Impeachment

cajunrevenge said:
But not complying with subpoena is also a crime. These should be his defense witnesses. If you are accused of murder and there are 4 eye witnesses and you dont want them to testify that's pretty solid evidence of guilt. Republicans accuse the whistleblower and Schiff of having something to hide by not testifying under oath. So they cant have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Not my point. You can criticize him for not complying with the investigation. You can point to the other evidence. The issue is saying that the person you're accusing of wrongdoing not testifying is evidence of wrongdoing.

The rhetoric about the whistleblower and Schiff, while dumb, isn't the same. They're not being accused of wrongdoing, they're accusing someone of wrongdoing. An accuser not willing to take the stand can be viewed as hiding something in our legal system and their testimony cannot be considered. The same principles aren't at play.

Again, there's plenty to accuse him of without having to resort to the rhetoric than an accused refusing to testify is evidence of guilt.
 
Schiff is an accuser as in a prosecutor is an accuser. He isnt a fact witness. Ordering witnesses not to testify would be a crime in any other situation. There are legit reasons he can order someone not to testify, to cover up a crime is not among them. We do have first hand witnesses to what some of them have said, so its not a mystery that Bolton called this a drug deal and has critical and damaging testimony.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Schiff is an accuser as in a prosecutor is an accuser. He isnt a fact witness. Ordering witnesses not to testify would be a crime in any other situation. There are legit reasons he can order someone not to testify, to cover up a crime is not among them. We do have first hand witnesses to what some of them have said, so its not a mystery that Bolton called this a drug deal and has critical and damaging testimony.
Click to expand...

Again, not the point of what I was saying. Schiff taking the role of the prosecutor (or investigator) is why trying to get him to testify is stupid as I said earlier. It's not on point with what I was saying about inferring guilt from an accused's refusal to testify.

I'm not arguing the obstruction of not allowing others to testify. That's a completely different issue. My point is saying that someone you're accusing of wrongdoing is hiding something by not testifying is not good. It's a sentiment that I don't like seeing spread.
 
[tw]1207335251636146176[/tw]

I'm not sure the Democrats could have done more to write their own gravestone for 2020.
 
thethe said:
[tw]1207335251636146176[/tw]

I'm not sure the Democrats could have done more to write their own gravestone for 2020.
Click to expand...

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/frank-luntz-ban-exit-polls-231051

"Exit polling should be banned, political consultant Frank Luntz told CBS, lamenting that "the numbers were wrong all the way across the table on state after state after state" before the election night results began pouring in.


Luntz had predicted Tuesday that Hillary Clinton would score a runaway win, based largely on his reading of exit polls. He said at the time that high turnout in states like Michigan strongly favored the Democratic nominee.


Now, he's the latest in the line of pollsters and pundits admitting they misjudged the election.


The Republican pollster tweeted that "all of tonight's exit polls were wrong, and I was wrong for citing them," speculating that Trump supporters either lied or refused to talk when asked about how they voted."



Are we to believe Luntz's polling after he was wrong in 2016 and 2012?
 
The Rude Pundit

@rudepundit
·
11m


Trump started his presidency by violating the Emoluments Clause

of the Constitution from Day One. If he didn't want anyone to think

about impeaching him, maybe he should have made a little effort

not to do anything that's impeachable.
 
Perhaps we make a list of all of the impeachable offenses Trump has committed.

Of course hiring a Russian asset as NSA would ring a bell
I would think in l'affaire Stormy Daniels there are grounds

there are two.

The unsupervised meetings with Russians in the Oval Office
By his own standards, using an unsecure phone discussing lord knows what

Jared,Ivanka and security clearances --- sharing with them access to classified information without the proper clearance

Well, there are 5.

haven't mentioned abuses with immigration or ignoring Puerto Rico

But yeah, emoluments
 
He might well, that doesn't change the fact history will view his tenure as repeatedly committing impeachable offenses and cruelly and needlessly separating children from their families

Oh yeah, a 14th century defensive wall
 
striker42 said:
I actually object to this kind of rhetoric. A refusal to testify in our system is not supposed to be considered as any kind of evidence of guilt. While I understand this is not a court of law, the reasoning behind this rule stands. So trying to say a refusal to testify is an admission of guilt is actually fairly deplorable rhetoric. It's also completely unnecessary. There are plenty of better points to make.
Click to expand...

well, why wont Trump allow witness' and send documents ?

In my reading or listening I have yet to hear anyone invoke their 5th Amendment Rights.
Which we are all taught in 9th grade Civics class is the constitutional method of as you put it "a refusal to testify"
You must have been absent that day in law school

Or do Republicans get to play by rules they make up on the spot ?
…………………

So let's play suppose.
Suppose I am subpoenaed to testify in a case where a neighbor claims I threw my lawn cuttings in his yard.
Can I merely "refuse to testify"
Just because I am feeling that way??
 
Last edited:
striker42 said:
I actually object to this kind of rhetoric.
Click to expand...


Republican Rep. Barry Loudermilk (Ga.) used his time during Wednesday’s debate on the House impeachment vote to argue that Jesus Christ received more due process when he was nailed to the cross than President Donald Trump has during the impeachment process.

First it was Salem Witches now Jesus himself


Just last week Trump after being invited, refused to participate
To keep the record straight
 
Last edited:
Oh wow Kevin McCarthy has shown up out of nowhere.

During this entire process he's been hiding and letting Jordan, Collins, and Co. be the mouthpiece for Trump. Now he's come to the floor when everyone else has. Very safe political move.
 
So funny that the GOP always complains about the Coastal cities and the Dems, when the House Minority Leader is from California. lol. Scalise is the #2 in the House and he's also from a city on the coast in Louisiana.
 
2 Dems vote Nay on Article 1.

1 Republican voted YEA on Article 1 (not sure which one).

The 1 Independent I assume is Amash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top