Top diplomat in Ukraine gave "damning" testimony

originally posted by: Arnie123

Just a reminder, the Senate will never convict.

Maybe, but it does look like Mitch McConnell is starting to play CYA for the alternative as well.

that and the whole give Syria to Putin and abandon our allies thing.

"He read my phone call with the president of Ukraine. Mitch McConnell, he said: 'That was the most innocent phone call that I've read,'" the president said at the time.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Have they published a full transcript of the Damning statements and testimonies ? 😎 🦚 😎

They are going to bring back people to testify in public on prime time TV soon so.

I find it very strange the first whistle blower seems to have disappeared. No testimony and Schiff is hiding him or her from even people in his committee. He wont allow any transcripts to be read unless his staff members are present.

I figure Pelosi needs to call a vote. Many senators have already decided this is unfounded. There is no reason for these proceedings to be hidden there is nothing classified when trump released the call.

The other thing i see happening is eventually they will have a republican speaker and a democrat president and the payback will occur. This is so dangerous and a game we shouldn't be playing.

And my final wtf why are they interviewing anyone they have the call. You see what he said if its a crime you dont need anyone to give their opinions. You also dont need second and third party interviews. Saying so and so told me this about the call is useless because again you have the call.

This is so going to backfire and heres why. Unless they come up with something the senate will just vote that nothing happened and move on. If this happens it makes Pelosi look like a fool because she was unable to give any evidence to impeach.

originally posted by: [post=24712017]xuenchen[/post

Where does The Constitution give the House authority to bypass The Constitution and declare themselves a Judicial Branch ?

🦚 🦚

Section 4 of Article Two establishes that the president and other officers can be removed from office through the impeachment process, which is further described in Article One.

Am I missing something? Mueller even said a sitting President's crimes couldn't be handled through the court system.

Wikipedia

a reply to: dragonridr

Good luck with those views. Right now, they are gathering evidence behind closed doors, but they are planning on having open hearings on television soon. From what I've seen, Republicans are going to be forced to decide if this kind of Presidential behavior is appropriate for either side of the aisle, they won't be able to manipulate people into believing the facts aren't facts forever.

a reply to: Extorris

when will you realize the bullturds being spun . If there was anything they have on Trump they would impeach him in a heartbeat . This is all political , they have to ruin him because they can't beat him in 2020

a reply to: darkbake

No they won't ill save you time. If there is evidence the last thing you want to do is hide behind closed doors. If they truly believe they have something to impeach it would be public hearings.

They are only hurting their case with closed door meetings. Because it shows they are trying to control the release of information. Im going to say Trump is probably breaking rules his done it his whole life.

The problem becomes that is one of the reasons he was elected in the first place. Trump continually tosses hand grenades its how he operates. I personally think that makes a lousy president. However we knew what we were getting when he took office.

I warned people i knew Trump was going to turn politics on its head. What we need to ask ourselves is why so many wanted to put him in the white house when everyone knew what he was like.

a reply to: dragonridr

It is simple , they are tired of politics and wanted an outsider .

Fake Impeachment. If the House committees put this much effort into the Russia Hoax and failed coup attempt we’d be much better off.

That’s ok though. 12 months left for a Dem controlled House. If they want to exhaust what little political capital they have left on what.... attempt number six to oust POTUS Trump... so be it.

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: xuenchen
Have they published a full transcript of the Damning statements and testimonies ? 😎 🦚 😎

All transcripts, evidence, depositions etc. get released in full along with articles of impeachment if/when they are voted on and forwarded to the senate.

This is the investigative phase. Once indicted, the evidence is laid on the table for trial in the senate.

no this is a leak from schiff to make it look like the witness said something they didnt by twisting the context. the republicans in the hearing cannot even see the transcripts without minders telling them what they can and cant see. insiders have said that the democrats are grasping ay straws in the hearings.

What do you people mean that the whistle-blowers have disappeared? What are you expect them to do? Go public? Produce more, previously unreported evidence? They report, people investigate the report, it's not rocket surgery.

It's obvious to anyone not having fully drunk from the cult-inducing Trump kool-aid, that Trump withheld military aid to have a foreign country dig up dirt on a political rival. It's sadly hilarious that you are all OK with this. Had this been ol' Hillary or Obama, you would want them tied to a post and shot for treason. But for Trump.. it's OK.

I mean.. he did it LIVE! Asking foreign powers to dig up dirt on a political rival. Why is this ignored? He did it during his previous campaign, which was ALSO ignored. Basically saying it would be great if a Russian hacker could produce the emails from Hillary.

Trump supporters have fully ditched the idea of America and the Constitution - the actions of their POTUS Trumps the Constitution because he is a "rebel."

a reply to: dragonridr

If they truly believe they have something to impeach it would be public hearings.

So, when a crime is being investigated all testimony is public?

The way it works is this:
1) The House gathers evidence and may or may not submit articles of impeachment to the Senate. This would be the judicial equivalent of an indictment.

2) The Senate then acts (sort of) as the jury, with the Chief Justice presiding.

During the Senate proceedings the prosecution (the House) presents its case and the defense (the Administration) presents its case. This will, indeed, be quite public, if it happens. Count on it.

a reply to: Extorris

I guess we won't be seeing Bill Taylor's transcript either..

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., on Tuesday said a fellow Republican lawmaker deconstructed a key part of the latest Trump impeachment inquiry witness testimony in Tuesday's closed-door session.

"In 90 seconds, we had John Ratcliffe destroy Taylor's whole argument."

The questioning by Ratcliffe, a Texas Republican and member of both the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, was an important moment in the hearing, McCarthy claimed.


McCarthy added House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., is not allowing lawmakers to speak too specifically about the proceedings, in an interview Tuesday on "The Ingraham Angle."

"Adam Schiff won't let us talk about what happened," he said regarding U.S. diplomat to Ukraine Bill Taylor's closed-door hearing on Capitol Hill. "There is no quid pro quo."

Source: www.foxnews.com...

However, If McCarthy is lying, Adam Schiff would take great pleasure in proving it, by RELEASING THE TRANSCRIPT.

If Schiff doesn't release the transcript, we should assume that McCarthy is telling the truth.

a reply to: carewemust

You really should try to break the habit of repeating yourself in various threads.

But, in lieu of that, I will follow your lead:
The trial doesn't start until the case reaches the Senate. Until then, nothing need be released.

a reply to: Phage

Put your bias aside for a minute. Impeachment is not a trial and was never intended to be treated as one. The founding fathers wanted it to be public if a president was to be removed from office they wanted the people to make the decision.

It was never intended to be held in closed chambers with only a few actually hearing testimonies. This is exactly what they didnt want and in fact discussed it. Europe had something called star chambers where a group of men hid behind closed doors and made decisions on the direction of govt. This was frowned upon by the founding fathers. They purposefully made impeachment to be a public spectacle so the people can see what transpires.

a reply to: dragonridr

The founding fathers wanted it to be public if a president was to be removed from office they wanted the people to make the decision.

Please quote the Article of the Constitution which specifies this.

originally posted by: Phage

So, when a crime is being investigated all testimony is public?

where any previous impeachment hearings done this way? If so, please cite the instance.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage

So, when a crime is being investigated all testimony is public?

where any previous impeachment hearings done this way? If so, please cite the instance.

That sounds.. stupid.

You investigate and publish everything BEFORE the case is judged upon?
Every lawyer on Earth just had a chill up their spine...

a reply to: Phage

Here’s a good starting point

Influence on the U.S. Constitution Edit

The historical abuses of the Star Chamber are considered a primary motivating force behind the protections against compelled self-incrimination embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[14] The meaning of "compelled testimony" under the Fifth Amendment – i.e., the conditions under which a defendant is allowed to "plead the Fifth" to avoid self-incrimination – is thus often interpreted via reference to the inquisitorial methods of the Star Chamber.[14]

As the U.S. Supreme Court described it, "the Star Chamber has, for centuries, symbolized disregard of basic individual rights. The Star Chamber not merely allowed, but required, defendants to have counsel. The defendant's answer to an indictment was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the defendant was considered to have confessed."[15]
en.m.wikipedia.org...