Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The obvious has been officially confirmed ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    ... is so that if any of the witnesses need to discuss sensitive or classified information to answer the questions, that information can be protected.
    And, since Schiff likes to compare this to a "Grand Jury" hearing - he needs to keep his big mouth shut about what's going on behind closed doors.

    I'm sure you'd agree that a judge or prosecutor in a Grand Jury hearing shouldn't be running to the cameras "updating the public" on what's going on in secret, right Jim?
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      And, since Schiff likes to compare this to a "Grand Jury" hearing - he needs to keep his big mouth shut about what's going on behind closed doors.

      I'm sure you'd agree that a judge or prosecutor in a Grand Jury hearing shouldn't be running to the cameras "updating the public" on what's going on in secret, right Jim?
      I really don't know as it concerns that aspect of it CP. The public needs to be aware of what it going on. There are public statements that these people prepare and which are being released. So as long as what he is disclosing is not secret and fairly represents what it said, I don't see a problem with it. The lack of significant counter factual material from the republicans in the meetings to me says there isn't much to be added as a counter to what is being released.

      I think the reality is, Trump has been abusing his power in office. And it has caught up with him. And it's time to just face the fact he is very likely unfit for office and needs to be removed.


      Jim
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        I really don't know as it concerns that aspect of it CP. The public needs to be aware of what it going on.
        Then Schiff needs to stop trying to compare this to a Grand Jury process, Jim. He's not just a witness here - he's the prosecutor AND judge. He needs to stop running to the cameras every chance he gets.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          Then Schiff needs to stop trying to compare this to a Grand Jury process, Jim. He's not just a witness here - he's the prosecutor AND judge. He needs to stop running to the cameras every chance he gets.
          In what is Schiff "the judge"? He's chairman of a committee but everyone gets to vote.

          --Sam
          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam View Post
            In what is Schiff "the judge"? He's chairman of a committee but everyone gets to vote.

            --Sam
            He's running the show, Sam - it is NOT similar to a Grand Jury, which he keeps claiming.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              He's running the show, Sam - it is NOT similar to a Grand Jury, which he keeps claiming.
              Adam Schiff’s ‘Grand Jury’

              Mr. Schiff was challenged on his secrecy on Sunday by Margaret Brennan of CBS’s “Face the Nation,” and the Democrat’s response was extraordinary. “There’s a reason why investigations and grand jury proceedings for example, and I think this is analogous to a grand jury proceeding, are done out of the public view initially,” Mr. Schiff said. “Now we may very well call some of the same witnesses or all the same witnesses in public hearings as well. But we want to make sure that we meet the needs of the investigation and not give the President or his legal minions the opportunity to tailor their testimony and in some cases fabricate testimony to suit their interests.”

              A grand jury? As Mr. Schiff knows, a grand jury is a criminal proceeding. Impeachment is a political process in which the House defines the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Mr. Schiff wants it both ways: Run his secret hearings like a criminal grand jury, but then impeach Mr. Trump of political offenses even if the President committed no crime.

              And he wants to keep it all secret so Mr. Trump and his “legal minions”—i.e., his lawyers and the House minority—don’t have access to the evidence he will use against the President. Oh, and he says contrary evidence will be fabricated—an accusation of a crime in advance but with no evidence. With his every statement and action, Mr. Schiff is making Mr. Trump’s case that this impeachment is a rigged game.


              It's a political process, not a criminal or legal one, and Schiff knows that quite well.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • WSJ's opinion page has gotten dumber of late but the Editorial board knows full well that Trump's lawyers will have access to House impeachment documents if and when he's impeached, just as it knows that House minority members in the relevant committees have access to all transcripts and documents right now.

                They're just banking on enough readers being dumb or willing to forget themselves for a bit of convenient talking points.

                --Sam

                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Adam Schiff’s ‘Grand Jury’

                Mr. Schiff was challenged on his secrecy on Sunday by Margaret Brennan of CBS’s “Face the Nation,” and the Democrat’s response was extraordinary. “There’s a reason why investigations and grand jury proceedings for example, and I think this is analogous to a grand jury proceeding, are done out of the public view initially,” Mr. Schiff said. “Now we may very well call some of the same witnesses or all the same witnesses in public hearings as well. But we want to make sure that we meet the needs of the investigation and not give the President or his legal minions the opportunity to tailor their testimony and in some cases fabricate testimony to suit their interests.”

                A grand jury? As Mr. Schiff knows, a grand jury is a criminal proceeding. Impeachment is a political process in which the House defines the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Mr. Schiff wants it both ways: Run his secret hearings like a criminal grand jury, but then impeach Mr. Trump of political offenses even if the President committed no crime.

                And he wants to keep it all secret so Mr. Trump and his “legal minions”—i.e., his lawyers and the House minority—don’t have access to the evidence he will use against the President. Oh, and he says contrary evidence will be fabricated—an accusation of a crime in advance but with no evidence. With his every statement and action, Mr. Schiff is making Mr. Trump’s case that this impeachment is a rigged game.


                It's a political process, not a criminal or legal one, and Schiff knows that quite well.
                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                  WSJ's opinion page has gotten dumber of late but the Editorial board knows full well that Trump's lawyers will have access to House impeachment documents if and when he's impeached, just as it knows that House minority members in the relevant committees have access to all transcripts and documents right now.

                  They're just banking on enough readers being dumb or willing to forget themselves for a bit of convenient talking points.

                  --Sam
                  So, until then, Schiff should just keep his big camera-hungry incredibly partisan gossipy mouth shut in public, and stop lying about it being like a Grand Jury situation.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Sondland says that Taylor's testimony is full of cow patties.

                    To begin with, [Taylor's testimony] contradicts Sondland’s earlier testimony in Schiff’s secret Star Chamber, and on Thursday, Sondland again reiterated that none of this happened.

                    Through his attorney, among other things, Sondland told the far-left Washington Post he “did not recall conversations recounted by Taylor in his House deposition.” That includes Taylor’s claim that Sondland told Yermak there would be no assistance without a Biden probe or Taylor’s fourth-hand claim that — see if you can follow this — Morrison told Taylor that Sondland told Morrison that Trump told Sondland there would be no aid without Zelensky announcing a Biden investigation.

                    So now we have entered the land of he said/he said; we have entered an ethereal world that has NOTHING to do with the July 25 phone call, has nothing to do with the transcript of an actual phone call or the word of the Ukrainian president, who has now said twice he was never pressured to investigate the Bidens.

                    Schiff’s Star Chamber of Selective Leaks now resides in a land where we only have disputed conversations with no transcripts, with no evidence to back them up.

                    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ever-happened/

                    A little transparency would sure be nice.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • In legalspeak, "I do not recall" ≠ "That didn't happen".



                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      Sondland says that Taylor's testimony is full of cow patties.

                      To begin with, [Taylor's testimony] contradicts Sondland’s earlier testimony in Schiff’s secret Star Chamber, and on Thursday, Sondland again reiterated that none of this happened.

                      Through his attorney, among other things, Sondland told the far-left Washington Post he “did not recall conversations recounted by Taylor in his House deposition.” That includes Taylor’s claim that Sondland told Yermak there would be no assistance without a Biden probe or Taylor’s fourth-hand claim that — see if you can follow this — Morrison told Taylor that Sondland told Morrison that Trump told Sondland there would be no aid without Zelensky announcing a Biden investigation.

                      So now we have entered the land of he said/he said; we have entered an ethereal world that has NOTHING to do with the July 25 phone call, has nothing to do with the transcript of an actual phone call or the word of the Ukrainian president, who has now said twice he was never pressured to investigate the Bidens.

                      Schiff’s Star Chamber of Selective Leaks now resides in a land where we only have disputed conversations with no transcripts, with no evidence to back them up.

                      https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ever-happened/

                      A little transparency would sure be nice.
                      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        In legalspeak, "I do not recall" ≠ "That didn't happen".
                        Great memories!

                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          Sondland says that Taylor's testimony is full of cow patties.

                          To begin with, [Taylor's testimony] contradicts Sondland’s earlier testimony in Schiff’s secret Star Chamber, and on Thursday, Sondland again reiterated that none of this happened.

                          Through his attorney, among other things, Sondland told the far-left Washington Post he “did not recall conversations recounted by Taylor in his House deposition.” That includes Taylor’s claim that Sondland told Yermak there would be no assistance without a Biden probe or Taylor’s fourth-hand claim that — see if you can follow this — Morrison told Taylor that Sondland told Morrison that Trump told Sondland there would be no aid without Zelensky announcing a Biden investigation.

                          So now we have entered the land of he said/he said; we have entered an ethereal world that has NOTHING to do with the July 25 phone call, has nothing to do with the transcript of an actual phone call or the word of the Ukrainian president, who has now said twice he was never pressured to investigate the Bidens.

                          Schiff’s Star Chamber of Selective Leaks now resides in a land where we only have disputed conversations with no transcripts, with no evidence to back them up.

                          https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ever-happened/

                          A little transparency would sure be nice.
                          That would be expected. Taylor is the consummate professional that works and acts according to Principle. Sondland is a Trump crony - which means he acts according to what he believes will make Donald Trump happy while getting himself in the least amount of trouble possible. I would trust Taylor over Sondland any day of the week. BUT, there has to be objective evidence that one is lying and the other telling the truth before clear action can be taken.


                          Jim
                          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            In legalspeak, "I do not recall" ≠ "That didn't happen".
                            In legal speak, unless there is proof that it happened, then it didn't happen.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              BUT, there has to be objective evidence that one is lying and the other telling the truth before clear action can be taken.
                              Bingo.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                In legal speak, unless there is proof that it happened, then it didn't happen.
                                Your contention is that Sondland's "I do not recall that" is calling Taylor's testimony false. Were that the case, one would expect Sondland -- facing a pretty large criminal exposure -- to respond more definitively that Taylor's account is untrue.

                                Sondland appears to be in the position of hoping that his written correspondences and several other witnesses also facing legal exposure line up just right.

                                His publicly known text messages to date do not inspire confidence in his discretion.

                                --Sam
                                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 05:11 PM
                                1 response
                                24 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:25 AM
                                32 responses
                                234 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post oxmixmudd  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 01:48 PM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 03-17-2024, 11:56 AM
                                52 responses
                                319 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-16-2024, 07:40 AM
                                77 responses
                                388 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X