Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 14:02:31 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 14:34:53 GMT -5
Obviously Rudy wanted help with his re-election campaign.
I love how the defense has become, the only person you can trust on this is the person who has every reason to lie, and is the biggest liar in every room, Donald J Trump.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,320
|
Post by tashoya on Nov 6, 2019 15:42:38 GMT -5
Obviously Rudy wanted help with his re-election campaign. I love how the defense has become, the only person you can trust on this is the person who has every reason to lie, and is the biggest liar in every room, Donald J Trump. To be fair, it's really the only defense they can mount. People can't stop corroborating his guilt. He seems to be the only person involved that will claim his innocence.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,859
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Nov 7, 2019 7:20:35 GMT -5
"I talked to [accused person X] and he totally denies it."
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,320
|
Post by tashoya on Nov 7, 2019 10:27:28 GMT -5
Well, Trump usually just uses, "Many people are saying," bs but, in this case, everyone knows that it's really only one person saying he's innocent.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,209
|
Post by hoyarooter on Nov 7, 2019 20:40:09 GMT -5
Well, Trump usually just uses, "Many people are saying," bs but, in this case, everyone knows that it's really only one person saying he's innocent. Sadly, there are still millions of Americans out there who are also saying he's innocent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2019 11:01:45 GMT -5
Add another one to the list.
George Kent told House investigators that he'd created memos of specific conversations he'd witnessed related to the White House's attempted quid pro quo that he said were "injurious to the rule of law, both in Ukraine and the U.S." He was alarmed at President Trump’s insistence that Ukraine “initiate politically motivated prosecutions"
Asking Ukraine to investigate someone for political reasons “goes against everything that we are trying to promote in post-Soviet states for the last 28 years, which is the promotion of the rule of law.”
What did he get wrong?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2019 11:19:32 GMT -5
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,209
|
Post by hoyarooter on Nov 8, 2019 14:36:37 GMT -5
Add another one to the list. George Kent told House investigators that he'd created memos of specific conversations he'd witnessed related to the White House's attempted quid pro quo that he said were "injurious to the rule of law, both in Ukraine and the U.S." He was alarmed at President Trump’s insistence that Ukraine “initiate politically motivated prosecutions" Asking Ukraine to investigate someone for political reasons “goes against everything that we are trying to promote in post-Soviet states for the last 28 years, which is the promotion of the rule of law.” What did he get wrong? Right on, Larry Tribe. My constitutional law professor. What I learned from him (although this was not his intent) is that there is no rhyme or reason behind constitutional law, and that it is whatever the nine justices on the Supreme Court say it is, which needn't be and seldom is consistent, and will more often than not reflect their political beliefs. When studying for the bar, I intentionally omitted con law, because while I did fine in the class, I didn't want any part of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 22:01:09 GMT -5
It's interesting that everybody is telling the same story... A story about bribery and extortion.
Of course Republicans want to focus on process and the Whistleblowers name because they can't defend the fact that the President's actions were criminal.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,481
|
Post by Elvado on Nov 13, 2019 7:03:09 GMT -5
One way to be sure every witness tells the same story is non-sequestered witnesses...
Schiff wouldn’t do that though would he?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Nov 13, 2019 8:41:34 GMT -5
One way to be sure every witness tells the same story is non-sequestered witnesses... Schiff wouldn’t do that though would he? Process complaints because you can't defend it.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,481
|
Post by Elvado on Nov 13, 2019 9:04:31 GMT -5
One way to be sure every witness tells the same story is non-sequestered witnesses... Schiff wouldn’t do that though would he? Process complaints because you can't defend it. That due process stuff is so bothersome...
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Nov 13, 2019 9:17:12 GMT -5
Process complaints because you can't defend it. That due process stuff is so bothersome... Come on. There are transcripts of prior statements from all these witnesses answering similar questions under oath. So, if they tried to change their testimony now to make it artificially consistent, surely the Republicans would pull out the transcript and impeach (in the credibility sense) them. And, not for nothing, those earlier transcripts were kept confidential so witnesses couldn't coordinate testimony. I know snippets were selectively leaked but not all the details. And due process? This isn't a criminal court of law. The confrontation clause doesn't apply. The President is receiving precisely the amount of process the Constitution says he is due.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,481
|
Post by Elvado on Nov 13, 2019 9:46:58 GMT -5
That due process stuff is so bothersome... Come on. There are transcripts of prior statements from all these witnesses answering similar questions under oath. So, if they tried to change their testimony now to make it artificially consistent, surely the Republicans would pull out the transcript and impeach (in the credibility sense) them. And, not for nothing, those earlier transcripts were kept confidential so witnesses couldn't coordinate testimony. I know snippets were selectively leaked but not all the details. And due process? This isn't a criminal court of law. The confrontation clause doesn't apply. The President is receiving precisely the amount of process the Constitution says he is due. So you favor non-sequestration of witnesses? Good for you. I don’t. Not in this circumstance; not in a car accident case; and not in a criminal trial. And if you believe those Adam Schiff depositions exposed those witnesses to cross-examination, I’d like to offer you stock In Trump University.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Nov 13, 2019 10:04:14 GMT -5
Come on. There are transcripts of prior statements from all these witnesses answering similar questions under oath. So, if they tried to change their testimony now to make it artificially consistent, surely the Republicans would pull out the transcript and impeach (in the credibility sense) them. And, not for nothing, those earlier transcripts were kept confidential so witnesses couldn't coordinate testimony. I know snippets were selectively leaked but not all the details. And due process? This isn't a criminal court of law. The confrontation clause doesn't apply. The President is receiving precisely the amount of process the Constitution says he is due. So you favor non-sequestration of witnesses? Good for you. I don’t. Not in this circumstance; not in a car accident case; and not in a criminal trial. And if you believe those Adam Schiff depositions exposed those witnesses to cross-examination, I’d like to offer you stock In Trump University. I agree in principle that sequestration (or, less burdensome, the rule against witnesses) is a better format for obtaining accurate testimony. But the closed door hearings were essentially just that. True sequestration was practically impossible but, basically, the rule against witnesses was used. I know there were political motivations in how it was (and is) orchestrated. That's unavoidable. Now, Democrats are selecting a greatest hits from those hearings to present to the American public, while still permitting Republicans the ability to ask questions of them. It surely isn't how a criminal trial would unfold, but it's a ton more ability for the "defense" than it would have in an indictment or presentment.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Nov 13, 2019 10:11:36 GMT -5
Process complaints because you can't defend it. That due process stuff is so bothersome... You don't believe in it for others so I don't know why you're arguing it.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,859
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Nov 13, 2019 12:08:18 GMT -5
First we complain about "secret" hearings. Then, when the hearings are public, we complain that the witnesses will take advantage of the public nature to coordinate their stories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2019 12:51:19 GMT -5
Ambassador Taylor testified that the day after the July 25 phone call, Trump asked Sondland about “the investigations” — and Sondland told a State Dept staffer that Trump cared more about investigations into his political opponent than about Ukraine
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Nov 13, 2019 13:27:51 GMT -5
Mr. Nunes, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may G-d have mercy on your soul.
|
|