If the Democrats had a tenth of the case that they claim they have on Trump... then why is it necessary to bring forward Law Professors to explain it to the general public? pic.twitter.com/IlrzAQvHNT— C.H. Truth (@C_H_Truth) December 4, 2019
Wednesday, December 4, 2019
300 pages of nonsense explained by mostly biased law professors!
The most notable name on the list is Jonathan Turley. Turley is the sole member who is known to be against the impeachment. He also happens to be the one who probably provides the most objective research, objective history, and objective opinion (considering he voted against the President and has argued against Trump's legal views in other situations). Turley isn't just saying that impeachment in this case is built on a weak premise and weaker evidence. He is calling it dangerous and believes it will have future consequences that cannot be taken back.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
79 comments:
Turley isn't just saying that impeachment in this case is built on a weak premise and weaker evidence. He is calling it dangerous and believes it will have future consequences that cannot be taken back.
precisely.
and you don't have to be a constitutional scholar to reach the same conclusion.
by virtue of the actions of today's democrats, one could logically conclude that each new president needs to be met on the inaugural dais with a copy of the articles of impeachment against them, with the page outlining the specific charges simply saying "we'll come up with something."
the post-trump political landscape of our nation is irrevocably fucked thanks to the democrats.
Turley's statement is damning in a lot of ways.
I think one of the major takeaways is his exposure of how Democrats want to continue to claim Trump committed a "crime" like Bribery, while simultaneously making the argument that it's a political (not legal) claim.
He talks about multiple instances where the courts have overturned bribery convictions against politicians, on the same basic ground that official acts are not determined to be "quo" else (as Roberts and the USSC explains) there could be "boundless interpretations" that deny constitutional rights because it denies any "notice of what acts are preemptively criminal".
In other words, if you demand that you can convict someone of a crime (or impeach a politician) based on their execution of normal actions or duties (in this case meeting with a foreign leader or releasing military aid) because it would basically put every thing every President or politician did under criminal scrutiny, while allowing the whims of an opposition political Party in charge to simply "define" it as bribery or corruption if they do not like the reasoning or demand that it is done for political reasons.
Other rulings have dismissed actions that are not even part of official duties as settled "practices" of politicians, making them basically immune being considered corrupt "quo".
So what Turley is pointing out is that even if the President was capable of being tried, that based on the allegations, a Judge would throw them out based on precedents established in "McDonnell v United States".
Moreover, Turley points out the obvious.
The Democrats have not called any of the witnesses that could actually corroborate their allegations... based on the political consideration that issuing a subpoena and litigating the potential testimony in court would "take too long".
Turley states that this creates an artificial deadline that undermines their own ability to prove their case. As he points out (as well)... this simply allows them to call a series of witnesses who bring speculation and opinions (rather than any witness or evidence of the allegations)... and rely on them.
Since these witnesses may or may not even be allowed by a Judge in a criminal trial, the idea that they rely on the "hearsay" and "second hand" accounts while "choosing" for political consideration not to actually make any attempts to prove their case... it undermines their entire rationale.
He further points out that Executives have nearly always gone to court to litigate congressional requests (with mixed results). He states that the President has EVERY LEGAL AUTHORITY to litigate these in court. The fact that he wants to invoke executive privilege is his right as President. If he is wrong, it us up to the courts (not Congress) to make that call.
Yet the Democrats are using the fact that their subpoenas would be fought in court and delay their hearings as grounds for an "obstruction of congress" charge.
As Turley is implying... there is nothing anywhere that suggests that people accused of criminal activity cannot use their right to litigation because the people who want to accuse them do not want to drag it out in court. It is entirely the Democrats in the House's decision as to whether to subpoena and litigate or to drop it and move on. If they do the latter, then they neither have made their case, nor do they have an obstruction case.
The other lawyer differed on every single word.
He objected Justice and committed high crimes and misdemeanors with abuse of his power of office
Try English liver
Roger, your girl Law Professor made up a Story. She could have used actual facts. She doesn't have any.
Why did the Three Socialist Stooges of CHT drop "Bribery"?
Schiff spying on his political advisary is wrong, right?
What a Tool.
"Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman, one of the Democrats’ star witnesses called to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, authored an op-ed in May lamenting the lack of seriousness surrounding efforts to impeach President Trump, and admitting that House Democrats “made it painfully clear that discussing impeachment is primarily or even exclusively a tool to weaken Trump’s chances in 2020.”
This is the real crime of the whatever Nadler held today.
"Rep. Al Green (D-TX) blasted his own party’s impeachment inquiry over the lack of diversity in the selection of witnesses, declaring it “hurts his heart” and asking, “What subliminal message are we sending to the world when we have experts, but not one person of color?”
The Democrats gave the Republicans one bullet and they made the most out of it.
Turley is outstanding.
The other lawyer differed on every single word.
Which means what exactly?
Other than only "some" of your Trump haters think it's a crime, while other Trump haters (like Turley) take the constitution more seriously than their own hatred?
Roger... have you bothered to read or actually listen to what Turley stated?
As far as I can tell, the other "experts" did not really address many (if any) of the concerns Turley brought up. They simply provided their personal red mean opinion that Trump needs to be impeached. They might as well have used the "bad orange man" reasoning for all the logic they "did" use.
Turley came across as the only one capable of not allowing anger and emotion to overrule their legal reasoning.
Wonder what the veiwership numbers are going to be.
Surely they will be better then the Schitt Show.
Scott I watched it live this morning.
I differ because he's supporting the idea that the President can do no wrong.
I'm like you I watched all 3 opening statements you are worried root required to address is by your websites that you stole the information you did not write that period you stole that
I use my microphone
Basically Karlan spent most of her time attacking Doug Collins and demanding she read all of the transcripts. But basically her argument was her "personal belief" that the second hand accounts provided were enough to convince her that Trump "abused power"...
Feldman spent most of his time talking about the "right" of Congress to impeach a President for "abuse of power". He basically gave his opinion that Trump's behavior "embodies the concerns" that a President would corruptly "abuse his powers" (apparently as opposed to abusing his powers in a non-corrupt way).
Gerhardt played it much the same way. Explaining how Congress has the "right" to impeach a President (as if that was somehow the question). He basically parroted the talking points of the Democratic Party suggesting (without any reasoning as to why or to what evidence he was citing) that the President demanded a personal favor to investigate his opponent for "much needed" aid. He didn't even make any real legal arguments. Just that he (like the other two) believe that Trump is guilty of something. He also decided to wander into the Mueller report for good measure. All of this leads him to believe that the President "abused his power".
Because apparently "bribery" is no longer the focus group tested term?
Turley was the ONLY honest witness who addressed anything relevant or anything new. He appears to be the only person who has done extensive research of historical impeachment, impeachment rulings, impeachment as it pertained to the founding father... and the only person who took the time to explain the laws of Bribery and abuse of power in a manner that was "legal" rather than political.
There is no way that this helped the Democratic case. Just a bunch of angry Democrats telling us why they think Trump should be removed from office. Moreover, these people (one of them holding grief sessions after Trump was elected) have been angry since Trump was elected and have believed he should be removed for any number of things.
Turley stated it best... I get it. You're mad!
But being mad is no substitute for being logical.
Of the four constitutional experts on the panel three of them seems to be fine with subverting it.
The big picture: The three Democratic witnesses said that based on the evidence in the House Intelligence Committee's report, President Trump abused his power to solicit foreign election interference for his own political gain. The Republican witness, who was not questioned by the Democratic counsel, criticized the rushed nature of the current impeachment inquiry in his opening statement as "dangerous."
What they're saying:
UNC-Chapel Hill law professor Michael Gerhardt: "The president’s serious misconduct, including bribery, soliciting a personal favor from a foreign leader in exchange for his exercise of power, and obstructing justice and Congress are worse than the misconduct of any prior president."
Harvard law professor Noah Feldman: "President Trump has committed impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency."
Stanford law school professor Pamela S. Karlan: "Everything I know about our Constitution and its values, and my review of the evidentiary record, tells me that when President Trump invited—indeed, demanded—foreign involvement in our upcoming election, he struck at the very heart of what makes this country the “republic” to which we pledge allegiance. That demand constituted an abuse of power."
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley: "[O]ne can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president. To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my only concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of impeachment."
Read the Democratic witnesses' opening statements.
Read the Republican witness' opening statement.
Go deeper: What to expect from the next phase of impeachment
DONALD TRUMP IMPEACHMENT
Axios2 hours ago
GOP's legal scholar suggests Democrats are abusing power with rushed impeachment
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and the sole Republican witness at Wednesday's impeachment hearing, cautioned against impeaching President Trump for obstruction and said that Democrats would be abusing their power by not allowing the courts to rule on subpoenas.
