hoyajinx
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,365
|
Post by hoyajinx on Feb 13, 2021 10:54:10 GMT -5
Which brings me back to my original question: why didn’t the Congressmen involved come forward with this in the interest of the country? If they didn’t know this evidence existed, how would they k ow they didn’t have the best possible evidence? To any reasonable person not blinded by partisan idiocy, the House Managers absolutely proved their case in a pretty compelling way. Even Republican senators came forward and said so. They just relied on the excuse that the proceedings were unconstitutional, which was as absolute horsecrap. Burden of proof was on House Managers. They went in with half a case. That is on them. With or without this evidence, they made their case and met that burden. Who cares about the burden of proof with respect to sitting Congressmen not offering relevant evidence. Their oath of office dictates that they should have. But I’ve given up on these Republicans upholding their oaths or ever doing the right thing unless it’s somehow self-serving. If they stand to lose anything, that oath goes right out the window.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2021 11:01:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Feb 13, 2021 11:08:36 GMT -5
Senate votes 55-45 to allow witnesses. Lets hope they call the right ones. Ontop of a few of the more obvious witnesses, I hope they subpoena some of Trump's secret service detail that day. They would know the second he knew since I'm sure they were securing his location.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,397
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 13, 2021 11:10:53 GMT -5
Senate votes 55-45 to allow witnesses. Lets hope they call the right ones. Ontop of a few of the more obvious witnesses, I hope they subpoena some of Trump's secret service detail that day. They would know the second he know since I'm sure they were securing his location. Hell, subpoena sleazebag McCarthy, put him under oath to contradict Herrera-Buetler under penalty of perjury. It seems that Buetler is willing to testify. Will McCarthy?? An impeachment trial is not a criminal trial and the rules of evidence do not apply but the rules may be helpful as applied to this impeachment trial Federal Rule of Evidence 406: Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice. The court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness. The House manager's case has demonstrated that Trump's routine is to use his threats of violence and Tweets to activate his supporters. The prime example as pointed out by the House managers was Trump's call to "Liberate Michigan!" The result - armed Trump supporters entered the Michigan State House. It was like a dry run. Furthermore, when asked to condemn specifically the Proud Boys at the debate he declined to do so but instead exclaimed " Stand back and stand by." The Proud Boys made patches with this as their slogan. The Jan 6th speech was taken by the Proud Boys as Trump telling them the time to stand by was now over. How many Proud Boys have been arrested as part of the storming of the Capitol because of Trump's continued lie about a stolen election? More than a dozen I believe. Additionally, Trump was invited to testify and he declined. In a criminal proceeding that is of course your 5th Amendment right. In a civil proceeding you may also assert your 5th Amendment right and decline to answer a question. However, if you do so opposing counsel is allowed to argue an adverse inference from such a declination. An impeachment trial, while sui generis, is more akin to a civil proceeding and if I were the House managers, I'd argue this point more forcefully.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,397
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 13, 2021 11:34:56 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2021 11:47:55 GMT -5
“We”
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 13, 2021 13:50:23 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 13, 2021 14:02:59 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 13, 2021 15:28:22 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,397
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 13, 2021 15:41:16 GMT -5
Raskin baited the Republicans. In asking for the witness he created a kerfuffle that highlighted for every American what Cong. Herrera-Beutler stated about the sociopath's misconduct. Now everyone has heard it and it will be a major story in the media for the next day or so. Crafty.
Now the corrupt Republicans are putting their names into history as authoritarian anti-democratic sleazebags. Your grandchildren will be ashamed of you.
Any HoyaTalk Republicans truly believe the sociopath was not guilty on the merits?
Cassidy voted GUILTY! Good for him.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 13, 2021 16:01:16 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 13, 2021 16:06:54 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,397
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 13, 2021 16:10:02 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 13, 2021 16:13:24 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 13, 2021 16:15:35 GMT -5
Speaking of psychos & disgraceful..
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 13, 2021 16:17:36 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 13, 2021 16:20:22 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 13, 2021 16:56:45 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 14, 2021 2:49:34 GMT -5
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,495
Member is Online
|
Post by Elvado on Feb 14, 2021 8:09:13 GMT -5
So why, with the votes to force the issue, did the Democrats fold on witnesses?
|
|