OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Has he been able to Rendition that cleric now that he has some free time?
Impeachment
- Thread starter mchammer
- Start date
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Ok genius. What did I sidestep? I addressed it head on unfortunately for you.
Your response? Evidence AGAINST your argument that investigations didn't occur followed by the "wink wink" nods to unsupported conspiracy theories. I appreciate ypur ability to do some research but now we need to work on using it to support an argument. With the exception of Tosen which I didn't address in my post you bolstered my stance whike undercutting your own. One might equate that to a deficiency in logic skills or reading comprehension but I'd argue your perspective was gleaned long before any evidence existed.
As you've proven over and over, evidence is not becessary for you, in fact you can read it and ignore it in a textbook example of cognitive dissonance. This is why you can claim Obama involvement without an iota of evidence though you have cited some articles. The mere presence of articles doesn't mean they support your argument but it is a baby step in the right direction.
humahuma
1,000+ Posts
Corruption and conflict of interest are a concern with me, problem is it depends on who you voted for determines which side is corrupt and has conflicts of interest. Both sides need to stop, grow up and govern the country.
This guy was apparently the source for the original whistleblower. He likely told whistleblower #1 and #2 things that they were not authorized to hear. Reminds me of Comey leaking (false) info from his conversation with the president for the purposes of getting a special prosecutor appointed. I think Schiff shut down the questions cause that would have identified the whistleblower. So, yes, I think you have to question what was this guy’s motivation and if he heard things correctly. My guess (already stated) is that he didn’t want the relationship to get political (via 2016 election investigation and Biden corruption) cause it could backfire on Ukraine once the Dems start another witch hunt like they did against the Russians. Like the Comey situation, these issues are above his pay grade, but Orange Man Bad
I35
5,000+ Posts
Albert, this is why I don’t bother posting links for you. I took the time so you wouldn’t make any kind of those claims and you did anyway. You are either playing dumb again or you come across as brain dead. You make your response with complete generalities. So now links that are proven aren’t good enough. Gotcha! Not sure what more I can do to show your incompetence of carrying on a dialog. Your typical response is cluttered with junk. You are all fluff dude with zero substance.
What did you side step? SMH!!! I specifically addressed this and have asked you three time already. You can’t give me what you claim is damning evidence against the President is?
what’s the damning evidence against the President is?
the damning evidence against the President is?
the damning evidence against the President is?
the damning evidence against the President is?
There. Do you understand the question now? I keep asking and you haven’t addressed it because you are too busy trying to deflect.
Not sure how I can get it in your head that I don’t care about the results of the things I listed. I came out and told you the broader point that was made and you continue to try to argument of who’s right. We can agree to disagree the things listed were properly investigated. My whole point to my post (and I’ve already explained this to you once) is to find out what’s damning to the president, so I can compare it to Obama’s wire tapping of a US citizen. That way I can show you how petty your whole argument is. You know this and that’s why you are avoiding addressing it.
Last edited:
Maybe they want the public to see them being gaveled down during questioning.
An opinion piece? Written by the men who were helped write the thing? I think you've stretched it. If the author of any book (say fiction) describe it without it being called "an opinion?"
Besides that guy, it's funny no one else who was listening to the call expressed the same concerns. Odd since Dems say Trump's WH is nothing but chaos.
Apparently, and even though everyone else with a first hand account hasn't expressed concern and Zelensky said QPQ or pressure, this guy having a concern means Trump is guilty.
Was it necessary then that the transcript be corroborated by someone "remembering" his first hand knowledge (hearing what was said and then interpreting it properly)? Or asked another way, does his testimony carry more weight than the transcript (I would think it does).
Regardless, then we have to decide if his firsthand testimony is evidence of an impeachable offense.
I guess since people are so quick to come out and go against Trump and the WH, why hasn't anyone else involved disputed the transcript? Why is his testimony more weighted?
I suppose it would beg the question: who wrote the transcript and where did they get the text from? Did they hear it like a court reporter would? Was it recorded and they merely transcribed it? Maybe that question has already been answered on here. I haven't taken the time to look.
We know it doesn't matter to someone like Beto. He said he would vote to impeach before the Mueller report was released. He is speaking as instructed by his masters.
I thought the fact that professional stenographers or the like were the ones who took all the notes for the transcript, and again, that no one has come out besides this guy disputing the transcript. Or am I wrong?
I think I explained that to Barry pretty thoroughly. Do you have a question about anything specific?
BY
The transcript IIRC was complied from people who listened on the call.The transcript was prepared using voice recognition software, along with note takers and experts listening in, according to senior White House officials. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss White House document preparation.The Listeners prepared the transcript themselves.
The transcript IIRC was complied from people who listened on the call.The transcript was prepared using voice recognition software, along with note takers and experts listening in, according to senior White House officials. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss White House document preparation.The Listeners prepared the transcript themselves.
Is it against the general principles of good government for a President to withhold appropriated security funds from a country while asking a personal favor of its President to investigate a political opponent or run down a wacky right wing conspiracy theory that a DNC's computer server was in the Ukraine? In my mind, it's slimy and abusive of public trust..
Is it an impeachable offense? I'm not convinced, but open to more info.
Should the process to impeach Trump be as transparent as legally possible and give both sides access to facts? Yeah again. The Democrats have to come across as defenders of fairness to gain anything. My problem with Trump is that he flouts the rules and is crassly self-serving. Given a choice between dishonest, self-serving, power-abusing politicians, I lose interest.
Is it an impeachable offense? I'm not convinced, but open to more info.
Should the process to impeach Trump be as transparent as legally possible and give both sides access to facts? Yeah again. The Democrats have to come across as defenders of fairness to gain anything. My problem with Trump is that he flouts the rules and is crassly self-serving. Given a choice between dishonest, self-serving, power-abusing politicians, I lose interest.
Had the Democrats not CLEARLY pursued impeachment from day one I'd be good if they mirrored whatever precedent was set by the Republicans in the past concerning the process. But I am of the OPINION that this is not to save America but in fact a clear desire to destroy a political enemy. Because of that OPINION I believe the entire process must be transparent.
I35
5,000+ Posts
For anyone unclear on the meaning of quid pro quo, here is a real life example
Text Book Example!
I35
5,000+ Posts
wouldn’t the transcript say Trump ordered the Ukraine to investigate Biden or they won’t get any fundIng? Remember the Ukraine’s had no idea until after the meeting and learned by the press that funds were delayed.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Depositions are not taken in a courtroom before a judge. They are usually in a conference room or maybe someone's office if it's big enough. It is primarily up to the attorneys to settle the differences. In federal court, there is a designated magistrate on call every day to handle disputes, usually by phone, if the parties cant work it out. You dont want to make that call unless you have to. For me personally, I always let the other side get their full objection on the record, but I never let them alter my question. I would just ask the same question again. And if the other side would say, "that's inadmissible" or "it's objectionable" I would tell the witness to answer anyway. I would often want to know their answer even if the response was inadmissible. Sometimes I was actually hoping the other attorney would order the witness not to answer, because that was something I wanted on the record for later use. Sometimes opposing counsel treating these events as trials and would get excited, even angry. But it wasn't a trial and there was really no reason to get so excited.
Depositions transcripts are then used for various purposes (note here that witnesses are always allowed the chance to review and make corrections to their answers -- sometimes there might be a typo or an inaudible answer). For example, a pulled depo section can often become part of a motion (such as for summary judgement). Then at trial, there are multiple other possible purposes. They might be submitted as evidence, which is one place you would get arguments and a ruling by the trial judge, as you mention above. But they can also be used with a witness on the stand-- sometimes to impeach a hostile witness but also to bolster your own witness (such as "refreshed memory").
Depositions are primarily a tool of civil trials. Civil trial attorneys sit through and take 1000s of them (or that was my experience anyway). I dont have the experience to comment on what is done in criminal actions. As I mentioned above, I dont know what rules they are using here, if any.
But it does seem clear these are NOT depositions, even if that is what they are calling them. There are transcripts (I think) so there must be a court reporter (or someone). But I dont even know if the testimony is sworn (does anyone else know this for sure?). So much about this process is secret is hard to know what they are doing. But one thing for certain is that under no circumstances does one of the parties or their representative get to serve as the judge/magistrate at a deposition, which is the one thing we do know is happening in these proceedings. Schiff is the party, the party's representative and the magistrate all in one. This alone disqualifies what is happening here from technically being a "deposition." What it sounds like is that Schiff is just making it up as he goes. This is one of the reasons you see so many people saying what is happening here is inconsistent with due process.
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
I wanted to add something else about depos. There is a sort of art to them. You have to be careful what you ask. You dont just lay out your entire case at that time. This is not the time or place to make your closing argument. You definitely do not want to be helping your opponent at this time. IMO, there are two big things to learn about taking a depo: (1) first is that you will see your own words back, in print, so form and clarity are crucial. The first one I got back was so embarrassing that I had to call my girlfriend to comfort me. But you learn. (2) this is probably the real art to it and that is you have to know when to shut up. When you get what you want, stop talking and stop asking questions. This can be a hard lesson for people who think they are paid to talk.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
General Flynn has plead guilty in a court of law to 2 different judges to anything I've accused him of. I doubt I ever accused him of anything during his military service. That lobbying for Turkey as an unregistered lobbyist, conversation with Kislyak and lying to the FBI was some corrupt stuff though.
What has Vindman done other than speak up to what he witnessed and how he reacted?
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Senate Leader vote
- Started by BrntOrngStmpeDe
- Replies: 17
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
