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."
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
I’m sure the BBC (and other news outlets), would beg to differ. 
Who is right, I wonder? 
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.
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.
There is STILL hope. We can ignore the needs of the country for the next 5 years, easily!!
And poor Turley; for being fair and honest, he gets this:
Jonathan Turley, the sole Republican witness (Turley is a Democrat btw) during the House Judiciary Committee’s first public impeachment hearing Wednesday, said he was “inundated with threatening messages” after his testimony, which argued that Democrats do not have enough evidence to support articles of impeachment against President Trump.
"Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with threatening messages and demands that I be fired from George Washington University
“A “red herring fallacy” is a distraction from the argument typically with some sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic. This tactic is common when someone doesn’t like the current topic and wants to detour into something else instead, something easier or safer to address. A red herring fallacy is typically related to the issue in question but isn’t quite relevant enough to be helpful. Instead of clarifying and focusing, it confuses and distracts.”
Example : a list of Trump accomplishments, all good for the country.
Reaction - but look at his gun stance, or what he spilled on his tie.
The reaction is a red herring.
What’s that all about? I’m not up to speed there.
There must be more to the story? Why would he do that? He’s not evil, so he probably justifies it in some way? If not, then he’s very wrong.
I’m looking into it. A terrible genocide.
The first thing that popped up was about Obama:
" The facts are undeniable…. [A]s President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide…. America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides. I intend to be that president.”
Since taking office, Obama has refused to stand by his word. On Tuesday, April 21, the White House announced that it would again, for the seventh year since Obama’s pledge, not use the word “genocide,” disappointing many human rights activists."
https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/obama-breaks-promise-100th-anniversary-armenian-raymond-ibrahim/
So if Trump has done this as well he should be condemned. I’m looking into it. Thanks for the heads-up
Interesting that " Similar resolutions have been introduced in recent presidential administrations but none ever reached the floor." - Louie Casiano, Fox news That appears to be correct reporting as other outlets say the same thing.
I’ll keep looking; there’s a lot more to the story, but it sounds at first blush like a problem kicked up by past Presidents and DT may be kicking down the road as well.
But I can’t decide without more info.
Weren’t the Ottoman Turks, the ones who did the killing, Muslims?
THIS is a long and nuanced recapitulation of the whole 1915 affair. There is more to this than meets the eye, though noone that I’ve read so far denies the fact of the killings. Genocide is something different, but the article gives a voice to both sides equally.
Tragic but fascinating as well.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/what-is-genocide-turkey-and-the-armenian-question
@qaz - I’d be very interested in what you think of that article. It opened my eyes to something I was not up to speed on at all. His conclusion will interest you, but only if you see the care he takes all along the course of the essay>
Well, Dave said I never pester the “left”, but he’s not “right”… I do when the BBC does.
NOTE: Just a footnote, for all you Trump fans. Never underestimate a man, worth 31 billion…who unlike some billionaires, listens to the experts he hires.
Claim: Graham uniquely catered to Trump’s desire to please the dictator, Erdogan, and thus block recognizing the reality of a horrifical genocide by the Turks.
Red Herring Distraction: Trump can’t be evil, everything he does is good.
Apparent Reality: Each president has been fearful of offending Erdogan.
Obama was no less intimidated to cover over confessing the truth, than is Trump.
"LEFTISTS ARE CONTEMPTIBLY ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL DESPITE THEIR MENDACIOUS DENIALS
The only thing more ludicrous than these leftists pretending to be unbiased in their ongoing witch hunt of Trump is their professed concern for our constitutional system and the integrity of elections. They reverently quote the framers while elsewhere openly vilifying them as racists, sexists, bigots and homophobes. Their very ideology is contemptuous of America as founded, and they are, hands down, guilty of the very thing of which they accuse Trump: trying to steal an election. So when you hear these pointy-headed pseudo-saints zealously advocating for Trump’s ouster while pretending to safeguard our constitutional liberties, keep in mind that they have little more respect for our liberties than they do for Trump.<<" - BV
“CONTEMPTIBLY MENADACIOUS hands down pointy-headed pseudo-saints.”
Finally an assertion calculated to covince!
I find it amusing or annoying as i have noticed Leftists overly reference the Constitution when it benefits them and trash it for the same reason depending on their audience. They plead their duty to follow the Constitution during this so called impeachment process yet have never found a high crime, just a bunch of high opinions.
