Quote: @A1Janitor said:
I won’t waste my time talking to you anymore.
The moderation here is a joke.
Nothing but bait posts.
Time will tell.
what does moderation have to do with you being asked to support your previous statements? and perhaps if you werent the way you are towards me and other mods, your interests would be more guarded. I dont think its really against board rules for them to bring up something that you have commented on and ask your opinion once more information has come forward. even if it is bait.
if you dont want to waste your time, stop wasting your time then no?
Research the truth.
Obama withheld military aid to Ukraine against Congress and interagency concerns.
Trump gave that aid.
Biden threatened to withhold aid if the prosecutor investigating Burisma, Soros, and his son wasn’t fired.
He pretends I make everything up. Keep watching - IG report and Durham are coming.
IG report will of course list the involvement of the “whistleblower”.
Quote: @A1Janitor said:
Research the truth.
1. Obama withheld military aid to Ukraine against Congress and interagency concerns.
Trump gave that aid.
Biden threatened to withhold aid if the prosecutor investigating Burisma, Soros, and his son wasn’t fired.
He pretends I make everything up. Keep watching - IG report and Durham are coming.
IG report will of course list the involvement of the “whistleblower”.
At the bold...
Please please please STOP with the falsehoods...
Obama never withed military aide to Ukraine
Quote: @"Politifact" said:
The Obama administration refused to provide lethal weapons in 2014. The decision came as Russian forces invaded the eastern territory of Crimea in 2014 after Ukraine ousted its pro-Russia president. But the United States under Obama did provide extensive military and security aid but not lethal weapons.
Source: Politifact
and
Quote: @"Politifact" said:
At the time, Obama officials were debating whether to send lethal military equipment amid the conflict with Russia, particularly Javelin anti-tank missiles. Obama rejected a request from Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko for lethal aid in 2014, though the White House approved a $53 million aid package that included vehicles, patrol boats, body armor and night-vision goggles, as well as humanitarian assistance.
Source: Politifact
- I hope you know the difference between refused and withed
- The Obama administration did provide military aid. What they did not want to offer was lethal weapons.
I know in this day and age details don't matter but seriously we need to be honest with ourselves to at least have a healthy discussion.
Quote: @A1Janitor said:
The whole process is a hoax. It will be exposed as such.
Certainly secret testimony, where the president is not allowed an attorney or to cross examine witnesses, is a joke.
Public testimony is necessary. And due process for the president is required.
Let’s bring in the evidence of Biden corruption. Of course it needs to be investigated.
Hello A1:
In the Climate Change thread, you wrote this: "NASA recently came out and said climate change is tied to the sun and the tilt of the earth." I then posted not one, but two, article on NASA's website that showed your statement was incorrect: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/ and https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/. I assumed from your silence on the topic that you concede you were wrong on your NASA statement.
Now, I am going to tell you why the above statement is wrong and I am not going to simply state the obvious that the House makes it rules and those are the rules that apply.
Think of the whole entire impeachment process as a criminal case. The "impeachment" portion is conduct by the House and all the House is doing is saying whether there is enough evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors to hold a trial. It is analogous to the grand jury in a criminal case. You are not convicted by the grand jury; rather the grand jury decides whether there is enough evidence for the DA to proceed to trial. So, the House members are, in effect, the grand jury to determine whether the Senate should try the President.
So, would you be surprised that a grand jury has "secret testimony" and the accused is not allowed to "cross-examine" witnesses? (And that is not against the Constitution or denying due process.)
"For potential felony charges, a prosecutor will present the evidence to an impartial group of citizens called a grand jury. Witnesses may be called to testify, evidence is shown to the grand jury, and an outline of the case is presented to the grand jury members. The grand jury listens to the prosecutor and witnesses, and then votes in secret on whether they believe that enough evidence exists to charge the person with a crime. A grand jury may decide not to charge an individual based upon the evidence, no indictment would come from the grand jury. All proceedings and statements made before a grand jury are sealed, meaning that only the people in the room have knowledge about who said what about whom." https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/charging "Unlike a preliminary hearing, held in court with the defense side present, the grand jury does not make its decision in the context of an adversary proceeding. Rather, grand jurors see and hear only what prosecutors put before them. (Prosecutors technically have an obligation to present “exculpatory” evidence—evidence that suggests that a defendant might not be guilty—though there is not much other than the prosecutor’s conscience to enforce this rule.)" https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/why-prosecutors-choose-grand-juries-preliminary.html
Now Congress is engaged in essentially a "preliminary hearing" in that the witnesses are testifying publicly and both sides are offered the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
The "due process" you are talking about will occur at his actual trial (if Congress votes to impeach). Right now, the House is simply deciding whether there is enough evidence for the Senate to hold a trial. And as the House has decided to use both the grand jury model and the preliminary hearing model to make this determination, President Trump is actually being treated much better than a person being investigated for most felonies.
In fact, compare Trump's behavior with Clinton. "In four hours of closed-door testimony, conducted in the Map Room of the White House, Clinton spoke live via closed-circuit television to a grand jury in a nearby federal courthouse. He was the first sitting president ever to testify before a grand jury investigating his conduct." That was the Grand Jury during the Starr investigation. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-clinton-impeached. Not only will Trump not testify, he has instructed numerous other people not to testify. Think about that for a moment -- he could have the Republican Congressman call a bunch of people to refute the allegations but he won't.
Quote: @A1Janitor said:
I won’t waste my time talking to you anymore.
The moderation here is a joke.
Nothing but bait posts.
Time will tell.
It's a simple question you refuse to answer, not a bait post. Why do you struggle with it? You claimed to be anti-corruption and want pay to play schemes out of government, good so do I - regardless of party. So why can't you just say neither party should do this and anyone that does should be punished?
But now you're crying for Mods to rescue you because you can't answer a simple question, and feel attacked because I won't let you slither away by changing subjects for the 10th time? And then you go right back to the old "But Obama ...!" with another zinger of fabricated bullshit and get called out for posting more lies.
Your continued refusal to answer a simple question without changing subjects comes off as someone very troubled and having a hard time coming to grips with reality. This is not the behavior of a sane person.
Mods can give me a timeout, I don't care, it's not going to change anyone's perception of him reading this thread or make him look any less unhinged.
Quote: @VikingOracle said:
Hello A1:
Obv, I'm not A1, but I'd like to respond. I especially like to respond to some of your thoughtful & intelligent thoughts. So beg my pardon......
Now, I am going to tell you why the above statement is wrong and I am not going to simply state the obvious that the House makes it rules and those are the rules that apply.
Think of the whole entire impeachment process as a criminal case.
Now hold, right there. Let's be clear...this is a POLITICAL case, not criminal (or civil, for that matter).
"The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes." link
The "impeachment" portion is conduct by the House and all the House is doing is saying whether there is enough evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors to hold a trial. It is analogous to the grand jury in a criminal case. You are not convicted by the grand jury; rather the grand jury decides whether there is enough evidence for the DA to proceed to trial. So, the House members are, in effect, the grand jury to determine whether the Senate should try the President.
OK....keeping in mind what I noted, above.
I would further add that the jurisprudential axiom of "due process" is the model trying to be emulated in impeachment, not "a criminal case/tribunal".
A difference with a distinction.
So, would you be surprised that a grand jury has "secret testimony" and the accused is not allowed to "cross-examine" witnesses? (And that is not against the Constitution or denying due process.)
"For potential felony charges, a prosecutor will present the evidence to an impartial group of citizens called a grand jury. Witnesses may be called to testify, evidence is shown to the grand jury, and an outline of the case is presented to the grand jury members. The grand jury listens to the prosecutor and witnesses, and then votes in secret on whether they believe that enough evidence exists to charge the person with a crime. A grand jury may decide not to charge an individual based upon the evidence, no indictment would come from the grand jury. All proceedings and statements made before a grand jury are sealed, meaning that only the people in the room have knowledge about who said what about whom." https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/charging "Unlike a preliminary hearing, held in court with the defense side present, the grand jury does not make its decision in the context of an adversary proceeding. Rather, grand jurors see and hear only what prosecutors put before them. (Prosecutors technically have an obligation to present “exculpatory” evidence—evidence that suggests that a defendant might not be guilty—though there is not much other than the prosecutor’s conscience to enforce this rule.)" https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/why-prosecutors-choose-grand-juries-preliminary.html
Now Congress is engaged in essentially a "preliminary hearing" in that the witnesses are testifying publicly and both sides are offered the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
Big whoah, at your last statement.
The GOP/Trumpsters YUGE problem has been with this last statement.
"During the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries, House rules allowed the president’s attorneys to be present for all sessions related to impeachment, to cross-examine any witnesses and to present evidence of their own." link During THIS present impeachment trial, for the first time in history, the President's counsel HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED in the procedures!
^^ the President, historically, has been allowed counsel president counsel in past Prexy impeachments. UNTIL NOW!
"Cross examination is the greatest legal engine".
The POTUS's atty's have still been denied access to hearings, but GOP congressional members have EVISCERATED majority DEM's witnesses, thus far.
3 witnesses have been heard, and NONE OF THE 3 CAN NAME AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE!
Another aside...if we're "accepting" your characterization of House impeachment ='s a criminal grand jury.
"grand jury" deliberations are supposed to be "secret". Obv, there's nothing "secret" about what's going on now. IT'S TELEVISED!
(further refutation, this is not "criminal law")
And BTW, where was your outrage during the Mueller sham, when grand jury 6e material was being leaked to the press, every damn day?
(con't)
The "due process" you are talking about will occur at his actual trial (if Congress votes to impeach). Right now, the House is simply deciding whether there is enough evidence for the Senate to hold a trial. And as the House has decided to use both the grand jury model and the preliminary hearing model to make this determination, President Trump is actually being treated much better than a person being investigated for most felonies.
"Due process" also has an equal corollary in law...... precedent.
It is unprecedented that the President's counsel not be allowed in impeachment inquiry hearings.
Not only is the President's counsel not allowed...Schiff has gaveled down many House members comments/questions. Unprecedented.
In fact, compare Trump's behavior with Clinton. "In four hours of closed-door testimony, conducted in the Map Room of the White House, Clinton spoke live via closed-circuit television to a grand jury in a nearby federal courthouse. He was the first sitting president ever to testify before a grand jury investigating his conduct." That was the Grand Jury during the Starr investigation. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-clinton-impeached.
GREAT point. I've pointed it out, in other threads regarding the "separation of powers".
BJ Clinton DID NOT HAVE to sit for that grand jury testimony. He would have won at the SCOTUS (I hope), had he contested it.
The legislative branch has(had) no right to command the executive branch to testify (in a civil matter, no less).
Clinton did, as he thought it was politically expedient.
And consider this as a corollary.... Trump had NO legal obligation to release the transcript of his conversation with Zelensky. (Which Trump thought was exculpatory/potically expedient)
BTW, both Bj Clinton & Trump, were right.
Not only will Trump not testify, he has instructed numerous other people not to testify. Think about that for a moment -- he could have the Republican Congressman call a bunch of people to refute the allegations but he won't.
That's a fundamentally unfair ask. You seem to be asking he (Trump) prove his innocence.
That's anti-due process, anti-criminal procedure, and anti-civil procedure, and most importantly, anti-constitutional.
The burden of proof of malfeasance is NOT on the accused, it's on the accuser(s).
|