Go deeper298 WORDS
DONALD TRUMP IMPEACHMENT
Zachary Basu2 hours ago
Giuliani visits Ukraine to meet with prosecutors at heart of impeachment inquiry
Rudy Giuliani
Photo: Alastair Pike/AFP via Getty Images
President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani traveled to Ukraine and Hungary this week in order to meet with the same former Ukrainian prosecutors whose unsubstantiated claims about Joe Biden and his son helped set off the impeachment inquiry, the New York Times reports.
The big picture: The overtures to Yuri Lutsenko, Viktor Shokin and Kostiantyn Kulyk — all of whom have faced allegations of corruption — are part of an effort to solicit new information that Giuliani hopes will undercut the impeachment proceedings, according to the Times.
Go deeper218 WORDS
RUDY GIULIANI
Joe Uchill2 hours ago
Report: Government workers concerned new digital census isn't ready
Government employees involved in the development of the new digital census system, intended to record all census data in 2020, allege cost overruns, spotty design and foreseeable security concerns, Reuters reports.
Why it matters: The obvious parallel — and worst-case scenario — for a faulty census system would be the healthcare.gov rollout disaster during the Obama presidency, which was initially unable to handle the broad scope of its mission. If that's the case with the census, everything from Congressional seats to federal funding could be botched for a decade.
Go deeper232 WORDS
CENSUS
I differ because he's supporting the idea that the President can do no wrong.
Roger...
Obviously you didn't read or watch Turley.
Why lie and say you did, and then get what he said 180 degrees wrong?
He "literally" stated that he was not a Trump fan, that he didn't vote for Trump, that he did not believe that what Trump did was right.
He just logically made the impossible to refute argument that the Democrats have not only "not" made their case against the President, but that they refuse to even "try" to make their case against the President.
No court in the land would convict anyone of anything when the prosecution refuses to call any first hand witnesses, either because they believe that they will not back what they claim or because it will take to long to compel their testimony. A Judge would literally thrown the case out.
You know that to be true... as much as I know it to be true.
I will get you back to you later.
Busy day
Scott I'm not done yet I would busy this morning after the watching the opening statements
I know the it the comment was going to be because it is 2nd hand 2nd hand and 2nd hand can be admissible sometimes. But remember this is not of legal course this is impeachment it is not a court of law. And you know that Scott so that's if different of opinion does not mean he is correct
What they're saying:
They gave an opinion, Roger. They were not there as legal experts as much as they were there to pretend to be part of some "jury" with their own credentials supposedly making them more believable.
They literally provided no real legal argument.
They were there to say they believed he committed a crime.
But they provided us with no "legal" reason why I should change my mind.
They did not cite their evidence (and it certainly would not be hearsay).
Turley out-researched the three of them by about 10-1 on the history of impeachment, the comparisons to previous impeachments, and the manner in which our legal system has treated "bribery" and "abuse of power".
He referenced previous impeachments (including Clinton where he was a part of that). He referenced multiple legal rulings, including those that came down from the USS Roberts court. All 100% relevant to what the Democrats are choosing to impeach Trump on.
He is not a partisan Trump backer. He is a Trump critic. Just honest enough as a legal scholar not to whore himself out as a partisan cheerleader because he hates the "bad orange man".
Seriously Roger... if you preferred the illogical, emotional reasoning of law professors who didn't bother to bring their law books... to the one guy who did take the time to make a coherent legal argument.
Then you prove 100% what we say about you!
if you were even "marginally honest" you would admit that Turley was by far the best witness by any and all reasonable standards... and it wasn't even close.
Did the Female Professor called by the Cray Cray Socialist Democrats actual attack Trumps son, 13 year old "Barron" ?
Francis Brennan
@FrancisBrennan
ABC News knows that the Democrats sham impeachment hearing is a bust.
George Stephanopoulos announced the network would be returning to its regular programming just before 1:30 PM EDT.
no one cares
I know the it the comment was going to be because it is 2nd hand 2nd hand and 2nd hand can be admissible sometimes. But remember this is not of legal course this is impeachment it is not a court of law. And you know that Scott so that's if different of opinion does not mean he is correct
Actually Turley addresses this Roger. (if you had truly watched him).
As he states, they "chose" to not call the first hand witnesses. Their reasoning (that it would take too long to subpoena and go through a court fight) is not a legitimate excuse for anything resembling a real impeachment process.
The argument that it is "political" is irrelevant to how you go about proving what you are attempting to prove... unless you suggest that the manner in which you are proving something it "political" (which would just be an excuse to replace "proof" with partisanship).
Turley also goes through the very concept that impeachment is "political". The argument simply does not stand up to the reasoning of the founding fathers. There was lots of discussions and lots of comparisons to British and other forms of Government. We specifically choose not to hold votes of confidence (like the British do)- which is a political manner in which Britain deals with a Prime Minister who becomes politically unpopular or does politically unethical things.
The founding fathers went through quite a few stages of this, before they agreed to settle on the language of impeachment. Not all of the founding fathers agreed, and there are certainly many different writings from many different founding fathers on the subject... but at the end, what was put into the constitution was the compromise and ultimately what impeachment is.
It does not suggest that impeachment is political. But that it specifically involves activity that people would see to be criminal (bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors). There is nothing that suggests that it is a means to "recall" a political that the opposition Party is demanding be removed (because they don't like his policies).
Perhaps had Democrats stuck to calling witnesses that were relevant to what they are accusing him of, rather than calling witnesses who disagree with him politically... this would be a different issue.
As Turley clearly and logically states: This is the first case of impeachment where there is no established crime. There was never any doubt that Johnson, Nixon, Clinton all committed crimes. In fact Johnson knowingly committed the crime, 2 dozen people went to jail surrounding the Nixon fiasco, and Clinton admitted to perjury and witness tampering.
But as Turley points out... there is not even a general consensus as to what Crime the President has supposedly committed (and it really doesn't help that Democrats keep changing it from day to day).
Moreover, Turley states (very factually) that Democrats are not even attempting to prove what they allege. They simply provide witnesses that would never see a criminal court, and refuse to call those first hand witnesses that could give a real account. And not likely "just" because it would take too long. But likely because they fear that they will not testify to what they hope they might say.
You know why they do not know what they would say or how they would testify? Because they actually have no evidence of their allegations and would be relying on these witnesses openly confessing to being part of some events being described by Liberals as a crime.
he is limited in his ability to watch as he has to do it in the Day Room of the Elder Care Community he now lives in , subsidies help pay for it.
"Actually Turley addresses this Roger. (if you had truly watched him)." CHT
When you can't argue the facts....just argue as evidenced by the bias of Lil Scotty the trump suckers headline....
300 pages of nonsense explained by mostly biased law professors!
The only argument you have against actual scholars is they are biased!!!!! You learned from trump....maybe him storming out of London like a spoiled brat with the world laughing at his old fat stinky white ass will teach you something.....but I doubt it!!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
As he states, they "chose" to not call the first hand witnesses.
Actually Lil Scotty....trump forbid them to testify you dumb FUCK!!!!!!!
Kayleigh McEnany
✔@kayleighmcenany
DEMOCRAT "EXPERT" WITNESS EXPOSED:
.@RepMattGaetz: "You gave $1,000 to Elizabeth Warren?"
KARLAN: "I believe so"
GAETZ: "You gave $1,200 to Obama?"
KARLAN: "I have no reason to question that."
GAETZ: "You gave $2,000 to Hillary Clinton?"
KARLAN: "That is correct."
Blogger KansasDemocrat said...
Kayleigh McEnanyBlogger
Another pile of steaming smoking horseshit posted by the goat fucking moron from kansas......The only thing again exposed is your extreme stupidity and lack of a fucking brain!!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
thebradfordfile™
@thebradfordfile
Democrats had such a bad day, the only logical explanation is Nancy Pelosi must be working for Trump.
Barr Prosecutor Won’t Back Right-Wing Theory
“The prosecutor handpicked by Attorney General William Barr to scrutinize how U.S. agencies investigated President Trump’s 2016 campaign said he could not offer evidence to the Justice Department’s inspector general to support the suspicions of some conservatives that the case was a setup by American intelligence,” the Washington Post reports.
“Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s office contacted U.S. Attorney John Durham, the prosecutor Barr personally tapped to lead a separate review of the 2016 probe into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia… The inspector general also contacted several U.S. intelligence agencies.”
The most memorable line is going to be the snarking of a 13 year old boy.
Not a good day for the Democrats.
Not at all. They deserve it.
I think this will be the last hearing on impeachment in the house. Every time the Democrats hold hearings they lose more support.
If Pelosi has the votes the impeachment vote will be held next week, otherwise it will be sometime after Christmas.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/04/world-is-laughing-donald-trump/
Three of the scholars argued resoundingly for impeachment, saying that
Mr. Trump’s Ukraine dealings easily met the threshold that the framers set in the Constitution for impeachable offenses.
“If what we are talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable,”Mr. Gerhardt said.
Mr. Feldman said that “if we cannot impeach a president who abused his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy.”
Turley made the case that Democrats were rushing ahead without taking the time it requires to fully investigate the case: an “abbreviated period” that amounts to an “incomplete and inadequate record” for applying an ironclad set of constitutional standards. “This isn’t improvisational jazz — close enough is not good enough,” he said. (My colleague Peter Baker noted today that House Republicans actually moved faster to impeach Bill Clinton in 1998.).
He attempted to make the investigation was not valid without first hand knowledge.
But he didn't say that the investigation was not a failure.
More later
Actually the "three scholars" didn't make an argument at all.
The most second most devastating moment for the Democrats was when Gatez asked the panel to raise their hands if anyone of them knew of a material fact to support impeachment.
None of them did.
Today was a big Win for President Trump.
The hate flowed freely from the Nutty Professors.
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
GOD
Snarking on the kid didn't go over well with the American public.
You could tell because Brian Stelter was whining about how often the clip was played on Fox.
(I assumed it wasn't played at all on CNN or MSNBC).
"Melania Trump tweeted: “A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it.”
The Socialist Democrats have zero shame.
And now for the Socialist Democrat scum, none Appology .
"Pamela Karlan: "I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president's son. It was wrong of me to do that. I wish the president would apologize, obviously, for the things that he's done that's wrong, but I do regret having said that."
Scum .
Pelosi is going to call for the vote before the Christmas break.
If she waits until after the break even more swing district Democrats will get cold feet.
Palsy held the grenade as the Squatters pulled the pin.
This is going so well for Republicans.
The next vote will again be bi-Partisan Against.
KansasDemocrat said...
Palsy held the grenade as the Squatters pulled the pin.
This is going so well for Republicans.
BWAAAAAAAAAA!!!! I especially like turkey's saying the D's should slow down and get all the facts before impeaching which he would recommend....I like the part that all the witnesses have not been heard from....Interesting....trump forbid his closest group from testifying.....I guess if you think that was going well.....i know a bridge for sale in NY!!!!! BWAAAAAAPAAAAAA!!!!!
Mr. Trump’s Ukraine dealings easily met the threshold that the framers set in the Constitution for impeachable offenses.
“If what we are talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable,”Mr. Gerhardt said.
Professor Gerhardt ascribed corrupt political motives to President Trump for his actions in relation to Ukraine. The professor had no interest in considering any legitimate reasons within President Trump’s constitutional authority for his actions, irrespective of whatever political ramifications might have resulted. Professor Gerhardt simply assumed the worst and characterized President Trump’s actions as impeachable offenses. Yet when the shoe was on the other foot seven years ago and the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee was conducting its hearing into Obama administration abuses of power, Professor Gerhardt bent over backwards to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. “The fact that a president's constitutional choices have political ramifications does not make them political or purely partisan acts,” Professor Gerhardt said back then. “Nor should those ramifications be confused with the arguments that support, or oppose, the constitutional judgments in question.”
In the face of far more compelling evidence of Obama’s multiple usurpations of legislative power, his failures to faithfully execute the nation’s laws, and abuse of his executive powers in trampling on the fundamental freedoms of speech, the press and religion, Professor Gerhardt shamelessly declared, “For myself I think it is pretty obvious that there has been no abuse of power.” He went on to say that Obama had been “transparent, open and deliberative and reasonable.” Professor Gerhardt also made excuses for the Obama administration’s stonewalling of Congressional investigations. “The judgment about whether executive privilege applies is, at bottom, a constitutional choice, albeit one that obviously has political ramifications,” Professor Gerhardt said back then. Checks and balances, he emphasized, in defending Obama's resistance to congressional demands. Now he claims that “there is more than enough” evidence to charge President Trump with the “impeachable offense” of “obstruction of Congress.”
Professor Gerhardt expressed no worries about the highly partisan nature of the current impeachment proceedings launched against President Trump. Falling back on the House’s “sole power of impeachment,” the professor apparently forgot Alexander Hamilton’s warning in Federalist Papers No. 65. To refresh the professor’s memory, Alexander Hamilton warned that in the heat of the moment “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/12/nadlers-impeachment-circus-joseph-klein/
More ominous news for those thinking trumps great manufacturing plan is working.....BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
The manufacturing industry got a huge boost from President Trump's election, seeing a groundswell of job gains during his first year in office. But the trade war with China has undone that progress: Jobs in the sector have stalled out and turned negative in 2019.
Why it matters: Reviving American manufacturing was a central tenet of Trump's 2016 campaign, and the industry's retrenchment shows how another Trump constituency is being punished as a result of his trade war. (The nation's farmers are also struggling mightily.)
By the numbers: In Trump’s first 30 months as president, manufacturers added 499,000 jobs, some 314,000 more than were added in President Obama's last 30 months on the job — a 170% increase.
That seemed to put Trump in position to fulfill a central campaign promise to "bring back" manufacturing jobs in the U.S. — jobs that Obama said would never return.
Yes, but: That progress has evaporated this year. Manufacturing employment has slowed, and in October employers cut jobs in the sector by the highest number in a decade.
October's purge was blamed largely on striking auto workers, but it followed a clear trend in the industry.
Over the last six months, manufacturing has lost a net 23,000 jobs, and average hours worked has fallen to its lowest level in eight years, according to BLS data.
The number of people employed in the sector also remains well below where it was in 2008.
What's happening: "Our plan is to try to hold on until the end of the year without raising prices," Gary Yacoubian, CEO of Youngstown, Ohio-based speaker company SVS Sound, tells Axios.
"If the tariffs remain, I’m going to have to start making moves," Yacoubian says.
"Meaning: the consumer will pay, and I’ll pay, and then employees will pay, if we don’t grow according to plan."
Watch this space: The Federal Reserve's latest Beige Book, which tracks businesses around the country, painted a clear picture:
“Several retailers reported that tariffs were raising costs and hurting profit margins," the Fed's Richmond office reported.
“Uncertainty generally remained elevated, driven by trade tensions, the political climate, and weaker global growth," the Dallas Fed noted.
“Business contacts in retail and manufacturing reported facing increased price pressures due to tariffs," the St. Louis Fed found.
What's next: Things will likely get worse before they get better, Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at tax and consulting firm RSM, tells Axios.
More companies are starting to face higher costs from tariffs, and those that have already been affected are starting to cut back hours and lay off workers to compensate for their losses.
"In order to bolster the economy [the administration] will need to roll back those tariffs, and that’s a difficult pill to swallow for Mr. Trump and his followers," Brusuelas says.
I wonder if Lil Scotty will be upset when and if this gets officially released!!!!!! A bad day for the old white mans party!!!!!!
Headline Wa Post
Barr’s chosen prosecutor says he can’t back theory that Russia case was U.S. intelligence setup
The assertion from U.S. Attorney John Durham to Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general, could rebut conservatives’ doubts about the origins of the FBI's Russia investigation.
A real sad day for trump and his minions.....I bet being the laughing stock at Nato will really irk our baby in chief!!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
Wa Post opinion
Mr. Turley incorrectly played down the gravity of the allegations against Mr. Trump and the strength of the existing record. The public already knows that, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky sought military aid and a White House meeting, Mr. Trump asked for “a favor”: investigations based on false premises that would have helped Mr. Trump politically. Only after Mr. Zelensky assured Mr. Trump that investigations would proceed did Mr. Trump indicate a White House meeting would be possible. All of this is in black and white in the rough transcript of a July 25 call the White House released. Then there is the recent testimony of Trump administration officials indicating that Mr. Trump held up military aid, not just a White House meeting, to press for his desired investigations.
The latest updates in the Trump impeachment inquiry
Three prominent law professors testified Wednesday that conditioning official acts, in this case a White House meeting and, very likely, the release of military aid, on the receipt of something of value, in this case flimsy investigations the president wanted, is an example of the sort of bribery the Constitution specifies as grounds for impeaching the president. Mr. Turley’s protests that such behavior might not meet the technical definition of criminal bribery missed the point: Even if Mr. Turley were right, the House is prosecuting the president under a constitutional standard, not a federal statute.
AD
Yet this damning tale still lacks the accounts of several critical witnesses. Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney could demystify why Mr. Trump halted the military aid. Former national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo could describe what they heard from the president. The problem is that Mr. Trump’s lawless embargo of the House’s impeachment proceedings has prevented these key witnesses from testifying and the courts might take time before deciding on the House’s appeals.
Nobody cares Denny.
In the face of far more compelling evidence of Obama’s multiple usurpations of legislative power, his failures to faithfully execute the nation’s laws, and abuse of his executive powers in trampling on the fundamental freedoms of speech, the press and religion, Professor Gerhardt shamelessly declared, “For myself I think it is pretty obvious that there has been no abuse of power.” He went on to say that Obama had been “transparent, open and deliberative and reasonable.” Professor Gerhardt also made excuses for the Obama administration’s stonewalling of Congressional investigations. “The judgment about whether executive privilege applies is, at bottom, a constitutional choice, albeit one that obviously has political ramifications,” Professor Gerhardt said back then.
One of the many reasons why nobody can take the three Democrat "experts" seriously. Turley as at least intellectually honest. These three? Not so much.
Mr. Turley incorrectly played down the gravity of the allegations against Mr. Trump and the strength of the existing record
No, he didn't and he cited precedents to prove it. If anything he didn't play it down enough.
The Washington Post is talking about their ass.
One of the many reasons why nobody can take the three Democrat "experts" seriously. Turley as at least intellectually honest. These three? Not so much.
precisely.
gerhardt displayed a glaring and egregious double standard between trump and 0linsky...
...feldman flatly LIED about when he began to support impeachment as his tweets clearly showed...
...and karlan simply came across as an unhinged lunatic. when walking down the street you come upon a trump hotel and you feel compelled to cross the street? really? lady, you're fucking nuts. and to have had to resort to a rehearsed snark-shot at a 13 year old kid? and to think this nutbag made 0linsky's short list for the USSC.
No, he didn't and he cited precedents to prove it
OUR GED tosses in his uneducated and most humorous opinion!!!!!! He also did not defend trump one iota and thought IF trump did what he was accused of that he should be impeached!!!! Yep, he certainly said that also!!!!!!! bWAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Nobody cares Denny.
Awesome post there cramps......you don't care is about all you can say and you projecting your insecurity is most amusing !!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
He also said "it was presumed not proven'.
In the face of far more compelling evidence of Obama’s multiple usurpations of legislative power,
BWAAAAAAAAA!!!!! I suggest you impeach him cramps......keep digging your ancient history and the best defense you got like Lil scotty.....diss the experts as worthless partisans!!!!!! I am sure the cite you have posted has a lot more to it than you cherry picked!!!!!!
The Three Socialist Stooges of CHT are in a circle jerk feast taking turns on spamming.
"it was presumed not proven'.
Which is why he suggested to the D's to take their time and prove it you DUMB FUCK!!!!!!
☺
Motor vehicle sales Nov. 17.1 million ⬆️😚
Indeed, according to the Democrats Obama should have been impeached.
However, my standards remained the same for either Obama or Trump. The remedy would be election not impeachment.
Impeachment is reserved for actual high crimes and misdemeanors.
Which is why he suggested to the D's to take their time and prove i
Works for me. Although I don't think they can and an honest evaluation of the evidence would show that.
You seem to forget opinions are not evidence.
Talking Point Parrot Denny does his best work.
His reason for the failure of Palsy/Schitt/Fadler is , wait for it.
Yes, the President not playing nice.
Dopie is the Champ of Stupid.
can and an honest evaluation of the evidence would show that.
With Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton et al eventually testifying.....all roads would lead to trump direction.....And I am sure you will support the conviction if the evidence points that way.....correct cramps????? No need for opinion....they all have the story!!!!
Lol@Dopie
Blogger KansasDemocrat said...
Talking Point Parrot Denny does his best work.
BWAAAAAAAAA!!!! The goat fucking idiot once again chimes in with his patented idiocy!!!!!!! The POTUS keeps yelling unfair.....TOUGH SHIT assholes......that's the only game you got....just like the goat fucker....when you can't argue the facts....just argue.....dumb fuck!!!!
BWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAA!!! Dumb goat fucking idiot!!!!!
Keep digging, asshole!!!!
With Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton et al eventually testifying....
You won't hear them because the Democrats are not asking for them.
So now that all dem candidates for prez are white and all of their impeachment witnesses yesterday were white, the den party. Now appears to be dominated by racists and sexist.
No wonder Trump's approval among blacks and hispanics is way up.
If you think Trump’s behavior is the worst in American history, you might be insane.
Once Gerhardt argued that Trump’s conduct was “worse than the misconduct of any prior president,” we no longer had any intellectual obligation to take him seriously on the topic.
Because while I’m certainly not a distinguished professor, I am very confident that history began before 2016. Which means that, even if I concede Gerhardt’s framing of Trump’s actions — bribery, extortion, etc. — I can rattle off at least a dozen instances of presidential misconduct that are both morally and constitutionally “worse” than Trump’s blundering attempt to launch a self-serving Ukrainian investigation into his rival’s shady son.
Let’s ignore for a moment that American presidents have owned their fellow human beings, and focus instead on the fact that in 1942, the president of the United States signed an executive order that allowed him to unilaterally intern around 120,000 Americans citizens of Japanese descent. Not only was the policy deliberately racist, it amounted to a full-bore attack on about half the Constitution that he had sworn to uphold. Such an attack was a specialty of FDR’s, despite the all the hagiographies written about his imperial presidency.
Woodrow Wilson — who regularly said things like, “a Negro’s place is in the corn field” — didn’t merely re-segregate the civil service, personally firing more than a dozen supervisors for the sin of being black; he first pushed for, and then oversaw the enactment of, the Sedition Act. Wilson threw dissenters and political adversaries into prison, instructed the postmaster to refuse delivery of literature he deemed unpatriotic, and a created an unconstitutional civilian police force that targeted Americans for political dissent.
continues
/www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/trump-impeachment-hearings-presidential-misconduct-historical-perspective/
Quite a pickle the dems have got themselves backed into.
And applauded by their faithful seals every step of the way.
Along with their crocodile tears.
ROFLMFAO !!!
President Donald Trump, seeking to clarify what he meant, said...
Finally I realized, when listening to the lawyers yesterday, what I really meant to say. You see, it's like this. When I said "us," I didn't mean me, or us, but U. S., the entire country. Yes, that's it! When I asked Zelensky to do "us" a favor, I meant I wanted him to help our entire country by investigating the man who looked like he might be my potentially most troubling candidate in the coming election. Yes, that's it! That's what I meant. Nothing wrong with that. (I don't understand why some of my own people were so upset and so insistent on trying to hide that phone call from the public. Why couldn't they see it was a perfect call, with nothing was wrong with it at all?)
BULLSHIT! says Pelosi, and then she said...
The facts are uncontested. The president abused his power for his own personal political benefit, at the expense of our national security.
His wrongdoing strikes at the very heart of our Constitution. Sadly, but with confidence and humility, with allegiance to our founders and a heart full of love for America, today I am asking our chairman to proceed with articles of impeachment.
I Buried Dopie using his own words.
Remember this doesn't happen according to the left
As a result of our review, my office has identified 277 individuals who registered to vote in Ohio
and 77 individuals who cast a ballot in an Ohio election and who appear to be legally present, noncitizens.
Constant comment is a joke you dumb fuck.....!!!!! They appear to be legally present......BWAAAAAAAA!!!! Yep, the left again is correct!!!! Get back tp us when anyone files charges!!!!!! LOLOLOLO
ansasDemocrat said...
I Buried Dopie using his own words.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sure you did you dumb fucking idiot!!!!!
This is more troubling than the maybe 77 votes ..........
Ohio Congressional Map Is Illegal Gerrymander, Federal ...
www.nytimes.com/2019/05/03/us/politics/ohio-gerrymander-ruling.html
May 3, 2019 A federal court on Friday tossed out Ohio’s congressional map, ruling that Republican Ohio Congressional Map Is
The biggest nothing burger ever post by our UGA idiot.....!!!! I'd be willing to bet the dumb fuck never read what he posted....Typicall of R's winning the war of fake NEWS!!!!!! BWAAAAAAPAAAAAA!!!
The review utilized a cross-matching of the voter rolls in the Statewide Voter Registration Database with the list of individuals who have Ohio driver licenses or state identification cards. While the State does not maintain a comprehensive database of all non-citizens in Ohio, the records of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (“BMV”) indicate the citizenship status of persons applying for Ohio driver’s licenses or state identification cards.
These 277 individuals who registered to vote and the 77 who cast a ballot each provided the BMV with documentation identifying themselves as non-citizens on at least two occasions, once before their voter activity and once after. Additionally, I have mailed two notices to each of the identified individuals at the address where they are registered to vote requesting that the individual either cancel their voter registration or advise my office that they are a U.S. citizen.
What a great Day. Sunny , warm and Pres. Trump polls are rising .
Post a Comment