“law experts” indeed & of course if they had the opportunity the Repubs can bring in their own “law experts” to give their opposite opinions.
Which hand?? Never mind
He is still innocent. No case has been made other than mind-reading, imputing motives and hearsay by the Dems.
Legal experts - and really, have you seen the background info on these people? - Trump haters from way back -and how are they ‘witnesses’? To what?
THEIR opinion is going to help take away our elected Prez? I need another cookie. The impeachment circus is making me fat.
There are a few who do interpret Trump this way. But his less pure appeal for many is that he does not play bound by the same status quo conventions that hypocritic politicians usually posture about.
I find it especially refreshing that he is not afraid to do things many have touted as inappropriate, and that with precious little guile, he is usually quite transparent about what he’s really thinking.
Yes, and that in and of it self should be a groundwork to at least say ‘here is the president we have, let’s make the most of it’ but obviously this will never happen.
1 Like
One of the Dems “experts” said she walked on the other side of the street to avoid the Trump Hotel.
I don’t know if anyone was able to watch Tucker this evening, but it was a good show.
Professor Pamela Karlan, of Stanford University, was a very poor expert witness in today’s hearing. In addition to having to apologize for a remark she made about Trump’s 13-year-old son, she made the following amazing statement.
“When the President said ‘do us a favor,’ he was using the royal we there. It wasn’t a favor for the United States. He should have said do me a favor because only kings say ‘us’ when they mean ‘me,’” she said.
What a wild and biased conclusion to jump to! Does she really think there was no other much more logical reason for Trump to have used “us” instead of “me” in that statement?
Does she really think that only kings say “us” when they mean “me”? Only kings???
This is what happens when one spends one’s life interacting with only like-minded people and have nobody with contrary ideas around to correct one’s careless deductions.
I suggest she start posting here–plenty of smart, dissenting voices to deal with.
4 Likes
Amen, what pathetic things to say. It’s like a double shot in the foot.
No but i’m a Tucker fan as well as Ben Shapiro
Get Keto friendly cookies
If this goes on another 4 years I’m in trouble. Faaaaaat
Why they chose Karlan I don’t know - she’s a long time activist on the left, contributed heavily to Dem politicians, had been promised by Hillary that she would get a nod for the Supreme Court - and we are supposed to think she’s unbiased?
Here’s the BBC giving a short video recap, of the professors.
Just a side note, everyone. I watched France-24 on PBS yesterday. And they had a panel of experts, trying to give their take - on the impeachment professors and experts. And they were divided, in their analysis.
I don’t have to read the BBC on this because they have given up the fair and balanced thing as to DT, so why not see what Joseph Klein has to say? There WAS one Democratic intellectual, highly-respected, Ivy-league DOCTOR OF LAW that was almost fair. These highly praised intellectual multiple Ph.D’s can also be plain hacks, and it was apparent that’s what they were on this stage.
Quote : "Finally, Professor Turley had his turn. He brought some much-needed legal professionalism to the Nadler show. Noting that he is not a Trump supporter and did not vote for him, Professor Turley called out the impeachment proceedings as he saw it. “I believe this impeachment not only fails to satisfy the standard of past impeachments, but would create a dangerous precedent for future impeachments,” he said. He added that “impeachments have to be based on proof” and not on “presumptions.”
Professor Turley pointed out such obvious deficiencies in the Democrats’ case as a “lack of evidence of a corrupt intent.” As for the charge of obstructing Congress by not turning over requested materials, Professor Turley said that President Trump has gone to the courts and “he’s allowed to do that. We have three branches, not two.” He told the committee members, “If you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts. It’s an abuse of power, it’s your abuse of power.” That is called checks and balances, something that Professor Gerhardt forgot about this time."
- end quote
Long story short - no evidence, lots of hearsay, lots of opinion - the Dems now need to go further afield to find another load of horse-feathers to continue punishing the country with.
Late edit: (Norm 'liked" the portion above, but this comes after that and I don’t want to implicate him unnecessarily!) To wit:
"What will be remembered forever is the condescending arrogance of the professors – Pamela Karlan, Noah Feldman and Michael Gerhardt. If there were ever an expose of the kind of people who inhabit the ivory towers of academia, this was it. These three law professors were a flashing neon warning: Do not send your kids to prestigious law schools. People like this are not educating kids, they are numbing their brains with destructive Marxist nonsense. " - Patricia McCarthy
2 Likes
I’m sure the BBC (and other news outlets), would beg to differ. 
Who is right, I wonder? 
1 Like
I’m hoping to get @qaz to give his thoughts on this approach to more affordable health care. It makes some sense to me, but he’s on the front lines and will have a good perspective,
https://amgreatness.com/2019/12/03/how-to-cut-the-cost-of-healthcare/
Randy, this was awesome… I had to check my sanity, as each glance I counted differently… 3, 4, no wait… 3. Now 4. Lol, incredible illusion.
1 Like
Start at the left end of the pile—the “4” end. Now examine the two centre sticks. Try to find the other end of each. There is no other end. Or we might say that the “other ends” have converged into the centre one on the “3” end.