• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

Fast Eddie B said:
Me, too.




Well, sort of. In any normal trial witnesses must be shown to have relevant testimony. Sure, the defense could call President Obama or Eric Holder to testify about Fast and Furious, let’s say, but I hope things are set up so that the prosecution could object as to relevance and Roberts would uphold said objection.

We’ll just have to see.
Click to expand...

What Roberts will do is make a good faith effort to enforce the rules of the Senate, whatever those rules turn out to be.
 
plague311 said:
And who, pray tell, decides who is relevant and who is not?
Click to expand...
There's like...a judge and ****.
Click to expand...
In a real trial that would be the case.

However, the authority of Roberts to rule on witness admissions may be a bit... limited. The senate does have the ability to set rules and override Roberts (and I assume that would include rules on which witnesses to allow) based on a majority vote.

In the worst case scenario, the Republicans in the senate could decide "Lets call the Bidens and not Bolton/Mulvaney", and because they are in control of the rules there probably isn't much Roberts or the Democrats could do to prevent it.
 
Meadmaker said:
What Roberts will do is make a good faith effort to enforce the rules of the Senate, whatever those rules turn out to be.
Click to expand...
Why do you continue to speak about things that have already happened as if they are hypothetical future scenarios?

"I have faith that things will turn out better than they already have!"
 
Segnosaur said:
In a real trial that would be the case.

However, the authority of Roberts to rule on witness admissions may be a bit... limited. The senate does have the ability to set rules and override Roberts (and I assume that would include rules on which witnesses to allow) based on a majority vote.

In the worst case scenario, the Republicans in the senate could decide "Lets call the Bidens and not Bolton/Mulvaney", and because they are in control of the rules there probably isn't much Roberts or the Democrats could do to prevent it.
Click to expand...

Here's kind of the way I look at it. Lets say 4 GOP Senators do cross the aisle and vote for Bolton to appear. I haven't looked into this so I'm open to being wrong, but I haven't seen the GOP Senators we're looking at say they wanted to bring in Biden, etc. I think it's possible they might vote for it in the name of appearing fair, but it's possible they wouldn't as well. Right now, it's all up in the air.
 
Meadmaker said:
And who, pray tell, decides who is relevant and who is not?
Click to expand...

Make an argument for relevance to the actions of the administration. Relevance is hardly subjective. There may be some fuzzy lines on the border but the fact is, the Bidens cannot tell us anything about that. Can they?
 
plague311 said:
Here's kind of the way I look at it. Lets say 4 GOP Senators do cross the aisle and vote for Bolton to appear. I haven't looked into this so I'm open to being wrong, but I haven't seen the GOP Senators we're looking at say they wanted to bring in Biden, etc. I think it's possible they might vote for it in the name of appearing fair, but it's possible they wouldn't as well. Right now, it's all up in the air.
Click to expand...
Yes. To think that the fairness of an impeachment trial depends on Senate republicans acting with integrity.... the same group that (almost unanimously) supported the confirmation of Drunky McRapeface. The same group that passed huge tax cuts for rich people in a bill that often was written with unreadable notes scrawled in the margins (meaning Senators were voting on legislation they couldn't even read).

Its like expecting Jeffry Dahmer to cook a gourmet dinner... I mean, he might do the right thing, but his track records suggest you should be very careful with any food he brings you.
 
Segnosaur said:
Yes. To think that the fairness of an impeachment trial depends on Senate republicans acting with integrity.... the same group that (almost unanimously) supported the confirmation of Drunky McRapeface. The same group that passed huge tax cuts for rich people in a bill that often was written with unreadable notes scrawled in the margins (meaning Senators were voting on legislation they couldn't even read).

Its like expecting Jeffry Dahmer to cook a gourmet dinner... I mean, he might do the right thing, but his track records suggest you should be very careful with any food he brings you.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this. Especially with the fact that I'd trust Flint drinking water more than I'd trust a GOP Senator to do the right thing.

That being said, I do have some faith in the electorate of those states. I wouldn't say a lot of faith, but a little. Listening to the news and reading reports lately it sounds like Senators are getting hit with calls\emails\letters requesting witnesses and a fair trial. Maybe the pressure will help.
 
plague311 said:
That being said, I do have some faith in the electorate of those states. I wouldn't say a lot of faith, but a little. Listening to the news and reading reports lately it sounds like Senators are getting hit with calls\emails\letters requesting witnesses and a fair trial. Maybe the pressure will help.
Click to expand...
Hopefully it will.

But then, it depends on what all those calls and emails are actually saying. I suspect most people want Bolton to be called, but probably haven't really considered the implication of also calling the Bidens. So that will probably be their out (meaning Republican Senators)... "Call them both". (Even though calling the Bidens doesn't make it a fair trial).
 
Common wisdom was that Trump would make ground with discrediting the Impeachment once the Trial started in the Senate.
Hasn't worked out that way.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Common wisdom was that Trump would make ground with discrediting the Impeachment once the Trial started in the Senate.
Hasn't worked out that way.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true. A few people around here said that this was going to be extremely bad for the Dems but support for the impeachment, removal, witnesses, and documents has all steadily grown. The popularity of some vulnerable Senators has fallen. I haven't seen it negatively hit the Dems much at all.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Common wisdom was that Trump would make ground with discrediting the Impeachment once the Trial started in the Senate.
Hasn't worked out that way.
Click to expand...

Trump has been in legal trouble one way or another for almost all of his adult life.

And for some weird reason(s), he has always gotten away with things.

In any event, it sure would be nice if the impeachment process could finally do something to him that has never had to deal with before.
 
Meadmaker said:
I must admit I hope they end up with witnesses. Prepared statements are so dull. Witnesses say the darndest things.

However, if you have witnesses, you have to let both sides call them, and I truly feel sorry for anyone actually called as a witness. I predict loud demands for perjury indictments following witness testimony.
Click to expand...
This is the same phony implied-wrong as the one claiming Trump wasn't represented in the House hearings, couldn't have his lawyer and couldn't call witnesses. The GOP repeats that LIE on a regular basis.

Classic Strawman. No one is arguing they shouldn't be able to call witnesses.

How is it relevant to call either Biden? Do you suppose the goal is simply to get free negative campaigning against Biden?
 
Segnosaur said:
... and the Whistleblower (they are protected by law, and any claims that the whistleblower made have already been confirmed by other evidence).

Should depend on the witness. If the Republicans drag someone like the bidens or the whistleblower in front of the Senate,....
Click to expand...
A safe bet for Trumpers to call for the whistleblower. They know the person won't be outed so they can continue to imply it would somehow make a difference and the little Trumpees suck the propaganda right up.
 
Meadmaker said:
And who, pray tell, decides who is relevant and who is not?
Click to expand...
Go ahead, tell us how either of the Bidens or the whistleblower could support Trump's position of innocence?

And can they call Zelensky to say he wasn't pressured? Even if he could be called, do you think that's credible testimony? No pressure there. ;)
 
Crossbow said:
Trump has been in legal trouble one way or another for almost all of his adult life.

And for some weird reason($), he has always gotten away with things.

In any event, it sure would be nice if the impeachment process could finally do something to him that has never had to deal with before.
Click to expand...

FIFY
 
Crossbow said:
Trump has been in legal trouble one way or another for almost all of his adult life.

And for some weird reason(s), he has always gotten away with things.

In any event, it sure would be nice if the impeachment process could finally do something to him that has never had to deal with before.
Click to expand...

He did get fined for not renting to PoC, some illegal donations, and the like. Sadly, he gives the impression that he gets away with it a lot but even when it comes to Stormy he paid out a **** ton of money. Upchurch nailed it, he doesn't get away with it as much as it just doesn't get noticed because he pays to cover it up. He's well-known for NDA's, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom