Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
acbytesla said:
You mean they want an actual fair trial with witnesses? The charlatans! How dare they!

How many trials are you familiar with Bear where jurors declare they have no intention of being fair?

How many trials do you know where half the jurors are coordinating the defense with the defendant?

How many Federal investigations are you familiar with where the President prevented witnesses to testify and documents to be forwarded to the investigators?

The Democrats ran a very fair impeachment inquiry.
Trump was afforded the right to have counsel present. He declined.
Trump was asked to testify. He declined.
Republicans were allowed exactly as much time as the Democrats to question the witnesses. And yet they never asked questions about the evidence presented.
The facts of this case have never been refuted. Not by anyone.
All they wanted to was to expose the whistleblower and make it about Hunter Biden.

The House of Representatives and the nation have EVERY RIGHT to see a trial with evidence laid out before them. And that is the last thing the Republicans want to happen.
.
Click to expand...

Lol

The funniest bit is you actually come across genuinely surprised by what was always going to happen
 
cullennz said:
Lol

The funniest bit is you actually come across genuinely surprised by what was always going to happen
Click to expand...

I'm NOT surprised. I stopped being surprised to how sleazy Trump can act a long long time ago. But your post proves what you think about America and democracy. It's all a joke to you. You think it's funny that the President can use his power anyway he wants. It's funny to you to see Graham and McConnell with their tongues up Trump's arse.

The Republicans are liars with zero integrity. White House officials have a legal duty to testify before Congress. Barr has testified multiple times to Congress Pompeo has testified 6 times before Congress and yet both refuse to testify about Ukraine. Why won't they testify about this? Could it be they did something wrong? Hmm :confused::rolleyes:
 
cullennz said:
Lol

The funniest bit is you actually come across genuinely surprised by what was always going to happen
Click to expand...

If you gleaned from his post, that acbytesla is "genuinely suprised" at what has happened then you have not been paying close enough attention.

It never ceases to amaze me how you can read a post and draw a conclusion about what the poster is saying, and yet when I read the exact same post, I come to the exact opposite conclusion.

Stacyhs said:
I didn't deduce that from acbytesla's post at all.
Click to expand...

...and it seems I am not alone in that!
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
White House officials have a legal duty to testify before Congress.
Click to expand...

Do they? Is that written down anywhere?

Executive Privilege isn't something Trump made up, nor even something Nixon made up. It's not only a long tradition. It's an important element of the doctrine of separation of powers, which is, as much as anything else, the foundation of a democratic society.

Congress wants something from the executive branch, so they issue a subpoena. If the President doesn't like the idea, he says no. Eventually, they end up in court, and if the Supreme Court rules against him, the President has to comply.

On Wednesday, I made a post scratching my head about all the "above the law" references, since Trump wasn't accused of breaking the law. Later that night, though, I listened to Stenny Hoyer's address, and I figured out what they meant. They think they are the law.

Well, if they can get 5 Supreme Court justices or 67 senators to agree with them, they'll be right.

Barr has testified multiple times to Congress Pompeo has testified 6 times before Congress and yet both refuse to testify about Ukraine. Why won't they testify about this? Could it be they did something wrong? Hmm :confused::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Only a damned fool would go to Congress from this administration to testify in this matter. This has "perjury trap" written all over it. If they do show up, they'll all demand immunity and they'll all have lawyers right next to them advising them to take the fifth on every question.

Does anyone actually think more testimony is needed? We know exactly what happened. Now decide if you think the President ought to be removed for it. If the people in charge want to call witnesses, then fine. They can call witnesses, but don't pretend that this is about finding out what happened. it's just about getting some good sound bites or, better yet, an indictment.

You seem to have made up your mind without the benefit of the witnesses. It seems like there must be plenty of evidence available. Sure, if you think witnesses would make a better show, call them, but all of you people wrapping this demand in some pretense of "fairness"....give it up.

The process is completely fair. You know what happened. The Congressmen and Senators have all the information they need. Witnesses won't add any more information or make anything more fair, whatever that means.




And no, it isn't like any other trial. Really. It isn't like any of them at all, because in a regular trial, the jury doesn't know what happened before they walk into the room. You have to present the facts before they can make up their minds. In this case, you have all already made up your minds, and you did so on the basis of the available evidence. So have the Senators. It's been front page news for months. It's all accessible. You need witnesses? Whatever for?
 
By claiming the case is a "Perjury Trap", you have already admitted that the administration has been lying about Ukraine.
 
MM, are you okay with Senators declaring that they will be 100% for Trump in the trial even though they have to swear an oath to be impartial?

If this isn't far from a regular trial, it's because Republicans don't want anything resembling due process.
 
Meadmaker said:
Do they? Is that written down anywhere?

Executive Privilege isn't something Trump made up, nor even something Nixon made up. It's not only a long tradition. It's an important element of the doctrine of separation of powers, which is, as much as anything else, the foundation of a democratic society.

Congress wants something from the executive branch, so they issue a subpoena. If the President doesn't like the idea, he says no. Eventually, they end up in court, and if the Supreme Court rules against him, the President has to comply.

On Wednesday, I made a post scratching my head about all the "above the law" references, since Trump wasn't accused of breaking the law. Later that night, though, I listened to Stenny Hoyer's address, and I figured out what they meant. They think they are the law.

Well, if they can get 5 Supreme Court justices or 67 senators to agree with them, they'll be right.



Only a damned fool would go to Congress from this administration to testify in this matter. This has "perjury trap" written all over it. If they do show up, they'll all demand immunity and they'll all have lawyers right next to them advising them to take the fifth on every question.

Does anyone actually think more testimony is needed? We know exactly what happened. Now decide if you think the President ought to be removed for it. If the people in charge want to call witnesses, then fine. They can call witnesses, but don't pretend that this is about finding out what happened. it's just about getting some good sound bites or, better yet, an indictment.

You seem to have made up your mind without the benefit of the witnesses. It seems like there must be plenty of evidence available. Sure, if you think witnesses would make a better show, call them, but all of you people wrapping this demand in some pretense of "fairness"....give it up.

The process is completely fair. You know what happened. The Congressmen and Senators have all the information they need. Witnesses won't add any more information or make anything more fair, whatever that means.




And no, it isn't like any other trial. Really. It isn't like any of them at all, because in a regular trial, the jury doesn't know what happened before they walk into the room. You have to present the facts before they can make up their minds. In this case, you have all already made up your minds, and you did so on the basis of the available evidence. So have the Senators. It's been front page news for months. It's all accessible. You need witnesses? Whatever for?
Click to expand...

In grade school, my history teacher told our class "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it", along with "Bad things happen when good people do nothing", and " Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely". All of these things she had said was 47 years ago.
I didn't think an unscrupulous person could make it to the Presidency of the United States because of the checks and balances set up by the Founding Fathers, but I really see it now; The Senate and the Executive are now in lockstep with each other, encouraging the President that he can do whatever he likes without any retribution. We can't even trust our Attorney General
 
Meadmaker said:
Do they? Is that written down anywhere?
Click to expand...

The executive branch is subject to Congressional oversight, that IS written down in a document you may have heard of... is called the United States Constitution.

Congress has the right to subpoena witnesses, and those witnesses must testify or face punitive measures

Meadmaker said:
Executive Privilege isn't something Trump made up
Click to expand...

Correct, but "absolute immunity from testifying" is something Trump made up, from whole cloth. It has no basis in Law

Meadmaker said:
This has "perjury trap" written all over it.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a perjury trap, and even if there was, its the easiest trap to avoid...... you simply tell the truth. Show me just one example where you can be trapped into perjuring yourself when you tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I make the same argument to those who hold that speed cameras are not road safety devices, they are revenue generators for the government. Even if it was true, they are the easiest revenue traps to avoid... just drive below the legal speed limit at all times and you'll never have to pay any of the revenue... saves you gas too!
 
DetectedMotion said:
In grade school, my history teacher told our class "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it", along with "Bad things happen when good people do nothing", and " Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely". All of these things she had said was 47 years ago.
I didn't think an unscrupulous person could make it to the Presidency of the United States because of the checks and balances set up by the Founding Fathers, but I really see it now; The Senate and the Executive are now in lockstep with each other, encouraging the President that he can do whatever he likes without any retribution. We can't even trust our Attorney General
Click to expand...

Kind of the US's own fault for having such a stupid electoral and political system tbf
 
CE, that's not a political cartoon, that is religious Iconography.
By posting this, I have to assume that you have accepted Trump as your Lord and Savior.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom