(01-21-2020, 03:39 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (01-21-2020, 03:32 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]He was going to be impeached if there was no testimony at all. They didn't even need a good reason, just Nancy to go along with it.
If that's your stance, then there absolutely isn't any reason not to have witness testimony. If this whole thing is a sham, then show it through witness testimony. Call Trump, I don't care. I'd welcome it. Not having witness testimony for no other reason than "IT WAS SHAM!" only further increases public suspicion.
Trump is impeached. That's not changing. If I were him and everything is as perfect as he claims it to be, I'd do everything possible to clear my name for the general public, ESPECIALLY considering there's an election coming up. That includes witness testimony, not withholding it.
Should the whistleblower be deposed? Honest question.
(01-21-2020, 02:01 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (01-21-2020, 01:55 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]I do not believe the house should be able to call any new witnesses. It isn't the senates job to re-do the trial. The house rushed this through and it isn't the senates problem that they want to call more witnesses.
Take it back to the house and start over.
I'm not opposed to that, but Mulvaney & Pompeo (among others) were blocked by the White House from testifying during House proceedings - the arguments were that the proceedings wouldn't be "fair."
I believe the argument was Executive Privilege, but they likely noted the unfair structure of the proceedings also.
(01-21-2020, 04:03 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-21-2020, 03:39 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]If that's your stance, then there absolutely isn't any reason not to have witness testimony. If this whole thing is a sham, then show it through witness testimony. Call Trump, I don't care. I'd welcome it. Not having witness testimony for no other reason than "IT WAS SHAM!" only further increases public suspicion.
Trump is impeached. That's not changing. If I were him and everything is as perfect as he claims it to be, I'd do everything possible to clear my name for the general public, ESPECIALLY considering there's an election coming up. That includes witness testimony, not withholding it.
The transcript this entire sham is about is out there for anyone to read. I think Trump wears this "impeachment" like a badge of honor, as he should because its a sham.
Boy, he certainly acts like it. /s
(01-21-2020, 04:06 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (01-21-2020, 03:39 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]If that's your stance, then there absolutely isn't any reason not to have witness testimony. If this whole thing is a sham, then show it through witness testimony. Call Trump, I don't care. I'd welcome it. Not having witness testimony for no other reason than "IT WAS SHAM!" only further increases public suspicion.
Trump is impeached. That's not changing. If I were him and everything is as perfect as he claims it to be, I'd do everything possible to clear my name for the general public, ESPECIALLY considering there's an election coming up. That includes witness testimony, not withholding it.
Should the whistleblower be deposed? Honest question.
Honest answer: I'm on the fence. The conservative in me wants that person's identity (and safety) protected...that's the only reason I'd say no. Otherwise, I don't care one way or the other.
I could offer you another strawman question in return, but I figure it'd get us nowhere.
(01-21-2020, 04:14 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ] (01-21-2020, 02:01 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not opposed to that, but Mulvaney & Pompeo (among others) were blocked by the White House from testifying during House proceedings - the arguments were that the proceedings wouldn't be "fair."
I believe the argument was Executive Privilege, but they likely noted the unfair structure of the proceedings also.
He never invoked it. He just stonewalled. ...so I'll go back to my original inquiry: why wouldn't now, when you deem the proceedings to be fair, be the opportune time to have witness testimony? Why the opposition?
(01-21-2020, 04:06 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (01-21-2020, 03:39 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]If that's your stance, then there absolutely isn't any reason not to have witness testimony. If this whole thing is a sham, then show it through witness testimony. Call Trump, I don't care. I'd welcome it. Not having witness testimony for no other reason than "IT WAS SHAM!" only further increases public suspicion.
Trump is impeached. That's not changing. If I were him and everything is as perfect as he claims it to be, I'd do everything possible to clear my name for the general public, ESPECIALLY considering there's an election coming up. That includes witness testimony, not withholding it.
Should the whistleblower be deposed? Honest question.
If the whistleblower is willing, or if the protections for whistleblowers under the law don't apply, then yes. Deposed. And if he turns out to be the best source of info, he should testify publicly. But we shouldn't break the whistleblower laws just because jim Jordan or Donald Trump got mad. And I'd bet we've already heard everything the whistleblower knows from other witnesses.
(01-21-2020, 04:16 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (01-21-2020, 04:03 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]The transcript this entire sham is about is out there for anyone to read. I think Trump wears this "impeachment" like a badge of honor, as he should because its a sham.
Boy, he certainly acts like it. /s
(01-21-2020, 04:06 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Should the whistleblower be deposed? Honest question.
Honest answer: I'm on the fence. The conservative in me wants that person's identity (and safety) protected...that's the only reason I'd say no. Otherwise, I don't care one way or the other.
I could offer you another strawman question in return, but I figure it'd get us nowhere.
Not a strawman question, at all. If we really want to get to all the facts, then deposing the whistleblower to determine his actual knowledge of events, and how he came about them, is the foundation of what this case is all about. How do we know this wasn't a setup by those who were frustrated by the lack of results from the Mueller report? Seems simple enough: create another charge with the thinnest of evidence and then cloak the person who is assumed to make the charge in whistleblower protection. That way, Trump cannot face his accuser and the whistleblower is exempt from probing questions.
(01-21-2020, 05:19 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (01-21-2020, 04:16 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]Boy, he certainly acts like it. /s
Honest answer: I'm on the fence. The conservative in me wants that person's identity (and safety) protected...that's the only reason I'd say no. Otherwise, I don't care one way or the other.
I could offer you another strawman question in return, but I figure it'd get us nowhere.
Not a strawman question, at all. If we really want to get to all the facts, then deposing the whistleblower to determine his actual knowledge of events, and how he came about them, is the foundation of what this case is all about. How do we know this wasn't a setup by those who were frustrated by the lack of results from the Mueller report? Seems simple enough: create another charge with the thinnest of evidence and then cloak the person who is assumed to make the charge in whistleblower protection. That way, Trump cannot face his accuser and the whistleblower is exempt from probing questions.
Like I said, I'm not against deposing the WB, but I'm not gung-ho either.
However, I'd argue against the bolded point you made above: my perspective, given everything that's come out over the past few months and that the gun continues to smoke, is that the whistleblower was the
catalyst of what this case is about, not the foundation. That's why I'm in favor of witness testimony. I want as much information as I can get from everyone who had any kind of relation to the goings on with Ukraine - not just the call. Blocking testimony from those individuals is, in my opinion, positively correlated with the increasing number of people that feel the president was rightfully impeached and should be removed. It doesn't scream "I'm innocent!" I'm thinking of Trump's reputation with the majority of voters (not just his base) and how that'll shake out come election time.
If I'm a US Senator (republican or democrat), that's what I would need and demand to make a fair and impartial judgement (a la upholding my constitutional duty) - as to removal or non-removal of a sitting US President - which isn't a decision that should be taken lightly.
(01-21-2020, 01:34 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (01-21-2020, 10:07 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]True, but if you don't win reelection as a Senator, there is no place for you at that trough.
Do you think that's at the crux of McConnell's proposed resolution?
I'm curious as to why there seems to be any opposition to witness testimony in the Senate trial.
In simple terms this is the way that I look at it.
The Senate is not investigating anything. They are more-or-less the "jury" in the whole process
based on the articles presented to them by The House.
The whole basis to begin the process in The House was supposedly "bribery" proven by a "whistle-blower" regarding a phone call. Neither the Republican side nor the White House Administration was given a fair opportunity to call witnesses up to and including the "whistle-blower".
Much of the testimony in The House process was
pretty much hearsay and second hand information. "Abuse of Power" and "Obstruction of Congress" are not High Crimes or Misdemeanors. The Articles are basically all the democrats had.
It's pretty clear that this is nothing more than a partisan ploy to try to take down Trump and at the same time let the DNC give their chosen one (Biden) the ability to campaign so close to the Iowa Caucus so that many of his challengers would be held up in The Senate proceedings (hence the delay by Pelosi in handing the articles to The Senate).
The Senate's job at this point is to make a determination based on the articles presented to them with the evidence (or lack thereof) that The House had for voting on and passing the articles.
The bottom line is, it's all "politics" in
Washington the swamp.
As I said, this is pretty much the way that I view it in very simple terms. I do think that there are many that see it the same way.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the "whistle-blower" confirmed to have been reporting second hand information? If I recall correctly, the "whistle-blower" wasn't even in on the call.
(01-21-2020, 05:46 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the "whistle-blower" confirmed to have been reporting second hand information? If I recall correctly, the "whistle-blower" wasn't even in on the call.
No, you are correct.... it was like the old REO Speedwagon song, Heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from another you were messing around...……...
(01-21-2020, 05:46 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the "whistle-blower" confirmed to have been reporting second hand information? If I recall correctly, the "whistle-blower" wasn't even in on the call.
I believe you're correct, but Volker (who was on the call) confirmed everything in the whistleblower doc...prior to being slandered in the media.
(01-21-2020, 05:30 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (01-21-2020, 05:19 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]
Not a strawman question, at all. If we really want to get to all the facts, then deposing the whistleblower to determine his actual knowledge of events, and how he came about them, is the foundation of what this case is all about. How do we know this wasn't a setup by those who were frustrated by the lack of results from the Mueller report? Seems simple enough: create another charge with the thinnest of evidence and then cloak the person who is assumed to make the charge in whistleblower protection. That way, Trump cannot face his accuser and the whistleblower is exempt from probing questions.
Like I said, I'm not against deposing the WB, but I'm not gung-ho either.
However, I'd argue against the bolded point you made above: my perspective, given everything that's come out over the past few months and that the gun continues to smoke, is that the whistleblower was the catalyst of what this case is about, not the foundation. That's why I'm in favor of witness testimony. I want as much information as I can get from everyone who had any kind of relation to the goings on with Ukraine - not just the call. Blocking testimony from those individuals is, in my opinion, positively correlated with the increasing number of people that feel the president was rightfully impeached and should be removed. It doesn't scream "I'm innocent!" I'm thinking of Trump's reputation with the majority of voters (not just his base) and how that'll shake out come election time.
If I'm a US Senator (republican or democrat), that's what I would need and demand to make a fair and impartial judgement (a la upholding my constitutional duty) - as to removal or non-removal of a sitting US President - which isn't a decision that should be taken lightly.
So their potential testimony is so pivotal that the dems in congress didnt bother to go to court to compel their testimony? We have a call transcript and no one to this point has credibly alleged that the Ukrainians were even aware of the hold on aid before a story broke in the media on august 29th. All the ukrainian counterparts say nothing happened meanwhile the bidens look guilty as sin. What more do u need.
This wouldn't have made it to an indictment in a court of law. There is no evidence the president did anything wrong. There's innuendo by people who hate his guts.
Attorney client privilege is no more an admission of guilt than executive privilege. Meanwhile, you can draw a negative inference from the fact that biden lied repeatedly about both his knowledge of and status of investigations into his son by ukrainian authorities.
(01-21-2020, 05:41 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (01-21-2020, 01:34 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]Do you think that's at the crux of McConnell's proposed resolution?
I'm curious as to why there seems to be any opposition to witness testimony in the Senate trial.
In simple terms this is the way that I look at it.
The Senate is not investigating anything. They are more-or-less the "jury" in the whole process based on the articles presented to them by The House.
The whole basis to begin the process in The House was supposedly "bribery" proven by a "whistle-blower" regarding a phone call. Neither the Republican side nor the White House Administration was given a fair opportunity to call witnesses up to and including the "whistle-blower". Much of the testimony in The House process was pretty much hearsay and second hand information. "Abuse of Power" and "Obstruction of Congress" are not High Crimes or Misdemeanors. The Articles are basically all the democrats had.
It's pretty clear that this is nothing more than a partisan ploy to try to take down Trump and at the same time let the DNC give their chosen one (Biden) the ability to campaign so close to the Iowa Caucus so that many of his challengers would be held up in The Senate proceedings (hence the delay by Pelosi in handing the articles to The Senate).
The Senate's job at this point is to make a determination based on the articles presented to them with the evidence (or lack thereof) that The House had for voting on and passing the articles.
The bottom line is, it's all "politics" in Washington the swamp.
As I said, this is pretty much the way that I view it in very simple terms. I do think that there are many that see it the same way.
The Senate is more like a jury than anything else, but they are not exactly like a jury. In the procedures McConnell is passing, the Senators will be able to ask questions of the prosecutor's and defense attorneys (via justice Roberts) after opening arguments. That's not at all like a jury.
If the Senate votes to hear from witnesses, the House managers and the President's lawyers will question the witnesses, not the Senators.
(01-21-2020, 05:58 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-21-2020, 05:30 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]Like I said, I'm not against deposing the WB, but I'm not gung-ho either.
However, I'd argue against the bolded point you made above: my perspective, given everything that's come out over the past few months and that the gun continues to smoke, is that the whistleblower was the catalyst of what this case is about, not the foundation. That's why I'm in favor of witness testimony. I want as much information as I can get from everyone who had any kind of relation to the goings on with Ukraine - not just the call. Blocking testimony from those individuals is, in my opinion, positively correlated with the increasing number of people that feel the president was rightfully impeached and should be removed. It doesn't scream "I'm innocent!" I'm thinking of Trump's reputation with the majority of voters (not just his base) and how that'll shake out come election time.
If I'm a US Senator (republican or democrat), that's what I would need and demand to make a fair and impartial judgement (a la upholding my constitutional duty) - as to removal or non-removal of a sitting US President - which isn't a decision that should be taken lightly.
So their potential testimony is so pivotal that the dems in congress didnt bother to go to court to compel their testimony? We have a call transcript and no one to this point has credibly alleged that the Ukrainians were even aware of the hold on aid before a story broke in the media on august 29th. All the ukrainian counterparts say nothing happened meanwhile the bidens look guilty as sin. What more do u need.
This wouldn't have made it to an indictment in a court of law. There is no evidence the president did anything wrong. There's innuendo by people who hate his guts.
Attorney client privilege is no more an admission of guilt than executive privilege. Meanwhile, you can draw a negative inference from the fact that biden lied repeatedly about both his knowledge of and status of investigations into his son by ukrainian authorities.
JJ, I know you're itching to use the time turner reference, so I applaud your discipline and restraint.
WH lawyers were in court fighting against congressional subpoenas, FYI.
I'd argue that the Ukrainians not knowing aid was officially held up by OMB is a moot point - one that has zero bearing on whether or not the president used his office to solicit foreign aid in US domestic election processes. I'd also argue that a case for bribery would be much more conceivable if they did know. But, as you point out, all we have is the transcript and nothing credible saying one way or the other.
FWIW, I've heard law professors say you can indict a sandwich if you have enough circumstantial evidence.
FWIWWWWWW - I don't care for Biden. I do care for witness testimony (re: bolded question)
(01-21-2020, 05:58 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-21-2020, 05:30 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]Like I said, I'm not against deposing the WB, but I'm not gung-ho either.
However, I'd argue against the bolded point you made above: my perspective, given everything that's come out over the past few months and that the gun continues to smoke, is that the whistleblower was the catalyst of what this case is about, not the foundation. That's why I'm in favor of witness testimony. I want as much information as I can get from everyone who had any kind of relation to the goings on with Ukraine - not just the call. Blocking testimony from those individuals is, in my opinion, positively correlated with the increasing number of people that feel the president was rightfully impeached and should be removed. It doesn't scream "I'm innocent!" I'm thinking of Trump's reputation with the majority of voters (not just his base) and how that'll shake out come election time.
If I'm a US Senator (republican or democrat), that's what I would need and demand to make a fair and impartial judgement (a la upholding my constitutional duty) - as to removal or non-removal of a sitting US President - which isn't a decision that should be taken lightly.
So their potential testimony is so pivotal that the dems in congress didnt bother to go to court to compel their testimony? We have a call transcript and no one to this point has credibly alleged that the Ukrainians were even aware of the hold on aid before a story broke in the media on august 29th. All the ukrainian counterparts say nothing happened meanwhile the bidens look guilty as sin. What more do u need.
This wouldn't have made it to an indictment in a court of law. There is no evidence the president did anything wrong. There's innuendo by people who hate his guts.
Attorney client privilege is no more an admission of guilt than executive privilege. Meanwhile, you can draw a negative inference from the fact that biden lied repeatedly about both his knowledge of and status of investigations into his son by ukrainian authorities.
Even if they went to court to compel the testimony, and won after a reasonable amount of time, and got the testimony, there's no guarantee that the Senate would admit the testimony that they thought the testimony was politically inconvenient.
(01-21-2020, 06:09 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (01-21-2020, 05:58 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]So their potential testimony is so pivotal that the dems in congress didnt bother to go to court to compel their testimony? We have a call transcript and no one to this point has credibly alleged that the Ukrainians were even aware of the hold on aid before a story broke in the media on august 29th. All the ukrainian counterparts say nothing happened meanwhile the bidens look guilty as sin. What more do u need.
This wouldn't have made it to an indictment in a court of law. There is no evidence the president did anything wrong. There's innuendo by people who hate his guts.
Attorney client privilege is no more an admission of guilt than executive privilege. Meanwhile, you can draw a negative inference from the fact that biden lied repeatedly about both his knowledge of and status of investigations into his son by ukrainian authorities.
JJ, I know you're itching to use the time turner reference, so I applaud your discipline and restraint.
WH lawyers were in court fighting against congressional subpoenas, FYI.
I'd argue that the Ukrainians not knowing aid was officially held up by OMB is a moot point - one that has zero bearing on whether or not the president used his office to solicit foreign aid in US domestic election processes. I'd also argue that a case for bribery would be much more conceivable if they did know. But, as you point out, all we have is the transcript and nothing credible saying one way or the other.
FWIW, I've heard law professors say you can indict a sandwich if you have enough circumstantial evidence.
FWIWWWWWW - I don't care for Biden. I do care for witness testimony (re: bolded question)
The statement of the ukrainian president.... did the law professors explain what exculpatory means?
(01-21-2020, 07:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-21-2020, 05:58 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]So their potential testimony is so pivotal that the dems in congress didnt bother to go to court to compel their testimony? We have a call transcript and no one to this point has credibly alleged that the Ukrainians were even aware of the hold on aid before a story broke in the media on august 29th. All the ukrainian counterparts say nothing happened meanwhile the bidens look guilty as sin. What more do u need.
This wouldn't have made it to an indictment in a court of law. There is no evidence the president did anything wrong. There's innuendo by people who hate his guts.
Attorney client privilege is no more an admission of guilt than executive privilege. Meanwhile, you can draw a negative inference from the fact that biden lied repeatedly about both his knowledge of and status of investigations into his son by ukrainian authorities.
Even if they went to court to compel the testimony, and won after a reasonable amount of time, and got the testimony, there's no guarantee that the Senate would admit the testimony that they thought the testimony was politically inconvenient.
Who are the ultimate arbiters in a democratic republic?
It's embarrassingly obvious this thing is DOA.
You have to be completely disconnected with reality to think this ends in anything different than a resounding acquittal.
(01-21-2020, 05:54 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (01-21-2020, 05:46 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the "whistle-blower" confirmed to have been reporting second hand information? If I recall correctly, the "whistle-blower" wasn't even in on the call.
I believe you're correct, but Volker (who was on the call) confirmed everything in the whistleblower doc...prior to being slandered in the media.
No he didnt.
The transcript of the call itself negates the major claims of the whistleblower.
Please cite the parts of volkers testimony that override the factual evidence that defense aid was never mentioned on the phone call ( not 8 times).
(01-21-2020, 07:02 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-21-2020, 06:09 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]JJ, I know you're itching to use the time turner reference, so I applaud your discipline and restraint.
WH lawyers were in court fighting against congressional subpoenas, FYI.
I'd argue that the Ukrainians not knowing aid was officially held up by OMB is a moot point - one that has zero bearing on whether or not the president used his office to solicit foreign aid in US domestic election processes. I'd also argue that a case for bribery would be much more conceivable if they did know. But, as you point out, all we have is the transcript and nothing credible saying one way or the other.
FWIW, I've heard law professors say you can indict a sandwich if you have enough circumstantial evidence.
FWIWWWWWW - I don't care for Biden. I do care for witness testimony (re: bolded question)
The statement of the ukrainian president.... did the law professors explain what exculpatory means?
(01-21-2020, 07:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Even if they went to court to compel the testimony, and won after a reasonable amount of time, and got the testimony, there's no guarantee that the Senate would admit the testimony that they thought the testimony was politically inconvenient.
Who are the ultimate arbiters in a democratic republic?
Voters, but districts are gerrymandered and the deck is stacked against third parties and for incumbents.
(01-21-2020, 07:07 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-21-2020, 05:54 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]I believe you're correct, but Volker (who was on the call) confirmed everything in the whistleblower doc...prior to being slandered in the media.
No he didnt.
The transcript of the call itself negates the major claims of the whistleblower.
Please cite the parts of volkers testimony that override the factual evidence that defense aid was never mentioned on the phone call ( not 8 times).
Lol. You miss the obvious so easily.
(01-21-2020, 05:46 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the "whistle-blower" confirmed to have been reporting second hand information? If I recall correctly, the "whistle-blower" wasn't even in on the call.
I'm pretty sure it was an illegal wiretap and the whole whistleblower narrative is false.
(01-21-2020, 09:09 PM)Byron LeftTownTjagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (01-21-2020, 05:46 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the "whistle-blower" confirmed to have been reporting second hand information? If I recall correctly, the "whistle-blower" wasn't even in on the call.
I'm pretty sure it was an illegal wiretap and the whole whistleblower narrative is false.
Burisma was paying graft dollars to the son of the leading candidate of the Democrat party, thus making Joe susceptible to bribery if he were elected - a legitimate interest of Trump. Someone cooked up the whistleblower angle to redirect attention away from that. It's working, for now. Or until the election makes it irrelevant.