Impeachment

[OUBubba]

Yes. The majority Democrat House called who it allowed and are now trying to dictate to the majority R Senate who to call. Seems like BS to me. As you say, the House should have called and then gone to the courts, etc., to get Bolton et al if they had evidence. It's just another coincidental leak claiming Bolton has evidence against trump.

Any Senate witnesses in the Clinton impeachment?

 

[horninchicago]

He brought his resignation letter to the oval. Trump told him to hold it and meet about it the next day. Then he announced that he was firing him over twitter that night. Typical chicken **** way he does thing. I mean all you need to do is watch one of those clown show rallies that haven't f'n stopped since 2015 and you see it.

I enjoy the rallies.

 

[horninchicago]

Any Senate witnesses in the Clinton impeachment?

You tell me. Was the impeachment rammed through in 70 something days?

 

[Joe Fan]

Did the Republicans try to get any witnesses to testify?

Both sides had lists of witnesses. The only witnesses who were allowed to testify who were on the R's list were 3 names which were also on the Dems' list. In other words, those 3 people were going to be called to appear whether they were on the Rep list or not. The other requested witnesses on the Reps' list were not allowed. So, the answer is "no" the Republicans were not allowed to called any of their own witnesses. Meanwhile, the Dems got their 17 names.

On this topic generally, I want to shoot down this idea we keep hearing and seeing that trials must have witnesses. This is not true. In fact in the US, the majority of trials in federal and state courts combined have no live witnesses. At the federal level, if we include the bankruptcy courts, I would be willing to bet somewhere close to 3/4s of all trials in the federal courts have no live witnesses. Maybe more.

I just get tired of this argument getting tossed around by people who do not know what they are talking about. And, on top of all that, what's been happening here isn't even a real trial anyway. If it were, this matter would have been dismissed at the motion phase, which is to say before any discovery at all (at least this is how it works in federal courts). Which means before any witness was deposed or any other potential evidence collected.

 

[OUBubba]

You tell me. Was the impeachment rammed through in 70 something days?

No it was the cherry on top of a 5 year investigation that cost $80 million and had scores of witnesses. They still deposed some of them in the Senate behind closed doors over 3 days.

 

[OUBubba]

Both sides had lists of witnesses. The only witnesses who were allowed to testify who were on the R's list were 3 names which were also on the Dems' list. In other words, they were going to be called anyway. The other requested witnesses on the Reps' list were not allowed. So, the answer is "no" the Republicans were not allowed to called any of their own witnesses. Meanwhile, the Dems got their 17 witnesses.

On this topic generally, I want to shoot down this idea we keep hearing and seeing that trials must have witnesses. This is not true. In fact in the US, the majority of trials in federal and state courts combined have no live witnesses. At the federal level, if we include the bankruptcy courts, I would be willing to bet somewhere close to 3/4s of all trials in the federal courts have no live witnesses. Maybe more.

I just get tired of this argument getting tossed around by people who do not know what they are talking about. And, on top of all that, what's been happening here isn't even a real trial anyway. If it were, this matter would have been dismissed at the motion phase, which is to say before any discovery at all (at least in the federal courts). Which means before any depositions or collection of any other evidence.

The GOP should stop saying that there is no case and no proof when Rudy, Barr, Mulvaney, Bolton and Parnas are available. If new information weren't still coming out I'd be on board with the "we know everything there is to know". We don't. You know there are even some recordings. Oh lordy!

 

[OUBubba]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/e-jean-carroll-requests-trump-dna_n_5e3313f4c5b6f26233260af9 I wonder if the dress is blue?

 

[Joe Fan]

The GOP should stop saying that there is no case and no proof when Rudy, Barr, Mulvaney, Bolton and Parnas are available. If new information weren't still coming out I'd be on board with the "we know everything there is to know". We don't. You know there are even some recordings. Oh lordy!

All of what you suggest needed to have been done at the House level. This is one of the few things the Constitution actually delineates with regard to Impeachment. The fact is, in this case, the Dems were not willing to take the time necessary to do this properly. They were in a rush. Whatever their reasons, any resulting defect in their Articles is on them and them alone. They own their own mess.

 

[nashhorn]

Probably hates Trump for the same reason other establishment Rs do.

And all established career politicians. My contention for every anti-Trump action, well except for those issues involving disgust over some of his personality traits.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[OUBubba]

All of what you suggest needed to have been done at the House level. This is one of the few things the Constitution actually delineates with regard to Impeachment. The fact is, in this case, the Dems were not willing to take the time necessary to do this properly. They were in a rush. Whatever their reasons, any resulting defect in their Articles is on them and them alone. They own their own mess.

So did they violate the constitution 20 years ago when they utilized witnesses in the Clinton impeachment?

 

[Joe Fan]

So did they violate the constitution 20 years ago when they utilized witnesses in the Clinton impeachment?

It's hard to tell if you are confused or whether your intent with that question is to confuse. Must be the former, right? lol
In any event, the House Impeachment Articles against Clinton were complete, and accompanied by a full record. Care was taken to assure Clinton enjoyed due process. They did not rush it, they were thorough and respected the process. So those Articles (and accompanying record) were nothing like what we are dealing with here. On top of that, what Clinton did was not really in dispute. The only real question was whether his crime committed while in office rose to the level of demanding his removal from office. Half the Senate said it did (on count II at least) but that was not enough.

 

[Joe Fan]

Would you look at that -- Ukraine is launching a "corruption investigation involving Obama, Biden, the ex-Ukrainian president"
Kiev launches corruption investigation involving Obama, Biden, ex-Ukrainian president
Go figure

 

[Joe Fan]

So did they violate the constitution 20 years ago when they utilized witnesses in the Clinton impeachment?

Did you know (or care) that Joe Biden wrote a 4-page memo to the rest of the Senate arguing against any witnesses at the Impeachment Trial back in 1999?

“The Senate may dismiss articles of impeachment without holding a full trial or taking new evidence. Put another way, the Constitution does not impose on the Senate the duty to hold a trial.

“In a number of previous impeachment trials, the Senate has reached the judgment that its constitutional role as a sole trier of impeachments does not require it to take new evidence or hear live witness testimony.”

“In light of the extensive record already compiled, it may be that the benefit of receiving additional evidence or live testimony is not great enough to outweigh the public costs (in terms of national prestige, faith in public institutions, etc.) of such a proceeding. While a judge may not take such considerations into account, the Senate is uniquely competent to make such a balance.”​

https://static.politico.com/1e/c3/c1f5b0e64288babbba06da2e401a/0247-001.pdf

ps -- you will also take note that Biden agrees exactly with what I told you above, that the factual record in the Clinton Impeachment was "extensive"

 

[horninchicago]

Would you look at that -- Ukraine is launching a corruption investigation involving Obama, Biden, the ex-Ukrainian president
https://tass.com/world/1114249
Go figure

They have to get that aid money and Javelins somehow.

Oh, wait...

 

[Joe Fan]

They have to get that aid money and Javelins somehow.

Oh, wait...

Dems make it seem like there is a large and active tank war going on in Eastern Ukraine, which is untrue. I think whatever tank battles occured, ended by the end of 2014 or early 2015 at the latest. So javelins arriving in 2018 had nothing to do.
Here is an article about this very thing Far From the Front Lines, Javelin Missiles Go Unused in Ukraine

Further, those javelins approved and delivered under Trump are part of a 5-year supply plan. So it was never contemplated that we sending them all at once for immediate use. Suggesting otherwise is dishonest.

 

[horninchicago]

Dems make it seem like there is a large and active tank war going on in Eastern Ukraine, which is untrue. I think whatever tank battles occured, ended by the end of 2014 or early 2015 at the latest. So javelins arriving in 2018 had nothing to do.
Here is an article about this very thing Far From the Front Lines, Javelin Missiles Go Unused in Ukraine

Further, those javelins approved and delivered under Trump are part of a 5-year supply plan. So it was never contemplated that we sending them all at once for immediate use. Suggesting otherwise is dishonest.

You know I was joking, right?

Yes, the Dems act like the survival of the world hinges on Ukraine since the "phone call".

 

[Joe Fan]

You know I was joking, right?
Yes, the Dems act like the survival of the world hinges on Ukraine since the "phone call".

"Fight them over there so they dont come here" has to be one of the most retarded claims of this entire retarded event

 

[OUBubba]

It's hard to tell if you are confused or whether your intent with that question is to confuse. Must be the former, right? lol
In any event, the House Impeachment Articles against Clinton were complete, and accompanied by a full record. Care was taken to assure Clinton enjoyed due process. They did not rush it, they were thorough and respected the process. So those Articles (and accompanying record) were nothing like what we are dealing with here. On top of that, what Clinton did was not really in dispute. The only real question was whether his crime committed while in office rose to the level of demanding his removal from office. Half the Senate said it did (on count II at least) but that was not enough.

BUT THEY HAD WITNESSES. It’s hard to tell if you are purposefully ignorant of that or just playing the game.

 

[OUBubba]

Did you know (or care) that Joe Biden wrote a 4-page memo to the rest of the Senate arguing against any witnesses at the Impeachment Trial back in 1999?

“The Senate may dismiss articles of impeachment without holding a full trial or taking new evidence. Put another way, the Constitution does not impose on the Senate the duty to hold a trial.

“In a number of previous impeachment trials, the Senate has reached the judgment that its constitutional role as a sole trier of impeachments does not require it to take new evidence or hear live witness testimony.”

“In light of the extensive record already compiled, it may be that the benefit of receiving additional evidence or live testimony is not great enough to outweigh the public costs (in terms of national prestige, faith in public institutions, etc.) of such a proceeding. While a judge may not take such considerations into account, the Senate is uniquely competent to make such a balance.”​

https://static.politico.com/1e/c3/c1f5b0e64288babbba06da2e401a/0247-001.pdf

ps -- you will also take note that Biden agrees exactly with what I told you above, that the factual record in the Clinton Impeachment was "extensive"

Ironic, am I right?

 

[OUBubba]

I enjoy the rallies.

Reminds me of yell practice. :|

 

[bystander]

No it was the cherry on top of a 5 year investigation that cost $80 million and had scores of witnesses. They still deposed some of them in the Senate behind closed doors over 3 days.

Did Mueller uncover the Ukraine situation (the alleged quid pro quo)?

 

[bystander]

I'm confused. Is the Senate not the jury? Is Roberts not the judge? Can't the managers and the defense team call their witnesses? What role does the Senate have at this point in dictating the process?

It's so weird.

 

[OUBubba]

Did Mueller uncover the Ukraine situation (the alleged quid pro quo)?

I don’t think so.

 

[mchammer]

LOLZ

 

[Garmel]

Lamar Alexander said no to witnesses. It's done with unless Roberts intervenes in case of a tie.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm confused. Is the Senate not the jury? Is Roberts not the judge? Can't the managers and the defense team call their witnesses? What role does the Senate have at this point in dictating the process?

It's so weird.

Roberts presides and can break ties, but the Senate ultimately decides on whether to call witnesses.

 

[Mr. Deez]

BUT THEY HAD WITNESSES. It’s hard to tell if you are purposefully ignorant of that or just playing the game.

Barry, Joe is basically taking a piss on your face. The Senate can allow witnesses but doesn't have to. It is completely optional, and that really is the bottom line.

The Clinton impeachment trial had a few witnesses but didn't have to. The key is that they were not discovering new evidence. All of the witnesses called had already testified under oath, and their stories were known by the Senate before the witnesses were called. In other words, the House did its job and figured out the facts before impeaching. It wouldn't have mattered if they had chosen not to have witnesses. The House still could have proven its case.

What the House is trying to do now is call witnesses to discover new evidence at trial. It's a reckless way to prosecute a case. Like I've said previously, I very likely would have gotten sued for malpractice if I litigated a case, took no depositions of key witnesses, and learned the facts almost entirely in the courtroom. It's extremely sloppy. It's doubly sloppy to do so if the trial court doesn't have to allow you to call live witnesses, which isn't the case in a court but is the case in the US Senate.

But could I do a ****** job if I wanted to and was willing to face the civil liability associated with it? Yes. That is why I don't mind witnesses being called so long as it isn't one-sided. However, it is their call, and I won't feel sorry for the House managers if their request to do their work on the fly gets denied for the same reason I don't feel sorry for a guy who slams a bottle of Wild Turkey, drives around for an hour and gets injured in a wreck. They knew the rules and risks associated with handing things the way they did and decided to take the gamble. It was stupid, reckless, and totally unnecessary, but they chose to do it. If it comes back to bite them, I may disagree with the Senate, but I won't feel at all sorry for the House or feel like they suffered an injustice. They chose to do a ****** job and take the risks.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Yes. The majority Democrat House called who it allowed and are now trying to dictate to the majority R Senate who to call. Seems like BS to me. As you say, the House should have called and then gone to the courts, etc., to get Bolton et al if they had evidence. It's just another coincidental leak claiming Bolton has evidence against trump.

You're framing this as though the House has some level of control on this. They don't. They can't dictate anything anymore. The Senate can allow or disallow any witnesses it wants.

 

[horninchicago]

You're framing this as though the House has some level of control on this. They don't. They can't dictate anything anymore. The Senate can allow or disallow any witnesses it wants.

I'm saying the spineless Rs in the Senate seem to be letting the Dems run the show. Allowing this charade.