P
ProVobis
Guest
Again it was at the debates and I assure you the audience was adequate. Obama’s Presidency was definitely at stake.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Article: Los Angeles Times, OCTOBER 23, 2019, ," What’s really happening inside the impeachment inquiry."
Knock yourself out. I shouldn’t have to post before people comment. Meadows, Nunes, Jordan and Zeldin are asking the questions are asking the bulk of the questions.
Gaetz is quoted saying they don’t represent every Republican."
That alone tells you the duplicity of the GOP.
No hearing can have over 400 people asking questions. If you are completely operating in the dark, his position can appeal to someone.
Imagine a criminal trial with 200 questioner/ attorneys on both sides.
THE GOP IS ACCUSING THE DEMOCRATS OF NOT PERMITTING A FARCE.
Knock yourself out. I shouldn’t have to post before people comment. Meadows, Nunes, Jordan and Zeldin are asking the questions are asking the bulk of the questions.
Gaetz is quoted saying they don’t represent every Republican."
That alone tells you the duplicity of the GOP.
No hearing can have over 400 people asking questions. If you are completely operating in the dark, his position can appeal to someone.
Imagine a criminal trial with 200 questioner/ attorneys on both sides.
THE GOP IS ACCUSING THE DEMOCRATS OF NOT PERMITTING A FARCE.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Maximus1 . . .
How can I help you Maximus1?Knock yourself out. I shouldn’t have to post before people comment.
P
ProVobis
Guest
If you can’t convince them, confuse them.Meadows, Nunes, Jordan and Zeldin are asking the questions are asking the bulk of the questions.
M
Maximus1
Guest
It was announced all over TV. MID NOVEMBER.
In fact they moved beyond. Now it is Bolton in November.
In fact they moved beyond. Now it is Bolton in November.
M
Maximus1
Guest
The Los Angeles Times article points it out. So I will just relay the news.
Check out the Gaetz quote especially if confused. WE HAVE SOME OF OUR BEST PEOPLE ASKING?
FARCE IS OVER!
Check out the Gaetz quote especially if confused. WE HAVE SOME OF OUR BEST PEOPLE ASKING?
FARCE IS OVER!
M
Maximus1
Guest
That is a question for the ages
M
Metis1
Guest
Deposition (definition): **
law a testifying especially before a court was sworn in before giving his deposition
** DECLARATIONspecifically, law testimony taken down in writing under oath took depositions from the witnesses**
out-of-court testimony made under oath and recorded by an authorized officer for later use in court gave a videotaped deposition about what she witnessed also : a meeting at which such testimony is taken. -Deposition | Definition of Deposition by Merriam-Webster
This is clearly what the House Intelligence Committee, which includes Republicans, is now doing, and it is typical that this be done to collect evidence and try to keep people from coordinating their responses. The Pubs did much the same during some of the Benghazi depositions, but now that the shoe is on he other foot they’re whining. Maybe someone should toss them each a sucker.
law a testifying especially before a court was sworn in before giving his deposition
** DECLARATIONspecifically, law testimony taken down in writing under oath took depositions from the witnesses**
out-of-court testimony made under oath and recorded by an authorized officer for later use in court gave a videotaped deposition about what she witnessed also : a meeting at which such testimony is taken. -Deposition | Definition of Deposition by Merriam-Webster
This is clearly what the House Intelligence Committee, which includes Republicans, is now doing, and it is typical that this be done to collect evidence and try to keep people from coordinating their responses. The Pubs did much the same during some of the Benghazi depositions, but now that the shoe is on he other foot they’re whining. Maybe someone should toss them each a sucker.
M
Maximus1
Guest
I have taken well over 1000 depositions. Including by video to preserve testimony for trial and “de bene esse”
You are addressing pre-trial practice. This is a political proceeding.
That said, the Democrats are preventing a farce and the GOP is fighting to create farce. You cannot have 100 people on both sides questioning. And if they have an Impeachment hearing and trial, they will have specific questioners. The object is truth not farce
You are addressing pre-trial practice. This is a political proceeding.
That said, the Democrats are preventing a farce and the GOP is fighting to create farce. You cannot have 100 people on both sides questioning. And if they have an Impeachment hearing and trial, they will have specific questioners. The object is truth not farce
D
dvdjs
Guest
For those who have the facts and the law behind them, the object is truth.The object is truth not farce
For those who don’t the object is farce,
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
If you have them, pound the law and facts.
And if you don’t, pound the table.
A Complete synopsis. Lol
And if you don’t, pound the table.
A Complete synopsis. Lol
M
Metis1
Guest
I’m going by the what the House rules on this say since this does not fit into any “trial” nor “pretrial” situation as it is not a trial, as I believe what maybe you’re saying above.
Essentially what Trump and his supporters are parroting is that the process is wrong (which it clearly isn’t) largely because as more of the evidence comes out on what Trump & Co actually were doing is very damaging to their cause. Over and over again Trump is showing contempt for the “rule of law”, thus seeing it as an impediment to what he wants to rule on. Needless to say, I don’t have to tell you how potentially dangerous this is.
Essentially what Trump and his supporters are parroting is that the process is wrong (which it clearly isn’t) largely because as more of the evidence comes out on what Trump & Co actually were doing is very damaging to their cause. Over and over again Trump is showing contempt for the “rule of law”, thus seeing it as an impediment to what he wants to rule on. Needless to say, I don’t have to tell you how potentially dangerous this is.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
I would argue that we know an awful lot about what’s going on inside the committee. People are releasing statements, testimony is being “leaked”. A leak is not a lie. A leak is simply something that is not officially released. If there is exculpatory evidence, the Republics on the committee know about it. However, they are expounding on the process, not the President’s innocence.Not only do you and I NOT know . . . . You and I CAN’T know BECAUSE you and I are not a democrat “on the hill” in certain select committees.
That’s part of WHY they are keeping this in the dark. To purposefully keep people from knowing.
No, not at all. The Democrats are leaking pertinent facts. This is the fact pattern that will be coaxed out in the public hearings. No one has disputed the leaks from the committee, have they?And the selective out-of-context democrat leaks to the press, is a mere disinformation campaign. It makes “knowing” even MORE difficult.
But we will. We will. Soon he has to write Articles of Impeachment. If there is something there, there is something there, if not, there’s nothing there.With the sneaky Schiff secret hearings motif, nobody knows very much.
Meanwhile much of the press is still asleep on the Bidens-Ukraine quid pro quo.
As to the Biden’s, Ukraine, and any dirt you are trying to fling at them - it has absolutely nothing to do with the impeachment of the President. Just a distraction since the facts aren’t looking good for Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2e94b6-f5b0-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
PaulInVA . . .
But we will see.
This will all surface, and then we will get to see first hand. Just like we did with the phony Trump-Russian-Collusion conspiracy theory that so many invested two plus years of their lifetimes pom-pom waving over.
I think it’s the other way around.it has absolutely nothing to do with the impeachment of the President. Just a distraction
But we will see.
This will all surface, and then we will get to see first hand. Just like we did with the phony Trump-Russian-Collusion conspiracy theory that so many invested two plus years of their lifetimes pom-pom waving over.
W
Woodyl57
Guest
They still believe this, though. The facts are so obvious and Barr is a hack.Just like we did with the phony Trump-Russian-Collusion conspiracy theory that so many invested two plus years of their lifetimes pom-pom waving over.
If impeachment doesn’t happen or half the intelligence community goes aways in handcuffs they will be crying the same conspiracy.
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
The reality is this:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
P
PaulinVA
Guest
You mean volume 1 of the Mueller report that concluded that collusion could not be proven, in part because Don Jr lacked the awareness to prove intent?This will all surface, and then we will get to see first hand. Just like we did with the phony Trump-Russian-Collusion conspiracy theory that so many invested two plus years of their lifetimes pom-pom waving over.
Oh, yes. I do understand the Schiff process.Jon, do you really not understand the process?
It isn’t a grand jury, and no vote for an impeachment inquiry has occurred. By the way, was Clinton’s lawyer allowed in the hearings? How about Nixon’s?These hearings are in secret so that, like in a Grand Jury investigation, witnesses that may be called don’t know what other witnesses have said. But what does secret mean? Well, there are a good number of Republicans hearing testimony and answering questions. Do you think YOU should know?
Of course I think I should know.
Whereas Clinton’s campaign had overt intent, paid for it in fact, of collusion with Russians through FusionGPS.You mean volume 1 of the Mueller report that concluded that collusion could not be proven, in part because Don Jr lacked the awareness to prove intent?
The difference here is there is no formal impeachment inquiry. The difference is Nixon’s and Clinton’s lawyers were presentThe difference here is that the questioning is being done not just by committee lawyers but but with all committee members present and alllowed to ask questions without limit.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.