Impeachment

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by mchammer, Sep 24, 2019.

  1. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. bystander

    bystander 5,000+ Posts

    "REP. NADLER: Well, I’m saying that Hunter Biden has no knowledge of the accusations against the president. Did the president, as we said- as the evidence shows that he did, betray his country by conspiring with a foreign country to- to try to rig the election? Hunter Biden has nothing to say about that. They’re- they’re asking for Hunter Biden is just more of a smear of Hunter Biden that the president’s trying to get the Ukraine to do. But the fact of the matter is, let the chief justice rule on- on–"

    Now, I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV and I timidly ask questions of our resident lawyers here on Hornfans but it seems to me that Hunter's testimony is vital in order to prove that Trump wasn't engaging a foreign government at random to interfere in an election but instead because Hunter was that corrupt along with his Dad and it just so happened that the corruption occurred in Ukraine. If it could be proven that the corruption Trump was trying to uncover was in fact real then doesn't that mute Nadler's contention that Hunter was not a witness to Trump's "crimes" and therefore his testimony would be irrelevant?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    The purpose of making this contention is to foreclose the argument that there is some set of facts that could justify Trump's activity. At least arguably, Biden could have been the dirtiest figure in the world, and Trump should still be removed just for looking into it the way he did.

    Is he right? That sorta depends. If we were in court and Trump was being charged with a crime for which there was no legal defense or justification, then Nadler would be right. There would be no relevance to Biden's testimony. However, if we were in court, lots of things would be different. Trump would be off scot-free, because no one has charged him with a crime but instead has come up with a subjective, values-driven political offense. Well, in that realm, motivation and justification do matter, and that makes it much easier to justify calling Biden. Furthermore, 98 percent of the evidence held by the House would be excluded as hearsay and speculation. Virtually nobody had personal knowledge of anything material. The point is that Nadler wouldn't actually want us to do what a court would do.

    Personally, when it comes to political operations, I err on the side of transparency. Accordingly, if I ran the Senate, after I ripped the House impeachment managers for their half-assed effort and failure to secure the evidence they needed and dumping their work on me, I'd subpoena John Bolton (for real - meaning I'd take him to court to enforce it), Mick Mulvaney, and others with knowledge of relevant facts. However, I'd open the evidentiary doors. That means both Bidens and the whistleblower as well as the unidentified persons on his report would be subpoenaed as well.
     
  4. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

    So the House Managers just spoke
    Shifft opened by saying how this impeachment was not like Clinton's mentioned all the ways.
    Then Nadler said we should not spend time talking about the Clinton impeachment.

    Of course they are saying this since so many vids have surfaced showing the Dems poopooing back then the very steps the Senate is taking
     
  5. bystander

    bystander 5,000+ Posts

    The arrogance of absolute power.
     
  6. OUBubba

    OUBubba Reluctant and Bullied Sponsor

    The Lindsey Graham and Dershowitz videos are classics.
     
  7. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Anyone else watching Mitch at this moment?
    Is he yet another secret HF lurker?
    It sounded almost like he took parts of this post and read it into the official record.
    With no credits!

     
  8. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

    Dems are ranting about witnesses and that some of this will be in the "dark of night"( if we made a drinking game of that phrase we would have been drunk by 8:30 this morning)
    Why did the Dems not allow the GOP to have witnesses? Why did much of their investigation take place in a windowless room in the basement where it was always the dark of night?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 2,500+ Posts

    They said they did not need further witnesses in the House because the evidence was already overwhelming. Now they say we need more evidence or it's a coverup. Please God kill them all with fire.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. OUBubba

    OUBubba Reluctant and Bullied Sponsor

    So we don't want to know what actually transpired? Got it.
     
  11. horninchicago

    horninchicago 5,000+ Posts

    Mobilehoma reading comprehension issues? But to answer your rhetoric, yes, the Dems don't want to find out. They are not in charge now. When they were, in the House, they did not seek out and call more witnesses. Thus, THEY did not want to know what actually transpired.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. OUBubba

    OUBubba Reluctant and Bullied Sponsor

    You people just don't get it. The President is withholding all of the key players testimony. If it went to court he has the Court in his pocket. He could literally gun down someone and escape any punishment.
     
  13. horninchicago

    horninchicago 5,000+ Posts

    You people? Tisk, tisk...

    Executive Branch has the right to have subpoenas etc challenged in the courts. They don't have to, nor has any Administration, bend over to the likes of Shifty.
     
  14. WorsterMan

    WorsterMan 10,000+ Posts

    Evidently, because the House led Dems didn't do their job by letting the Republicans question / cross exanine their "witnesses" and or even admit even 1 witness they chose. Impeachment = the House investigates and makes a case. The Senate conducts a trial & acts as jury based on the evidence.

    The House's job was to fully and properly investigate the entire case, not rely on the Senate to re-investigate it by calling witnesses & requesting evidence because the House didn't allow them or fully investigate.

    Now the Senate believes they are compelled to call witnesses and re-investigate the whole damn case so Nadler, Schitt show and the Dems don't yell cover up, cover up!!

    Got it.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Hot Hot x 1
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2020
  15. bystander

    bystander 5,000+ Posts

    So when Nadler say's no Biden testimony you say the President is withholding witnesses. So what can we do about everyone's blind spot?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. bystander

    bystander 5,000+ Posts

    Anybody buy this or is it too simplistic?

    [​IMG]
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    In case anyone was wondering what Chuckles Schumer was talking about and why he seemed so desperate to bring in witness and evidence extraneous to what is in the official House record, it is two things --

    (1) First, he knows the Articles as submitted as too weak to carry the day. In no way have they stated a case for removal from office. They all know this. They rushed it, submitted an incomplete record and then sat on it for 4 weeks despite making claims such as "clear and present danger." This mess is 100% on the House Dems,
    and
    (2) Second, he also already knows the are going to lose at the Senate and so is trying to set up the spin for the loss. They will, ironically enough, allege unfairness and a lack of due process. It's how they roll.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  18. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

    oububba?
    is what Worsterman said not accurate?
    "The House's job was to fully and properly investigate the entire case, not rely on the Senate to re-investigate it by calling witnesses because the House didn't allow them.
     
  19. bystander

    bystander 5,000+ Posts

    I guess I'm confused. Assuming the House is the grand jury and the Senate is the trial court, why would the Senate be bound by the witnesses the House either did or didn't call? Are we saying, too bad, your case is what it is and nothing new can be added?
     
  20. theiioftx

    theiioftx Sponsor Deputy

    Pesky due process under the constitution. Dems hate it.
     
  21. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    What dumbass on CNN or MSNBC started this ********* narrative? Do people not know how to read or do basic math?

    If Democrats actually did their jobs and took claims of executive privilege (which aren't at all unusual, aren't unconstitutional, and aren't an obstruction of Congress) to court they'd go to the US District Court for the District of Columbia. That court has 15 sitting judges. Eleven are Democratic appointees. If claims are appealed, they'd go to the DC Circuit. That court has 11 sitting judges. Seven of them are Democratic appointees. So Trump would be at a disadvantage in both courts.

    What about the Supreme Court? You've got three conservative justices that would very likely rule with Trump. You've got four liberal justices who would never rule with Trump. You have two conservative-leaning (but less conservative than the other conservatives) justices. One hasn't been on the Court long enough to know what he'd do. The other has proven that he's the least partisan justice on the Court and not particularly favorable to Trump. So how would Trump do in the Supreme Court? It would depend on the Chief Justice, who has shown himself to be fair.

    So please stop with this "we can't go to court because Trump has the courts in his pocket" ********. It's beneath you and factually wrong.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Hot Hot x 1
  22. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    1999 Chuckles
     
  23. mchammer

    mchammer 5,000+ Posts

    • Winner Winner x 1
  24. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    I dont see how we can get through this entire procedure just bypassing the 6th Amendment as if it does not exist. I was always hoping they would put Roberts on the spot for issues such as this, but apparently all he is going to do is just sit there.

    Besides the inability to confront the witness against him, the Dems are also arguing --

    - Trump should not be able to have his attorney represent him (a very cheap trick)

    - If you go to court to challenge something, guilt can then be assumed

    - If you defend yourself, you are guilty
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2020
  25. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    The Ark judge is not taking any cap off Hunter -- issued a Show Cause order for him to appear. Which means a contempt charge is possible
    Appear in Arkansas court, explain, judge orders Hunter Biden
    [​IMG]
     
    • Hot Hot x 1
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2020
  26. WorsterMan

    WorsterMan 10,000+ Posts


    So I'm accused of a crime.

    A prosecuting attorney(s) are chosen.

    Prosecution investigates me & the alleged crime - gathers evidence & witnesses and brings charges against me (HOUSE OF REPS). I get a defense attorney. We go to trial. A jury is chosen.

    The Prosecution only gets to bring his or her witnesses and the Defense is NOT allowed to bring witnesses, question / cross examine the Prosecution witnesses or question the evidence presented.

    After the Prosecution makes it's case to the Judge, it turns to the Jury (SENATE) and says: Jury, we want YOU to further investigate, call witnesses we choose and provide further evidence we request.

    "Are we saying, too bad, your case is what it is and nothing new can be added?" Yes. IMHO.

    In any trial, there always could be some new element of evidence that was not discovered or didn't present itself during the initial investigation / fact gathering.

    However, it is NOT the job of the Jury (SEANTE) to further investigate me or finish the job of a flimsy case presented by my Prosecutors (HOUSE OF REPS) !!!
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2020
  27. OUBubba

    OUBubba Reluctant and Bullied Sponsor

    I interpret it as if the House is serving like the grand jury and the Senate is performing the trial. That's how all other impeachments have gone. There were witnesses. Can prosecutors/defense attorneys call witnesses that were not involved during the preliminary hearings in a normal trial setting?
     
  28. WorsterMan

    WorsterMan 10,000+ Posts

    House - investigate, call witnesses, gather evidence & make a / the case.
    Senate - Judge & Jury.

    In the Senate impeachment trial, Clinton was not re-investigated, additional evidence was not requested / collected nor were additional witnesses called.
     
  29. OUBubba

    OUBubba Reluctant and Bullied Sponsor

    The History Place - Impeachment: Bill Clinton

    Seems we had 3 days of closed door depositions in the Senate at the time. How is that not what you speak of?
     
  30. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    So if Republicans have 3 days of closed door depositions and then vote to keep Trump in office you would be satisfied?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1

Share This Page