Quid Pro Quo

[sealybobo]

I'm way late to this thread and it seems that it's gone in another direction but, I'll ask anyway.

Isn't most American aid given with expectations attached, you know, "quid pro quo"? I know we something give charity with no strings attached, but as far as I can tell, the U.S. doesn't just hand out money and other aid without an expectation of something in return.

Does anyone dispute this?

Certainly there is plenty of quid pro quo- generally something like: If we give you $100,000,000 in farm aid, you will only buy American made tractors.

Not generally "if we are going to give you money to defend yourselves, you have to make a public announcement that you are investigating my political rival"

Its bad when a government official uses his office for a quid pro quo for his own benefit- as Trump did.

Or, we will give you money but only if you ban abortions in your country.

I wouldn’t like that but bush got away with those kinds of policies

Or you hav to stop mutilating your women’s vaginas.

 

[Zorro!]

Again you are simply confused by the lies fed to you by Trump and his Right Wing lie machine.

Do you think you have the right to confront witnesses when you are being investigated by the police for burglary?...

Of course. After studying their claims about your conduct, the attorney takes their deposition and under an adversarial process asks them very tough questions so that all may assess their credibility.

... Do you think you have the right to confront witnesses when a Grand Jury is investigating
White House Letter Distorts Both Law and History on Impeachment...

Do you think one goes directly from Grand Jury referral to trial?

...the right to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel...the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity...

It can be ignored because the House has not voted on inquiry. If they had, the Republicans would have already assured Trump of his inherent rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses to rebut them or to make points of his own and of course to be represented by counsel. To have his counsel present at the deposition of witnesses to cross examine them under an adversarial process that allows weaknesses to be uncovered.

The Senate Trial is going to a great education for the American People. They are going to learn that the folks who illegally spied on him and then spent 3 years trying to illegally drive him from office are working hand in glove with the folks who impeached him, who claimed they could do so in secret, depose witnesses without the involvement of Trump's legal team and believe that Trump's right to confront witnesses against him could be violated in secret precedents in the House basement. All these deluded folks think they have the power to undo an election if they disagree with the outcome.

The American People are going to be shocked at just how out of your mind you guys are.

...The BILL OF RIGHTS IS NOT AT ISSUE...

Have fun making that claim to the American People and the US Senate. It's an open admission that you guys have raped his rights. Our rights are not provided by the Bill of Rights, they are recognized by the Bill of Rights. We held these rights long before the Constitution recognized them.

... is just impeachment...

That will be another fun point to watch you guys make. It's JUST impeachment, as if overturning the election of The President Of The United States is just a minor issue, so minor, that you can't just wait a matter of months and let the Electorate decide who the President will be. But you see, we all know why you won't wait for the electorate. You think The Electorate made the "wrong" choice last time, so hey, they could make the "wrong" choice again!

A vile bitterly deranged group of partisans are misusing the impeachment process to attack the Electoral Process, because they do not agree with The American Electorate about who should be The President of The United States. This is a tremendous violation of their constitutional oath.

Folks don't know how crazy you folks are, we are doing you a favor in warning you that you really shouldn't do this, because there will not be any hiding it any longer. But hey, no danger in warning you, we know you won't listen, SO BY ALL MEANS, CONTINUE!

... JFC, it's like history started for you in 2016. And Scottish law. You're killing me. Who writes your stuff? Hanpatty. LOL

Now that's funny. Everyone with brain knows about this. And you who are ignorant, claim I'm ignorant, based on your ignorance of what the entire nation saw during the Senate vote during the Clinton Impeachment trial.

A vile bitterly deranged group of partisans are misusing the impeachment process to attack the Electoral Process, because they do not agree with The American Electorate about who should be The President of The United States. This is a tremendous violation of their constitutional oath.

Impeachment is every bit as Constitutional as Trump's electoral college electoral win.

Properly done, of course.

There is no good reason for the secrecy. An impeachment inquiry is vastly different from a grand jury investigation in its nature and purpose.

Grand jury investigations are criminal inquiries in anticipation of prosecution in judicial courts. They do not focus on the actions of public officials – except in comparatively rare public corruption investigations, and even in those cases the issue is the alleged criminal behavior, not the status of the suspect.

Under our fundamental principles, Americans are presumed innocent until proven guilty of a criminal offense after a trial or guilty plea, with all the due process protections that apply. If grand jury proceedings were public, it would undermine the presumption of innocence by suggesting that law enforcement officials believed the suspect was guilty.

Moreover, our jurisprudence holds that in a criminal case, the court is entitled to every person’s evidence. If a witness possesses information relevant to a criminal investigation, our law allows prosecutors to issue a subpoena compelling the witness to provide testimony and produce documents and other physical evidence. Grand jury secrecy promotes the fulfillment of this obligation by witnesses who might otherwise defy subpoenas out of fear of retribution from violent criminals.

An impeachment inquiry is nothing like this.

An impeachment inquiry is exactly like this. It is not a criminal investigation though it is most like a Grand Jury investigation. Is not a criminal prosecution. It is an impeachment inquiry.
It is bound only by what the Constitution says about impeachment.


The White House demands that the House afford Mr. Trump the rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel. And it claims that unless the House yields to these demands, the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity. But of course, thousands of defendants are indicted every day by federal grand juries in which those defendants have no right to call or confront witnesses or to be represented by counsel. To suggest that “due process” requires that a president facing only loss of office get more rights at the accusatory stage than a criminal defendant facing loss of liberty or even life is not only constitutionally unsupportable, but ludicrous.

Not just the constitution but what bills were passed and house rules.
All of it being violated.
It's legal but dirty politics .

It's filthy and it fools no one. This just their latest act in the 3 year ongoing attempt to overturn the last election, and they are attempting to use it to alter the outcome in the upcoming election.

 

[sealybobo]

Again you are simply confused by the lies fed to you by Trump and his Right Wing lie machine.

Do you think you have the right to confront witnesses when you are being investigated by the police for burglary?...

Of course. After studying their claims about your conduct, the attorney takes their deposition and under an adversarial process asks them very tough questions so that all may assess their credibility.

... Do you think you have the right to confront witnesses when a Grand Jury is investigating
White House Letter Distorts Both Law and History on Impeachment...

Do you think one goes directly from Grand Jury referral to trial?

...the right to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel...the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity...

It can be ignored because the House has not voted on inquiry. If they had, the Republicans would have already assured Trump of his inherent rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses to rebut them or to make points of his own and of course to be represented by counsel. To have his counsel present at the deposition of witnesses to cross examine them under an adversarial process that allows weaknesses to be uncovered.

The Senate Trial is going to a great education for the American People. They are going to learn that the folks who illegally spied on him and then spent 3 years trying to illegally drive him from office are working hand in glove with the folks who impeached him, who claimed they could do so in secret, depose witnesses without the involvement of Trump's legal team and believe that Trump's right to confront witnesses against him could be violated in secret precedents in the House basement. All these deluded folks think they have the power to undo an election if they disagree with the outcome.

The American People are going to be shocked at just how out of your mind you guys are.

...The BILL OF RIGHTS IS NOT AT ISSUE...

Have fun making that claim to the American People and the US Senate. It's an open admission that you guys have raped his rights. l.

Frankly that is just an admission that you have no fucking clue what the Constitution says.

That you think that your Messiah somehow has 'rights' in an Impeachment that are not afforded to any defendant in any criminal investigation just shows how much kool aid you have drunk

The White House demands that the House afford Mr. Trump the rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel. And it claims that unless the House yields to these demands, the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity. But of course, thousands of defendants are indicted every day by federal grand juries in which those defendants have no right to call or confront witnesses or to be represented by counsel. To suggest that “due process” requires that a president facing only loss of office get more rights at the accusatory stage than a criminal defendant facing loss of liberty or even life is not only constitutionally unsupportable, but ludicrous.

What is happening now is an investigation. Not an impeachment.

Until you understand that.....well hell......you will never understand that....

It's simply not true. Schiff is fictionalizing again with his claims that impeachment is "like" a grand jury, it's nothing of the sort.

Impeachment is solely about political accountability. It is a quintessentially public question.

Grand juries, moreover, are presumptively impartial. The grand jury exists as a constitutional protection: Before the state may charge an American with a crime, it must satisfy a body of objective citizens that there is sufficient evidence (probable cause) to proceed to trial.

In marked contrast, this impeachment inquiry is a political inquest conducted by partisans. There is no pretense of objectivity, this impeachment inquiry is as partisan as it gets. No one is enough of a moron to believe that Adam Schiff is an impartial fact-finder. This is the same clown who started the Trump presidency spouting allegations from the farcical Steele dossier, and more recently started his impeachment proceedings with a caricature of the Trump-Zelensky phone call that was too farcical for a Grade-C mob movie script.

Schiff has no response to this. What response could he have, since it could not be more obvious that his impeachment inquiry, which still has not been endorsed by a vote of the full House, is nothing like a grand jury investigation?

So he offers a different rationalization: The witness interviews need to be secret to prevent administration officials from getting their story straight by hearing each other’s version of events before testifying. The implication, of course, is that the public officials he is summoning would otherwise commit perjury, clearly no presumption of innocence, there.

As Schiff well knows, secrecy does not prevent witnesses from comparing notes outside the hearing. Even in criminal investigations, where grand jury secrecy applies, witnesses commonly form joint defense agreements which enable them to share notes about what the investigators are asking.

Andrew McCarthy: Americans deserve a public impeachment inquiry – Schiff and Dems should end the secrecy

....Trump is not having any of his 'rights' being denied- any more than con-man...

I see you have no difficulty with the presumption of innocence!

... who is being investigated by a Grand Jury...

Impeachment is nothing like a Grand Jury.

How the House handles the impeachment is for the House itself to decide...

The Whole House. Your problem is the secret underhanded process that violates Trump's rights discredits impeachment an important check on the Judiciary and the Executive Branch.

Impeachment cannot be a 'coupe' because it is provided for in our Constitution. It is not an 'ursurptoin of an election because again- it is provided for in the Constitution...

You are rendering it ineffective by denying the president and the Republican minority due process rights to cross-examine and subpoena witnesses.

Instead, you refuse to vote, hide behind closed doors, withhold key documents and testimony, and provide their media friends with selectively skewed leaks. It's very ugly what you are doing and it not only will not work, it weakens a constitutional check that helps secure our Liberty.

... goes onto the Senate ...

They aren't going to impeach him based on the Dem's shameful kangaroo court.

... Would this Senate vote to impeach a Nixon or a Trump ...

With Courtroom Quality Evidence, proving beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that the individual in front of them was guilty of treason, bribery or other high crimes? Absolutely. The vote would likely be 100-0

Your the kind of person who gets suckered by slick lawyer talk from guys like johnny Cochran.

Secret practices? Violating trumps rights? Are you kidding me? Rudy thinks he’s a slick lawyer. Bad arguments for your guilty client

 

[peach174]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

Can't have a quid pro quo, if the other side never knew about, which is what they are all saying.

What? We catch trump trying to mafia the guy into lying about his political opponent, the foreigners doesn’t get it, and you say because of that trumps innocent of not trying to shake the guy down?

This is the kind of argument a good lawyer makes up for his clearly guilty client.

Facts
The Ukraine's did not know that the military aid was being withheld while being looked into ,that the new government was not corrupt like the last two were.

If they didn't know you can't have a quid pro quo.

 

[sealybobo]

Of course. After studying their claims about your conduct, the attorney takes their deposition and under an adversarial process asks them very tough questions so that all may assess their credibility.
Do you think one goes directly from Grand Jury referral to trial?
It can be ignored because the House has not voted on inquiry. If they had, the Republicans would have already assured Trump of his inherent rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses to rebut them or to make points of his own and of course to be represented by counsel. To have his counsel present at the deposition of witnesses to cross examine them under an adversarial process that allows weaknesses to be uncovered.

The Senate Trial is going to a great education for the American People. They are going to learn that the folks who illegally spied on him and then spent 3 years trying to illegally drive him from office are working hand in glove with the folks who impeached him, who claimed they could do so in secret, depose witnesses without the involvement of Trump's legal team and believe that Trump's right to confront witnesses against him could be violated in secret precedents in the House basement. All these deluded folks think they have the power to undo an election if they disagree with the outcome.

The American People are going to be shocked at just how out of your mind you guys are.
Have fun making that claim to the American People and the US Senate. It's an open admission that you guys have raped his rights. Our rights are not provided by the Bill of Rights, they are recognized by the Bill of Rights. We held these rights long before the Constitution recognized them.
That will be another fun point to watch you guys make. It's JUST impeachment, as if overturning the election of The President Of The United States is just a minor issue, so minor, that you can't just wait a matter of months and let the Electorate decide who the President will be. But you see, we all know why you won't wait for the electorate. You think The Electorate made the "wrong" choice last time, so hey, they could make the "wrong" choice again!

A vile bitterly deranged group of partisans are misusing the impeachment process to attack the Electoral Process, because they do not agree with The American Electorate about who should be The President of The United States. This is a tremendous violation of their constitutional oath.

Folks don't know how crazy you folks are, we are doing you a favor in warning you that you really shouldn't do this, because there will not be any hiding it any longer. But hey, no danger in warning you, we know you won't listen, SO BY ALL MEANS, CONTINUE!
Now that's funny. Everyone with brain knows about this. And you who are ignorant, claim I'm ignorant, based on your ignorance of what the entire nation saw during the Senate vote during the Clinton Impeachment trial.

A vile bitterly deranged group of partisans are misusing the impeachment process to attack the Electoral Process, because they do not agree with The American Electorate about who should be The President of The United States. This is a tremendous violation of their constitutional oath.

Impeachment is every bit as Constitutional as Trump's electoral college electoral win.

Properly done, of course.

There is no good reason for the secrecy. An impeachment inquiry is vastly different from a grand jury investigation in its nature and purpose.

Grand jury investigations are criminal inquiries in anticipation of prosecution in judicial courts. They do not focus on the actions of public officials – except in comparatively rare public corruption investigations, and even in those cases the issue is the alleged criminal behavior, not the status of the suspect.

Under our fundamental principles, Americans are presumed innocent until proven guilty of a criminal offense after a trial or guilty plea, with all the due process protections that apply. If grand jury proceedings were public, it would undermine the presumption of innocence by suggesting that law enforcement officials believed the suspect was guilty.

Moreover, our jurisprudence holds that in a criminal case, the court is entitled to every person’s evidence. If a witness possesses information relevant to a criminal investigation, our law allows prosecutors to issue a subpoena compelling the witness to provide testimony and produce documents and other physical evidence. Grand jury secrecy promotes the fulfillment of this obligation by witnesses who might otherwise defy subpoenas out of fear of retribution from violent criminals.

An impeachment inquiry is nothing like this.

An impeachment inquiry is exactly like this. It is not a criminal investigation though it is most like a Grand Jury investigation. Is not a criminal prosecution. It is an impeachment inquiry.
It is bound only by what the Constitution says about impeachment.


The White House demands that the House afford Mr. Trump the rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel. And it claims that unless the House yields to these demands, the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity. But of course, thousands of defendants are indicted every day by federal grand juries in which those defendants have no right to call or confront witnesses or to be represented by counsel. To suggest that “due process” requires that a president facing only loss of office get more rights at the accusatory stage than a criminal defendant facing loss of liberty or even life is not only constitutionally unsupportable, but ludicrous.

Not just the constitution but what bills were passed and house rules.
All of it being violated.
It's legal but dirty politics .

It's filthy and it fools no one. This just their latest act in the 3 year ongoing attempt to overturn the last election, and they are attempting to use it to alter the outcome in the upcoming election.

Only you don’t believ trump colluded with russia. Everyone else it’s apparent. You’ll say it’s because of the lyin media but it’s because of the truth.

You’re desperately defending a crime boss

 

[Zorro!]

These are deep norms of the rights of the accused. It's very interesting how tyrannically minded the crazed anti-trumpers are.

This right to confront witnesses has such a long history that SCOTUS has cited the Acts of the Apostles 25:16 >Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1015-16 (1988)< in noting this fundamental right's long and illustrious history. These are some of the rights that stand in the way of lynch mobs. The Roman governor, Porcius Festus discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner Paul: "It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges." It is also cited in Shakespeare Richard II, Blackstone treatises and statutes. These are ancient natural rights. We retain ALL of our rights except those forbidden by the Constitution. It's amazing what the Left would casually destroy if they could because they cannot accept that they lost the 2016 election.

But, by all means, impeach Trump and then claim that he cannot call witnesses in his defense, or cross examine witnesses that accuse him, face to face. We demand you do this now so we can ram this all right down your throats before a national audience during the Senate Trial.

Again you are simply confused by the lies fed to you by Trump and his Right Wing lie machine.

Do you think you have the right to confront witnesses when you are being investigated by the police for burglary?...

Of course. After studying their claims about your conduct, the attorney takes their deposition and under an adversarial process asks them very tough questions so that all may assess their credibility.

... Do you think you have the right to confront witnesses when a Grand Jury is investigating
White House Letter Distorts Both Law and History on Impeachment...

Do you think one goes directly from Grand Jury referral to trial?

...the right to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel...the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity...

It can be ignored because the House has not voted on inquiry. If they had, the Republicans would have already assured Trump of his inherent rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses to rebut them or to make points of his own and of course to be represented by counsel. To have his counsel present at the deposition of witnesses to cross examine them under an adversarial process that allows weaknesses to be uncovered.

The Senate Trial is going to a great education for the American People. They are going to learn that the folks who illegally spied on him and then spent 3 years trying to illegally drive him from office are working hand in glove with the folks who impeached him, who claimed they could do so in secret, depose witnesses without the involvement of Trump's legal team and believe that Trump's right to confront witnesses against him could be violated in secret precedents in the House basement. All these deluded folks think they have the power to undo an election if they disagree with the outcome.

The American People are going to be shocked at just how out of your mind you guys are.

...The BILL OF RIGHTS IS NOT AT ISSUE...

Have fun making that claim to the American People and the US Senate. It's an open admission that you guys have raped his rights. Our rights are not provided by the Bill of Rights, they are recognized by the Bill of Rights. We held these rights long before the Constitution recognized them.

... is just impeachment...

That will be another fun point to watch you guys make. It's JUST impeachment, as if overturning the election of The President Of The United States is just a minor issue, so minor, that you can't just wait a matter of months and let the Electorate decide who the President will be. But you see, we all know why you won't wait for the electorate. You think The Electorate made the "wrong" choice last time, so hey, they could make the "wrong" choice again!

A vile bitterly deranged group of partisans are misusing the impeachment process to attack the Electoral Process, because they do not agree with The American Electorate about who should be The President of The United States. This is a tremendous violation of their constitutional oath.

Folks don't know how crazy you folks are, we are doing you a favor in warning you that you really shouldn't do this, because there will not be any hiding it any longer. But hey, no danger in warning you, we know you won't listen, SO BY ALL MEANS, CONTINUE!

... JFC, it's like history started for you in 2016. And Scottish law. You're killing me. Who writes your stuff? Hanpatty. LOL

Now that's funny. Everyone with brain knows about this. And you who are ignorant, claim I'm ignorant, based on your ignorance of what the entire nation saw during the Senate vote during the Clinton Impeachment trial.

A vile bitterly deranged group of partisans are misusing the impeachment process to attack the Electoral Process, because they do not agree with The American Electorate about who should be The President of The United States. This is a tremendous violation of their constitutional oath.

Impeachment is every bit as Constitutional as Trump's electoral college electoral win.

Properly done, of course.

There is no good reason for the secrecy. An impeachment inquiry is vastly different from a grand jury investigation in its nature and purpose.

Grand jury investigations are criminal inquiries in anticipation of prosecution in judicial courts. They do not focus on the actions of public officials – except in comparatively rare public corruption investigations, and even in those cases the issue is the alleged criminal behavior, not the status of the suspect.

Under our fundamental principles, Americans are presumed innocent until proven guilty of a criminal offense after a trial or guilty plea, with all the due process protections that apply. If grand jury proceedings were public, it would undermine the presumption of innocence by suggesting that law enforcement officials believed the suspect was guilty.

Moreover, our jurisprudence holds that in a criminal case, the court is entitled to every person’s evidence. If a witness possesses information relevant to a criminal investigation, our law allows prosecutors to issue a subpoena compelling the witness to provide testimony and produce documents and other physical evidence. Grand jury secrecy promotes the fulfillment of this obligation by witnesses who might otherwise defy subpoenas out of fear of retribution from violent criminals.

An impeachment inquiry is nothing like this.

An impeachment inquiry is exactly like this. It is not a criminal investigation though it is most like a Grand Jury

It's nothing like a Grand Jury.

Grand juries are presumptively impartial. This is a political inquest conducted by partisans. There is no pretense of objectivity. And the Trump impeachment inquiry is as partisan as it gets. Does anyone believe that Adam Schiff is an impartial factfinder? We are talking, remember, about the same Adam Schiff who started the Trump presidency spouting allegations from the farcical Steele dossier, and more recently started his impeachment proceedings with a caricature of the Trump-Zelensky phone call that was too farcical for a Grade-C mob movie script.

No one is going to mistake this for anything other than what it is, an ongoing farce by folks that did not accept the 2016 election and are hoping that this farce will help them with the 2020 election, because we can all see that the House hasn't done a damn thing with their majority to help the nation. They have only focused on trying to remove Trump.

That's not much of an agenda when the upcoming election is about whether we keep Trump. We would have been much better served had the House worked for the People and let the Electorate decide whether Trump will serve another term, because that is who will make the decision anyway. The House has wasted all of this year, and likely the next, rather than working for The American People.

 

[peach174]

A vile bitterly deranged group of partisans are misusing the impeachment process to attack the Electoral Process, because they do not agree with The American Electorate about who should be The President of The United States. This is a tremendous violation of their constitutional oath.

Impeachment is every bit as Constitutional as Trump's electoral college electoral win.

Properly done, of course.

There is no good reason for the secrecy. An impeachment inquiry is vastly different from a grand jury investigation in its nature and purpose.

Grand jury investigations are criminal inquiries in anticipation of prosecution in judicial courts. They do not focus on the actions of public officials – except in comparatively rare public corruption investigations, and even in those cases the issue is the alleged criminal behavior, not the status of the suspect.

Under our fundamental principles, Americans are presumed innocent until proven guilty of a criminal offense after a trial or guilty plea, with all the due process protections that apply. If grand jury proceedings were public, it would undermine the presumption of innocence by suggesting that law enforcement officials believed the suspect was guilty.

Moreover, our jurisprudence holds that in a criminal case, the court is entitled to every person’s evidence. If a witness possesses information relevant to a criminal investigation, our law allows prosecutors to issue a subpoena compelling the witness to provide testimony and produce documents and other physical evidence. Grand jury secrecy promotes the fulfillment of this obligation by witnesses who might otherwise defy subpoenas out of fear of retribution from violent criminals.

An impeachment inquiry is nothing like this.

An impeachment inquiry is exactly like this. It is not a criminal investigation though it is most like a Grand Jury investigation. Is not a criminal prosecution. It is an impeachment inquiry.
It is bound only by what the Constitution says about impeachment.


The White House demands that the House afford Mr. Trump the rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel. And it claims that unless the House yields to these demands, the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity. But of course, thousands of defendants are indicted every day by federal grand juries in which those defendants have no right to call or confront witnesses or to be represented by counsel. To suggest that “due process” requires that a president facing only loss of office get more rights at the accusatory stage than a criminal defendant facing loss of liberty or even life is not only constitutionally unsupportable, but ludicrous.

Not just the constitution but what bills were passed and house rules.
All of it being violated.
It's legal but dirty politics .

It's filthy and it fools no one. This just their latest act in the 3 year ongoing attempt to overturn the last election, and they are attempting to use it to alter the outcome in the upcoming election.

Only you don’t believ trump colluded with russia. Everyone else it’s apparent. You’ll say it’s because of the lyin media but it’s because of the truth.

You’re desperately defending a crime boss

Which is what the Muller report confirmed, No Collusion page 2.

 

[Zorro!]

this is Trump's Waterloo my friends. it will break him!

Sure, as long as you understand that Trump is The Duke of Wellington and the Democrats are Napoleon's forces.

After Napoleon returned to power, he only lasted 100 days, the Democrats in the House will last two years, so, there's that.

 

[Syriusly]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

Can't have a quid pro quo, if the other side never knew about, which is what they are all saying.

What? We catch trump trying to mafia the guy into lying about his political opponent, the foreigners doesn’t get it, and you say because of that trumps innocent of not trying to shake the guy down?

This is the kind of argument a good lawyer makes up for his clearly guilty client.

Facts
The Ukraine's did not know that the military aid was being withheld while being looked into ,that the new government was not corrupt like the last two were.

If they didn't know you can't have a quid pro quo.

Except that the Ukrainians did know that the funds were being withheld.
Top US diplomat to Ukraine testifies there was a quid pro quo

During this same phone call I had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a

conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at Warsaw. Ambassador

Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until

President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation. I was alarmed by

what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation. This was the first

time I had heard that the security assistance—not just the White House meeting—was

conditioned on the investigations.

 

[sealybobo]

Properly done, of course.

There is no good reason for the secrecy. An impeachment inquiry is vastly different from a grand jury investigation in its nature and purpose.

Grand jury investigations are criminal inquiries in anticipation of prosecution in judicial courts. They do not focus on the actions of public officials – except in comparatively rare public corruption investigations, and even in those cases the issue is the alleged criminal behavior, not the status of the suspect.

Under our fundamental principles, Americans are presumed innocent until proven guilty of a criminal offense after a trial or guilty plea, with all the due process protections that apply. If grand jury proceedings were public, it would undermine the presumption of innocence by suggesting that law enforcement officials believed the suspect was guilty.

Moreover, our jurisprudence holds that in a criminal case, the court is entitled to every person’s evidence. If a witness possesses information relevant to a criminal investigation, our law allows prosecutors to issue a subpoena compelling the witness to provide testimony and produce documents and other physical evidence. Grand jury secrecy promotes the fulfillment of this obligation by witnesses who might otherwise defy subpoenas out of fear of retribution from violent criminals.

An impeachment inquiry is nothing like this.

An impeachment inquiry is exactly like this. It is not a criminal investigation though it is most like a Grand Jury investigation. Is not a criminal prosecution. It is an impeachment inquiry.
It is bound only by what the Constitution says about impeachment.


The White House demands that the House afford Mr. Trump the rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel. And it claims that unless the House yields to these demands, the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity. But of course, thousands of defendants are indicted every day by federal grand juries in which those defendants have no right to call or confront witnesses or to be represented by counsel. To suggest that “due process” requires that a president facing only loss of office get more rights at the accusatory stage than a criminal defendant facing loss of liberty or even life is not only constitutionally unsupportable, but ludicrous.

Not just the constitution but what bills were passed and house rules.
All of it being violated.
It's legal but dirty politics .

It's filthy and it fools no one. This just their latest act in the 3 year ongoing attempt to overturn the last election, and they are attempting to use it to alter the outcome in the upcoming election.

Only you don’t believ trump colluded with russia. Everyone else it’s apparent. You’ll say it’s because of the lyin media but it’s because of the truth.

You’re desperately defending a crime boss

Which is what the Muller report confirmed, No Collusion page 2.

Not true. More was said

 

[Syriusly]

Again you are simply confused by the lies fed to you by Trump and his Right Wing lie machine.

Do you think you have the right to confront witnesses when you are being investigated by the police for burglary?...

Of course. After studying their claims about your conduct, the attorney takes their deposition and under an adversarial process asks them very tough questions so that all may assess their credibility.

... Do you think you have the right to confront witnesses when a Grand Jury is investigating
White House Letter Distorts Both Law and History on Impeachment...

Do you think one goes directly from Grand Jury referral to trial?

...the right to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel...the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity...

It can be ignored because the House has not voted on inquiry. If they had, the Republicans would have already assured Trump of his inherent rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses to rebut them or to make points of his own and of course to be represented by counsel. To have his counsel present at the deposition of witnesses to cross examine them under an adversarial process that allows weaknesses to be uncovered.

