• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread A second impeachment

acbytesla said:
That was my point. In theory, when two people are married they become one. And noone can be compelled to testify against themself. So neither Donald or Melanie can be compelled to testify.
Click to expand...

Is it a matter of Melanie cannot be forced to testify but she is allowed to testify if she so chooses?


I can imagine someone saying to Pres. Trump, “you can tell your side of the story during the impeachment trial and all of America will listen to you. But once you start talking about this stuff you forfeit your right to plead the Fifth. So, would you like to speak?” But I’m having a hard time imagining him declining.
 
Ladewig said:
Is it a matter of Melanie cannot be forced to testify but she is allowed to testify if she so chooses?


I can imagine someone saying to Pres. Trump, “you can tell your side of the story during the impeachment trial and all of America will listen to you. But once you start talking about this stuff you forfeit your right to plead the Fifth. So, would you like to speak?” But I’m having a hard time imagining him declining.
Click to expand...
He would not hear anything after these words. The warning needs to go ahead of the proposition for this twerp.
 
Maybe this should go in the riots thread but it seemed more relevant to the discussion of Trump testifying: 'QAnon Shaman's' Attorney Looking to Call Trump as Witness in Capitol Riot Case

Trump can't not go like he would have were he still POTUS. He can refuse and the judge can find him in contempt. I imagine it will be resolved with a deposition.

But then you have a chicken **** judge:
As for calling Trump to the stand, Neama Rahmani, a former assistant U.S. attorney and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, said there's no restriction on a former or sitting president testifying. But a judge can reject a witness if the person is deemed to be irrelevant to the case and Rahmani said he doesn't see Trump's relevance in the cases against Capitol rioters.
Click to expand...
But TBF, maybe Trump's testimony wouldn't add more than the video would.

I should consider you can't usually call famous people to testify without a good reason.
 
This is what the Daily News says about Trump being forced to testify Opinion:
Trump can be forced to testify against himself because an impeachment trial is a civil proceeding that cannot result in a jail sentence. The only penalty sought in the impeachment trial is civil — Trump being barred from ever again holding public office. That is not to say that Trump cannot assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in response to specific questions, since he is potentially subject to a separate criminal prosecution for inciting the Capitol insurrection.
Click to expand...

There are a couple interesting bits here:
The House prosecutors would be able to confront Trump with videos and tweets of his lies claiming widespread fraud in the election. Trump will be forced to admit that he made those statements. In response to each lie, the prosecutors can then present Trump with the many court decisions that found there was in fact no widespread fraud. As to those court decisions decided by a Trump appointee, Trump can be asked if he is aware that he had appointed the judge who wrote the opinion.

Trump can also be examined on his efforts to change the vote in Georgia, using his recorded conversation with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. In that conversation, Trump in veiled threats implored him to find 11,780 votes to make Trump the winner of Georgia’s electoral votes. Trump will have to admit that the recording accurately reflects what he said, including his statement that Raffensperger was taking a “big risk” by not finding those extra votes.

There are of course many other areas where Trump can be examined. He has to admit what he and his campaign did to bring that mob to Washington on Jan. 6 and what he and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, said to the mob before they stormed the Capitol.
Click to expand...

A catch 22:
There are other areas that have the potential for providing devastating evidence against Trump on the witness stand. For example, particularly damning would be proof that Trump was given intelligence briefings in advance of Jan. 6 showing that he was informed that his supporters were planning violence at the Capitol. If he admitted seeing such a report, it would prove beyond any doubt that he knew the consequences of his words to the domestic terrorists who stormed the Capitol. If he denies seeing those reports, it would show he was purposely ignoring his duties as president to protect and defend the United States government.
Click to expand...

:popcorn1
 
sts60 said:
Trump’s formal response to the Article of Impeachment started by misspelling “United States”.
Click to expand...



There's also a fairly elementary grammatical error on that first page: there should be an additional comma after the word "Schoen", to complete the clause which relates to the naming of Trump's two lawyers.
 
LondonJohn said:
There's also a fairly elementary grammatical error on that first page: there should be an additional comma after the word "Schoen", to complete the clause which relates to the naming of Trump's two lawyers.
Click to expand...

You want these bozos to pay for both a spell checker and a grammar checker? :boggled:
 
dudalb said:
Of course not. Nobody here expects him to.
He is too commited to the "BIg Lie to back down now.What is astounding you think this behavior is oomehow admirable.
Your faith in Dear Leader is touching.
Click to expand...

I heard that term several times today. Who knew that "bigly" (big lie) would come back to bite him?
 
The deposition in the Trump University fraud case has been mentioned in this thread and probably gives a sense of how the former president might testify before the Senate: affectless, disconnected, prone to diversions and evasions, smarmy, and as readily pinned down as a cube of raspberry Jell-O on a cork plate. Amusingly, the man with a world-class memory can't recall anything, and the nominal founder and CEO of a so-called university claimed to know nothing of its policies, regulation, mission, and educational standards and programs. All that was someone else's responsibility.

Testimony before the Senate would most likely be similar.
 
Spektator said:
The deposition in the Trump University fraud case has been mentioned in this thread and probably gives a sense of how the former president might testify before the Senate: affectless, disconnected, prone to diversions and evasions, smarmy, and as readily pinned down as a cube of raspberry Jell-O on a cork plate. Amusingly, the man with a world-class memory can't recall anything, and the nominal founder and CEO of a so-called university claimed to know nothing of its policies, regulation, mission, and educational standards and programs. All that was someone else's responsibility.

Testimony before the Senate would most likely be similar.
Click to expand...

anytime he's ever sat down in an interview and tried to explain himself he's only ever made himself look worse
 
Ladewig said:
Is it a matter of Melanie cannot be forced to testify but she is allowed to testify if she so chooses?
Click to expand...
Not simple. The answer is no, yes, maybe. It depends on a lot of things including the questions. IE: She can be forbidden to answer privileged questions. Say, a confession he made to her alone. In theory, a husband could tell his wife he murdered someone in their matrimony bed and wife can be barred from repeating it in a courtroom.

But If he said it in a room with other people, the answer is no, there is no privilege.

Here is a link to a very simple and not complete explanation.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...on_journal/2018-19/summer/marital-privileges/


Ladewig said:
I can imagine someone saying to Pres. Trump, “you can tell your side of the story during the impeachment trial and all of America will listen to you. But once you start talking about this stuff you forfeit your right to plead the Fifth. So, would you like to speak?” But I’m having a hard time imagining him declining.
Click to expand...

The problem is, this is not a criminal court. None of that really applies.
 
MRC_Hans said:
I did not address T****.

Hans
Click to expand...

Fair enough, we'll get into the details of the impeachment trial immediately after the acquittal. Asking someone to defend against a propaganda attack is meaningless and premature.

Every Trump voter should decide to support or not support President Trump based on the outcome of the trial of course.

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a thing. Unless the TDS is still raging of course.

TRUMP 2024 or not? We'll see...

added info: If one cannot bring themselves to even type the name TRUMP, it's a sure sign of TDS. I have no issue typing "President Joe Biden" yet I never voted for him nor do I think he's up to the job. Yet I can't bring myself to the level of outright hatred displayed by some about President Trump. It seems downright unhealthy IMO. To each his own.
 
Last edited:
Spektator said:
The deposition in the Trump University fraud case has been mentioned in this thread and probably gives a sense of how the former president might testify before the Senate: affectless, disconnected, prone to diversions and evasions, smarmy, and as readily pinned down as a cube of raspberry Jell-O on a cork plate. Amusingly, the man with a world-class memory can't recall anything, and the nominal founder and CEO of a so-called university claimed to know nothing of its policies, regulation, mission, and educational standards and programs. All that was someone else's responsibility.

Testimony before the Senate would most likely be similar.
Click to expand...
He might also not get a chance to be allowed wiffle-waffle. He would be appearing before the Senate, not a judge. He could quite likely be told very firmly to stop drifting from the topic and answer the questions as put. Which would sting him badly because he hates being told he has to do anything, and this would very likely happen in public. And once stung, he is liable to say stuff that would...harm his own defence immensely, possibly increasing the likelihood of actual conviction instead of exoneration (which he believes he deserves).
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Every Trump voter should decide to support or not support President Trump based on the outcome of the trial of course.
Click to expand...
And there it is, the excuse every Trumpster is going to use to continue to support him despite knowing exactly what he is.

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a thing.
Click to expand...
This is not like a criminal prosecution where the jury has not yet seen the evidence, so it needs to be presented in order for them to consider it and reach a verdict. Virtually everyone on the planet who watches the news has already seen enough evidence to know what the verdict should be. If his lickspittles in the Senate refuse to do their duty that will not change.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Fair enough, we'll get into the details of the impeachment trial immediately after the acquittal. Asking someone to defend against a propaganda attack is meaningless and premature.

Every Trump voter should decide to support or not support President Trump based on the outcome of the trial of course.

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a thing. Unless the TDS is still raging of course.

TRUMP 2024 or not? We'll see...

added info: If one cannot bring themselves to even type the name TRUMP, it's a sure sign of TDS. I have no issue typing "President Joe Biden" yet I never voted for him nor do I think he's up to the job. Yet I can't bring myself to the level of outright hatred displayed by some about President Trump. It seems downright unhealthy IMO. To each his own.
Click to expand...

The problem Chris is the evidence is already out there. Are we to forget what we have seen with our own eyes and heard with our own ears? How much evidence is required before one goes, "yep, he's guilty"?

Also, you go on and on about what you call Trump Derangement Syndrome. As if the rest of us have something wrong with us because we don't like a bully, a cheat and a liar. Are we really supposed to ignore the man's dishonesty, narcissism and cruelty? Almost every day in the last 4 years he has said or tweeted something awful.

What I don't understand is how Trumps actions don't make everyone angry and disgusted.

5 people died because of the rioters on January 6th Including 3 Capitol Police officers.
Rioters who were invited to Washington to "stop the steal" IE: The legal transfer of power. A rally he and his team planned which included a march on a Closed Capitol building where Congress was doing its duty. And when this mob was attacking the Capitol. What was Trump doing? Was he ordering the Guard in? Nope, he just watched on TV for hours doing nothing but cheered the rioters on. And when he finally made a statement he called them special and he loved them.

How much ******* evidence is REQUIRED??!!

Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to remove a breach of rule 10. Do not disguise swear words in your posts in the public sections; type them out in full and allow the autocensor to work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Skeptic Ginger said:
...

I should consider you can't usually call famous people to testify without a good reason.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I think it makes perfect sense. Her brief is to ensure the trial of the perpetrator proceeds and he is brought to justice and sentenced. While the "Shaman's" defence strategy seems to be an attempt to divert attention from his own actions on the day and make the trial a circus. Once the Trump enters the picture (if he does) the attention would be divered to him.

I guess for the moment, it makes perfect sense to keep the two separate. Hypothetical...what is after all the possible histrionics it is "prived" that the moron's actions was dictated by the President's words, it means that it might end up with him leaving with a slap on the wrist after some display of contriteness is demanded and received.
 
He did not appear for his first impeachment trial. Why does anyone think he will volunteer for azecond, more serious one? He is, at heart, a tiny yellow craven coward inside a big orange bully.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom