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.
Hutchinson's testimony was a clown show. So stop citing this clown as if she were a credible witness.
You seem disturbed about the things she reported under oath. And I don't mean her second hand story about Trump's tantrum in the car. She had plenty of other things to say as a first-hand witness.
If that were me, I'd obey a subpoena if I were going to a real trial, with cross examining the witnesses.
Not this fake hearings which are slanted to favor the Dems and those who want to take Trump down.
Thank you. Someone here at least gets it. You have rights and the government can't walk over it unless you let them. If a congressional hearing subpoena you, you have 2 choices to testify all under the committee rules regardless if it's political and not impartial or go to an impartial court and make your case why you shouldn't testify and let the courts decide if you need to testify and the limit. All LEGAL.
Pelosi knows she is losing power in 6 months and she won't have her Kangaroo court next year so she is trying to bulldoze the people challenging her subpoenas legally in court. She wants to wrap this before the midterms. Talk about a rush to judgement for politics but here We are. That's the constitutional rights to challenge subpoenas by Congress in court. That's how you do it but now Democrats wants to take it away and declare Queen Pelosi head of the judicial branch.
Damn, you got the insights. You must know people deep in the FBI and DOJ. The DOJ has the evidence to close this case in days. This was the American version of Valkyrie. Red October, Iran Revolution, Spanish revolution, French revolution, China's civil war, U.S. Civil war, Cuban's revolution, Chile's overthrow. Thanks for the laugh.
I dare Biden's DOJ to bring the case to see blow up in his face. Go ahead. The DOJ is already politicized. Please do because Democrats will look like fools like the Russian hoax hearings.
Sounds like you are getting scared that the under-oath testimony we have heard so far is true. It's cracking the bubble of perfection you had believed surrounded your hero Trump.
Sorry he is not the person you thought he was.
This isn't a criminal trial. My point is, these are people who voted for Trump twice, and were loyal to him and his agenda, right up until his election lies and the insurrection. They aren't people who wanted to bring Trump down or RINOs.
It's a judicial procedure:
As per Criminal Procedure Code, there are three stages of a criminal case, i.e. investigation, inquiry and trial, wherein inquiry and trial are judicial proceedings. Hearing and trials are similar to one another in the sense that they are publicly held and involve competing parties.
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. In this case they vote or not to recommend criminal prosecution to the DOJ.
It doesn't matter how the witnesses voted in 2020. It has nothing to do with judicial proceedings and impartial hearings allowing cross examination. You impartial juror you, . You already made up your mind before this started so save us the B.S. I'm talking about an impartial hearing that both sides can cross examine witnesses and bring their own before this committee votes on criminal charges recommendations unless you don't want this to be legitimate and just want to nail Trump.
Democrats in the mess of inflation wants to sell that 1/6 was the American Valkyrie to overthrow a nuclear super power that has 10X more weapons than the next 5 countries combine.
Biggest concern via Monmouth poll of voters : 33% inflation 15% gas prices 9% economy 6% bills/groceries 5% abortion 3% guns 3% health care 3% unemployment 2% tuition costs 2% housing/rent 2% safety/crime 1% civil rights 1% climate change 1% coronavirus 1% education 1% illness.
Items 2-4 are subsets of item one, making item one 63% of the #1 concern inflation. This is the joke about this Kangaroo hearing and the bubble Democrats are. Americans don't care.
Deflection doesn't work. Americans can keep more than one issue in their minds at once.
Last edited by ansible90; 07-05-2022 at 03:41 PM..
"The rest of the team includes Nick Luna, formerly the then-president’s body man (or personal assistant); Will Russell, director of the Trump White House advance team; Molly Michael, who worked as Oval Office coordinator; and Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to former chief of staff Mark Meadows."
directly contradicting trump's claim of:
"I hardly know who this person, Cassidy Hutchinson, is, other than I heard very negative things about her (a total phony and "leaker"), and when she requested to go with certain others of the team to Florida after my having served a full term in office, I personally turned her request down,"
I wonder if Cassidy Hutchinson knows who brought those boxes full of White House papers to Mar a Lago.
In an impartial hearing over a subject that was decided on impeachment in acquittal. You put in the committee both sides to ask questions and vote to send this to the DOJ for prosecution or not . Jurors that voted to impeached and Jurors that voted to acquit. Both cross examine and both can bring witnesses. Is that too much for you, impartial juror you?
Nothing from this hearing will change the votes for impeachment. So why have Pelosi do this if you say it's not political? The last person you want on this is Pelosi and hacks like Schiff.
That was a lot of typing to say "I don't want to answer your question because I know it won't make sense or might embarrass me."
Just in case you misunderstood what I was asking, I'll try again:
Who do you think should have cross examined them? These are two of the top republicans in Georgia.
Is that what the courts said about the 5th? All of them went to impartial courts to make their case and let the courts decide. How is that being too "chicken" or "guilty". Your posts gets more ignorant about the law and rights by the post. This is call due process. You heard of that in school?
If I don't think a political hearing will not be impartial I will go the courts and make my case and only then I will testify if the courts decides I have to. Again, you prove the point by each post that this is just a Kangaroo court. I guess now going to the courts to decide who testifies in a hearing and what is now illegal and proof of guilt. Thanks for the laugh.
That's what your criminal buddy says about the Fifth Amendment.
Tell that to Jimmy Carter. He used the same excuse. People blame the people in power for their woes especially if they look incompetent. People blamed Trump in 2020 for the pandemic during an election year and Biden got a free ride. Now the shoe is in the other foot and Biden is on the hot seat and he is getting deeper and deeper in the hole and looks incompetent. They have less trust in Kamala.
My point is the Democrats have a huge problem in 2024 with either Biden or Kamala. Trump beats them both if the top issue is the economy. People lost all trust in Biden that he can deal with the issues and Kamala is garbage. What Pelosi is trying to do is a chess game of buying time for Biden while she has power this year but at the end it's the economy stupid.
You seem certain Biden and Harris will be running in 2024. I say probably not. Trump won't be running either, regardless of the outcome of the Jan 6 Hearing. We will be having wide open primaries on both sides.
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.
. You already made up your mind before this started so save us the B.S. I'm talking about an impartial hearing that both sides can cross examine witnesses and bring their own before this committee votes on criminal charges recommendations unless you don't want this to be legitimate and just want to nail Trump.
The last person you want on this is Pelosi and hacks like Schiff.