If you still think this is about hearsay, you really haven't been paying attention.
This ought to be interesting
- Thread starter Bruce1
- Start date
Nope, not just a headline reader. And I would still read the transcripts.
I do not think asking a question about who Vindman talked to or who else was in on the call with him, reportedly three were 3 or 4 more with him per cnn, is trying to find out who the WB is. I mean the WB supposedly has no direct knowledge, so he would not have been in on the phone call, so your trying to identify the WB allegation just got blown up.
Anybody he talked to would be a witness, why would they not be questioned? Anybody else on that phone call is a material witness-why are they not subpoenaed? I mean, sure, just subpoena the people that fit your narrative and leak a few paragraphs here or there from days of testimony. So sure, hard for me to take it seriously yet.
A simple question to ask is why did these other people not report or not have issues with the call? There is a lot of that going around, many people knew or heard of this incident, only a few think quid pro quo, or do not even quite think that but thought it was an issue.
And Taylor/Sondland etc, do not have first hand knowledge a QPQ was in place, they either assumed it was or blamed RudyG.
Like I said, I have no issues with wanting to investigate, but investigate the entire deal. And many people up in DC start getting some real cold feet when suddenly these investigations are aimed elsewhere beside Trump. I mean cold feet to the point they want him impeached, accuse him of weaponizing the DOJ, and suddenly it is illegal to investigate political opponents even though Trump was investigated as a citizen and as a President.
There has been an INVESTIGATION involving depositions and testimony, with dozens of Republicans present and asking questions.
When a Grand Jury is impaneled , is a defense attorney allowed to question witnesses ?? In gathering evidence, are members of law enforcement accompanied by defense attorneys ??
The TRIAL involving each and every right guaranteed by law, in the Senate, is right around the corner.
Can you hold your irrelevant complaints until then ??
Care to address the misinformation part?
From closed door hearings that last all day that get a few selected leaked paragraphs/texts from them-that is true.
Schiff's parody-really poor form and that is true
Schiff foreshadwing the WB complaints the month of August in tweets even though he had no contact-That is true. Look up the date the WB filed complaint, the date he said he contacted Intel Committee, Schiff's tweets in August basically paraphrasing complaint, and the day the WB report was made public. I mean if Schiff did not have contact with him maybe Schiff is the WB, he knew the entire story.
Republicans not allowed witnesses or able to asked certain questions.-More than one Republican has said this, and Schiff has some excuse about protecting the WB.
And like I have been saying, suddenly it is illegal for politicians to investigate political opponents. Well ,that happened to trump while a civilian and in office. Agree or disagree that is fine. But disagreeing and people calling facts delusional or misinformation is weak.
Why aren't Republicans leaking any information that makes Trump look better? I"m assuming it's because they don't have any good information to leak. That's why they haven't been able to offer any defense to the actual actions and all of their attacks are misleading bs about the process.
hear·say
(hîr′sā′)
n.
1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Law Evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness, such as testimony regarding statements made by someone other than the witness, and that therefore may be inadmissible to establish the truth of a particular contention because the accuracy of the evidence cannot be verified through cross-examination.
(hîr′sā′)
n.
1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Law Evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness, such as testimony regarding statements made by someone other than the witness, and that therefore may be inadmissible to establish the truth of a particular contention because the accuracy of the evidence cannot be verified through cross-examination.
Well no... he’s got transcripts of actual conversations where there is at least the questionable appearance of QPQ. So, not just hearsay. And hearsay works in this type of case, just so you know.
The ambassador’s aide is speaking based on what he personally discussed and heard discussed. That is not hearsay. Transcripts are not hearsay. Someone recalling a conversation to which they were directly in observation is not hearsay. You apparently don’t understand what hearsay is even as you quote the definition of it.
Hearsay is, “Someone told me that the trainer said that Stefanovich is in a walking boot and won’t play today.” Hearsay is NOT, “I saw Sasha Stefanovich in a walking boot.”
Are you related to Trump? Trump a couple weeks ago was saying it was a sham that they were holding closed door hearings.
Today he's whining that they're holding public hearings.
Cry, cry, cry.
I'm sure you'd lose your $hit if they started arresting Trump's lackeys for defying subpoenas.
And what in the whistleblower complaint is inaccurate or false?
Thanks for playing the deflection game.
You wouldn't change your opinion? Interesting, again...a week ago it was a sham that everything was happening behind closed doors. Now it's a shame that it's happening for the cameras.
I'm sure you'd hold a steady opinion too.
I haven’t seen any transcripts that claimed to be first hand knowledge. That makes it hearsay. In my earlier post I put for the position that the House should go ahead and vote for impeachment as they say they have the votes. Why don they do it? The Senate can then have a real trial where witnesses can be called and.cross examined, etc. I don’t think the Dems will do that because they know they don’t have a real legal case against the President and the know the Senate may not even bring it to trial. They see more value in continuing with their sham of an investigation, releasing sound bites that keep the hearsay comments flowing thru their network of news agencies, etc. In the mean time the American voters continue to see that Congress has no interest in doing anything other than partisan bashing. Meanwhile the economy continues to roll along. 2020 is going to be a very interesting year.
Uh, because they are still investigating? It's actually moving very quickly. Although there's certainly people who are trying to fight subpoenas...maybe you should tell them to man up?
Of course, you're trying to play the detail game. So if someone like John Bolton testifies FIRST HAND knowledge....are you then convinced? Of course not, as soon as there's first hand knowledge you'll try to play off extorting a foreign government for political gain as not a big deal.
No, it’ll be “I don’t care what people SAY. People lie. I need recordings and data!” Or some bullshit. Until it’s caught on video, most of these guys won’t believe anything bad about our President... which is interesting considering his entire fortune is built on bullying and nigh-extortion of people who need his money.
Pretty sure there's been plenty caught on video that they didn't give a crap about either.
Or some vague non-sense about how they don't agree with everything, but don't actually say what they don't agree with or outright say anything is wrong. Or they stay silent and pretend it never happened (see thread about Trump fraudulently raising money for veterans).
If incriminating evidence were caught on video...then the video would have been " doctored"..
Obama's ORIGINAL birth certificate ??? Forged.
You forgot to mention in your scenario that the whistle blower started the fire.
We have an official transcript of the phone call. Read it.
It’s not a full transcript. Also it’s terrible for Trump, not sure how you think the phone call itself is anything that helps him. Do you expect Trump to say “now this is extortion.” Anything less than him laying it out like that and you don’t care?
“I would like you to do us a favor though.”
Last edited:
But that is essentially the issue right now, the first hand knowledge out there are the transcripts. Vindman heard it and thought it was an issue. But others on that call did not think there was an issue, the HoR is not going to call them in though. Taylor and Sondman are saying they assumed a QPQ was in place, one of them said he thought RudyG initiated it but was not sure. This is like grade school except it occurs at top levels of govt.
Hearsay works to a point, especially in the House where they control how the process works. Hearsay can be used to indict and be used in grand jurys as they do not establish guilt. That is essentially the HoR's role. It gets murkier after that. In the Senate, where Republicans have control, when the trial gets there, the Republicans will use that control to their advantage. Roberts will not have the control people think he does.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ns-would-make-rules-senate-impeachment-trial/
Iif they were so certain in their case they would build credibility by not doing what they did. As for your question, not sure anyone knows what is true or false yet. Anyway, that is irrelevant, a QPQ needs to proven. And from what has been released I do not think it is close to be shown yet. Definitely do not see it getting voted for in Senate trial.
Trump will look just fine when you finally realize that Schiff is on another witch hunt. The man has nothing but hate for Trump because he knows that he's one of the first in the Swamp that Trump will get rid of.
Have you ever...EVER...asked someone for a favor? Did it result in extortion? This is all a sham and you know it.
It’s only terrible because it doesn’t meet your narrative.
There was nothing there. There was no aid withheld.
This is the OFFICIAL transcript.
The dems are now deferring to witnesses. What were they witness to? An interpretation of an interpretation of what someone who read the OFFICIAL transcript wanted it to say.
Or how about what Schiff wanted it to say?
He wanted corruption looked into. He wanted the Ukraine influence in the 2016 election looked into. And you have a problem with this?
Last edited:
Thanks for the explanation of what I’ve already said a bunch of times: it will get indicted (impeached). He will not be convicted unless something else breaks.
1) It's not a sham
2) Therefore there's nothing to "know"
3)Never put together a shadow diplomatic presence in another part of the world to set up asking for a "favor"
4) Pretty sure I've never been involved in illegal extortion
5) On to TD2's next bogus setup...
Who else was on the call that didn't think it was an issue? Are you saying because they didn't come forward on their own they didn't have a problem with the call?
You are stating facts not in evidence. In an earlier post, you said "Anybody else on that phone call is a material witness-why are they not subpoenaed?" They have been.
The House has called at least two people that were on the call and have refused to testify or have asked the courts to decide what they should do. Bolton's deputy Kupperman asked the court and one of Mulvaney's aides, Robert Blair, has refused. In addition, John Eisenberg, the legal advisor to the NSC, was the one seeking to transfer the transcript to the classified server. He has also refused to testify.
"But others on that call did not think there was an issue, the HoR is not going to call them in though." Wrong again. Timothy Morrison, NSC director for European affairs, testified said he didn't think anything illegal was discussed. He also testified that Sondland told him the President would release the aid if the Ukrainian prosecutor general announced an investigation.
The only others we now were on the call were, Pompeo, Vindman, (we know where they stand) Keith Kellogg (Pence's NSA) and Jennifer Williams....who testified last week, there is no info about what she said.
So the House did subpoena those on the call.......and some refused to honor that subpoena.......and they also subpoenaed someone who did not think the call was an issue.
If this was a PERFECT call, why would Trump not want everyone on the call testifying to the perfection? Why would he block any of them?
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/bari-we...e-does-it-matter-if-the-informant-was-biased/
“If an informant calls the NYPD and says, ‘There’s a house full of cocaine at the end of the block’ and the NYPD goes there and they find a house full of cocaine and then we find out that the informant was biased against that homeowner, does it actually matter if the person was biased that the cocaine is there?”
“Sure, uhhh,” a clearly surprised Baier responded.
Heeeeeeere doggie.
“If an informant calls the NYPD and says, ‘There’s a house full of cocaine at the end of the block’ and the NYPD goes there and they find a house full of cocaine and then we find out that the informant was biased against that homeowner, does it actually matter if the person was biased that the cocaine is there?”
“Sure, uhhh,” a clearly surprised Baier responded.
Heeeeeeere doggie.
I wonder what liberals would pay in there net worth to get rid of Trump? You realize the Nasdaq is up 64% since he won the election. we closed 5166.17 on Nov 7 1996, now we are 8475.31.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/9-time...ed-officials-from-testifying-before-congress/
Obamas admin also did
https://pjmedia.com/trending/9-time...ed-officials-from-testifying-before-congress/
NASDAQ went up about 250% during Obama's tenure.
So, I'm confused. Are you saying it's OK for both Obama and Trump or it's unacceptable for both? Or it's bad for Obama but OK for Trump?
boilerjohn. My question is about subpoenas. How can they refuse a subpoena? Why is this allowed? It doesn’t matter who is refusing. I don’t understand it. Can an ordinary citizen refuse a subpoena?
It's allowed because the only way is to either pursue an inherent Contempt of Congress citation which I believe leads to the offended body directing the Sgt. At Arms of the Chamber to seize the person and is punished within the Chamber which undoubtedly would lead to long, complex and silly litigation, so it is virtually never pursued, or the far more common referral to the Department of Justice to consider the utilization of the judicial process through the District Court, but of course, the Justice Department is highly unlikely to initiate proceedings in this setting.
No, a regular citizen could never get away with this. I see it regularly where spouses/paramours have initiated minor criminal proceedings and want to withdraw from them but are summonsed/arrested for contempt proceedings when they disregard the subpoena received. It also happens regularly for witnesses in other criminal cases who disregard subpoenae.
It is a systemic collapse that the Administration is leading.
70boiler
Thank you. What happens to an ordinary citizen who just doesn’t show up as a reply to a subpoena?
Thank you. What happens to an ordinary citizen who just doesn’t show up as a reply to a subpoena?
Quite honestly, as an attorney it is the most significant basis that I believe impeachment should be pursued because it is an action orchestrated by the President that strikes very fundamentally at the entire system of constitutional checks and balances and if successful, totally emasculates the ability of Congress to fulfill its function in this realm. It is an abhorrent act to the basic rules of Constitutional law.
They are sometimes just sent on their way with a scolding, but often are held in contempt and placed on probation, many sentenced to jail for a limited time and occasionally sent to prison. It is not looked upon as no big deal to Judges or prosecutors in the real world, although larger cities tend to be less enthusiastic to pursue the more insignificant cases such as spouses in family settings.
