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

Poll: Any more impeachment suprises coming?

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    I am talking about the HOUSE proceedings.

    If you did you would have seen Nadler constantly shutting down Republicans when they were asking questions of witnesses, and you would know that Nadler also disallowed the witnesses that the Republicans wanted to call, like the Whistleblower, Hunter and Joe Biden, etc. They made sure the impeachment proceedings were as one sided as they possibly could. But now that it is in the Senate, they are whining how unfair the Senate is to do the very same thing they did.
    Well if you saw it you would have noticed that Nadler only heard from constitutional lawyers and that 1 of the 4 was a republican witness. Republicans had the same time to ask questions and they were credited extra time when Nadler had to interrupt to settle everyone down. I’m pretty sure it’s possible to be more
    one sided than it was. Much more.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      And the great majority that watched disagree with you and want to see witnesses and documentary evidence in the trial. A grand Jury, which is what a House impeachment actually is doesn't need to prove guilt, doesn't need all the evidence, they merely have to decide if there is enough evidence to indict, or take it to trial. To deny any new evidence without cause at trial is obstruction of Justice. I would ask why it is that you people don't want to see it? But we already know the answer to that, don't we?
      Impeachment isn't actually a Grand Jury, Jimmy. It may be somewhat analogous in some ways, but it isn't. It has to prove guilt based on evidence. Otherwise Presidents would just be impeached left and right because congress didn't like what they did. Once they have concluded the President is guilty then they have to convince the Senate at the trial. If both houses agree, the President is removed. They do need to have all the evidence before going to the Senate trial. Just like in any other trial. The prosecutor can't just use the trial as the investigation. Can you imagine a criminal trial where the prosecutor says, "Well we don't have any real evidence...YET, but we expect to find some during the trial" - the case would be tossed out.

      Comment


      • #48
        I don't think this counts as a surprise but Trump just confessed again to obstructing Congress. Expect to see this clip or his words show up as evidence.

        https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/st...81403120644103


        "Honestly, we have all the material. They don't have the material."

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          Impeachment isn't actually a Grand Jury, Jimmy. It may be somewhat analogous in some ways, but it isn't. It has to prove guilt based on evidence. Otherwise Presidents would just be impeached left and right because congress didn't like what they did. Once they have concluded the President is guilty then they have to convince the Senate at the trial. If both houses agree, the President is removed. They do need to have all the evidence before going to the Senate trial. Just like in any other trial. The prosecutor can't just use the trial as the investigation. Can you imagine a criminal trial where the prosecutor says, "Well we don't have any real evidence...YET, but we expect to find some during the trial" - the case would be tossed out.
          Wrong, it's a perfect analogy. Not only that, but the reason there were few witnesses on the republican side was because the president chose to block them from testifying. You would think, if he was innocent that is, that the president would want to submit documentary evidence and direct witnesses to testify. But those are his witnesses, and the documentary evidence of his innocence are in his possession, and it was himself who blocked it. That should tell you something, and I'm sure that it does.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
            Well if you saw it you would have noticed that Nadler only heard from constitutional lawyers and that 1 of the 4 was a republican witness. Republicans had the same time to ask questions and they were credited extra time when Nadler had to interrupt to settle everyone down. I’m pretty sure it’s possible to be more
            one sided than it was. Much more.
            Yeah they were only allowed ONE to the Democrats THREE. And these were not even really witnesses. They just gave their legal opinions. No evidence. And when the republicans were questioning the experts, they kept being interrupted, told that they were out of order, and shut down over and over. And the Republicans had a witness list they submitted to Nadler. I think only two were allowed.

            Here is the witness list letter Nunes wrote to Nadler:
            ---
            The Honorable Adam Schiff
            Chairman
            November 9, 2019
            Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
            U.S. House of Representatives
            Washington, DC 20515
            Dear Chairman Schiff:
            In March 2019, prior to unilaterally initiating an "impeachment inquiry" in the House of
            Representatives, Speaker Pelosi said that "impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless
            there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go
            down that path because it divides the country."1 Today, eight months after Speaker Pelosi's
            statement, there is bipartisan opposition in the House of Representatives to pursuing
            impeachment.2 Undeterred, Speaker Pelosi and you now plan to move your one-sided and purely
            political "impeachment inquiry" from behind closed doors to open hearings next week.
            Speaker Pelosi promised the "impeachment inquiry" would "treat the President with
            faimess."3 You have failed to honor the Speaker's promise. During the Committee's last open
            hearing, you fabricated evidence out of thin air to portray President Trump's telephone
            conversation with President Zelensky in a sinister light.4 During your closed-door proceedings,
            you offered no due process protections for the President. You directed witnesses called by the
            Democrats not to answer Republican questions. You withheld deposition transcripts from
            Republican Members. You selectively leaked cherry-picked information to paint misleading
            public narratives about the facts. You misled the American people about your interactions with
            the anonymous whistleblower, earning you " Four Pinocchios" from the Washington Post.5 Your
            actions have greatly damaged the integrity of the Intelligence Committee and any legitimacy of
            your "impeachment inquiry."
            Americans see through this sham impeachment process, despite the Democrats' efforts to
            retroactively legitimize it last week. The resolution that Democrats passed last week- over
            bipartisan opposition- limits the rights of minority Members beyond those prescribed in the
            House Rules and prevents minority Members from fully and fairly participating in the
            proceedings. While in traditional hearings the minority is permitted the ability to call a witness,
            the resolution only allows minority Members to suggest a witness list and requires them to
            provide "a detailed written justification of the· relevance of the testimony of each requested
            witness. "6 The minority Members must identify all potential witnesses we wish to call before
            knowing the number, topics, or scope of hearings you intend to convene.7 The Democrats'
            impeachment process against President Trump is a drastic departure from bipartisan precedent
            for presidential impeachment proceedings.
            To provide transparency to your otherwise opaque and unfair process, and after
            consultation with Ranking Member Jim Jordan and Ranking Member Michael McCaul, the
            American people deserve to hear from the following witnesses in an open setting:

            1. Devon Archer, former board member of Burisma Holdings. Multiple Democrat
            witnesses in closed-door testimony explained that Ukrainian energy company Burisma
            has a reputation in Ukraine for corruption. Mr. Archer is Hunter Biden's long-term
            business partner and served as a board member of Burisma Holdings with Mr. Biden.
            Mr. Archer's firsthand experiences with Burisma can assist the American public in
            understanding the nature and extent of Ukraine's pervasive corruption, information that
            bears directly on President Trump's longstanding and deeply-held skepticism of the
            country.

            2. Hunter Biden, former board member of Burisma Holdings. As stated previously,
            Burisma has a reputation in Ukraine for corruption. According to public reporting,
            Burisma recruited Mr. Biden to its board to improve its public image at a time when Mr.
            Biden's father, Vice President Joe Biden, was the Obama Administration's point person
            for Ukraine policy. 8 Mr. Biden reportedly received $50,000 a month for his presence on
            Burisma's board.9 Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent testified that he raised
            concerns in 2015 to Vice President Biden's office about the appearance of a conflict of
            interest stemming from Mr. Biden's position on Burisma's board. Ambassador Marie
            Y ovanovitch testified that the Obama State Department prepared her to address Mr.
            Bi den's position on Burisma during her confirmation hearing to be ambassador to
            Ukraine. As with Mr. Archer, Mr. Biden's firsthand experiences with Burisma can assist
            the American public in understanding the nature and extent of Ukraine's pervasive
            corruption, information that bears directly on President Trump's longstanding and
            deeply-held skepticism of the country.

            3. Alexandra Chalupa, former Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer. During
            the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Alexandra Chalupa, a former DNC staffer and
            contractor, worked with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, D.C. to try and get
            political dirt on then-candidate Trump's campaign.10 She has admitted to providing anti-
            Trump dirt to the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, and to discussing such dirt with
            then-Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States Valeriy Chaly. Given President
            Trump's documented belief that the Ukrainian government meddled in the 2016 election
            to oppose his candidacy, which forms the basis for a reasonable desire for Ukraine to
            investigate the circumstances surrounding the election and any potential Ukrainian
            involvement, Ms. Chalupa is a prime fact witness who can assist Congress and the
            American public in better understanding the facts and circumstances surrounding
            Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election.

            4. David Hale, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. The three committees
            interviewed Under Secretary Hale on November 6, 2019. Under Secretary Hale has
            direct knowledge of U.S. government policy with respect to foreign assistance and
            foreign assistance review, which is critical to informing the American public's
            understanding of President Trump's posture on such matters. Given Under Secretary
            Hale's firsthand knowledge of events preceding and surrounding Ambassador
            Yovanovitch's recall from Ukraine, as well as Under Secretary Hale's communications
            with Ambassador Taylor regarding Ukraine matters, the American people deserve to hear
            from Under Secretary Hale.

            5. Tim Morrison, former Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs on the
            National Security Council (NSC), to testify on the same panel as Lt. Col. Alexander
            Vindman, assuming you request Lt. Col. Vindman to testify. The three committees
            conducted a deposition of Mr. Morrison on October 31, 2019. You have yet to release
            Mr. Morrison's transcript; however, Mr. Morrison was one of the few witnesses who
            listened on the President's July 25 phone call and subsequently dealt with matters on the
            NSC related to U.S. military assistance to Ukraine. If you intend to call Lt. Col.
            Alexander Vindman, who worked for Mr. Morrison, to publicly testify, the minority
            requests Mr. Morrison sit on the same panel as Mr. Vindrnan.

            6. Nellie Ohr, former contractor for opposition research firm Fusion GPS. In a 2018
            interview with the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees, Ms. Ohr stated that,
            during her work with Fusion GPS that ultimately assisted in the production of the Steele
            Dossier-comprising false allegations against then-candidate Trump--Fusion GPS used
            information from sources in Ukraine, including Serhiy Leshchenko who recently lost his
            post from the Ukrainian parliament. 11 Given President Trump's documented belief that
            the Ukrainian government meddled in the 2016 election to oppose his candidacy, which
            forms the basis for a reasonable desire for Ukraine to investigate the circumstances
            surrounding the election and any potential Ukrainian involvement, Ms. Ohr is a prime
            fact witness who can assist Congress and the American public in better understanding the
            facts and circumstances surrounding Ukrainian involvement in the 20 I 6 election.

            7. Ambassador Kurt Volker, former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine
            Negotiations, to testify on the same panel as Ambassador William Taylor and
            Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent on Wednesday, November 13,
            2019. The three committees conducted a transcribed interview of Ambassador Volker on
            October 2, 2019 and you subsequently released the transcript of the interview on
            November 5, 2019. Given Ambassador Volker's role as a primary interlocutor and
            trusted confidant of the Ukrainian government, as well as his firsthand knowledge of the
            circumstances surrounding Ukraine, to include discussions with Mayor Rudy Giuliani,
            Ambassador Gordon Sondland, Ambassador William Taylor, and others, the American
            people deserve to hear from Ambassador Volker in public on the same panel as
            Ambassador Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kent.

            8. The anonymous whistleblower whose secondhand complaint initiated the
            Democrats' "impeachment inquiry." Because President Trump should be afforded an
            opportunity to confront his accusers, the anonymous whistleblower should testify. In
            addition, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community reported that the
            whistleblower had a bias against President Trump and public reports indicate that the
            whistleblower worked closely with Vice President Biden. 12 Moreover, given the multiple
            discrepancies between the whistleblower' s complaint and the closed-door testimony of
            the witnesses, it is imperative that the American people hear definitively how the
            whistleblower developed his or her information, and who else the whistleblower may
            have fed the information he or she had gathered and how that treatment of classified
            information may have led to the false narrative being perpetrated by the Democrats
            during this process.

            9. All individuals relied upon by the anonymous whistleblower in drafting his or her
            secondhand complaint. In the whistleblower's complaint, the whistleblower suggests
            that he or she received accounts of President Trump's July 25 phone call with President
            Zelensky and associated information from "more than half a dozen" sources. 13 These
            sources provided information that does not match the closed-door testimony from
            witnesses, particularly as it relates to whether the President actually conditioned a faceto-
            face visit or U.S. military assistance on opening an investigation into the President's
            political rivals. The whistleblower's complaint alleged that most, if not all, of these
            individuals had firsthand information related to the whistleblower' s claims, making their
            testimony particularly relevant to the American people.

            We expect that you will call each of the witnesses listed above to ensure that the
            Democrats' "impeachment inquiry" treats the President with fairness, as promised by Speaker
            Pelosi. Because the Democrats' resolution unfairly restricts Minority rights and because you
            have provided no information about which witnesses you may invite to testify at future hearings
            not yet scheduled, we reserve our right to request additional witnesses, if necessary, as you
            announce additional hearings. Your failure to fulfill Minority witness requests shall constitute
            evidence of your denial of fundamental fairness and due process.

            PDF: https://www.scribd.com/document/4341...hment-hearings

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              Wrong, it's a perfect analogy. Not only that, but the reason there were few witnesses on the republican side was because the president chose to block them from testifying. You would think, if he was innocent that is, that the president would want to submit documentary evidence and direct witnesses to testify. But those are his witnesses, and the documentary evidence of his innocence are in his possession, and it was himself who blocked it. That should tell you something, and I'm sure that it does.
              No jim, it's not like a Grand Jury. A Grand Jury presents evidence gathered by police AFTER their investigation to a group of people to see if it is sufficient to go to trial. The impeachment includes the evidence gathering and investigation, where in a Grand Jury it is already there. Also in a Grand Jury you have 6 people who are totally ignorant of the case. In an impeachment you are trying to convince two parties consisting of hundreds of people who already know about the case.

              As far as the President cooperating with the sham, why should he? He already knew that it was a kangaroo court because the democrats have been screaming "Impeach Trump" since say one of his Presidency. Why would he believe they would give him a fair hearing? Why cooperate with a rogue congress?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                As far as the President cooperating with the sham, why should he? He already knew that it was a kangaroo court because the democrats have been screaming "Impeach Trump" since say one of his Presidency. Why would he believe they would give him a fair hearing? Why cooperate with a rogue congress?
                Clinton cooperated.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
                  Clinton cooperated.
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    Am I mistaken in that regard? How so?

                    Even Nixon can be said to have cooperated when compared to Trump's behavior.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
                      Am I mistaken in that regard? How so?

                      Even Nixon can be said to have cooperated when compared to Trump's behavior.
                      Congress: "We'd like to see these documents."
                      Clintons: "What documents?"
                      <judicial arm-twisting follows>
                      Clintons: "Oh, look what we found on our coffee table!"
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        Yeah they were only allowed ONE to the Democrats THREE. And these were not even really witnesses. They just gave their legal opinions. No evidence. And when the republicans were questioning the experts, they kept being interrupted, told that they were out of order, and shut down over and over. And the Republicans had a witness list they submitted to Nadler. I think only two were allowed.

                        Here is the witness list letter Nunes wrote to Nadler:
                        ---
                        The Honorable Adam Schiff
                        Chairman
                        November 9, 2019
                        Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
                        U.S. House of Representatives
                        Washington, DC 20515
                        Dear Chairman Schiff:
                        In March 2019, prior to unilaterally initiating an "impeachment inquiry" in the House of
                        Representatives, Speaker Pelosi said that "impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless
                        there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go
                        down that path because it divides the country."1 Today, eight months after Speaker Pelosi's
                        statement, there is bipartisan opposition in the House of Representatives to pursuing
                        impeachment.2 Undeterred, Speaker Pelosi and you now plan to move your one-sided and purely
                        political "impeachment inquiry" from behind closed doors to open hearings next week.
                        Speaker Pelosi promised the "impeachment inquiry" would "treat the President with
                        faimess."3 You have failed to honor the Speaker's promise. During the Committee's last open
                        hearing, you fabricated evidence out of thin air to portray President Trump's telephone
                        conversation with President Zelensky in a sinister light.4 During your closed-door proceedings,
                        you offered no due process protections for the President. You directed witnesses called by the
                        Democrats not to answer Republican questions. You withheld deposition transcripts from
                        Republican Members. You selectively leaked cherry-picked information to paint misleading
                        public narratives about the facts. You misled the American people about your interactions with
                        the anonymous whistleblower, earning you " Four Pinocchios" from the Washington Post.5 Your
                        actions have greatly damaged the integrity of the Intelligence Committee and any legitimacy of
                        your "impeachment inquiry."
                        Americans see through this sham impeachment process, despite the Democrats' efforts to
                        retroactively legitimize it last week. The resolution that Democrats passed last week- over
                        bipartisan opposition- limits the rights of minority Members beyond those prescribed in the
                        House Rules and prevents minority Members from fully and fairly participating in the
                        proceedings. While in traditional hearings the minority is permitted the ability to call a witness,
                        the resolution only allows minority Members to suggest a witness list and requires them to
                        provide "a detailed written justification of the· relevance of the testimony of each requested
                        witness. "6 The minority Members must identify all potential witnesses we wish to call before
                        knowing the number, topics, or scope of hearings you intend to convene.7 The Democrats'
                        impeachment process against President Trump is a drastic departure from bipartisan precedent
                        for presidential impeachment proceedings.
                        To provide transparency to your otherwise opaque and unfair process, and after
                        consultation with Ranking Member Jim Jordan and Ranking Member Michael McCaul, the
                        American people deserve to hear from the following witnesses in an open setting:

                        1. Devon Archer, former board member of Burisma Holdings. Multiple Democrat
                        witnesses in closed-door testimony explained that Ukrainian energy company Burisma
                        has a reputation in Ukraine for corruption. Mr. Archer is Hunter Biden's long-term
                        business partner and served as a board member of Burisma Holdings with Mr. Biden.
                        Mr. Archer's firsthand experiences with Burisma can assist the American public in
                        understanding the nature and extent of Ukraine's pervasive corruption, information that
                        bears directly on President Trump's longstanding and deeply-held skepticism of the
                        country.

                        2. Hunter Biden, former board member of Burisma Holdings. As stated previously,
                        Burisma has a reputation in Ukraine for corruption. According to public reporting,
                        Burisma recruited Mr. Biden to its board to improve its public image at a time when Mr.
                        Biden's father, Vice President Joe Biden, was the Obama Administration's point person
                        for Ukraine policy. 8 Mr. Biden reportedly received $50,000 a month for his presence on
                        Burisma's board.9 Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent testified that he raised
                        concerns in 2015 to Vice President Biden's office about the appearance of a conflict of
                        interest stemming from Mr. Biden's position on Burisma's board. Ambassador Marie
                        Y ovanovitch testified that the Obama State Department prepared her to address Mr.
                        Bi den's position on Burisma during her confirmation hearing to be ambassador to
                        Ukraine. As with Mr. Archer, Mr. Biden's firsthand experiences with Burisma can assist
                        the American public in understanding the nature and extent of Ukraine's pervasive
                        corruption, information that bears directly on President Trump's longstanding and
                        deeply-held skepticism of the country.

                        3. Alexandra Chalupa, former Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer. During
                        the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Alexandra Chalupa, a former DNC staffer and
                        contractor, worked with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, D.C. to try and get
                        political dirt on then-candidate Trump's campaign.10 She has admitted to providing anti-
                        Trump dirt to the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, and to discussing such dirt with
                        then-Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States Valeriy Chaly. Given President
                        Trump's documented belief that the Ukrainian government meddled in the 2016 election
                        to oppose his candidacy, which forms the basis for a reasonable desire for Ukraine to
                        investigate the circumstances surrounding the election and any potential Ukrainian
                        involvement, Ms. Chalupa is a prime fact witness who can assist Congress and the
                        American public in better understanding the facts and circumstances surrounding
                        Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election.

                        4. David Hale, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. The three committees
                        interviewed Under Secretary Hale on November 6, 2019. Under Secretary Hale has
                        direct knowledge of U.S. government policy with respect to foreign assistance and
                        foreign assistance review, which is critical to informing the American public's
                        understanding of President Trump's posture on such matters. Given Under Secretary
                        Hale's firsthand knowledge of events preceding and surrounding Ambassador
                        Yovanovitch's recall from Ukraine, as well as Under Secretary Hale's communications
                        with Ambassador Taylor regarding Ukraine matters, the American people deserve to hear
                        from Under Secretary Hale.

                        5. Tim Morrison, former Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs on the
                        National Security Council (NSC), to testify on the same panel as Lt. Col. Alexander
                        Vindman, assuming you request Lt. Col. Vindman to testify. The three committees
                        conducted a deposition of Mr. Morrison on October 31, 2019. You have yet to release
                        Mr. Morrison's transcript; however, Mr. Morrison was one of the few witnesses who
                        listened on the President's July 25 phone call and subsequently dealt with matters on the
                        NSC related to U.S. military assistance to Ukraine. If you intend to call Lt. Col.
                        Alexander Vindman, who worked for Mr. Morrison, to publicly testify, the minority
                        requests Mr. Morrison sit on the same panel as Mr. Vindrnan.

                        6. Nellie Ohr, former contractor for opposition research firm Fusion GPS. In a 2018
                        interview with the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees, Ms. Ohr stated that,
                        during her work with Fusion GPS that ultimately assisted in the production of the Steele
                        Dossier-comprising false allegations against then-candidate Trump--Fusion GPS used
                        information from sources in Ukraine, including Serhiy Leshchenko who recently lost his
                        post from the Ukrainian parliament. 11 Given President Trump's documented belief that
                        the Ukrainian government meddled in the 2016 election to oppose his candidacy, which
                        forms the basis for a reasonable desire for Ukraine to investigate the circumstances
                        surrounding the election and any potential Ukrainian involvement, Ms. Ohr is a prime
                        fact witness who can assist Congress and the American public in better understanding the
                        facts and circumstances surrounding Ukrainian involvement in the 20 I 6 election.

                        7. Ambassador Kurt Volker, former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine
                        Negotiations, to testify on the same panel as Ambassador William Taylor and
                        Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent on Wednesday, November 13,
                        2019. The three committees conducted a transcribed interview of Ambassador Volker on
                        October 2, 2019 and you subsequently released the transcript of the interview on
                        November 5, 2019. Given Ambassador Volker's role as a primary interlocutor and
                        trusted confidant of the Ukrainian government, as well as his firsthand knowledge of the
                        circumstances surrounding Ukraine, to include discussions with Mayor Rudy Giuliani,
                        Ambassador Gordon Sondland, Ambassador William Taylor, and others, the American
                        people deserve to hear from Ambassador Volker in public on the same panel as
                        Ambassador Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kent.

                        8. The anonymous whistleblower whose secondhand complaint initiated the
                        Democrats' "impeachment inquiry." Because President Trump should be afforded an
                        opportunity to confront his accusers, the anonymous whistleblower should testify. In
                        addition, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community reported that the
                        whistleblower had a bias against President Trump and public reports indicate that the
                        whistleblower worked closely with Vice President Biden. 12 Moreover, given the multiple
                        discrepancies between the whistleblower' s complaint and the closed-door testimony of
                        the witnesses, it is imperative that the American people hear definitively how the
                        whistleblower developed his or her information, and who else the whistleblower may
                        have fed the information he or she had gathered and how that treatment of classified
                        information may have led to the false narrative being perpetrated by the Democrats
                        during this process.

                        9. All individuals relied upon by the anonymous whistleblower in drafting his or her
                        secondhand complaint. In the whistleblower's complaint, the whistleblower suggests
                        that he or she received accounts of President Trump's July 25 phone call with President
                        Zelensky and associated information from "more than half a dozen" sources. 13 These
                        sources provided information that does not match the closed-door testimony from
                        witnesses, particularly as it relates to whether the President actually conditioned a faceto-
                        face visit or U.S. military assistance on opening an investigation into the President's
                        political rivals. The whistleblower's complaint alleged that most, if not all, of these
                        individuals had firsthand information related to the whistleblower' s claims, making their
                        testimony particularly relevant to the American people.

                        We expect that you will call each of the witnesses listed above to ensure that the
                        Democrats' "impeachment inquiry" treats the President with fairness, as promised by Speaker
                        Pelosi. Because the Democrats' resolution unfairly restricts Minority rights and because you
                        have provided no information about which witnesses you may invite to testify at future hearings
                        not yet scheduled, we reserve our right to request additional witnesses, if necessary, as you
                        announce additional hearings. Your failure to fulfill Minority witness requests shall constitute
                        evidence of your denial of fundamental fairness and due process.

                        PDF: https://www.scribd.com/document/4341...hment-hearings
                        They allowed the three relevant witnesses. The others on that list(except possibly the whistleblower since I don’t know much about the whistleblower process) aren’t relevant and any court would reject them.

                        Say that all of them happen to confirm what Trump suspected. That isn’t a defense. Any possible defense along these lines would have to be based solely on what Trump knew and therefore justified his actions. So what needs to be presented is the evidence that made trump suspicious because the defense would have to rely on whether his actions were reasonable given the circumstances.

                        It’s like if the police suspected Hunter was a drug dealer so they kick in his door with guns blazing and end up shooting and killing seven people in the house but Hunter isn’t there. At the officers murder trial Hunter isn’t a relevant witness. The officer would have to show strong cause that they had good reason to believe Hunter was a dangerous drug dealer and the action they took was reasonable given the circumstances.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          Congress: "We'd like to see these documents."
                          Clintons: "What documents?"
                          <judicial arm-twisting follows>
                          Clintons: "Oh, look what we found on our coffee table!"
                          I'm trying to find some source which breaks down what you're saying more clearly but haven't been able to so far. Not saying it's not true. Can you provide a source talking about Clinton's response to documents subpoenaed for his impeachment?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                            They allowed the three relevant witnesses. The others on that list(except possibly the whistleblower since I don’t know much about the whistleblower process) aren’t relevant and any court would reject them.

                            Say that all of them happen to confirm what Trump suspected. That isn’t a defense. Any possible defense along these lines would have to be based solely on what Trump knew and therefore justified his actions. So what needs to be presented is the evidence that made trump suspicious because the defense would have to rely on whether his actions were reasonable given the circumstances.

                            It’s like if the police suspected Hunter was a drug dealer so they kick in his door with guns blazing and end up shooting and killing seven people in the house but Hunter isn’t there. At the officers murder trial Hunter isn’t a relevant witness. The officer would have to show strong cause that they had good reason to believe Hunter was a dangerous drug dealer and the action they took was reasonable given the circumstances.
                            So who were the 3 witnesses they allowed? I know Volker was one.

                            Also, if the police could show that "Hunter" was a dangerous drug dealer and that their suspicions were indeed reasonable, then that would show their actions justified. So he would be a relevant witness.

                            But regardless, if the Republicans wanted to waste time with a non-relevant witness that should be up to them, not Nadler. The Dems called a lot of non-relevant witnesses who had NO direct knowledge of Trump's call or motivations.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              So who were the 3 witnesses they allowed? I know Volker was one.

                              Also, if the police could show that "Hunter" was a dangerous drug dealer and that their suspicions were indeed reasonable, then that would show their actions justified. So he would be a relevant witness.

                              But regardless, if the Republicans wanted to waste time with a non-relevant witness that should be up to them, not Nadler. The Dems called a lot of non-relevant witnesses who had NO direct knowledge of Trump's call or motivations.
                              Tim Morrison and David Hale.

                              If new evidence is required to validate the actions then it means the justification for those actions were insufficient. The police can’t go around kicking down doors with guns blazing just on a hunch that the bad guy inside might be dangerous.

                              Considering that we know Trump had asked Zelensky to investigate Burisma and 2016 on several occasions, even publicly stating that on tv, the fact that they didn’t start investigating shows how baseless those claims were considering how quickly investigations into the surveillance of the US ambassador started.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                                Tim Morrison and David Hale.

                                If new evidence is required to validate the actions then it means the justification for those actions were insufficient.
                                New evidence yes, but confirmation of evidence they already have, no. For instance they could question him about his whereabouts on such and such night to confirm evidence they had that he was dealing drugs.




                                The police can’t go around kicking down doors with guns blazing just on a hunch that the bad guy inside might be dangerous.
                                Well that was a pretty off the wall example you came up with. Even if he was a dangerous drug dealer, they wouldn't bust down a door with guns blazing. If they did, they would be rightfully charged themselves with manslaughter even if he was a dangerous drug dealer.

                                Considering that we know Trump had asked Zelensky to investigate Burisma and 2016 on several occasions, even publicly stating that on tv, the fact that they didn’t start investigating shows how baseless those claims were considering how quickly investigations into the surveillance of the US ambassador started.
                                ??
                                Not parsing that quite right. "the fact that they didn’t start investigating shows how baseless those claims were " meaning what?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                7 responses
                                53 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                234 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                105 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                321 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X