Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Jan.6 Committee is fact-finding only. It has no power of prosecution- prosecuting Trump is entirely up to the Atty. General and the Justice Department.
The Committee delivers whatever evidence they find to Justice. And then when it's all delivered, it will disband.
No one on it violated anyone's 5th Amendment rights. So far Flynn and several others called to testify have invoked their 5th Amendment privileges, and have faced no penalty at all for doing so.
The House Committee does have the constitutional authority of subpoena, but it is not a trial. Only the Senate can hold a trial, and they can only try political offenses.
As a Committee, the members are free to choose who they want to testify before them. Trump has not been called so far. That's perfectly legal.
Trump could ask to testify voluntarily, and if he did so, the Committee is under no obligation legally to allow it, but they could agree.
It's all due process. Those who believe otherwise simply don't understand how the process works, but it's all in the Constitution.
Personally, I'm not sure Trump will ask to testify. It's a lot easier for him to cry foul if he doesn't, as the Trumpettes always take whatever he says as God's word to the chosen.
But Trump never defends. He always attacks. So he could demand a session with the Committee.
I doubt they would ever call him. It would be a waste of their time, as he would just blather for 2 1/2 hours about how he was cheated and everything is fake.
The Jan.6 Committee is fact-finding only. It has no power of prosecution- prosecuting Trump is entirely up to the Atty. General and the Justice Department.
The Committee delivers whatever evidence they find to Justice. And then when it's all delivered, it will disband.
No one on it violated anyone's 5th Amendment rights. So far Flynn and several others called to testify have invoked their 5th Amendment privileges, and have faced no penalty at all for doing so.
The House Committee does have the constitutional authority of subpoena, but it is not a trial. Only the Senate can hold a trial, and they can only try political offenses.
As a Committee, the members are free to choose who they want to testify before them. Trump has not been called so far. That's perfectly legal.
Trump could ask to testify voluntarily, and if he did so, the Committee is under no obligation legally to allow it, but they could agree.
It's all due process. Those who believe otherwise simply don't understand how the process works, but it's all in the Constitution.
Personally, I'm not sure Trump will ask to testify. It's a lot easier for him to cry foul if he doesn't, as the Trumpettes always take whatever he says as God's word to the chosen.
But Trump never defends. He always attacks. So he could demand a session with the Committee.
I doubt they would ever call him. It would be a waste of their time, as he would just blather for 2 1/2 hours about how he was cheated and everything is fake.
Wrong again. Congressional hearings have rules and follow the witness and testimony laws and procedure and division of powers between majority and minority party. That's why the majority party picks the panelists and the minority panelists picks their panelists to make it bipartisan to challenge witnesses and evidence and don't appear to be partisan.
Pelosi rejected the picks of the minority party and put all members in the panel that voted to impeached Trump. That isn't a conflict of interest? The same panel has 1 narrative with NO challenge. They put a witness with hearsay that she heard from second hand that Trump committed crimes but never verified the hearsay or verified with first hand witnesses but they let her testified. Then one of the panelist (Liz Cheney) hugs the witness after her testimony. Isn't that more conflict of interest of a Kangaroo court.
Hugging a witness for their testimony from a panelist? Come on, this is a joke. You are part of the problem if you support this circus.
Long post. I can't believe you are defending Dick Cheney but you make it so easy. President George W. Bush outsourced the lion’s share of his presidency to Vice President Cheney. Cheney was running that administration since Dumbya was clueless especially his first term and after 9/11.
Dick Cheney asserted presidential power to create military commissions, which combine the functions of judge, jury, and prosecutor in the trial of war crimes. The Supreme Court rebuked Cheney in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Cheney claimed authority to detain American citizens as enemy combatants indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay on the president’s say-so alone, The Supreme Court repudiated Cheney in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
VP Cheney initiated kidnappings, secret detentions, and torture in Eastern European prisons of suspected international terrorists. This lawlessness has been answered in Germany and Italy with criminal charges against CIA operatives or agents. Dick supported championed a presidential power to torture in contravention of federal statutes and treaties.
Dick Cheney provided a vigorous defense of some of the most controversial aspects of the Bush presidency’s expansive definition of executive powers, including denying detainees accused of terrorism the right to a trials, aggressive interrogation techniques and increased domestic surveillance.
I'm not going 8 years of his crimes because it was a lot that million of people were killed, badly hurt and tortured because anybody that lived from 2001 to 2009 and more information came put about Dick knows he is a war criminal. To come here and act like people are stupid and act is what you do. Like you live in a bubble or arrived yesterday on a boat.
Now you come here with more b.s. and say Liz can win next month. Based on what? Come on, stop taking comedy too far. CNN gives her a 10% chance of winning. I never seen an incumbent with a 10% chance of winning. Have you? This is not reality. You would want Liz to win but I also want a new Ferrari. Neither of us will get it this year.
I never defended Dick Cheney at all. Nor did I defend his daughter.
Everything above is true, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the upcoming primary.
You think the Dick's past will change minds in Wyoming when it comes to his daughter. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong.
All I can see in your posts is that you're a fervent Trump supporter who has little objectivity when it comes to Trump.
I said was the Cheney family is still very powerful politically in Wyoming.
And that you don't know the state like I do.
If you were to actually go back to your favorite place, the past, and learn the family's history, I doubt it would change your thoughts. But what I wrote was the truth.
Now if that strikes you as humorous, okey-doke. I'm not offended at all by cynicism, so you won't get a defensive rise out of me. But I won't banter opinions forever with you; mine won't change and neither will yours.
There's no win or loss in the bantering, especially here. Everything you write will be forgotten fast, as will anything of mine. We are both just a couple of anonymous shlubs here. Easy to come, easy to go.
But be clear about this: I don't know a fiddler's damn if Liz will elected or not.
I've never said she would win or lose.
Don't try to read anything into what I wrote. It's not there, so don't get your mind twisted up about it.
I admire her courage, and I think she's doing the right thing for our party, and I think Trump is an obscene blot on our history as the world's greatest democracy.
I would also very much like to see my party return to it's former honesty and purpose too. I don't the Republicans becoming a chaotic mob that's devoted to a failed tyrant. One mistake is enough.
But just because I despise Trump doesn't mean I won't leave the Republican Party. No one will drive me out. if I leave, it will be my choice, just as it was to join it.
If you differ, so be it. But I am as serious in my desire to see Trump barred from our politics forever as you are eager to see him re-elected.
My concerns are for the future of my country, not its past. I don't care how Trump is locked out or who does it, but I support every effort anyone makes to that end in either party.
So good work, Liz. Keep it up. Best of luck in August to all in Wyoming.
Last edited by banjomike; 06-29-2022 at 09:45 PM..
I never defended Dick Cheney at all. Nor did I defend his daughter.
Everything above is true, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the upcoming primary.
You think the Dick's past will change minds in Wyoming when it comes to his daughter. Maybe you're right.
All I said was the Cheney family is still very powerful politically in Wyoming. And that you don't know the state like I do.
Now if that strikes you as humorous, okey-doke.
But be clear about this: I don't care a fiddler's damn if Liz is elected or not.
I admire her courage, and I think she's doing the right thing for her party, and I think Trump is an obscene blot on our history.
If you differ, so be it. But I am as serious in my desire to see Trump barred from our politics forever as you are eager to see him re-elected.
My concerns are for the future of my country, not its past. I don't care how Trump is locked out or who does it, but I support every effort anyone makes to that end in either party.
You are not reading me. This is about her big sham and hypocrisy. Is not about the constitution or the law. Because if it was, Liz would have gone first after her father and herself for having blood on their hands and many crimes and be going after Pelosi and Biden for their violations of the constitution but she don't, she sides with Pelosi and the Wyoming people see this.
Of course the Iraq war is NOT the topic in the primary in Wyoming but Liz Neo Con policies is and why Trump is unfit but her father and she is???? Trump was impeached TWICE and got 2 hearings. Dick Cheney got NONE and Liz is pushing his policies. See the B.S. and the doubles standards and that's just on the Cheneys. The Democrats in power are as guilty and more and the people of Wyoming see the hypocrisy and circus and feel Liz Cheney doesn't represent them and want her gone. She has 10% chance of winning, that means the majority doesn't want her and doesn't trust her. The majority of the people in Wyoming are not stupid but here you are defending Liz like she does NO wrong and attack the people of Wyoming for voting her out. You are an "impartial" juror that allows this Kangaroo court to continue.
I did not want to give that ____ , Liz Cheney, any more publicity than she already is getting, but it absolutely amazes me that she is getting so much attention. The Washington Examiner current has TWO feature articles about that POS.
She would be about my LAST choice for any kind of office. She is almost as bad as her father, imo.
How does Liz part of the panel hugs a witness in front of the cameras after her testimony? Anybody that still thinks Liz and this panel are bipartisan and fair are on drugs.
She allows a hearsay witness to go under oath with NO challenge but She and her panel never verified her hearsay and this is supposed to be a fair and impartial hearing? LMAO!!! How is this puts country above all? The joke with Liz.
You are not reading me. This is about her big sham and hypocrisy. Is not about the constitution or the law. Because if it was, Liz would have gone first after her father and herself for having blood on their hands and many crimes and be going after Pelosi and Biden for their violations of the constitution but she don't, she sides with Pelosi and the Wyoming people see this.
Of course the Iraq war is NOT the topic in the primary in Wyoming but Liz Neo Con policies is and why Trump is unfit but her father and she is???? Trump was impeached TWICE and got 2 hearings. Dick Cheney got NONE and Liz is pushing his policies. See the B.S. and the doubles standards and that's just on the Cheneys. The Democrats in power are as guilty and more and the people of Wyoming see the hypocrisy and circus and feel Liz Cheney doesn't represent them and want her gone. She has 10% chance of winning, that means the majority doesn't want her and doesn't trust her. The majority of the people in Wyoming are not stupid but here you are defending Liz like she does NO wrong and attack the people of Wyoming for voting her out. You are an "impartial" juror that allows this Kangaroo court to continue.
No. I read you just fine.
The past is the past. It never predicts the future.
And for you, the past never illuminates the future, either, apparently.
is Dick Cheney running for President in 2024? Is Liz? Where's a double standard in anything I said?
All I'm doing is saying what I observe. I can't do anything about it past that except to vote next November.
You're still quite confused it seems. An impeachment and a fact finding House committee are two entirely different things, but you've conflated them into something they're not. For sure, neither is a kangaroo court.
Is hearsay allowed in a fact finding committee? Once more: These hearings are NOT a trial. Hearsay is allowed if it can be confirmed by testimony.
None of the findings are closed to dispute, but evidence is evidence. Civil trials accept hearsay evidence that can be supported, while most criminal trials do not.
The purpose for the fact finding committee is to find the facts. Once found, the findings are handed to the Justice Dept.
And then the facts are sifted for evidence.
If hearsay can't support becoming evidence, that doesn't mean it is not factual. It only means the hearsay facts cannot be verified. In criminal matters this verification is more important than in a civil trial.
But of course, Trump says hearsay is nothing but lies and fakery.
Trump says a lot of very confusing things, especially about what's real and what's fake. That's part of why I never trusted him and didn't vote for him.
If you think that's hypocritical of me, that's ok. Hypocrisy is where a person finds it. The standards do vary from person to person.
I guess if I said I never have defended Liz for a 4th time, it won't change your mind, as it seems to be well set. But its nothing but another nattering point anyway. So, go ahead and natter away.
I'll just hang around and wait to see how things transpire in Wyoming instead of arguing pointlessly with you any farther.
This is only a forum. Nothing here is ever decided. Once one issue wears out, there's always a new one. Like an endlessly passing parade.
Last edited by banjomike; 06-29-2022 at 10:33 PM..
No. I read you just fine.
The past is the past. It never predicts the future.
And for you, the past never illuminates the future, either, apparently.
is Dick Cheney running for President in 2024? Is Liz? Where's a double standard in anything I said. All I'm doing is saying what I observe. I can't do anything about it past that except to vote next November.
You're still quite confused it seems. An impeachment and a fact finding House committee are two entirely different things, but you've conflated them into something they're not. For sure, neither is a kangaroo court.
But of course, Trump says it is. Trump says a lot of very confusing things, especially about what's real and what's fake. That's part of why I never trusted him and didn't vote for him.
If you think that's hypocritical of me, that's ok. Hypocrisy is where a person finds it. The standards do vary from person to person.
I guess if I said I never have defended Liz for a 4th time, it won't change your mind, as it seems to be well set. But its nothing but another nattering point anyway. So, go ahead and natter away.
I'll just hang around and wait to see how things transpire in Wyoming instead of arguing pointlessly with you any farther.
The past is the past? But you support this Kangaroo political hearing when Trump is out of office and he was impeached for it. Isn't this beating a dead horse? The Justice Department are the only jurisdiction that should look into this after Congress had their hand in the impeachment trial but past is past but not for Trump.
My point again, The Cheneys committed crimes in office and Liz is today pushing those policies but the past is past and makes her have the higher ground in what? She is not a impartial juror. She is bias as hell and she doesn't care if everybody knows it. She just hugged a witness in front of the cameras in a hearing accusing a President of a crime.
Hugging a witness in a congressional hearing that is 1 sided and challenging witnesses is not allow. You think this is what the people of Wyoming wants?
Then you say the congressional hearing is a fact finding process not a trial but they are using the hearing to accuse a President of crimes (sounds like a trial to me) and 1 party picked all the panelists that all impeached Trump and doesn't allow challenges and it's only their narrative. How is this a bipartisan and impartial Congressional hearing?
All congressional hearings in the past have balance of power. The majority picks their panel and the minority picks their panel. They do this so is not partisan and no conflict of interests. Liz didn't give a cr@p about due process and she gave the middle finger to her constituents in Wyoming and you call that being a "patriot? What? Then you blame the majority of the people of Wyoming for voting her out. Liz made her bed, let her sleep in it.
and Obama using the I.R.S to go after his political opponents.
Yep. And now Biden is having Trump supporters, e.g., his attorney's and advisers, arrested and/or searched with no reason provided. Scary stuff yet no republican reps are drawing attention to the problem.
I call reps around 3 days a week; don't know if it makes a difference, but it makes me feel better.
Liz is so conservative that she agreed to be part of the biggest Democrat partisan Kangaroo court against the wishes of her party. Then she hugs a witness in public in the hearing after her hearsay testimony cementing more of a bias political Kangaroo court and trashing due process.
Why would conservatives applaud that? That's not conservatism. She is a hack.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trump was impeached TWICE and got 2 hearings. Dick Cheney got NONE and Liz is pushing his policies. See the B.S. and the doubles standards and that's just on the Cheneys. The Democrats in power are as guilty and more and the people of Wyoming see the hypocrisy and circus and feel Liz Cheney doesn't represent them and want her gone. She has 10% chance of winning, that means the majority doesn't want her and doesn't trust her. The majority of the people in Wyoming are not stupid but here you are defending Liz like she does NO wrong and attack the people of Wyoming for voting her out. You are an "impartial" juror that allows this Kangaroo court to continue.
and Obama using the I.R.S to go after his political opponents.
