4,487
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
44 U.S.C. 2202 - The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
LOCK HIM UP!
Truth Detector (12-04-2019)
4,487
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
44 U.S.C. 2202 - The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
LOCK HIM UP!
You must be in the cheap seats, cuz not from where I sat he didn't. What I saw in Turley was a man who was 3/4th a sellout but still straddled the fence enough to save his credibility
later because he knows life exists after Trump and he didn't want to look like a complete clown. He only looked like 3/4th of a clown.
He must have practiced in the mirror for hours not smirking as he mouthed things like "paucity of evidence" and "need for judicial review of all subpoenas"
If you watched, you learned, and that is good. What Trump did is EXACTLY why impeachment and removal exists.
Earl (12-04-2019)
Jarod (12-04-2019)
Turley can't have it both ways.
He recently had an OPed in in New York Times and said, "Trump has committed impeachable offenses, and other High Crimes", and yet come to the Congress floor and say, "Donald Trump has not done anything that I consider as impeachable"!
What the fuck kind of a flip-flop is that?
LOOKS LIKE PURE POLITICAL BIAS TO ME!
If this is not impeachable, then we have an imperial presidency.
4,487
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
44 U.S.C. 2202 - The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
LOCK HIM UP!
But he did explain that if the crime were bribery he thought the congress should use the definition adopted by scotus
for bribery allegedly committed in some other context. Then he went on to distinguish the instant case from the one at bar he cited.
I thought it an odd argument to make for someone whose audience is the original intent of the framers crowd. If this is going over anyone's heads
I apologize in advance. It gets even chewier than that but I'll not go there.
Truth Detector (12-04-2019)
jimmymccready (12-04-2019)
jimmymccready (12-04-2019)
Bookmarks