By who?...

raydawg wrote on 12/05/19 at 07:37:03:


That's not what I saw.  Noah Feldman, of Harvard Law School, was composed, demonstrated both circumstantial and foundational understanding, and though energized by concern, at ease.  

Pamela Karlan, of Stanford Law School, was full of ire, making clear that "relaxed" was not the appropriate response to what she sees as overt Constitutional transgressions, citing cause.   When invited to opine on Obstruction of Justice- outside of her area of expertise -she refused.

Michael Gerhardt, of the University of North Carolina School of Law, was the most sedate of all the panelists, exhibiting levels of relaxation only otherwise obtained by tortoises and the mighty Sequoya.

Jonathan Turley, of the George Washington University Law School, was most definitely comfortable in his role- but was certainly not free from preconceptions... except from those he expressed in recent years in writing, and the last time he testified before Congress on impeachment:

"While there's a high bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment, an offense does not have to be indictable- serious misconduct or a violation of public trust is enough."

"No matter how you feel about President Clinton- and I don't dislike President Clinton, I voted for President Clinton -no matter how you feel about President Clinton, no matter how you feel about the independent council, by his own conduct, he has deprived himself of the perceived legitimacy to govern.   You need both political and legal legitimacy to govern this nation because the President must be able to demand an absolute sacrifice form the public at a moments notice."

His arguments yesterday, while well presented, were specious, and lacked sincerity, being so completely at odds with his previous testimony before the exact same body.

Let's be clear: Turley supported impeaching Clinton for lying about an affair.   To date, Trump has refused to provide direct testimony- we all know that is because he and everyone around him believes he would either purger himself or provide evidence in support of removal at least, and prosecution likely.

Polls vacillate.   These most recent transgression by the President have seen Republican support for impeaching at over 15%.   Now that has fallen to just bellow 10%.   It seems clear that a portion of those within the Party who care about these offenses are also subject to being influenced by specious argument.

Ray, did you watch all of the testimony? -or only curated excerpts?

I think they should defeat him, then indict him, and jail him, so he cant pardon himself.
How would the "imprisonment" of a president work ? House arrest ? Costing the tax payer what ??? several mil a yr ?

Cool.
Srinath.

Mavigogun wrote on 12/05/19 at 08:49:01:


Will be more $$ to protect him in supermax. I'd guess there would need to be 2 Secret service for every other criminal. But in any case, I really am going to see the "pardon Donald J Trump" sentence shortly is my feeling.
Cool.
Srinath.

It doesn't make sense.   It's a sentimental deflection, not a substantive one, so the contents don't really matter.

WebsterMark wrote on 12/05/19 at 10:27:18:


You can't in good faith opine over something you, by your own admission, are almost entirely ignorant to- be it a book you didn't read, a play you didn't attend, or a hearing you didn't watch.   There was at least 20 minutes wasted counting votes to Republican Committee member motions made to disrupt the proceedings- one can't brows 10-15 minutes out of several hours of testimony and expect to have a meaningful impression.

We could have a substantive exchange here.    You've expressed a desire to elevate civil discourse, Mark.   It would be great if you would act to realize that condition.

WebsterMark wrote on 12/05/19 at 10:27:18:


Yes, he did.