Impeachment

TV ratings show Schiff garnered just 11 million viewers for Day One.

For the sake of comparison, nearly 20 million tuned in for Kavanaugh hearing.
 
Hunter has been located. He is renting $12,000-per-month house in Hollywood. This while defying child support
Joe Fan said:
The Ark judge is not taking any cap off Hunter -- issued a Show Cause order for him to appear. Which means a contempt charge is possible
Appear in Arkansas court, explain, judge orders Hunter Biden
Where%E2%80%99s-Hunter-Shirts-Shirt-1.jpg
Click to expand...
 
House Dems arrived at the Senate breathless after a 3 -4 week break from the incredible investigation against the POTUS.

Only to arrive out of gas.... with no real case. Pretend charges. Desperately seeking more evidence to help make their case.

After all, they had no real witness or evidence of:
Treason
Bribery
Quid Pro Quo

Help us do our job Senate & Executive Branch! Call more witnesses and gather / give us more evidence to help us with our lame case.
 
Last edited:
I’m not an attorney, so why are prosecutors in this trial allowed to lie and misstate testimony from the impeachment process at trial?
 
Did anybody see the Ingraham Angle tonight with the discovered emails?

Just Wow! This should be a game changer with the impeachment.
 
Garmel said:
What did the e-mails say?
Click to expand...


I think it's in reference to a story NYT was working on concerning Hunter and pops back in Jan 2016. Story was squashed before print. Writer declined comment, NYT stated it was just a part of their crack team of fact finders, nothing here to see

Sounds like The Angle will keep digging, but the times seems hard set to keep it from seeing the light of day.
 
Horn2RunAgain said:
I think it's in reference to a story NYT was working on concerning Hunter and pops back in Jan 2016. Story was squashed before print. Writer declined comment, NYT stated it was just a part of their crack team of fact finders, nothing here to see

Sounds like The Angle will keep digging, but the times seems hard set to keep it from seeing the light of day.
Click to expand...

Yes and it connects a lot of dots. Implicating one of the star witnesses for the House Dems name Kent. Also found the log of secret meetings with one being the whistle blower. Shows the concerns about Joe and Hunter Biden. Shows a big meeting about the concerns of Hunter Biden (who I think she said the Bidens participated in) one week before Joe announced he was running for President.

I think Laura will run with it specially since she made the breaking news and others on that network will go with it. But we won’t hear a peep from the other fake news networks.
 
theiioftx said:
I’m not an attorney, so why are prosecutors in this trial allowed to lie and misstate testimony from the impeachment process at trial?
Click to expand...

No, in a real trial, openings generally need to stick to the facts. You get a tiny bit of leeway, but if you stray, you might get called out by an objection and then admonished by the judge. In practice, nobody really likes objecting to an opening, but if the other side goes to far, you have no choice. So if either side plays it close to that edge, they risk making a bad first impression with the jury. Openings are not for legal arguments or conclusions, that is for closing. And that is only once the evidence has been admitted, so that there is an actual trial record to argue. You will generally have a lot of leeway on closing but you still need to stick to what was actually admitted. You may not discuss evidence not admitted.

So what you are seeing here is nothing like an actual trial. It was a flaw in whatever rules Mitch agreed to. He cant really blame Roberts either for just sitting there like a log. Mitch should have insisted the House Dems stick to the allegations contained in the Articles, which is what this impeachment is about. And it will be what it is about in the end too.

But in the meantime, Democrats dont really care about any of that. I doubt they even believe most of what they are saying. They just dont want Trump to win again in November.
 
Joe Fan said:
No, in a real trial, openings generally need to stick to the facts. You get a tiny bit of leeway, but if you stray, you might get called out by an objection and then admonished by the judge. In reality, nobody really likes objecting to an opening, but if the other side goes to far, you have no choice. So if either side plays it close to that edge, they risk making a bad first impression with the jury. Openings are not for legal arguments or conclusions, that is for closing. And that is only once the evidence has been admitted, so that there is an actual trial record to argue. You will generally have a lot of leeway on closing but you still need to stick to what was actually admitted. You may not discuss evidence not admitted.

So what you are seeing here is nothing like an actual trial. It was a flaw in whatever rules Mitch agreed to. He cant really blame Roberts either for just sitting there like a log. Mitch should have insisted the House Dems stick to the allegations contained in the Articles, which is what this impeachment is about. And it will be what it is about in the end too.

But in the meantime, Democrats dont really care about any of that. I doubt they even believe most of what they are saying. They just dont want Trump to win again in November.
Click to expand...

They're in a weird situation with opening statements. In a normal opening statement, you argue what the evidence will show. However, they decided not to build an evidentiary case in the impeachment phase. Instead, they're winging it at trial. Well, if you do that, how the hell are you going to argue what the evidence will show? You have no friggin' idea what the evidence will show. That leaves grandstanding as your only option.
 
They have taken grandstanding to another level. At least they are admitting they do not want the American people to have the right to vote.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
They're in a weird situation with opening statements. In a normal opening statement, you argue what the evidence will show. However, they decided not to build an evidentiary case in the impeachment phase. Instead, they're winging it at trial. Well, if you do that, how the hell are you going to argue what the evidence will show? You have no friggin' idea what the evidence will show. That leaves grandstanding as your only option.
Click to expand...

They are also being allowed to argue things that have nothing to do with the Articles submitted. It's like you have a trial over a contract dispute, but they are arguing whether Pluto is a planet. I think it may be a reflection of how disinterested the Senate was in this impeachment from the outset. They just didnt care. Let the Dems say whatever they want for a few days, so they cannot later complain, then end it.
 
Mr. Deez said:
They're in a weird situation with opening statements. In a normal opening statement, you argue what the evidence will show. However, they decided not to build an evidentiary case in the impeachment phase. Instead, they're winging it at trial. Well, if you do that, how the hell are you going to argue what the evidence will show? You have no friggin' idea what the evidence will show. That leaves grandstanding as your only option.
Click to expand...

So in the future is there no way for a process to be forged similar to a normal trial? It's actually kind of shocking to me how loose things really are. You would think removing a sitting President would have a very precise set of rules including due process and all of that. But maybe the Founders thought due process would be too much in favor of the "despotic President" and they preferred a "process" that would lean heavily on politics, meaning the people could weigh in and pressure the House and the Senate. But in this instance, the people are equally divided so it's partisan. And if it's partisan, that in and of itself would indicate to me an acquittal is the answer because it is a wholly political process. It's like voting in a way.
 
Question for the attorney’s here. Rush is saying it’s a must they go after Schiff and expose him. The only way to expose him is have him put under oath as a fact witness.

My question: Is it possible if they agree to have witnesses to have Adam under oath? I know he could claim the 5th I guess but if he did that would also expose him. I just want to know if it’s possible or not.
 
I35 said:
...My question: Is it possible if they agree to have witnesses to have Adam under oath? ...
Click to expand...

The answer is dunno. They are not following the FREs or the FRCP. They are not even following common law. They sort of followed the Clinton Rules on Impeachment, except when they didnt. They are making it up as they go. We have no choice but to wait and see.
 
I35 said:
Question for the attorney’s here. Rush is saying it’s a must they go after Schiff and expose him. The only way to expose him is have him put under oath as a fact witness.

My question: Is it possible if they agree to have witnesses to have Adam under oath? I know he could claim the 5th I guess but if he did that would also expose him. I just want to know if it’s possible or not.
Click to expand...

Yes, they could subpoena Adam Schiff to testify under oath, and yes, he could plead the Fifth if they ask him a question that would expose him to criminal liability. I'm not sure what that would be for, but it could potentially happen.

I don't think they'll actually do that, but they could.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top