Play Nice 45th President of the United States: Donald Trump - Part 9 - The Shi'ites Hit The Fan (Cont. in Part 10, see OP)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mick F

Mighty Snr
Dec 26, 2013
5,935
9,951
AFL Club
Collingwood
The Democrats are conducting the impeachment probe in the Intelligence Committee, not the Judiciary Committee for the first time. They’re not allowing Republicans into the hearings. They barred them. A Republican, Matt Gates, was not allowed in there. They said up front the reason was to hide the questions and the answers from the president and the Republicans in case they come up with good stories against them. In America you have the right to hear and see your accusers.
It’s all a show because the Democrats can’t handle the fact that Trump is the president.
What planet are you on??
Half the committee are Republicans, they get equal time to ask questions of the witnesses. That’s why it takes 9 hours.

The chairperson is right to have members of the intelligence community give evidence in private. For obvious security reasons and to prevent witnesses from tailoring their testimony based on what other witnesses have said. This helps the congressmen (jury) ferret out the truth by noticing inconsistencies in the testimonies of different witnesses. Up to nine hours of intense questioning of each witness will produce such inconsistencies; to ensure that the facts are known and the truth of the matter ascertained.
 

RobbieK

Cancelled
Aug 20, 2009
5,731
10,803
AFL Club
Sydney
The Democrats are conducting the impeachment probe in the Intelligence Committee, not the Judiciary Committee for the first time.

There is no requirement for an impeachment inquiry to be conducted by the Judiciary Committee. Trump is currently being investigated by seven different House Committees. The findings of any of those investigations could be a potential instigator for a vote on an impeachment resolution.

They’re not allowing Republicans into the hearings. They barred them. A Republican, Matt Gates, was not allowed in there.

The first statement is incorrect. The Republicans on the relevant Committees doing the investigations are in the hearings. Republicans (and Democrats) who are not on the Committees have not been allowed inside. That is normal procedure.

They said up front the reason was to hide the questions and the answers from the president and the Republicans in case they come up with good stories against them.In America you have the right to hear and see your accusers.

Where did they say this?

The hearings are being held in private so that each person being questioned gives their own version of events without having listened to what has been said before them. That is not illegal.

Regardless, this is not (yet) a criminal proceeding, it is an investigation by House Committees. Right now witnesses are being questioned by those committees, that is all. The President does not have the right to see and hear that testimony.

If the House ends up voting on and passing an impeachment resolution, there there will be a trial in the Senate. That trial will be organised by Mitch McConnell. He has stated that in that process House lawyers would serve the role of prosecutors, while White House lawyers would be defense counsel. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would act as judge and the Senators would serve as the jury. The President's right to see the evidence against him and defend himself will be upheld in that process.

It’s all a show because the Democrats can’t handle the fact that Trump is the president.

Partially, perhaps, but you are yet to provide any sort of evidence that what is currently happening is unconstitutional or illegal. Pretty disappointing effort.
 
The Democrats are conducting the impeachment probe in the Intelligence Committee, not the Judiciary Committee for the first time. They’re not allowing Republicans into the hearings. They barred them. A Republican, Matt Gates, was not allowed in there. They said up front the reason was to hide the questions and the answers from the president and the Republicans in case they come up with good stories against them. In America you have the right to hear and see your accusers.
It’s all a show because the Democrats can’t handle the fact that Trump is the president.
There’s nothing normal about the whole process.

You have a person who can’t even be charged with a crime while he holds office.

Normal rules simply don’t apply.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

shniko11

Beneath the blue and white
Nov 6, 2015
4,883
7,741
Australia
AFL Club
North Melbourne
What planet are you on??
Half the committee are Republicans, they get equal time to ask questions of the witnesses. That’s why it takes 9 hours.

The chairperson is right to have members of the intelligence community give evidence in private. For obvious security reasons and to prevent witnesses from tailoring their testimony based on what other witnesses have said. This helps the congressmen (jury) ferret out the truth by noticing inconsistencies in the testimonies of different witnesses. Up to nine hours of intense questioning of each witness will produce such inconsistencies; to ensure that the facts are known and the truth of the matter ascertained.
You always get jumpy and bite everyone's head off when someone posts something you don't like.
C2C Sinclair

@SBGC2C

·
15h

@RepMattGaetz
: "What you see are secret hearings, secret depositions, members of Congress being excluded from those proceedings, and then selective leaks to fit a predetermined narrative. I trust the American people. I think we ought to put all the evidence before them.
 

Mick F

Mighty Snr
Dec 26, 2013
5,935
9,951
AFL Club
Collingwood
There is no requirement for an impeachment inquiry to be conducted by the Judiciary Committee. Trump is currently being investigated by seven different House Committees. The findings of any of those investigations could be a potential instigator for a vote on an impeachment resolution.



The first statement is incorrect. The Republicans on the relevant Committees doing the investigations are in the hearings. Republicans (and Democrats) who are not on the Committees have not been allowed inside. That is normal procedure.



Where did they say this?

The hearings are being held in private so that each person being questioned gives their own version of events without having listened to what has been said before them. That is not illegal.

Regardless, this is not (yet) a criminal proceeding, it is an investigation by House Committees. Right now witnesses are being questioned by those committees, that is all. The President does not have the right to see and hear that testimony.

If the House ends up voting on and passing an impeachment resolution, there there will be a trial in the Senate. That trial will be organised by Mitch McConnell. He has stated that in that process House lawyers would serve the role of prosecutors, while White House lawyers would be defense counsel. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would act as judge and the Senators would serve as the jury. The President's right to see the evidence against him and defend himself will be upheld in that process.



Partially, perhaps, but you are yet to provide any sort of evidence that what is currently happening is unconstitutional or illegal. Pretty disappointing effort.
Exactly, it’s why Grand Jury testimony is heard in secret.

It’s beyond me why the ‘village idiots’ continue to post absolute rubbish and assume it will be accepted as gospel. Did they think no members of BF would know how congressional committees undertake oversight?
 

RobbieK

Cancelled
Aug 20, 2009
5,731
10,803
AFL Club
Sydney
You always get jumpy and bite everyone's head off when someone posts something you don't like.
C2C Sinclair
@SBGC2C

·
15h

@RepMattGaetz
: "What you see are secret hearings, secret depositions, members of Congress being excluded from those proceedings, and then selective leaks to fit a predetermined narrative. I trust the American people. I think we ought to put all the evidence before them.

Members of Congress who aren't on the Committees that are doing the investigation are not present in the hearings. The Committees are made up of both Republican and Democrat Members of Congress. If the Committees find that there are actions worth of impeachment, then the House will vote. If that vote passes, then there will be a public trial held by the senate in which all of the evidence will be presented and the President will have a chance to defend himself. Any claims of procedural unfairness are unfounded.
 

shniko11

Beneath the blue and white
Nov 6, 2015
4,883
7,741
Australia
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Members of Congress who aren't on the Committees that are doing the investigation are not present in the hearings. The Committees are made up of both Republican and Democrat Members of Congress. If the Committees find that there are actions worth of impeachment, then the House will vote. If that vote passes, then there will be a public trial held by the senate in which all of the evidence will be presented and the President will have a chance to defend himself.
Yep ok but until/if they vote the Republicans can't subpoena transcripts or testimony is that correct?
 

RobbieK

Cancelled
Aug 20, 2009
5,731
10,803
AFL Club
Sydney
Yep ok but until they vote the Republicans can't subpoena transcripts or testimony is that correct?
There are Republicans on the Committees questioning the witnesses and getting access to the transcripts. The charaterisation of the Committee Hearings as secret, Democrat-only interrogations is simply false.
 

Mick F

Mighty Snr
Dec 26, 2013
5,935
9,951
AFL Club
Collingwood
There’s nothing normal about the whole process.

You have a person who can’t even be charged with a crime while he holds office.

Normal rules simply don’t apply.
There’s nothing normal about the whole process.

You have a person who can’t even be charged with a crime while he holds office.

Normal rules simply don’t apply.

Normally when the IG refers a matter for criminal referral to the DOJ they investigate it. In this instance Barr point blank refused to, so there is no special prosecutor investigation like there was with Starr of Clinton.

The Congress is having to do its own investigation. Special counsels in the Nixon and Clinton impeachments investigated privately.

In each deposition, the Democrat chair (Schiff) has made an opening statement and allowed a Republican lawmaker to do the same. Counsels for, and members of, both parties have questioned witnesses and both parties were given equal representation and time.
 
Last edited:

RobbieK

Cancelled
Aug 20, 2009
5,731
10,803
AFL Club
Sydney
Thanks, you make to much sense for this place.
No worries. The guy whose twitter you quoted, Matt Gaetz, is a Republican Member of Congress who was blocked from entering one of these Committee Hearings. The reason for that was quite simple. It was not because he was a Republican, but because he wasn't a member of that Committee. Republicans who were members of the Committee were in the room, accessing the information and questioning the witnesses. Democrats who weren't members of the Committee were not allowed in, for the same reason Gaetz was excluded.

There is a lot of disinformation being thrown about by this process right now. The logic is understandable. Trump supporters are trying to discredit the process to muddy the waters because it is easier to do that then address the substance of what is being investigated.
 

shniko11

Beneath the blue and white
Nov 6, 2015
4,883
7,741
Australia
AFL Club
North Melbourne
No worries. The guy whose twitter you quoted, Matt Gaetz, is a Republican Member of Congress who was blocked from entering one of these Committee Hearings. The reason for that was quite simple. It was not because he was a Republican, but because he wasn't a member of that Committee. Republicans who were members of the Committee were in the room, accessing the information and questioning the witnesses. Democrats who weren't members of the Committee were not allowed in, for the same reason Gaetz was excluded.

There is a lot of disinformation being thrown about by this process right now. The logic is understandable. Trump supporters are trying to discredit the process to muddy the waters because it is easier to do that then address the substance of what is being investigated.
Yep there is alot of disinformation going on from both sides but I'm sure you know that already.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jul 19, 2008
16,845
18,417
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Atlanta Falcons/Winnipeg Jets
p0stkaf523t31.jpg
 

RobbieK

Cancelled
Aug 20, 2009
5,731
10,803
AFL Club
Sydney
Not a good day for Trump and the Congressional Hearings.

Gordon Sondland, a wealthy hotelier and major Trump 2016 campaign donor who was rewarded with an Ambassadorship to the EU, outlining how Trump instructed him to work with Giuliani to use a White House visit and aid to pressure the Ukraine into publicly declaring investigations into the 2016 election campaign and Biden family interests.

Of course, Ukraine is not in the EU, it seems pretty clear that Trump tasked Sondland with this job and groubdlessly sacked the previous ambassador to the EU in order to get someone with personal loyalties to Trump on the case.

Doesn't look like that is working out for Trump, with Sondland is being candid about the misgivings he had about what he was asked to do. He is the person who told other state department officials who were raising issues about this aid/access for investigation deal that there was "no quid pro quo", which he repeated because Trump Himself and said so to him... Despite him clearly being tasked with a deal involving quid pro quo.

I don't see how Trump loyalists spin this one as fake news, but I'm sure they will try.

 

RobbieK

Cancelled
Aug 20, 2009
5,731
10,803
AFL Club
Sydney
And now Mulvaney is holding a press conference announcing that the next G7 meeting will be held on a Trump property (no conflict of interest though) and there is a change in the White House story about the withheld aid being a quid pro quo. Rather than denying there was quid pro quo the story is now that there was, but that it was only to ensure Ukraine investigated the conspiracy theory about Ukraine having a stolen DNC server, and not the Bidens, and is apparently therefore totally fine.

The lies are unravelling.
 

Mick F

Mighty Snr
Dec 26, 2013
5,935
9,951
AFL Club
Collingwood
And now Mulvaney is holding a press conference announcing that the next G7 meeting will be held on a Trump property (no conflict of interest though) and there is a change in the White House story about the withheld aid being a quid pro quo. Rather than denying there was quid pro quo the story is now that there was, but that it was only to ensure Ukraine investigated the conspiracy theory about Ukraine having a stolen DNC server, and not the Bidens, and is apparently therefore totally fine.

The lies are unravelling.
Clearly the guard rails have been removed. The adults have left the room.
 

darrenmorgan

Norm Smith Medallist
May 2, 2005
5,416
12,372
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Apparently there was no quid pro quo, Adam Shifty Shiff tried to force it out of him, to say that but failed.

Adam Schiff the same man who won't release the full Volger testimony.
-who met with WB beforehand and said he didn't
-who made up his own words to the call as he was reading from it live on tv.
-who is carrying out everything behind closed doors while leaking his own lies.
-who now said the WB who wasn't there who worked with a Dem Candidate "might not have to testify".
-who said he has proof on Trump and Russia for two and a half years and had nothing.

And now we're supposed to believe him c'mon man, there are good reasons people have their doubts.

I could really just read Trump’s Twitter feed rather than your posts
 
Read through the entire thing. Most of that list is a farce. It's like they've just added the word Trump to every second unsubstantiated allegation to link trump somehow. Very few convictions reported there.

I'm not denying that Trump doesn't have some violent nutter fans who resort to antifa level violence, what I do reject is the notion that there is an equal amount of political violence being committed by Trump 'supporters' as there is from Trump 'protestors'. I'm seeing large mobs of agitators at Trump rallies, but I can't say the same about seeing any Trump supporters at, let alone causing trouble at the Dem candidates rallies and that includes 2016 at Hillary and Bernie rallies. People should not be intimidated, threatened, abused or assaulted for attending an election rally of the candidate of their choice.
Finally, a reasonable post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back