Impeachment

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

  1. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Under cross in her impeachment testimony, Democrat Fiona Hill acknowledged she not only had a prior close working relationship with fake dossier author Christopher Steele, but had contacts with Steele during the 2016 campaign
     
  2. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    I'm curious. Was Matt Gaetz on the Committee that was meeting?
     
  3. mchammer

    mchammer 5,000+ Posts

    In any sane world, yes
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. mchammer

    mchammer 5,000+ Posts

     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    The answer to that is made obvious within the transcript published, just re-read it

    But, what might not be so obvious, is the impact of this event, which I posted about concurrently, even calling it the "Storming the Bastille." It was a turning point. This is what flushed Nancy out in the open. The news coverage really could no longer hide that it was all a secret Soviet trial or Spanish Inquisition. And Dem reps in Trump-carried district began to get wobbly too, as the public finally started to wake up to what was happening. They started pressuring Nancy to make at least some showing of due process. Up until this moment, Nancy had basically had 6 weeks of "free kicks on goal" against Trump, without any pushback. Gaetz' storming of Schiff's SCIF is what changed things. You didnt appreciate it at the time and perhaps you still dont, but someday you will. And you at least should be willing to concede that I tried to point you in the right direction the very moment it was happening.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    One more thing, House Dems have been playing game with the various committees in order to keep the more effective Rs out of the room, unable to cross-examine witnesses. This has forced the Rs to respond in kind.

    And, for the record, Paul Ryan would never have done this
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Hot Hot x 1
  7. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Ukraine's response?
    350.png
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019
  8. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    This sane Matt Gaetz?

    "I love this President so much that I may never love a President again."
     
  9. mchammer

    mchammer 5,000+ Posts

    Stop beclowning yourself.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Did you mean a different Matt Gaetz?
     
  11. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    The system works like this. Committees hear interviews and things in private. All but one witness in the Benghazi investigations were done behind closed doors. There will be a public phase next week. There will be a more public and more "fair" process in the Senate. That's how it's supposed to work, right? The Committee process keeps the human frat paddles like Matt Gaetz in their lane.
     
  12. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    With all due respect, I'm gonna not use you for directions.
     
  13. Garmel

    Garmel 2,500+ Posts

    With his smile and mannerisms it looks like a guy talking in jest. If libs think that is crazy they haven't been watching their own side much lately.
     
  14. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    I was trying to think of an issue, any issue, youve been correct about the last couple years -- Hillary, Mueller, Stormy Daniels, Russiagate, Michael Cohen, Antifa? Can you think of one, because I cannot.


    [​IMG]
     
  15. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Republicans are seeking to call Hunter Biden, the "whistleblower," his/her sources, Alexandra Chalupa, Nellie Ohr, Devon Archer, Kurt Volker, David Hale and Tim Morrison as impeachment witnesses

    " .... At the top of Republicans’ list is former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, ...."

    But, of course, the Democrat claim they can prevent Republicans from calling any witnesses. So we will see

    Republicans want Hunter Biden, Ukraine whistleblower as impeachment inquiry witnesses
     
  16. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019
  17. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    If Swalwell correctly stated their theory^^, I dont see how this gets very far. On top of that are the repeated denials of procedural due process all along the way. The right to confront witnesses against you is fundamental to American jurisprudence and is in the Constitution. Not in some penumbra of a right, but in direct expression. Due process in the US also includes the right of counsel, the right of cross-examination and the right to call witnesses in your defense. Dems have repeatedly denied Trump and House Republicans all of these rights to varying degrees.

    When this movement first got started, I argued with Deez Nutz about whether or not John Roberts, effectively the trial court judge, would let this kind of nonsense move forward. I renew that claim as I do not believe he will.

    I speculated above, House Rs will make motions (something like if not exactly like Rule 50/civil or Rule 48/criminal) at the very beginning and then again at the close of the House D's case. I cannot imagine they would miss these opportunities. All of the defects with regard to due process will give Roberts a prime way out. He does not even have to address the substantive issues - such as, does replacing an ambassador constitute a high crime or misdemeanor, which appears to be one of their claims. He can take this rare chance to sit there and educate the entire American public what due process is and why it is so important in our system. He will never have another opportunity like this one.

    I feel confident saying Roberts does not want anything to do with this matter and will be wishing he was anywhere else. Nor is he going to want to short circuit a full impeachment trial before it ever gets started. He knows well what the blowback will be like (they will probably try to impeach next if he does). But, nonetheless, that will be the proper result and we have to hope Roberts has the courage to do the right thing. We will all find out together if he does.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019
  18. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    The Whistleblower Complaint Has Largely Been Corroborated.

    NPR annotated the complaint line for line with the public transcripts, call log, public statements and media reports. Unfortunately I can't link directly to the images.

    I have no idea whether the Whistleblower should have to be deposed given they weren't a firsthand witness but their accuracy in the complaint was spot on.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  19. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Schiff responded, wont let Republicans call the witnesses they want
     
    • poop poop x 1
  20. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    I think I’ve been correct on all those issues.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • WTF? WTF? x 1
  21. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    The accused will be allowed to confront and question in the senate hearing. Correct?
     
  22. OUBubba

    OUBubba 1,000+ Posts

    You’re going to confuse them with simple facts.
     
  23. mchammer

    mchammer 5,000+ Posts

    Like this one?

     
  24. mchammer

    mchammer 5,000+ Posts

  25. UTChE96

    UTChE96 1,000+ Posts

    He's doing Republicans a favor. The Senate will dismiss the impeachment fairly quickly based on the partisan nature of the investigation in the House.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  26. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    One thing you good people fail to grasp now is that all of this is going to come back and bite you in the *** if you ever find someone who can win the presidency again. We are going to use the rules you have established now against you in the future. Starting with the fact that impeachment will begin the moment the results become final. The hearings will be held in secret, before a very limited audience, with no tv or press. We will call whoever we want but you will not be allowed to subpoena anyone. You will only be allowed to cross-examine witnesses when we say you can and then only about topics we approve. And articles of impeachment will then be railroaded through the House. Many of you want the US to adopt "the Chinese system," well this will be getting us pretty close to that ideal.

    And guess what you will be crying about then? A lack of due process.

    But here is the thing, due process is a principle of jurisprudence. You do not get to apply it selectively. It applies to equally all citizens in all cases. And so if you think you might want your future president to enjoy it, you need to speak up for it now. Otherwise, the rules you are creating now will be "the rules" then too. And we are going to railroad your person out of town using your rules. Foresight has never been a strength for you guys, but there is still time in this matter. But you better speak up pretty quick.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  27. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    A lot of this will be up to John Roberts. The Senate is just the jury. Roberts is the trial court judge in a courtroom with not much in the way of established rules or tradition.

    If the trial is going to be dismissed before a final vote by the Senate, then (I think) it will have to be on a motion by the House Republicans. So Roberts will first have to agree to hear the motion, then he will have to rule on it (does that sound like John Roberts to you?).

    In order for this to happen, they will first have to agree upon rules that allow for a motion (are Senate Rs smart enough to establish rules that allow for pretrial and mid-trial dispositive motions?). I hope they simply adopt and incorporate the FREs and FRCPs, because if they do, I can map out a resolution for you pretty quickly. But we wont know what rules they are going to use until they actually tell us. There is no "book" for this.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2019
  28. bystander

    bystander 5,000+ Posts

    I feel the GOP made a mistake impeaching Clinton but we had this:

    "Clinton gave a sworn deposition on January 17, 1998, where he denied having a "sexual relationship", "sexual affair" or "sexual relations" with Lewinsky."

    Do we ignore perjury or not? Is the underlying activity material or not?

    If we are to wait for an actual high crime or misdemeanor and not just "sketch" then we are still not there in my book.
     
  29. UTChE96

    UTChE96 1,000+ Posts

    I dont think the Senate is forced to even act on the Impeachment. Could just let it wither (ala Garland nomination).
     
  30. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    They aren't forced to act, but Cocaine Mitch says they will. I don't agree with Joe Fan's characterization of what everyone's roles would be. The issue of whether senators act purely as jurors came up in the 1999 Senate trial. One of the senators objected to being addressed as a "juror." Chief Justice Rehnquist sustained the objection and ruled that though senators decide questions of fact like jurors do, they also decide substantive questions of law such as what constitutes an impeachable offense. Knowing that, I highly doubt that Roberts would grant any dispositive motion in the case and would instead put it to the senators themselves to decide.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page