(12-18-2019 11:49 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:41 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that only one side has been heard, and the polling on this seems to be running about 50-50. If you consider a criminal trial, and when the prosecution completes their case, the jury is 50-50, not hard to figure that the verdict is going to be not guilty.

Well, Trump wouldn't let his folks testify at the House hearings and won't put them on the stand in the Republican led Senate hearings.

Those witnesses were subpoenaed. They refused to honor those requests. Hence the "Obstruction of Congress" charge.

So much for the "if you have nothing to hide..."

That's not how it works either.

How so?

You saying people shouldn't honor subpoenas?

(12-18-2019 11:46 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:41 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that only one side has been heard, and the polling on this seems to be running about 50-50. If you consider a criminal trial, and when the prosecution completes their case, the jury is 50-50, not hard to figure that the verdict is going to be not guilty.

Well, Trump wouldn't let his folks testify at the House hearings and won't put them on the stand in the Republican led Senate hearings.

Those witnesses were subpoenaed. They refused to honor those requests. Hence the "Obstruction of Congress" charge.

So much for the "if you have nothing to hide..."

it's a dayum good thing ewe chose to not practice law...ewe'll all be just fine moving forward...

That sentence makes no sense.

(12-18-2019 11:50 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:49 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:41 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that only one side has been heard, and the polling on this seems to be running about 50-50. If you consider a criminal trial, and when the prosecution completes their case, the jury is 50-50, not hard to figure that the verdict is going to be not guilty.

Well, Trump wouldn't let his folks testify at the House hearings and won't put them on the stand in the Republican led Senate hearings.

Those witnesses were subpoenaed. They refused to honor those requests. Hence the "Obstruction of Congress" charge.

So much for the "if you have nothing to hide..."

That's not how it works either.

How so?

You saying people shouldn't honor subpoenas?

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/47...mpeachment

(12-18-2019 11:51 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:46 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:41 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that only one side has been heard, and the polling on this seems to be running about 50-50. If you consider a criminal trial, and when the prosecution completes their case, the jury is 50-50, not hard to figure that the verdict is going to be not guilty.

Well, Trump wouldn't let his folks testify at the House hearings and won't put them on the stand in the Republican led Senate hearings.

Those witnesses were subpoenaed. They refused to honor those requests. Hence the "Obstruction of Congress" charge.

So much for the "if you have nothing to hide..."

it's a dayum good thing ewe chose to not practice law...ewe'll all be just fine moving forward...

That sentence makes no sense.

He's high...

(12-18-2019 11:53 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:50 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:49 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:41 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that only one side has been heard, and the polling on this seems to be running about 50-50. If you consider a criminal trial, and when the prosecution completes their case, the jury is 50-50, not hard to figure that the verdict is going to be not guilty.

Well, Trump wouldn't let his folks testify at the House hearings and won't put them on the stand in the Republican led Senate hearings.

Those witnesses were subpoenaed. They refused to honor those requests. Hence the "Obstruction of Congress" charge.

So much for the "if you have nothing to hide..."

That's not how it works either.

How so?

You saying people shouldn't honor subpoenas?

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/47...mpeachment

First off, Alan notes the cases really aren't similar but then says "close enough" without getting into any of the legal merits whatsoever. Obviously, too, he has a certain viewpoint. Connecting those to McGahn is a stretch.

His general non-legal take makes sense.

But that still doesn't address the general question of whether (in a country founded upon laws) whether people shouldn't honor subpoenas.

We have seen in previous investigation the courts hold that congressional inquiries have the power to compel witness testimony.

Congress has the power to investigate. That is a given. With that power (in ANY state investigation) is the ability to compel witnesses to testify.

(12-18-2019 11:50 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:49 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:41 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that only one side has been heard, and the polling on this seems to be running about 50-50. If you consider a criminal trial, and when the prosecution completes their case, the jury is 50-50, not hard to figure that the verdict is going to be not guilty.

Well, Trump wouldn't let his folks testify at the House hearings and won't put them on the stand in the Republican led Senate hearings.

Those witnesses were subpoenaed. They refused to honor those requests. Hence the "Obstruction of Congress" charge.

So much for the "if you have nothing to hide..."

That's not how it works either.

How so?

You saying people shouldn't honor subpoenas?

He's saying there is a process for ignored subpoenas. Obama ignored lots of subpoenas for Fast Furious document and witness requests. The Republicans didnt impeach him. They went to court to force the Executive Branch to comply.

(12-18-2019 12:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:50 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:49 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:41 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that only one side has been heard, and the polling on this seems to be running about 50-50. If you consider a criminal trial, and when the prosecution completes their case, the jury is 50-50, not hard to figure that the verdict is going to be not guilty.

Well, Trump wouldn't let his folks testify at the House hearings and won't put them on the stand in the Republican led Senate hearings.

Those witnesses were subpoenaed. They refused to honor those requests. Hence the "Obstruction of Congress" charge.

So much for the "if you have nothing to hide..."

That's not how it works either.

How so?

You saying people shouldn't honor subpoenas?

He's saying there is a process for ignored subpoenas. Obama ignored lots of subpoenas for Fast Furious document and witness requests. The Republicans didnt impeach him. They went to court to force the Executive Branch to comply.

That helps.

However, despite being an unsavory method to "catch" gun runners, how would this have been an impeachable offense?

(12-18-2019 12:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:50 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:49 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:41 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that only one side has been heard, and the polling on this seems to be running about 50-50. If you consider a criminal trial, and when the prosecution completes their case, the jury is 50-50, not hard to figure that the verdict is going to be not guilty.

Well, Trump wouldn't let his folks testify at the House hearings and won't put them on the stand in the Republican led Senate hearings.

Those witnesses were subpoenaed. They refused to honor those requests. Hence the "Obstruction of Congress" charge.

So much for the "if you have nothing to hide..."

That's not how it works either.

How so?

You saying people shouldn't honor subpoenas?

He's saying there is a process for ignored subpoenas. Obama ignored lots of subpoenas for Fast Furious document and witness requests. The Republicans didn't impeach him. They went to court to force the Executive Branch to comply.

This is correct.

Congress and the Executive branch are equal. If there is a dispute it is solved through the Judicial branch.

Because the Dem's have set this precedent then any President going forward can be impeached for not doing what the House majority requests under the term obstructing Congress.There is a reason why they charged obstructing Congress and not obstructing justice. (hint because there was no crime)

(12-18-2019 12:27 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 12:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:50 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:49 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:41 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  Well, Trump wouldn't let his folks testify at the House hearings and won't put them on the stand in the Republican led Senate hearings.

Those witnesses were subpoenaed. They refused to honor those requests. Hence the "Obstruction of Congress" charge.

So much for the "if you have nothing to hide..."

That's not how it works either.

How so?

You saying people shouldn't honor subpoenas?

He's saying there is a process for ignored subpoenas. Obama ignored lots of subpoenas for Fast Furious document and witness requests. The Republicans didnt impeach him. They went to court to force the Executive Branch to comply.

That helps.

However, despite being an unsavory method to "catch" gun runners, how would this have been an impeachable offense?

It's not that's the point.

(12-18-2019 10:57 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that only one side has been heard, and the polling on this seems to be running about 50-50. If you consider a criminal trial, and when the prosecution completes their case, the jury is 50-50, not hard to figure that the verdict is going to be not guilty.

If that was even remotely true, who's fault is it anyway?

trump had EVERY opportunity to testify, provide council, allow his staff to honor subpoenas, or turn over exculpatory evidence. And you know why he didn't. But hey, keep grandstanding and go down the ship. You're all in now.

Nobody is talking about fault.... except you, because you want to deflect from the very clear point he's making.

Trunmp had the right, not the obligation to defend himself. He chose not to, mostly because I suspect it wouldn't have made any difference. Dems were going to vote to send it to the Senate regardless of what Trump did or said... because you can't prove what didn't happen.

SO while Trump declined to present his side, the left STILL didn't convince a meaningful majority to impeach... almost indistinguishable from a poll on 'satisfaction'. 99% of Dems against, 95% of Reps in favor. The middle split about 60/40 against.

If you can't win the preliminary event when the defense is not on the field, you're really going to struggle when it is

(12-18-2019 11:50 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:49 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:41 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that only one side has been heard, and the polling on this seems to be running about 50-50. If you consider a criminal trial, and when the prosecution completes their case, the jury is 50-50, not hard to figure that the verdict is going to be not guilty.

Well, Trump wouldn't let his folks testify at the House hearings and won't put them on the stand in the Republican led Senate hearings.
Those witnesses were subpoenaed. They refused to honor those requests. Hence the "Obstruction of Congress" charge.
So much for the "if you have nothing to hide..."

That's not how it works either.

How so?
You saying people shouldn't honor subpoenas?

I'm saying people don't, all the time. Then it's up to the court to decide. If a court says honor it, then--and only then--are you legally obligated to honor it.

I am old enough to remember Watergate. Nixon claimed executive privilege, they took it to court, and John Sirica ordered Nixon to provide. That was in the DC district court. My memory is a bit hazy, but as best I recall, Nixon appealed directly to the supremes, but the supremes declined to hear, and he produced the subpoenaed information. By that time, I think even most republicans knew he was goner.

That was different. To start with, they actually had a crime, and they had facts, lots of them. Here we have what I call REO Speedwagon facts, "Heard it from a friend, who, heard it from a friend, who, heard it from another..."

(12-18-2019 12:29 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 12:27 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 12:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:50 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:49 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  That's not how it works either.

How so?

You saying people shouldn't honor subpoenas?

He's saying there is a process for ignored subpoenas. Obama ignored lots of subpoenas for Fast Furious document and witness requests. The Republicans didnt impeach him. They went to court to force the Executive Branch to comply.

That helps.

However, despite being an unsavory method to "catch" gun runners, how would this have been an impeachable offense?

It's not that's the point.

It's not. Correct. F&F wasn't a crime.

However, there is also no real argument that colluding/pressuring a foreign government to do something for personal political gain is barred by federal law.

I'm not saying the proof rises to this, but the accusation is at least an impeachable offense.

So conducting an investigation and information gathering is a necessary element of that and would likely include the need to subpoena witnesses.

(12-18-2019 12:34 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 12:29 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 12:27 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 12:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:50 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  How so?

You saying people shouldn't honor subpoenas?

He's saying there is a process for ignored subpoenas. Obama ignored lots of subpoenas for Fast Furious document and witness requests. The Republicans didnt impeach him. They went to court to force the Executive Branch to comply.

That helps.

However, despite being an unsavory method to "catch" gun runners, how would this have been an impeachable offense?

It's not that's the point.

but the accusation is at least an impeachable offense.

That is incorrect. Accusations is not an impeachable offense.

(12-18-2019 10:57 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that only one side has been heard, and the polling on this seems to be running about 50-50. If you consider a criminal trial, and when the prosecution completes their case, the jury is 50-50, not hard to figure that the verdict is going to be not guilty.

If that was even remotely true, who's fault is it anyway?

trump had EVERY opportunity to testify, provide council, allow his staff to honor subpoenas, or turn over exculpatory evidence. And you know why he didn't. But hey, keep grandstanding and go down the ship. You're all in now.

Still not how it works. Just five years to go.

(12-18-2019 12:34 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 12:29 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 12:27 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 12:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 11:50 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  How so?

You saying people shouldn't honor subpoenas?

He's saying there is a process for ignored subpoenas. Obama ignored lots of subpoenas for Fast Furious document and witness requests. The Republicans didnt impeach him. They went to court to force the Executive Branch to comply.

That helps.

However, despite being an unsavory method to "catch" gun runners, how would this have been an impeachable offense?

It's not that's the point.

It's not. Correct. F&F wasn't a crime.

However, there is also no real argument that colluding/pressuring a foreign government to do something for personal political gain is barred by federal law.

I'm not saying the proof rises to this, but the accusation is at least an impeachable offense.

So conducting an investigation and information gathering is a necessary element of that and would likely include the need to subpoena witnesses.

How so? An accusation is just that, an accusation. An accusation isn't proof of anything.

(12-18-2019 10:57 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that only one side has been heard, and the polling on this seems to be running about 50-50. If you consider a criminal trial, and when the prosecution completes their case, the jury is 50-50, not hard to figure that the verdict is going to be not guilty.

If that was even remotely true, who's fault is it anyway?
trump had EVERY opportunity to testify, provide council, allow his staff to honor subpoenas, or turn over exculpatory evidence. And you know why he didn't. But hey, keep grandstanding and go down the ship. You're all in now.

First, you don't testify before a kangaroo court, just like you don't put your case on before a grand jury. You're just asking for trouble if you do that. And IIRC, republicans asked for a number of witnesses that were denied by the democrats. So it would appear that they could not have put on a case in any event. Mind's made up, don't confuse the issue with facts.

Democrats have been all in since November 2016. All they knew was that they were going to impeach, regardless of facts or evidence. So now we have the REO Speedwagon impeachment, "Heard it from a friend, who, heard it from a friend, who, heard it from another..."

Bottom line for me still comes down to this: If a US president as reason to believe that a US citizen has engaged in illegal or corrupt conduct in a foreign country, does that president have both the duty and the obligation to cause that conduct to be investigated? And if the relevant evidence is in such foreign country, beyond the reach of US law enforcement search and subpoena powers, is it not appropriate, even required, to enlist the assistance of law enforcement in that foreign country? And does any of that change because the object of the investigation has some connection to some politician?

And does Hunter Biden's unbelievably sweetheart deal with Burisma raise reasonable questions about corruption and illegality? Yep.

(12-18-2019 11:05 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 10:57 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that only one side has been heard, and the polling on this seems to be running about 50-50. If you consider a criminal trial, and when the prosecution completes their case, the jury is 50-50, not hard to figure that the verdict is going to be not guilty.

If that was even remotely true, who's fault is it anyway?

trump had EVERY opportunity to testify, provide council, allow his staff to honor subpoenas, or turn over exculpatory evidence. And you know why he didn't. But hey, keep grandstanding and go down the ship. You're all in now.

Is that how it works now? Someone makes an accusation about someone based on hearsay and the accused has to provide testimony and evidence to back up the accusation?

No. The argument he made was that trump was not heard. He has every right to remain silent. However, he can't then complain he was not heard.

(12-18-2019 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 10:57 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that only one side has been heard, and the polling on this seems to be running about 50-50. If you consider a criminal trial, and when the prosecution completes their case, the jury is 50-50, not hard to figure that the verdict is going to be not guilty.

If that was even remotely true, who's fault is it anyway?
trump had EVERY opportunity to testify, provide council, allow his staff to honor subpoenas, or turn over exculpatory evidence. And you know why he didn't. But hey, keep grandstanding and go down the ship. You're all in now.

First, you don't testify before a kangaroo court,

I stopped here. Try again.

(12-18-2019 02:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-18-2019 10:57 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-17-2019 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that only one side has been heard, and the polling on this seems to be running about 50-50. If you consider a criminal trial, and when the prosecution completes their case, the jury is 50-50, not hard to figure that the verdict is going to be not guilty.

If that was even remotely true, who's fault is it anyway?
trump had EVERY opportunity to testify, provide council, allow his staff to honor subpoenas, or turn over exculpatory evidence. And you know why he didn't. But hey, keep grandstanding and go down the ship. You're all in now.

First, you don't testify before a kangaroo court,

I stopped here. Try again.

The analogy has been drawn that the house proceeding is equivalent to a grand jury. You don't testify before a grand jury. Why not? Because a grand jury is a kangaroo court. By design. You don't have any rights before a grand jury. You can't help yourself. You can only hurt yourself. So the best thing to do is not testify. Take the fifth if you are required to come in.

As a lawyer and naval officer (although line, not JAG officer) I have been asked would I rather go through the UCMJ or civilian criminal court. My answer was always that it depended on whether I was guilty or innocent. If I was guilty, I'd rather go through the civilian system because my chances of getting a fluke not guilty verdict were better. But if I were innocent, I'd rather go through UCMJ, because the pretrial process would give me a much fairer shake. Before getting to a court-martial, I would have at least two chances to hear the evidence against me, have a lawyer present, and cross examine my accusers. None of those rights exist before a grand jury.

I sat as a summary court martial (judge) once. I am quite certain that the defendant was probably guilty of all charges. But his lawyer did a much better job than the prosecutor (who was a line officer, and a fairly incompetent one at that). I ended up finding the accused not guilty of several charges, including the most serious ones, because they simply were not proved. Arguably, that was a fluke not guilty verdict from a court-martial, so they can happen there too. But that sailor had far more rights under UCMJ than he would have had in a civilian criminal trial.

Without knowing all the factual details, I can say as a general rule that the worst thing you can possibly do is try to prove your innocence before a grand jury. If I can give you one piece of legal advice, don't ever do it. It's particularly ill-advised if you are in fact innocent. That rule applied in this proceeding. Tell me, what could any Trump witness have said that would have caused the house not to impeach? I can't come up with anything, and I doubt that you can either. In that case, why put any on?

HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY

YOU KEEP YOUR FACTS OUT OF THIS ALRIGHT.


Let's get back to the hysteria and drowning witches like civilized jackals of the beltway.