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.
I think one of the issues with some of the members that were turned down was that based on information they already had, they were probably going to be asked to be witnesses. That is a problem on an investigative panel.
Yes, indeed.
Though watching Jordon interrogate himself would have been a fun one.
Please do. Hearings and trials are both integral in the justice process.
In law, hearing implies the general assessment of a case by the judge (panel), wherein preliminary decision is taken by the judge (panel), regarding whether the case is to be pursued or not. These are oral arguments, in support of the case, to settle it or make a judgement or to decide relevant aspects of the case, to ascertain the way in which trial will proceed. It can be held for any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding. In a court hearing, the lawyers of both the parties, i.e. prosecution and defendant, present material, facts, information and evidence before the judge (panel) , concerning the case. After that, the judge (panel) decides whether to hold the accused or not for trial, on the basis of the evidence provided or in this case recommend prosecution for a trial to the DOJ.
We don't have that in this Kangaroo court. All members in the committee have a conflict of interest for already founding Trump to be guilty before the hearing began. No cross examination to the witnesses or evidence. It's a 1 sided hearing to present the case of the side that voted to impeached Trump over the matter.
This wasn't done in the Watergate hearings or Iran Contra Affair. This is the first time it has happen in Congress in 232 years.
Try again. I know you hate Trump and want to nail him and ignore rule of law and process. It says a lot about you.
You are still trying to conflate the two for your own purposes.
This is not a court, this is not a trial, this is merely a fact finding exercise to hear those who know someting about the inner workings of the machine on 1/6.
Anyone and everyone have been invited to come and testify and tell the Committee what they know. The only ones, apparently, who have been willing to speak under oath are the ones with less than flattering stories to tell about Trump and his inner circle.
Who would you like to see testify under oath and set the record straight?
Wrong again. Pelosi can't force who can the minority party pick to represent the minority party in the committee. That's like McCarthy telling Pelosi she can't put Adam Schiff on the committee because of a huge conflict of interest in his hate and lies told about Trump for years since the Russian hoax. The Minority party were forced to walk away. It's like a prosecution (1 side) picking the jury without the other side's input or picking the defense. It has never been done before in Congress.
Then Pelosi instead of putting half the people that impeached Trump for the matter and the other half that voted to acquit in the committee she put all the members in the committee that already voted to impeached Trump and made up their minds before the hearing making a huge conflict of interest to stat and a Kangaroo court.
If you can't see that then you really are the problem. Pelosi made it this way. She didn't want the other side to cross examine or bring their case like the impeachment. She wanted a 1 side narrative of the version of the people that impeached him and silent the other side. Don't talk about the rule of law and fair process because this is not.
McCarthy could have left the other 3 GOP members remain when Jordan and Banks were blocked. Jordan was in contact with Trump on Jan 6 even though that had escaped his memory. If there were congressmen involved with Nixon and Reagan, they would not have been on those committees. But still the other three could have remained but then you couldn't claim it's unfair.
Can you put that law in print and what is the precedent. When you say act against the federal government does that includes publicly speaking against laws passed by the government and rulings by the S.C. or defy the S.C. ruling?
So that means any protests and resisting arrests against the government from civil rights, the draft and the wars is seditious conspiracy?
Why you compare a riot of 4 hours of people with NO guns and Nobody got killed except an unarmed protester by the police to the Civil War is really stretching this by a mile. The purpose of those laws after the Civil War was that the South would never leave the union or defend themselves against Federal aggression. It has nothing to do with this case.
This has nothing to do with the civil war.
This is the reason Democrats will never bring this to a fair hearing or a real court of law, their the accusations will fall flat because in a trial the government has the burden of proof and the defense is allowed to cross examine and bring witnesses and evidence and push a perspective allowed by law something it's not allowed to do in this Kangaroo hearing. You think if you had evidence to prosecute this trial in court Pelosi would need this Kangaroo hearing?
It's called the 14th Amendment, Section 1. It's in a document American Patriots call the "Constitution", which is kind of like an owner's manual for the country. Most of us have studied it since we were in short pants. Some of us still keep copies next to our computers for reference. Unfortunately, some of us have never read it and don't care what it says.
McCarthy could have left the other 3 GOP members remain when Jordan and Banks were blocked. Jordan was in contact with Trump on Jan 6 even though that had escaped his memory. If there were congressmen involved with Nixon and Reagan, they would not have been on those committees. But still the other three could have remained but then you couldn't claim it's unfair.
Qevin was invited to pick two more to go with his three he withdrew. By choosing to be petulant, he ended up with no one on the Committee who would give him daily status reports on what was being uncovered so the republicans could plan a defense in real time. What is coming out in the televised hearings is as much news to Qevin as it is to the average American on the street.
Qevin is not a very smart boy. He is the most sterling recent example of suction being more important than pull to get ahead. Fortunately for America, the Peter Principle has stopped him in his tracks.
Qevin was invited to pick two more to go with his three he withdrew. By choosing to be petulant, he ended up with no one on the Committee who would give him daily status reports on what was being uncovered so the republicans could plan a defense in real time. What is coming out in the televised hearings is as much news to Qevin as it is to the average American on the street.
Qevin is not a very smart boy. He is the most sterling recent example of suction being more important than pull to get ahead. Fortunately for America, the Peter Principle has stopped him in his tracks.
Oh gosh I haven't heard anyone mention the Peter Principle in decades. Now all the youngsters will have to look it up.
Too bad it didn't stop Donald years ago. I guess because he never had to work for someone else.
Qevin was invited to pick two more to go with his three he withdrew. By choosing to be petulant, he ended up with no one on the Committee who would give him daily status reports on what was being uncovered so the republicans could plan a defense in real time. What is coming out in the televised hearings is as much news to Qevin as it is to the average American on the street.
Qevin is not a very smart boy. He is the most sterling recent example of suction being more important than pull to get ahead. Fortunately for America, the Peter Principle has stopped him in his tracks.
Yes now they can claim it's a kangaroo court because there are only two republicans on the committee.
They are so biased only calling republican white house officials and republican secretaries of state, they need to get some democratic witnesses to testify.
"“Unfortunately, a bad decision was made. This committee — it was a bad decision not to have representation on this committee. That was a very, very foolish decision,”
Did you know that Trump is by far the most popular Politician in the US.
Much more than those clowns.
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.
