the floor of the House. It is rather in thousands of polling places on Nov. 5.“
Professor Turley at his comic best! Trump & MAGA Republicans have spent the past 3 1/2 years attacking US election officials for certifying the results of the 2020 election. MAGA Republicans censured 2 Republican governors—Brian Kemp & Doug Ducey—& Republican Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, for declaring Biden the winner in their states after multiple recounts.
The Texas GOP passed a proclamation stating “We reject the certified results of the 2020 Presidential election, and we hold that acting President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was not legitimately elected by the people of the United States.”
Now here’s Fox News contributor Turley insisting the best place to render a decisive, final verdict is at thousands of polling places on Nov. 5. Turley is clearly positioning himself to audition at his local comedy club’s open mic night!
Do you really think Biden would be imoeached, much less convicted? I get the distrust of the electoral system. But the job is to be alert and on top of any discrepancies this time so we’re ready to go to court early enough for it to matter.
@garyesq2k2
Really. I am at the point I wonder if it matters, You can post *literal* links to what is going on and even people that are on the ‘right’ side are so thoroughly consumed by their own prevarication it doesn’t matter. Shifting paradigms are difficult for everyone, I guess; but they have shifted, nonetheless. Wake up or don’t; but you sure as hell had better not complain to those of us that put 1,000 red flags right in front of your faces when you wake up in a dystopia. We could have worked together if your ego wasn’t more important to you, even if you were, in theory, chiming in for the good thing. 🤷🏻♂️
Jon, rather than post deflective op Ed’s meant to divert attention from a past prediction gone wrong, perhaps share any input you’ve had with Project 2025 and why you chose to become involved with it.
The $95B aid package is a law. Failure to enforce the laws of the U.S. by a president is an impeachable offense as it is an abuse of power which certainly meets the misdemeanor threshold. To be sure, Biden and others have failed to enforce other laws. But impeachment is a political process and whether not enforcing one law versus another is impeachable is strictly a decision made by Congress.
Are we really not going to mention the fact that the gray suit, red Maga tie dress code of R clowns at trump’s trial harkens back to the early dress codes of the third reich?..
Not that the current R party would find anything wrong with that.
I certainly understand your desire to remain anonymous
By the way:
Israel does manufacture its own in-house weapons. Since the rest of the money doesn’t have any sanctions, Israel can buy weapons from the UK, France & Germany just to name a few.
If they must impeafch somebody, consider Justice Thomas, who has failed to demonstrate Good Behavior.
How? And what is “impeafch” imbecile?
Dear Prof Turley,
Impeachment can be a good thing .. . when impeachment is required.
By that reckoning, for one reason or another, every president of the 21st century should have been impeached, tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail, imo. Every. Last. One. Of. Them. .. Biden, in particular, should have been impeached three or four times, at least, over his long career.
Sadly, if you can’t impeach Trump, twice, who can you impeach?
It’s all boiled down to a free-for-all with their ultra-partisan cohorts in congress and their surrogates in the media. Nothing but buggers and thieves as far as the eye can see (there may be a couple, here and there, you Don’t See doing their best against overwhelming odds.) afaict.
Even the SCOTUS is now commonly referred to as partisan-appointed Justices. .. without a hint of chagrin.
Lastly, U.S. foreign policy during the 21st century – including involvement(s) in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine and, and now, Israel/Palestine – has greatly acerbated American decline both at home and around the world. The anarchy inherent in the insidiously arrogant, preening hubris of U.S. global hegemony has reached its apex.
This invites the mind to leap forward .. . ‘although at great risk to its present hegemony.’
*of course. .. a dying elephant can still thrash ‘a lot of grass’
The alternative is Chinese hegemony with back up from Russia and the islamist terrorists – is that what you want? Better to coalesce around those who still believe in the foundations of our constitution. Our true enemies, at this point, are Americans who cannot rise to this status due to miseducation or lack of moral fibre.
I am not particularly worried about not seeing the interview, his infirmaries are, daily, on full display; I want a full investigation of his entire grifting career in Congress and all family members involved.
whimsicalmama,
Apparently Biden could not get through a 14 second video with out 5 edits.
I am waiting to see just how the dems are going to rig those debates.
Going to? Have you seen how many rules/guardrails they already have in place?
They should also make sure neither candidate has ear pieces, are on drugs, etc.
yes, surely check biden as they will certainly have him juiced up
UF, yesterday I listened to Nellie Bowles being interviewed by Bari Weiss on Honestly podcast. If you haven’t listened to the podcast, do so. Nellie tells a fairly convincing and worrisome story about what BLM ANTIFA thugs did to minority owned businesses and how NYT, her employer at the time, and MSM covered it up. She also confirms how the MSM has transitioned their “reporting” to support Democrats talking points, any any reporter wishing to investigate anything contra, will be cancelled.
If nothing else Fidel Castro provided a wonderful template for Democrats to follow in how to overthrow American Democracy. The Democrats today are worse than cultists. They are hollow marionettes with no brains and just provide a carcass to serve as cannon fodder for the Left to throw like a Molotov cocktail. Evil incarnate they are
I also bought Nellie Bowle’s new book Morning After the Revolution: Dispatches from the Wrong Side of History via Kindle. Great humor for a dark yet important subject
Estovir,
Thank you for the suggestion. Will listen to it while rucking.
Well said.
Mobocracy or simply caving to the mob is what will actually happen in the next fake election. Imagine the looting and burning from the left if Trump won. Let’s give them allah full bore. Bring them in by the millions. Pray 5 x per day or die, punk. At least you’ll know your gender 😏.
Once again, I tip my hat to GEB. They seem to be able to cut through the chatter on both sides and get to the truth.
Someday, I hope to meet GEB and give them my heartfelt thanks in person.
C’mon he’s just a
‘well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory’
he can’t be prosecuted for anything
This threatened impeachment and the first Trump impeachment are cases showing the downfall of Congress. In the past, Congress has been a deliberative institution, seeking policies best for the country. Now it is a reactive institution controlled by forces outside itself.