Trump's Russian Collusion

[Typical Lax Dad]

^^^^ Turley's also the US legal expert on BBC.

TDS Zombie porn. You guys are going to be so disappointed. Rave on.

What do you think of the evidence in the report?

I look forward to you & Schiff trying to sell this hooey to a disinterested public -- that this is an impeachable crime (& a crime is what the public thinks it needs to be). Tomorrow the law professors will put to sleep anyone who hasn't already tuned out.

Try to sell the notion that an 11 wk delay in Ukraine receiving sniper rifles is somehow endangering US national security,
when 2 years ago, we wouldn't even give them bullets. They haven't even needed to use the Javelins that Trump gave them 2 years ago.

Salty wants to gaslight by making the impeachment proceedings being about a delay in weapons delivery as opposed to Trump's behavior in causing that delay to happen, and his reasons for so doing. The proceedings look like they will reveal the latter in fairly clear and understandable terms. I imagine the public will be paying more attention than Old Salt gives them credit for regarding this matter. Time will tell.

Trump's reasons ? Politics as usual. You don't even specify the "crime".
What's that you say, doesn't have to be a crime. It's political.
If Schiff thought he could sell it as a crime, he wouldn't be gaslighting it as endangering US national security.
You guys are so sure about this ? Schiff claims he doesn't know how he'll vote yet. ..
Let us know when you've got 20 (R) votes in the Senate. ...'til then, gaslight this.
This trivializes impeachment & makes it just another political device, going forward.

Looks like you forgot to read the House Report. I laughed out loud when I read "this trivializes impeachment." You must've been really miffed with House Republicans in December 1998.

He has no credibility. Flowery words and nomenclature can’t cover it up. It’s sad. I don’t believe Trump will be removed from office given the actions on the Senate over his term. Not sure I want to se him removed. Doesn’t mean the impeachment process should be abandoned. Old Salt’s philosophy is only prosecute if you can guarantee a conviction.

Impeachment isn't a prosecution. The founders designed it this way so that the cause for removal must be so convincing that it requires bipartisan support by 2/3 of the Senate. Initiating Impeachment procedures for an offense that does not generate that level of support is an abuse of the process, whether in 1998 or 2019. That's what Turley's trying to tell you partisan zealots. The (D)'s will regret that they did this. They're weaponizing the impeachment process, making it petty partisan harassment to placate their sore loser base.

You are the guy that said there is no proof of a crime....you sound like you are in the bag.

[jhu72]

the documents should provide further damning evidence and the direct testimony should reveal the President's corrupt intent. They should have that confidence.

So, I'm at a loss as to why this process shouldn't actually slow down.

This is horrendous political advice. Thank goodness Pelosi knows better.

It should be 100% clear by now that the facts just don't matter here. Literally, this is Trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue.

The Dems had no choice imo to pursue the Uke scandal, but there's no reason to turn it into a suicide mission. Get the facts out as best you can and then get back to job 1.

The downside of dragging it out seems to me much bigger than the upside. But actually no one knows. Since the Dems are the favorite to win the election even without impeachment, why risk running the experiment?

I lean towards dragging it out a little longer in an effort to get a few final court decisions. I think we are all agreed, that congress wins those decisions. What Trump does is anyone's guess. The gambit is to bait the republicans and the WH to jointly request a very expedited decision of SCOTUS, sending all cases to SCOTUS. Make the public offer. Put a timeline on it for making the joint request. Either the republicans and the WH will flat turn it down or just try to run out the clock. If there is no joint request by such and such a date, then proceed as presently envisioned. I don't believe the court would not greatly expedite if jointly requested. The only risk is SCOTUS would find in all cases for Trump. Just not going to happen. At worst this is a PR wash, and more likely victory, seeming reasonable, granting the Turley argument, within reason. I see no downside in extending under this circumstance. The support for impeachment is locked in and not going to change within more than current margin of error. This also doesn't keep job 1 from being done.

Frankly I feel the same way you do, that what is important is the actual impeachment, far less so removal. The game is being played for a few republican votes in either or both houses.

[Jim Malone]

The only thing these hearings are proving is that we have elected a bunch of morons to Congress.

With all the Donald has done this is the "offense" they are going to take him down with?

Nadler has had a bug up his ass for this knucklehead since his days in NYC legislature.

Schiff came off poorly in 2006 in attempt to get Rove. He seems destined to screw the pooch once again and get trumped in 2019.

Witnesses seems intelligent enough but don't come off as so when speaking in circles with royalty references or what the forefathers meant.

And, for the love of grammar, how does "do us a favor" equate to you don't do this for me then I don't do this for you.
No points for the equally stupid "speaking in code" explanation that came out in Schiff hearings.

Some of you make good points from both points of view; but, even, you all seem biased as crap. Even silly at times.

Oh yeah, the Fed had to inject a boatload of money into economy for "liquidity" purposes while the minstrels played! Yeah, that economy that is breaking records and leading the worldwide recovery.

[jhu72]

^^^^ Turley's also the US legal expert on BBC.

TDS Zombie porn. You guys are going to be so disappointed. Rave on.

What do you think of the evidence in the report?

I look forward to you & Schiff trying to sell this hooey to a disinterested public -- that this is an impeachable crime (& a crime is what the public thinks it needs to be). Tomorrow the law professors will put to sleep anyone who hasn't already tuned out.

Try to sell the notion that an 11 wk delay in Ukraine receiving sniper rifles is somehow endangering US national security,
when 2 years ago, we wouldn't even give them bullets. They haven't even needed to use the Javelins that Trump gave them 2 years ago.

Salty wants to gaslight by making the impeachment proceedings being about a delay in weapons delivery as opposed to Trump's behavior in causing that delay to happen, and his reasons for so doing. The proceedings look like they will reveal the latter in fairly clear and understandable terms. I imagine the public will be paying more attention than Old Salt gives them credit for regarding this matter. Time will tell.

Trump's reasons ? Politics as usual. You don't even specify the "crime".
What's that you say, doesn't have to be a crime. It's political.
If Schiff thought he could sell it as a crime, he wouldn't be gaslighting it as endangering US national security.
You guys are so sure about this ? Schiff claims he doesn't know how he'll vote yet. ..
Let us know when you've got 20 (R) votes in the Senate. ...'til then, gaslight this.
This trivializes impeachment & makes it just another political device, going forward.

Looks like you forgot to read the House Report. I laughed out loud when I read "this trivializes impeachment." You must've been really miffed with House Republicans in December 1998.

He has no credibility. Flowery words and nomenclature can’t cover it up. It’s sad. I don’t believe Trump will be removed from office given the actions on the Senate over his term. Not sure I want to se him removed. Doesn’t mean the impeachment process should be abandoned. Old Salt’s philosophy is only prosecute if you can guarantee a conviction.

Impeachment isn't a prosecution. The founders designed it this way so that the cause for removal must be so convincing that it requires bipartisan support by 2/3 of the Senate. Initiating Impeachment procedures for an offense that does not generate that level of support is an abuse of the process, whether in 1998 or 2019. That's what Turley's trying to tell you partisan zealots. The (D)'s will regret that they did this. They're weaponizing the impeachment process, making it petty partisan harassment to placate their sore loser base.

Turley sure didn't feel that way in 1998. His argument at that time was exactly the same as the democrats today. If it goes unchallenged you might as well allow the conduct of all presidents. It is total nonsense that this is some sore loser BS you keep trying to sell.

[a fan]

Impeachment isn't a prosecution. The founders designed it this way so that the cause for removal must be so convincing that it requires bipartisan support by 2/3 of the Senate. Initiating Impeachment procedures for an offense that does not generate that level of support is an abuse of the process, whether in 1998 or 2019.

Or 1974.

This is utter nonsense, and you know it.

Quick quiz: was the impeachment trial for Nixon a 2/3rds slam dunk in the Senate BEFORE they called started that up?

No. A solid no. It wasn't until Nixon released the tapes that Goldwater and crew made the trip to the Oval to tell Nixon he was done.

[jhu72]

The only thing these hearings are proving is that we have elected a bunch of morons to Congress.

With all the Donald has done this is the "offense" they are going to take him down with?

Nadler has had a bug up his ass for this knucklehead since his days in NYC legislature.

Schiff came off poorly in 2006 in attempt to get Rove. He seems destined to screw the pooch once again and get trumped in 2019.

Witnesses seems intelligent enough but don't come off as so when speaking in circles with royalty references or what the forefathers meant.

And, for the love of grammar, how does "do us a favor" equate to you don't do this for me then I don't do this for you.
No points for the equally stupid "speaking in code" explanation that came out in Schiff hearings.

Some of you make good points from both points of view; but, even, you all seem biased as dump. Even silly at times.

Oh yeah, the Fed had to inject a boatload of money into economy for "liquidity" purposes while the minstrels played! Yeah, that economy that is breaking records and leading the worldwide recovery.

You mean with the greatest economy ever, we have a problem? Surely you jest.

[old salt]

^^^^ Turley's also the US legal expert on BBC.

TDS Zombie porn. You guys are going to be so disappointed. Rave on.

What do you think of the evidence in the report?

I look forward to you & Schiff trying to sell this hooey to a disinterested public -- that this is an impeachable crime (& a crime is what the public thinks it needs to be). Tomorrow the law professors will put to sleep anyone who hasn't already tuned out.

Try to sell the notion that an 11 wk delay in Ukraine receiving sniper rifles is somehow endangering US national security,
when 2 years ago, we wouldn't even give them bullets. They haven't even needed to use the Javelins that Trump gave them 2 years ago.

Salty wants to gaslight by making the impeachment proceedings being about a delay in weapons delivery as opposed to Trump's behavior in causing that delay to happen, and his reasons for so doing. The proceedings look like they will reveal the latter in fairly clear and understandable terms. I imagine the public will be paying more attention than Old Salt gives them credit for regarding this matter. Time will tell.

Trump's reasons ? Politics as usual. You don't even specify the "crime".
What's that you say, doesn't have to be a crime. It's political.
If Schiff thought he could sell it as a crime, he wouldn't be gaslighting it as endangering US national security.
You guys are so sure about this ? Schiff claims he doesn't know how he'll vote yet. ..
Let us know when you've got 20 (R) votes in the Senate. ...'til then, gaslight this.
This trivializes impeachment & makes it just another political device, going forward.

Looks like you forgot to read the House Report. I laughed out loud when I read "this trivializes impeachment." You must've been really miffed with House Republicans in December 1998.

He has no credibility. Flowery words and nomenclature can’t cover it up. It’s sad. I don’t believe Trump will be removed from office given the actions on the Senate over his term. Not sure I want to se him removed. Doesn’t mean the impeachment process should be abandoned. Old Salt’s philosophy is only prosecute if you can guarantee a conviction.

Impeachment isn't a prosecution. The founders designed it this way so that the cause for removal must be so convincing that it requires bipartisan support by 2/3 of the Senate. Initiating Impeachment procedures for an offense that does not generate that level of support is an abuse of the process, whether in 1998 or 2019. That's what Turley's trying to tell you partisan zealots. The (D)'s will regret that they did this. They're weaponizing the impeachment process, making it petty partisan harassment to placate their sore loser base.

You are the guy that said there is no proof of a crime....you sound like you are in the bag.

...& you said "only prosecute if you can guarantee a conviction."
What happens to Prosecutors who fail to exercise the power of discretion which comes with their office, & initiate prosecutions with no chance of conviction, just to send a message ? It's called prosecutorial abuse.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The only thing these hearings are proving is that we have elected a bunch of morons to Congress.

With all the Donald has done this is the "offense" they are going to take him down with?

Nadler has had a bug up his ass for this knucklehead since his days in NYC legislature.

Schiff came off poorly in 2006 in attempt to get Rove. He seems destined to screw the pooch once again and get trumped in 2019.

Witnesses seems intelligent enough but don't come off as so when speaking in circles with royalty references or what the forefathers meant.

And, for the love of grammar, how does "do us a favor" equate to you don't do this for me then I don't do this for you.
No points for the equally stupid "speaking in code" explanation that came out in Schiff hearings.

Some of you make good points from both points of view; but, even, you all seem biased as dump. Even silly at times.

Oh yeah, the Fed had to inject a boatload of money into economy for "liquidity" purposes while the minstrels played! Yeah, that economy that is breaking records and leading the worldwide recovery.

Why did they draft a hostage statement to be read and why is Rudy calling the OMB? And what does Joe and Hunter Biden have to do with the aid?

[Typical Lax Dad]

^^^^ Turley's also the US legal expert on BBC.

TDS Zombie porn. You guys are going to be so disappointed. Rave on.

What do you think of the evidence in the report?

I look forward to you & Schiff trying to sell this hooey to a disinterested public -- that this is an impeachable crime (& a crime is what the public thinks it needs to be). Tomorrow the law professors will put to sleep anyone who hasn't already tuned out.

Try to sell the notion that an 11 wk delay in Ukraine receiving sniper rifles is somehow endangering US national security,
when 2 years ago, we wouldn't even give them bullets. They haven't even needed to use the Javelins that Trump gave them 2 years ago.

Salty wants to gaslight by making the impeachment proceedings being about a delay in weapons delivery as opposed to Trump's behavior in causing that delay to happen, and his reasons for so doing. The proceedings look like they will reveal the latter in fairly clear and understandable terms. I imagine the public will be paying more attention than Old Salt gives them credit for regarding this matter. Time will tell.

Trump's reasons ? Politics as usual. You don't even specify the "crime".
What's that you say, doesn't have to be a crime. It's political.
If Schiff thought he could sell it as a crime, he wouldn't be gaslighting it as endangering US national security.
You guys are so sure about this ? Schiff claims he doesn't know how he'll vote yet. ..
Let us know when you've got 20 (R) votes in the Senate. ...'til then, gaslight this.
This trivializes impeachment & makes it just another political device, going forward.

Looks like you forgot to read the House Report. I laughed out loud when I read "this trivializes impeachment." You must've been really miffed with House Republicans in December 1998.

He has no credibility. Flowery words and nomenclature can’t cover it up. It’s sad. I don’t believe Trump will be removed from office given the actions on the Senate over his term. Not sure I want to se him removed. Doesn’t mean the impeachment process should be abandoned. Old Salt’s philosophy is only prosecute if you can guarantee a conviction.

Impeachment isn't a prosecution. The founders designed it this way so that the cause for removal must be so convincing that it requires bipartisan support by 2/3 of the Senate. Initiating Impeachment procedures for an offense that does not generate that level of support is an abuse of the process, whether in 1998 or 2019. That's what Turley's trying to tell you partisan zealots. The (D)'s will regret that they did this. They're weaponizing the impeachment process, making it petty partisan harassment to placate their sore loser base.

You are the guy that said there is no proof of a crime....you sound like you are in the bag.

...& you said "only prosecute if you can guarantee a conviction."
What happens to Prosecutors who fail to exercise the power of discretion which comes with their office, & initiate prosecutions with no chance of conviction, just to send a message ? It's called prosecutorial abuse.

You are not as stupid as you sound. Next.

[old salt]

Impeachment isn't a prosecution. The founders designed it this way so that the cause for removal must be so convincing that it requires bipartisan support by 2/3 of the Senate. Initiating Impeachment procedures for an offense that does not generate that level of support is an abuse of the process, whether in 1998 or 2019.

Or 1974.

This is utter nonsense, and you know it.

Quick quiz: was the impeachment trial for Nixon a 2/3rds slam dunk in the Senate BEFORE they called started that up?

No. A solid no. It wasn't until Nixon released the tapes that Goldwater and crew made the trip to the Oval to tell Nixon he was done.

It was a stone cold breaking & entering. A clear cut crime on behalf of anyone -- a President or anyone paying to have it done.

[old salt]

^^^^ Turley's also the US legal expert on BBC.

TDS Zombie porn. You guys are going to be so disappointed. Rave on.

What do you think of the evidence in the report?

I look forward to you & Schiff trying to sell this hooey to a disinterested public -- that this is an impeachable crime (& a crime is what the public thinks it needs to be). Tomorrow the law professors will put to sleep anyone who hasn't already tuned out.

Try to sell the notion that an 11 wk delay in Ukraine receiving sniper rifles is somehow endangering US national security,
when 2 years ago, we wouldn't even give them bullets. They haven't even needed to use the Javelins that Trump gave them 2 years ago.

Salty wants to gaslight by making the impeachment proceedings being about a delay in weapons delivery as opposed to Trump's behavior in causing that delay to happen, and his reasons for so doing. The proceedings look like they will reveal the latter in fairly clear and understandable terms. I imagine the public will be paying more attention than Old Salt gives them credit for regarding this matter. Time will tell.

Trump's reasons ? Politics as usual. You don't even specify the "crime".
What's that you say, doesn't have to be a crime. It's political.
If Schiff thought he could sell it as a crime, he wouldn't be gaslighting it as endangering US national security.
You guys are so sure about this ? Schiff claims he doesn't know how he'll vote yet. ..
Let us know when you've got 20 (R) votes in the Senate. ...'til then, gaslight this.
This trivializes impeachment & makes it just another political device, going forward.

Looks like you forgot to read the House Report. I laughed out loud when I read "this trivializes impeachment." You must've been really miffed with House Republicans in December 1998.

He has no credibility. Flowery words and nomenclature can’t cover it up. It’s sad. I don’t believe Trump will be removed from office given the actions on the Senate over his term. Not sure I want to se him removed. Doesn’t mean the impeachment process should be abandoned. Old Salt’s philosophy is only prosecute if you can guarantee a conviction.

Impeachment isn't a prosecution. The founders designed it this way so that the cause for removal must be so convincing that it requires bipartisan support by 2/3 of the Senate. Initiating Impeachment procedures for an offense that does not generate that level of support is an abuse of the process, whether in 1998 or 2019. That's what Turley's trying to tell you partisan zealots. The (D)'s will regret that they did this. They're weaponizing the impeachment process, making it petty partisan harassment to placate their sore loser base.

You are the guy that said there is no proof of a crime....you sound like you are in the bag.

...& you said "only prosecute if you can guarantee a conviction."
What happens to Prosecutors who fail to exercise the power of discretion which comes with their office, & initiate prosecutions with no chance of conviction, just to send a message ? It's called prosecutorial abuse.

You are not as stupid as you sound. Next.

...apparently you are.

[old salt]

^^^^ Turley's also the US legal expert on BBC.

TDS Zombie porn. You guys are going to be so disappointed. Rave on.

What do you think of the evidence in the report?

I look forward to you & Schiff trying to sell this hooey to a disinterested public -- that this is an impeachable crime (& a crime is what the public thinks it needs to be). Tomorrow the law professors will put to sleep anyone who hasn't already tuned out.

Try to sell the notion that an 11 wk delay in Ukraine receiving sniper rifles is somehow endangering US national security,
when 2 years ago, we wouldn't even give them bullets. They haven't even needed to use the Javelins that Trump gave them 2 years ago.

Salty wants to gaslight by making the impeachment proceedings being about a delay in weapons delivery as opposed to Trump's behavior in causing that delay to happen, and his reasons for so doing. The proceedings look like they will reveal the latter in fairly clear and understandable terms. I imagine the public will be paying more attention than Old Salt gives them credit for regarding this matter. Time will tell.

Trump's reasons ? Politics as usual. You don't even specify the "crime".
What's that you say, doesn't have to be a crime. It's political.
If Schiff thought he could sell it as a crime, he wouldn't be gaslighting it as endangering US national security.
You guys are so sure about this ? Schiff claims he doesn't know how he'll vote yet. ..
Let us know when you've got 20 (R) votes in the Senate. ...'til then, gaslight this.
This trivializes impeachment & makes it just another political device, going forward.

Looks like you forgot to read the House Report. I laughed out loud when I read "this trivializes impeachment." You must've been really miffed with House Republicans in December 1998.

He has no credibility. Flowery words and nomenclature can’t cover it up. It’s sad. I don’t believe Trump will be removed from office given the actions on the Senate over his term. Not sure I want to se him removed. Doesn’t mean the impeachment process should be abandoned. Old Salt’s philosophy is only prosecute if you can guarantee a conviction.

Impeachment isn't a prosecution. The founders designed it this way so that the cause for removal must be so convincing that it requires bipartisan support by 2/3 of the Senate. Initiating Impeachment procedures for an offense that does not generate that level of support is an abuse of the process, whether in 1998 or 2019. That's what Turley's trying to tell you partisan zealots. The (D)'s will regret that they did this. They're weaponizing the impeachment process, making it petty partisan harassment to placate their sore loser base.

Turley sure didn't feel that way in 1998. His argument at that time was exactly the same as the democrats today. If it goes unchallenged you might as well allow the conduct of all presidents. It is total nonsense that this is some sore loser BS you keep trying to sell.

In 1998 Starr had tape of Clinton suborning perjury & witness tampering.
The SP law required him to report to Congress.

[Typical Lax Dad]

^^^^ Turley's also the US legal expert on BBC.

TDS Zombie porn. You guys are going to be so disappointed. Rave on.

What do you think of the evidence in the report?

I look forward to you & Schiff trying to sell this hooey to a disinterested public -- that this is an impeachable crime (& a crime is what the public thinks it needs to be). Tomorrow the law professors will put to sleep anyone who hasn't already tuned out.

Try to sell the notion that an 11 wk delay in Ukraine receiving sniper rifles is somehow endangering US national security,
when 2 years ago, we wouldn't even give them bullets. They haven't even needed to use the Javelins that Trump gave them 2 years ago.

Salty wants to gaslight by making the impeachment proceedings being about a delay in weapons delivery as opposed to Trump's behavior in causing that delay to happen, and his reasons for so doing. The proceedings look like they will reveal the latter in fairly clear and understandable terms. I imagine the public will be paying more attention than Old Salt gives them credit for regarding this matter. Time will tell.

Trump's reasons ? Politics as usual. You don't even specify the "crime".
What's that you say, doesn't have to be a crime. It's political.
If Schiff thought he could sell it as a crime, he wouldn't be gaslighting it as endangering US national security.
You guys are so sure about this ? Schiff claims he doesn't know how he'll vote yet. ..
Let us know when you've got 20 (R) votes in the Senate. ...'til then, gaslight this.
This trivializes impeachment & makes it just another political device, going forward.

Looks like you forgot to read the House Report. I laughed out loud when I read "this trivializes impeachment." You must've been really miffed with House Republicans in December 1998.

He has no credibility. Flowery words and nomenclature can’t cover it up. It’s sad. I don’t believe Trump will be removed from office given the actions on the Senate over his term. Not sure I want to se him removed. Doesn’t mean the impeachment process should be abandoned. Old Salt’s philosophy is only prosecute if you can guarantee a conviction.

Impeachment isn't a prosecution. The founders designed it this way so that the cause for removal must be so convincing that it requires bipartisan support by 2/3 of the Senate. Initiating Impeachment procedures for an offense that does not generate that level of support is an abuse of the process, whether in 1998 or 2019. That's what Turley's trying to tell you partisan zealots. The (D)'s will regret that they did this. They're weaponizing the impeachment process, making it petty partisan harassment to placate their sore loser base.

You are the guy that said there is no proof of a crime....you sound like you are in the bag.

...& you said "only prosecute if you can guarantee a conviction."
What happens to Prosecutors who fail to exercise the power of discretion which comes with their office, & initiate prosecutions with no chance of conviction, just to send a message ? It's called prosecutorial abuse.

You are not as stupid as you sound. Next.

...apparently you are.

Next Hey buddy..you are wasting bandwidth.

[calourie]

It's official: No one on this thread, since its' very inception, has or ever will change their evaluation of whether or not Trump should be impeached. We all know where each of us stands. I'm all in favor of the dems proceeding with their impeachment agenda in any way they see fit. I actually think doing so is good for the country regardless of the outcome. Meanwhile Yale is going to win the national title again this year

[ggait]

Initiating Impeachment procedures for an offense that does not generate that level of support is an abuse of the process, whether in 1998 or 2019. That's what Turley's trying to tell you partisan zealots.

While that is what Turley is saying, he's got zero legal basis for that opinion. That is just his personal preference. Constitution is clear -- the House has the SOLE POWER to impeach. THAT is the law. And it is reasonable to go ahead and play the game to see how it turns out. It in no way is an abuse. Silly to say that you have to have to conviction locked down in order to start the process.

And all the Senators and House members will have to answer to the voters for what they do or don't do. They decide if there is/is not abuse. All nice and tidy and democratic.

Turley is one of the very very few who believe (i) Clinton's offenses were impeachable and (ii) Trump's offenses are not. Actually even Turley himself really doesn't believe (ii). He just doesn't think (ii) has yet been proved. That's a judgment of the facts, not the law.

[calourie]

Trump is drooling to get back on the campaign trail so he can commit another impeachable act. What fun is a US election without a little foreign intervention.

[a fan]

It was a stone cold breaking & entering.

That wasn't 1000% linked to the President until the tapes were released. AFTER the impeachment trial started.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Initiating Impeachment procedures for an offense that does not generate that level of support is an abuse of the process, whether in 1998 or 2019. That's what Turley's trying to tell you partisan zealots.

While that is what Turley is saying, he's got zero legal basis for that opinion. That is just his personal preference. Constitution is clear -- the House has the SOLE POWER to impeach. THAT is the law. And it is reasonable to go ahead and play the game to see how it turns out. It in no way is an abuse. Silly to say that you have to have to conviction locked down in order to start the process.

And all the Senators and House members will have to answer to the voters for what they do or don't do. They decide if there is/is not abuse. All nice and tidy and democratic.

Turley is one of the very very few who believe (i) Clinton's offenses were impeachable and (ii) Trump's offenses are not. Actually even Turley himself really doesn't believe (ii). He just doesn't think (ii) has yet been proved. That's a judgment of the facts, not the law.

That is his bar. You don’t go for a “conviction” unless you have a 100% chance at “prosecution” otherwise it’s a witch hunt. The only justification is a rock solid “conviction”. Sad.

[Typical Lax Dad]

It was a stone cold breaking & entering.

That wasn't 1000% linked to the President until the tapes were released. AFTER the impeachment trial started.

Naah. That was different then.

[old salt]

It was a stone cold breaking & entering.

That wasn't 1000% linked to the President until the tapes were released. AFTER the impeachment trial started.

Naah. That was different then.

.. ...it started as a criminal investigation of 5 guys, caught in the act of a B&E of the DNC HQ.
Impeachment proceeding were started because the criminal investigation implicated members of Nixon's campaigns.

Compare that to Rudy & the 3 Amigoes. Where are the indictments ?