Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

Meadmaker said:
To answer another question from earlier -


Because it is the DOJ, not Trump, and the story was from more recently than the impeachment articles, which were being discussed at the time, and because the story is sufficiently recent that the legal wheels (appeals and such) haven't had time to turn yet.

Speaking just for myself, if Trump ignores an actual court order, I'd go all in on supporting impeachment and removal.

By "ignore", I mean refusing to comply with a Supreme Court order, or by not filing a timely appeal of a lower court order.
Click to expand...

Trump can order the DOJ to comply.
Scratch that - he has the obligation to make sure his administration complies.
You seem to suggest that Trump has nothing to do with the DOJ and no power over it
 
Kushner is part of the Trump family - not complying with a Court Order because it could negatively affect your son-in-law is a blatant abuse of power.
It is astounding that someone thinks this has nothing to do with Trump, personally.
 
Meadmaker said:
To answer another question from earlier -


Because it is the DOJ, not Trump, and the story was from more recently than the impeachment articles, which were being discussed at the time, and because the story is sufficiently recent that the legal wheels (appeals and such) haven't had time to turn yet.

Speaking just for myself, if Trump ignores an actual court order, I'd go all in on supporting impeachment and removal.

By "ignore", I mean refusing to comply with a Supreme Court order, or by not filing a timely appeal of a lower court order.
Click to expand...


Are you trying to convince us you wouldn't pull a Lindsey? Graham assured an interviewer that if evidence beyond the phone call surfaced about the QPQ, he'd be very troubled. Then, just days afterward such evidence came to light and Lindsey threw on the blinders, stuffed cotton in ears, and huffily declared he wouldn't be listening to evidence because his mind was made up.

You sure you wouldn't overturn the chess board like Lindsey did?
 
Trebuchet said:
I think he wanted her murdered.
Click to expand...

Don't be ridiculous. First, he'd never have the courage to get into murder, and second the context of the conversation makes it clear he wants he sacked.

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1221793821597585413?s=20

Understand why this is important: GOP Senators (and even House) have staked their careers on a defense story that the White House encouraged. Now they look like they were part of the cover up.

They were betting Trump had all this nailed down better.
Click to expand...

Then they were idiots.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1221789190725283840?s=20


Quote:
Understand why this is important: GOP Senators (and even House) have staked their careers on a defense story that the White House encouraged. Now they look like they were part of the cover up.

They were betting Trump had all this nailed down better.
Click to expand...


https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1221793821597585413?s=20
Click to expand...


Since when has Trump ever had anything nailed down. They don't care. Fox and the usual blogs have a narrative going that will calm any doubters.



Read my sig.
 
Lurch said:
Are you trying to convince us you wouldn't pull a Lindsey? Graham assured an interviewer that if evidence beyond the phone call surfaced about the QPQ, he'd be very troubled. Then, just days afterward such evidence came to light and Lindsey threw on the blinders, stuffed cotton in ears, and huffily declared he wouldn't be listening to evidence because his mind was made up.

You sure you wouldn't overturn the chess board like Lindsey did?
Click to expand...

Fair question.

But impossible to answer, as it requires a future prediction.

All I can say is that if there ever is a court order that Trump defies as I previously described, and I start making excuses for him, you have a place to quote to throw it back in my face. In a forum world, that's all you can hope for.



But, speaking of future predictions, I predict that people on this forum will at some point find some court order that isn't actually what I described, but the people will say it is.

In reality, my thoughts on the subject are fairly easy to understand. If the legislature tells the executive, "You must..." and the executive responds, "I don't have to...", the courts get to make the call on whether or not he has to. If they come down against him, then he's in defiance of the law. Boot him. Until then, it's a dispute.
 
You are making excuses right now.

Since this directly involves the President's son-in-law, the idea that this isn't directly Trump's responsibly to respond to is ludicrous.
 
Last edited:
https://twitter.com/Santucci/status/1221855837335015425

Senior level White House sources tell @ABC the president’s legal team is preparing for the possibility of witnesses in the impeachment trial. Sources tell @jonkarl @KFaulders & me legal team preparing aggressive, drawn out legal fight to block testimony of potential witnesses.
Click to expand...

Bear in mind while reading this that Trump's lawyers argued to the Senate that the Democrats have no case because there are no first-hand witnesses.
 
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.
 
Meadmaker said:
I must admit I hope they end up with witnesses.
Click to expand...

Me, too.


However, if you have witnesses, you have to let both sides call them...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
https://twitter.com/C_Sommerfeldt/status/1222151263997120512

Woke up a bit ago to some angry texts from Rudy Giuliani.

He's pissed Dems aren't considering calling him as a witness and says "they are afraid of my physical presence."

"Why do they want Bolton if not me," he says. "Again I really should stop wasting my time." #impeachment

Asked why House Dems only subpoenaed Giuliani for records and not testimony, an Intel Committee official said “documents are necessary to test the credibility of any witness, but especially one like Giuliani."

via @NYDailyNews

Giuliani threw some Latin legalese at me when I asked why he didn't comply with the Sept. 30 records subpoena.

“If they wanted to subpoena me they would have to serve a subpoena in personem not a subpoena ducus tecum. Do you understand? I’d be impressed?”

It has now also come to my understanding that Giuliani misspelled both of those Latin terms.

It's supposed to be "in personam," not "in personem."

It's also supposed to be "duces tecum," not "ducus tecum."
Click to expand...

Article embedded in tweets.

Of course, he could always ask Trump's lawyers to call him as a witness. As I said above, I think Giuliani as a witness would see the world run out of popcorn.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
Oh please, let them call Obama.
Click to expand...


I'm thinking calling in Hillary seems to be more likely. No particular reason other than the fact that she has been the right's goto bogeyperson for nearly 30 years now. Obama has had that distinction merely half that time at the most.
 
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...

But the witnesses must be relevant. The Whistleblower is NOT relevant. Joe Biden is NOT relevant. Hunter Biden is NOT relevant.

The impeachment is NOT about some wild ass conspiracy, it's about the actions of Trump and his administration. By all means, if the administration has witnesses that would provide exculpatory evidence, lets call them.
 
Meadmaker said:
However, if you have witnesses, you have to let both sides call them
Click to expand...
As another poster has said... both sides should be able to call witnesses, but those witnesses have to be relevant.

The Democrats want to call people like: Bolton (inside knowledge of Trump's foreign policy actions), Mulvaney (who would have been privy to financial concerns regarding holding back aid), and Trump (who is, well the guy at the top).

The Republicans would want to call: The Bidens (irrelevant, because they are not accused of any crimes, and had no inside knowledge Trump's Ukrainian actions, and calling them is just an attempt to distract from Republican illegal actions), and the Whistleblower (they are protected by law, and any claims that the whistleblower made have already been confirmed by other evidence).

and I truly feel sorry for anyone actually called as a witness.
Click to expand...
Should depend on the witness. If the Republicans drag someone like the bidens or the whistleblower in front of the Senate, then they deserve sympathy.... They played no part in Trump's crimes and shouldn't be subjected to the hearings. Same as if someone like Yovanovitch gets called... she had been a decent member of the State department and also doesn't deserve to be subject to more congressional questioning.

But someone like (for example) Mulvaney or Giuliani? Why have sympathy for them if they get called as a witness? They aren't some innocent bystanders... in fact they appear to be neck deep in Trump's illegal schemes and are acting to cover for him. If they have to suffer through impeachment proceedings (and even get charged with Perjury if they lie during them) then they deserve whatever they have coming to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom