Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
d4m10n said:
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, Ginger.
...
Click to expand...
You brought up an additional perjury charge as if, now that equates to Clinton's charges. :rolleyes:

Stacy said:
The Trump impeachment is not about perjury though, is it?
Click to expand...
You said:
That depends (or should depend) upon whether Trump's answers to Mueller's interrogatories were knowingly false.
Click to expand...

If you had said something like there might be a perjury charge included ... it would have been fine. But as stated it sounds like you are still trying to equate the two impeachment cases.
 
d4m10n said:
Joe Biden will be put on trial, for the middling offense of allowing his fully grown failson off-leash.
Click to expand...

In a real court the prosecutor would say you have to prove Trump had any intent to withhold the funds pending an evaluation of Ukraine's corruption. The defense has not done so.

Sometimes these GOP talking points are nothing but hot air.
 
Belz... said:
Gingrich is one of the architects of the modern, take-no-prisoners, anti-science, ****-you GOP. He should have no place in any discussion.
Click to expand...

Gingrich will always insert himself into the news for any reason. I believe he is still shilling his books.
 
QFT from Democratic Underground:

Tommy_Carcetti said:
"Flopping"--A last ditch strategy both in basketball and amongst Trumpists

In basketball, "flopping" is a diversionary tactic when a player is either barely touched by an opponent, or not touched at all, but then throws him or herself down to the ground in the hopes of fooling the referees into calling a personal foul and setting up a free throw.
Click to expand...
 
Ukrainian Fugitive Who Claimed to Have Dirt on Biden Firm Is Arrested

Its worth mentioning that as Giuliani arrives in Ukraine on his Mission from Trump to dig up more fake dirt on the Bidens, one of his major sources, Oleksandr Onyshchenko, has been arrested

https://www.thedailybeast.com/oleks...-to-have-dirt-on-burisma-is-arrested?ref=home

For reference, Onyshchenko is former member of the Kremlin-backed Ukrainian "Party of Regions" (in Government at that time). In 2016, he was accused of treason by the SBU for allegedly helping Russian intelligence destabilize Ukraine.

He is also a nut-bar conspiracy theorist whose crackpot claims include Burisma paying $10 million to the Hillary Clinton campaign with “big bags of cash”; Burisma making secret payments to the Bidens, and that an FBI agent and the US Ambassador (Marie Yovanovich) covered it up (this was the basis for Giuliani's smear campaign against Amb Yovanovich).

This is the guy who embezzled over US$60m from Naftagas, another Ukrainian energy company
 
smartcooky said:
Its worth mentioning that as Giuliani arrives in Ukraine on his Mission from Trump to dig up more fake dirt on the Bidens, one of his major sources, Oleksandr Onyshchenko, has been arrested
Click to expand...
See? Trump was right! There is corruption in the Ukraine, and if it wasn't for Trump it might never have been exposed.
 
smartcooky said:
See? Trump was right! There is corruption in the Ukraine, and if it wasn't for Trump it might never have been exposed.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but its HIS corruption that has been exposed...
Click to expand...
Now that's crazy talk. Next thing you'll be saying is that it isn't considered 'draining the swamp' when people like Flynn and Manafort get arrested because Trump was the one that brought them into the administration himself.
 
Segnosaur said:
Now that's crazy talk. Next thing you'll be saying is that it isn't considered 'draining the swamp' when people like Flynn and Manafort get arrested because Trump was the one that brought them into the administration himself.
Click to expand...

It occurs to me that draining a swamp makes its overall area smaller but causes the swampiness to become more concentrated. Perhaps Trump can truthfully be deemed to be draining the swamp after all, as the murkiness and slime coalesces around his person in the epicenter.
 
If Roberts is the presiding judge at the Senate trial, would he not be the final arbiter of which witnesses are relevant to any given charge?

I mean, let’s say the defense calls Adam Schiff as a fact witness and the prosecution objects as to relevancy. Could not Roberts uphold these objection and not allow Schiff to testify? My hope is that Roberts is stand up enough to rule fairly, since he knows his decisions will be judged by history?
 
Fast Eddie B said:
If Roberts is the presiding judge at the Senate trial, would he not be the final arbiter of which witnesses are relevant to any given charge?

I mean, let’s say the defense calls Adam Schiff as a fact witness and the prosecution objects as to relevancy. Could not Roberts uphold these objection and not allow Schiff to testify? My hope is that Roberts is stand up enough to rule fairly, since he knows his decisions will be judged by history?
Click to expand...

It really doesn't sound like Republicans have much interest in calling members of the House, or subpoenaing their phone records, etc. At least that's what my google news feed is saying.

ETA: I know that wasn't an answer to your question, just throwing it out there.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
If Roberts is the presiding judge at the Senate trial, would he not be the final arbiter of which witnesses are relevant to any given charge?

I mean, let’s say the defense calls Adam Schiff as a fact witness and the prosecution objects as to relevancy. Could not Roberts uphold these objection and not allow Schiff to testify? My hope is that Roberts is stand up enough to rule fairly, since he knows his decisions will be judged by history?
Click to expand...
To me that's not being "stand up," it's just another form of self-interest. Not that I condemn anyone on that basis alone; there's nothing wrong with wanting to be seen in the best light.

I have a feeling he would "preside" with the lightest touch possible, but that he will take affront if he is perceived *by Republicans* as being a member of their partisan club.

None of that is based on any real knowledge though. I don't know enough about him and there's not much precedent to go on. Just a hunch from seeing him push back against the presumption that he should be solidly pro-Trump.
 
Last edited:
Roberts is pretty old school and of the conservative judges on SCOTUS who is most likely to do the "right" thing.

But that's just it, "most likely to" not certain to.

Gut feeling, he won't let Trump or the Republican Senate turn the thing into a total circus, but there's still a lot there gonna be away to get away with.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
If Roberts is the presiding judge at the Senate trial, would he not be the final arbiter of which witnesses are relevant to any given charge?

I mean, let’s say the defense calls Adam Schiff as a fact witness and the prosecution objects as to relevancy. Could not Roberts uphold these objection and not allow Schiff to testify? My hope is that Roberts is stand up enough to rule fairly, since he knows his decisions will be judged by history?
Click to expand...

This is a judge. And this IS a TRIAL. Roberts has almost as much authority as he wants to assert. He can rule a witness or a lawyer or a Senator out of order. He is the arbiter of fairness in the trial according to Senate rules. The prosecution will be House managers.

The problem of course is that we've never had an impeachment trial like this before. The Senate is not the House. They consider their body as more august. I think they will try and defend Trump, but I think they won't want this to be a circus. That has too much potential of backfiring on them.
 
acbytesla said:
This is a judge. And this IS a TRIAL. Roberts has almost as much authority as he wants to assert. He can rule a witness or a lawyer or a Senator out of order. He is the arbiter of fairness in the trial according to Senate rules. The prosecution will be House managers.

The problem of course is that we've never had an impeachment trial like this before. The Senate is not the House. They consider their body as more august. I think they will try and defend Trump, but I think they won't want this to be a circus. That has too much potential of backfiring on them.
Click to expand...
For everyone, here is a link to the rules of the Senate that will apply during the impeachment trial.


https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf
 
d4m10n said:
How can we be confident the Senate won't pass new rules?
Click to expand...
They can, by majority vote. So new rules may apply. Until a vote for any new rule is taken, these rules apply. As far as I can tell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom