Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well the film about Rudi's investigation is now out in three parts which are linked here together with countless other stuff the increasingly bizarre (who thought that would be possible) "resistance" would like to ignore but won't be able to in the long run.
 
As a disturbing tangent, a Republican state Representative in Washington state is being investigated for participating in domestic terrorism, and is citing the impeachment in his defense.


A Republican state lawmaker in Washington is accused of participating "in an act of domestic terrorism against the United States," according to a new report released Thursday by the Washington State House Republicans on their website. According to the report, state Rep. Matt Shea is the subject of an investigation that was commissioned by the Washington State House Representatives to find out whether he "engaged in, planned, or promoted political violence."
...
The report said, "nvestigators have obtained evidence that Representative Shea, as a leader of the Patriot Movement, planned, engaged in, and promoted a total of three armed conflicts of political violence against the United States Government in three states outside the State of Washington over a three-year period to include 2014, 2015 and 2016."
...
Late Thursday, there was a Facebook post that appeared to be from Shea, saying in part, "Like we are seeing with our President this is a sham investigation meant to silence those of us who stand up against attempts to disarm and destroy our great country. I will not back down, I will not give in, I will not resign."
Click to expand...
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Given that Trump is using US resources for his anti-Biden Campaign, it is up to him to justify why.

You are inverting the burden of proof.
Click to expand...

Jeremyp made the claim that Trump did it for the election. The burden of proof for that is on jeremyp. I don't know how trump has a burden of proof on a forum he isn't on.
 
theprestige said:
And if it ever goes to trial, the House manager will have the burden of proving it. The president will not have the burden of refuting it.
Click to expand...

It will be the burden of the Chief Justice to allow the House Manager access to witnesses who can speak on the issue.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The person who wrote the report has the burden of proof regardless of any legal systems.
Click to expand...

sure, but given the constitutional right of House Oversight, they are entitled to access to information that allows them to find the proof, should it exist.
That's the point of the 2nd Article.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
It will be the burden of the Chief Justice to allow the House Manager access to witnesses who can speak on the issue.
Click to expand...

The President of the Senate doesn't control the House Manager's access to witnesses. It's not like the Senate has them locked up in the basement of the Capitol building where the House can't get to them.

And unless I misunderstand the Senate's rules, it's not even the President of the Senate's decision whether to call witnesses during the trial. That's decided by a vote of the Senators.

Are you arguing that the President of the Senate has the authority to override Senate rules and Senate votes?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
sure, but given the constitutional right of House Oversight, they are entitled to access to information that allows them to find the proof, should it exist.
That's the point of the 2nd Article.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask about a legal process. I asked what the evidence for a claim is. Nothing about my questions cares one iota about the Constitution. I'm not so parochial to care about that.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Ii do find it amazing that Trumps release of the ukraine call transcripts is construed as a confession yet Bidens hot mic moment bragging about withholding the release of funds to the same country is completely ignored and thrown under the bus.

It's like folks pushing for Trumps accountabilty for his actions dictate that the other party cannot be held to the same standards... let alone hold a position that is critical of both. This is the prime example of the horrendous polarization going on among all of this.

Bidens case isnt the first or the last of its kind... but sure does take a center stage in the current issues when it comes to double standards regarding accountability
Click to expand...

In this Ukraine situation I have studied Hunter Biden's role, Joe Biden's role, the history of this particular situation, and Donald Trumps role.
There are no double standards when you read this history in an unbiased manner:There is no law the Biden's have violated from what I can see.
Trump's inquiry is an obvious one but Republicans have it watered down to simple semantics, but that doesn't remove the suspicious nature of Trump's motivation.
So why are you ignoring the severity of what Trump has done by using the Bidens to hand wave it away?
 
Based on the fact that it is the House who impeaches the President then Trump may be the first to be impeached in each term if he wins the 2020 election and the House remains a Dems majority.
 
DetectedMotion said:
In this Ukraine situation I have studied Hunter Biden's role, Joe Biden's role, the history of this particular situation, and Donald Trumps role.
There are no double standards when you read this history in an unbiased manner:There is no law the Biden's have violated from what I can see.
Trump's inquiry is an obvious one but Republicans have it watered down to simple semantics, but that doesn't remove the suspicious nature of Trump's motivation.
So why are you ignoring the severity of what Trump has done by using the Bidens to hand wave it away?
Click to expand...

That is something a partisan would say..


...I may be the biggest non-partisan here. I even let my wife decide what my vote should be.
 
Watched the very beginning of the Giuliani film. Hilarious. He gets Ukranian officials and witnesses to "testify under oath" (in a studio). The film then goes on to criticise the impeachment hearings for not having any first-hand witnesses.

I think from this it's safe to assume that Giuliani (and therefore Trump) are very much in favour of first-hand witnesses testifying in the Senate trial. I await with baited breath McConnel agreeing to the calling of witnesses, and both Giuliani and Trump wanting to testify themselves.
 
Bated breath*

From "abated" - you're holding your breath in anticipation. "Baited breath" means what? You've been eating a lot of fish bait? You're using your breath to attract fish?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom