Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Yes, and what the Democratic response needs to be is a campaign that threatens GOP Senate seats.
Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2
- Thread starter Belz...
- Start date
- Status
Yes, and what the Democratic response needs to be is a campaign that threatens GOP Senate seats.
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
I think that's exactly what's going to happen when the Defense calls for the whistleblower to testify.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Given Trump's tactics of defying subpoenas and appealing them though the courts as a delaying tactic, I wonder what would happen if some of the potential witnesses the Republicans might call did the same thing.
Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Kind of funny to think they can't subpoena the whistleblower without a name.
Keep in mind, all this BS: 'we'll call Schiff to testify and the whistleblower and so on' is just Trump spouting his usual misleading drivel.
It's supposed to make people think there is something fake about the charges that he can't actually defend.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
I am not sure they will. They don't need to.
We know the Republicans in the Senate will acquit regardless of evidence. If they keep the proceedings fair they give a figleaf of respect to their actions. A fresh coat of paint on a termite infected building that is the GOP. Any sort of smear tactics can still be pushed by other means (like fox news).
Trying to use unfair tactics (such as calling Schiff as a witness) could risk unnecessary blowback (in terms of public perception).
Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
I mean, they could call Trump or the people from his inner circle who have first-hand knowledge...
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
The Dems could goad the GOP into calling Trump and his cronies as witnesses. If agreed, there would be a whole encyclopedia of Dem questions for them suddenly appearing on the presiding officer's desk. Alongside the Dorothy-Dixers from the GOP.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
They don't have to worry about public perception. They have Fox to manage that. They have been spoiling for a fight and have shown a willingness to resort to scorched earth policies such as shutting down the government.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, they do have Fox as a mouthpiece. But in my opinion, I think Fox is better at 'just asking questions' in order to push the Republican agenda than trying to cover up Republican mistakes.
In other words its better for the republicans to have Fox sniping from the sides with their wild claims of "Look at what Biden and Schiff did" (where Fox doesn't have to worry about things like fact checking) than to have them called as witnesses, where (if they handle themselves well) people may end up thinking "These guys aren't so bad".
Yes, they shut down the government. The last time they did that, Trump's approval rating declined and the republicans backed off.
The republicans have already 'scorched the earth'... but they need to make it look like they did nothing wrong.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
I'm trying to think about the purpose of calling the whistleblower. What would be the questions?
"Did you hear directly the President ask the Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden in exchange for releasing the funds?"
"No, Coln Vindman told me he did."
"Oh, so you have nothing to add to this?"
"No, I have nothing to add beyond what Coln Vindman has already testified to. I will just reiterate that Coln Vindman told me that the President was asking Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden in exchange for releasing the funds."
"Objection, your honor! The witness is providing hearsay."
"Sustained. The witness will only provide information that he has direct knowledge of."
"Sorry, your honor. I cannot testify to having heard directly the President's request. For that information, you need to ask Coln. Vindman."
GOTCHA! Huh?
Redirect:
"Mr. Whistleblower, would you say that Coln Vindman's testimony agrees with what he told you, and is the information upon which you provided your report?"
"Well that, and the information I got from XXX and information I heard directly."
"Your honor, we would like to call XXX to the stand."
If the complaint is that the whistleblower relied on hearsay information in filing the report, then his (or her) testimony is not admissible, right? And the case cannot depend on the information provided in the whistleblower report.
Then again, as far as I know, no part of the case as coming out so far relies on the information in the whistle blower report.
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
Republicans in the Impeachment Inquiry: "Why are the Democrats having such a fast Impeachment process???"
Trump yesterday: "I want a fast Impeachment process!!!"
Trump yesterday: "I want a fast Impeachment process!!!"
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 68,302
Trump Tweets
Read the Transcripts! Also, see where I say “us” (our Country) as opposed to “me” (meaning me) and where I then say that the Attorney General (of the United States) will call you. People still remember Schiff’s made up and fraudulent version of my conversation. Witch Hunt!
Read the Transcripts! Also, see where I say “us” (our Country) as opposed to “me” (meaning me) and where I then say that the Attorney General (of the United States) will call you. People still remember Schiff’s made up and fraudulent version of my conversation. Witch Hunt!
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
The most likely questions will be aimed at tarnishing the whistleblower. From a legal point of view, such questions would be pointless/inadmissible, but since an impeachment is largely political, strict legal rules won't apply.
Questions like:
"Did you vote for Trump?" -> suggests they are a never-Trumper with an 'axe to grind'. The proper answer to the question is "A hidden ballot is an important part of democracy", but even such an answer will result in the republicans claiming the whistleblower had an axe to grind
"Why did you not do X" (where X could be anything... like 'raise your concerns earlier', or 'wait longer to see if the aid was released') -> Suggests some course of action that wouldn't really work, but falsely suggests that he had alternatives
"Are you privy to each and every conversation the president has ever had" -> Allows republicans to claim "Oh sure, it sounds like extortion in some of the phone calls, but you didn't hear phone call X where Trump and Zelensky were planning on making a movie together and you just heard them rehearsing the script.
"Did you ever (smoke pot/engage in premarital sex/fail to pray to god some day/any other irrelevant event from the past)?" -> Paints the whistleblower as some sort of immoral degenerate
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,553
I imagine that "presides" means to ensure that the rules are applied and enforced, not to make the rules. So if the rules change by majority vote, the CJ would then enforce those rules. I'm guessing. I'm also guessing that others would be guessing, too.
DetectedMotion
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2018
- Messages
- 199
There must be a lot of rabbits where you are, i'm certain you've named them all.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,900
It is a scandal in and of itself to ask any witness about who they voted for or donated money to - that is no business of the Congressmen.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Yeah but inconsistency and hypocrisy has been a hallmark of the Republican response.
Witness the republicans who say "Trump did nothing wrong" vs. the republicans who have said "Ok, pressuring Ukraine was wrong but its not serious enough to impeach".
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
He is really getting desperate now.
Firstly, "us" is commonly used as a singular personal pronoun... "Thanks for giving us a ride to the airport" can be singular or plural
Secondly, that call summary was released on September 24. If he was really talking about "the country" when he said "us" he would have pointed that out immediately because that would have been his immediate thinking. Instead, he acted guilty for 10 weeks, trying to defend what he said, and coming up with continually changing excuses.
- there was no quid pro quo... then,
- if there was a quid pro quo, there is nothing wrong with that... then,
- there was a quid pro quo, but we do that all the time, get over it... then
- "I wanted nothing"
note: he said "I"... if he truly meant the US, he would have said "We wanted nothing"
Thirdly, does anyone seriously believe Trump was seeking favours for the US that were totally unrelated to his personal political interests and 2020 re-election bid? He held up a White House meeting, and military aid to Ukraine while making political demands. Is the making of an an announcement that Ukraine was investigating the Bidens a legitimate US National priority?
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Yet that was the exact question that was asked of the constitutional experts that were called as witnesses in the impeachment inquiry.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...blican-asks-witnesses-if-they-voted-for-trump
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
A question for our constitutional experts here:
If the house impeaches Trump, does that mean a Senate trial must happen, i.e. does impeachment automatically trigger a Senate trial.
The reason I ask is that I am hearing some media people suggesting that the Democrats could try holding impeachment over his head - they could vote impeach him, but then Nancy Pelosi, as House Leader, could announce they are going to wait until they hear from the courts over blocked witnesses before they send it to a Senate Trial?
Last edited:
- Status