This ought to be interesting
- Thread starter Bruce1
- Start date
I should add, that in situations like the matter at hand where proceedings haven't been completed, the usual is that the witness is arrested and held until they either testify or the proceedings are completed and they are then sentenced for their contemptuos acts.
I totally agree as I too, am concerned about the destruction of Constitutional law and the results of that destruction.
If the Administration personnel have any basis to not testify, such as Executive Privilege which may well exist, in part or perhaps (but very unlikely) even in whole, the proper method is to appear as required by the subpoena, answer any and all questions that are not covered by an appropriate privilege and upon being asked a question that is believed to require a privileged answer, at that point to assert the privilege to the questioning body. It is simply untenable to the system that a prospective witness has the option to decline to appear.
hahaha what a joke of a point. So we shouldn't judge for ourselves. But we should assume nothing is wrong with phonecall because people close to the President and work for the President did not report anything was wrong.
Well next time we arrest burglers, we should ask their accomplices if what their buddy did was wrong. If the accomplices don't report, then there's nothing wrong.
Follow the story, the call was a clumination of extortion nudging the Preisdent had been doing via Guilliani et al. When that wasn't getting result, President decided to join in and apply the pressure himself.
Well common sense would lead one to ask why the others on the phone call 1) were not subpoenaed 2) did not testify 3) did not file a complaint 4) did not have an issue with said phone call.
Not surprised those points flew over your head or those that liked your post.
And I have no idea where your point comes from that one should not judge for ourselves. I have said from the get go I would like to hear the phone call and make my own decision. Since that is not happening, I would like to hear from all the people that were on the call. So should you if you honestly care about the actual phone call and "judge for ourselves." There were people similar to Vindman's level on the call-not just cabinet.
You talk about "judging for ourselves" then jump to the conclusion based off hand selected 'witnesses', cherry picked parts of days long testimony, that the President is guilty of extortion. LOL. GTFOH
well some of them have been invited to testify, and they are all refused.
Also, the problem is not even the phone call itself. But up until the call, you could probably argue it was all being orchestrated by Guilliani with President having little knowledge of the extortion plot. We have heard from the people that were carrying it out. But President jumping on the call and asking for the same thing, conclusively shows this was a plot being directly led from the President, no ifs and buts. The money-for-announcing-investigation-on-my political-opponent plot is what is wrong on multiple levels, the phone-call is just evidence of President's direct involvement.
Well, which "hand selected witnesses" will the Ranking Member want to add to the Dems.' list THAT HAVE EVEN A SLIVER OF EVIDENCE TO ADD in this proceeding ??
Hunter Biden ?? Adam Schiff ??
LOL. GTFOH. Part II
Off that list I would go with Schiff. I think he needs to come clean about what ge knew and when, and how much contact he had with WB, although that is a separate issue.
But like I said in my post it would be the others on the call. From your reply, it looks like you are not interested in hearing from them. As for what they would add, or what their interpretation is, well, that is why they would get called in.
Well, then, why don't we just add the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES as a witness, since he was " on the call" ??
Have EVERYONE on the call at the witness' table. Fine
The Whistleblower's identity protection, as provided in federal law, dictates he/she will need to appear for any testimony behind closed doors. Right ?? That testimony would be redundant, correct ??
( Schiff's testimony would be of value only for the purpose of political theatre, as EVERYONE knows)
Political opponent? Or actions that occurred while people were VP, senators, and congress men and woman? Big difference.
For me personally, any foreign country that receives aid should abide by demands and requests US govt makes of them, strive for better human rights and stability etc. There should also be no pay for play.
Want an example? Look at Pakistan. Received billions over the years, provided refuge from Taliban fifighters crossing border, Al Qaeda is infiltrated in their govt and intel, and they had no idea ObL was living a mile so from major military base/school. Sure.
Should never have gotten a penny until 1 and 2 were cleaned up.
I'll post this again.
Are you interested about any of the testimony given by Trump admin officials about this situation.......or just going with Trumps focus on the call?
"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?
That would be fine. Like I said would like to hear the call.
No, you like Schiff, he can do no wrong in your eyes. Lot more than political theatre there.
Look up on laws that cover whistleblowers, that are intel officials/positions, that are not covert. Different rules. And why are you only interested in testimony instead of depositions/cross examination?
1) C'mon...."testimony" includes depositions , and obvious to an 8th-grader...also includes cross-examinations of direct testimony....Just a real big DUH, there, bud.
2) A "lot more" from Schiff ?? Such as ????____________________________________________________________________
3) OOOO-kay....Whistleblower law: Just exactly how would the essential element of W.B. confidentiality be preserved if he/she appeared in front of TV cameras ??
Well, I am sure the definition of testimony is a written or oral statement, but whatever
Schiff is involved in pay for play, or in his case pushing for aid/Ukraine involvement after foreign born defense contractors raised a lot of money for him. Not to mention he has lied a lot since early August. He got called on it today, at least a bit
Like I said, read up on the rules/acts regarding WB from intel officials that are not covert.
Off that list I would go with Schiff.
Come on man, I watched it today and not once but multiple times he denied ever meeting the WB. Stated it as fact too....you know...like you did when you lied to mom knowing she already knew the truth?No offense to any one who does it, but the sumbitch wouldn't make a good buy here/pay here car lot sweeper.
1) Well, since your question, to me, was "why am (I) only interested in testimony INSTEAD OF depositions/cross-examinations ? "......it would appear I was offering clarification where it was needed..
2) Schiff " pay-for-play" ???????? Good lord. Foreign-born contractors....blah, blah, blah...
Hell, you might as well bring back the Kenya/Islam & grassy knoll material...don't you EVER resist the temptation to throw in your complete BS far-right whack-job, theories ???!!!
3) And he's "lied a lot" , huh ? Called on it, today ?
ACCUSED of lying....by people who haven't called Trump out on more than a half a dozen of his 13,000+..
4) The W.B. is willing to go as far in being personally deposed as the President was in his Mueller Investigation deposition......written questions. Got it ??
Last edited:
