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.
Yeah- that is completely not what I saw. I saw one party present actual evidence. Now we see another party preventing evidence from being presented. Who do you think is hiding the truth?
I can assure you that anyone that is not extremely anti-Trump has serious problems with how the democrats handled this impeachment.
If you cannot see this, you should consider stepping back, and honestly ask yourself how you cannot see what everyone else does.
Yeah- that is completely not what I saw. I saw one party present actual evidence. Now we see another party preventing evidence from being presented. Who do you think is hiding the truth?
Then you saw what you wanted to see.
Be honest. If only with yourself. The democrats have been moving for an impeachment since Trump won. They were going to impeach him no matter what. They behaved just as they did with the Kavanaugh situation. They attacked from the position of here say and little more.
The idea that we don't use foreign aid as a lever to make other countries cooperate or withhold it as punishment, is ridiculous at best.
Wonder what penalty a normal person would face for defying a subpoena? Shows the average American we have an elite class in this country who think the laws don’t apply to them. This is because of our arrogant president who thinks he is above the law. I guess by saying something over and over to his base make it true.
It's doubtful that the founders of our country ever considered that someone like Trump could insinuate himself into our government the way he's done. Just as an exercise, can anyone think of how differently the Constitution would have been written, if they had known what was in store for us in 2016?
The idea that we don't use foreign aid as a lever to make other countries cooperate or withhold it as punishment, is ridiculous at best.
I am sure in certain circumstances this is true however, asking for another country to state openly they are conducting an investigation into a possible political opponent is shady, dishonest & shows how low certain people will go for the votes.
If the Trump administration was honestly concerned about corruption they would have asked for investigations in 2017 or 2018. This was solely to benefit the president with our tax dollars.
The witnesses didn't testify because the subpoenas were ignored via Trump administration. Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing according to the president so why not allow Bolton & Mulvanny to go under oath & speak. If it exonerates the president that would be great but, it's not looking that way.
Make this a fair hearing & let everyone testify.
Wonder what penalty a normal person would face for defying a subpoena? Shows the average American we have an elite class in this country who think the laws don’t apply to them. This is because of our arrogant president who thinks he is above the law. I guess by saying something over and over to his base make it true.
The “normal” person would have the right to ask the court to decide whether or not they had to honor the subpoena if they felt there was a reason for them not to do so; an instance where this does commonly occur is when testifying in a case that would cause someone to defy a non-disclosure contract or a previous legal settlement. There is no legal peril to any “normal” for asking court guidance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sindey
The witnesses didn't testify because the subpoenas were ignored via Trump administration. Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing according to the president so why not allow Bolton & Mulvanny to go under oath & speak. If it exonerates the president that would be great but, it's not looking that way.
Make this a fair hearing & let everyone testify.
I take it some people have forgotten about Charles Kupperman, the former deputy who some thought could testify to Bolton’s actions and words if Bolton wouldn’t. Kupperman sued the six chairs of the House investigative committees, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Trump after receiving his House subpoena and conflicting instructions from the White House that he was immune from testifying and should not appear. He asked the court to decide which branch of government's instruction he should follow. Bolton had said he would defy Trump and honor his House subpoena if the courts ruled in favor of the House in Kupperman’s case.
The House lawyers asked courts to dismiss Kupperman’s case and when they didn’t, the House withdrew Kupperman’s subpoena instead, and the House lawyers sent Kupperman’s lawyer the following:
Quote:
“Unless your lawsuit was admittedly only for purposes of delay, and without a subpoena in force, the Committees expect that your client will voluntarily dismiss the complaint he filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on the same day he received the Committee’s subpoena and be guided by the decision in McGahn,” the committee chairmen wrote in their letter to Charles Cooper, who represents Kupperman.
When Kupperman’s refused to voluntarily withdraw his complaint the House lawyers went to the court to request the judge dismiss the case because in the House’s words, it was no longer moot. That is then what happened. Schiff then announced they would not be waiting for the president to play “rope-a-dope” in the courts and therefore would not pursue anyone refusing to honor the subpoena.
So, the logical conclusion is the House majority did not want witnesses to be able to ask the courts whether their subpoenas did or didn’t violate Executive Privilege. The House majority claimed they did this because our national security was so immediately and gravely at risk that the nation couldn’t afford to take the time to allow the process to properly work. We needed to do this impeachment RIGHT NOW! Skeptics think it’s because they knew they’d lose; the current delay in sending over the articles by Pelosi, instead of sending it over RIGHT NOW, does seem to support that theory. Regardless, in the case of a “normal’ person, no one would be in trouble because the accused is not required to testify and the prosecution elected to drop subpoenas rather than have them challenged in court. The case ultimately would be dismissed for lack of evidence.
I know, we’ve been told over and over it’s not a normal criminal case, so ordinary rights of the accused granted to “normal” people are allegedly not supposed to apply. If the process of impeachment, along with the rights of the president facing that impeachment, are deemed some sort of partisan politically defined special category in the House, then that is the case in the Senate too. Can’t have it both ways.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Moderator - Diabetes and Kentucky (including Lexington & Louisville)
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.