The Senate Trial is going to a great education for the American People. They are going to learn that the folks who illegally spied on him and then spent 3 years trying to illegally drive him from office are working hand in glove with the folks who impeached him, who claimed they could do so in secret, depose witnesses without the involvement of Trump's legal team and believe that Trump's right to confront witnesses against him could be violated in secret precedents in the House basement. All these deluded folks think they have the power to undo an election if they disagree with the outcome.

The American People are going to be shocked at just how out of your mind you guys are.

...The BILL OF RIGHTS IS NOT AT ISSUE...

Have fun making that claim to the American People and the US Senate. It's an open admission that you guys have raped his rights. Our rights are not provided by the Bill of Rights, they are recognized by the Bill of Rights. We held these rights long before the Constitution recognized them.

... is just impeachment...

That will be another fun point to watch you guys make. It's JUST impeachment, as if overturning the election of The President Of The United States is just a minor issue, so minor, that you can't just wait a matter of months and let the Electorate decide who the President will be. But you see, we all know why you won't wait for the electorate. You think The Electorate made the "wrong" choice last time, so hey, they could make the "wrong" choice again!

A vile bitterly deranged group of partisans are misusing the impeachment process to attack the Electoral Process, because they do not agree with The American Electorate about who should be The President of The United States. This is a tremendous violation of their constitutional oath.

Folks don't know how crazy you folks are, we are doing you a favor in warning you that you really shouldn't do this, because there will not be any hiding it any longer. But hey, no danger in warning you, we know you won't listen, SO BY ALL MEANS, CONTINUE!

... JFC, it's like history started for you in 2016. And Scottish law. You're killing me. Who writes your stuff? Hanpatty. LOL

Now that's funny. Everyone with brain knows about this. And you who are ignorant, claim I'm ignorant, based on your ignorance of what the entire nation saw during the Senate vote during the Clinton Impeachment trial.

A vile bitterly deranged group of partisans are misusing the impeachment process to attack the Electoral Process, because they do not agree with The American Electorate about who should be The President of The United States. This is a tremendous violation of their constitutional oath.

Impeachment is every bit as Constitutional as Trump's electoral college electoral win.

Properly done, of course.

There is no good reason for the secrecy. An impeachment inquiry is vastly different from a grand jury investigation in its nature and purpose.

Grand jury investigations are criminal inquiries in anticipation of prosecution in judicial courts. They do not focus on the actions of public officials – except in comparatively rare public corruption investigations, and even in those cases the issue is the alleged criminal behavior, not the status of the suspect.

Under our fundamental principles, Americans are presumed innocent until proven guilty of a criminal offense after a trial or guilty plea, with all the due process protections that apply. If grand jury proceedings were public, it would undermine the presumption of innocence by suggesting that law enforcement officials believed the suspect was guilty.

Moreover, our jurisprudence holds that in a criminal case, the court is entitled to every person’s evidence. If a witness possesses information relevant to a criminal investigation, our law allows prosecutors to issue a subpoena compelling the witness to provide testimony and produce documents and other physical evidence. Grand jury secrecy promotes the fulfillment of this obligation by witnesses who might otherwise defy subpoenas out of fear of retribution from violent criminals.

An impeachment inquiry is nothing like this.

An impeachment inquiry is exactly like this. It is not a criminal investigation though it is most like a Grand Jury

It's nothing like a Grand Jury.

Grand juries are presumptively impartial. This is a political inquest conducted by partisans. There is no pretense of objectivity. And the Trump impeachment inquiry is as partisan as it gets. Does anyone believe that Adam Schiff is an impartial factfinder? We are talking, remember, about the same Adam Schiff who started the Trump presidency spouting allegations from the farcical Steele dossier, and more recently started his impeachment proceedings with a caricature of the Trump-Zelensky phone call that was too farcical for a Grade-C mob movie script.

No one is going to mistake this for anything other than what it is, an ongoing farce by folks that did not accept the 2016 election and are hoping that this farce will help them with the 2020 election, because we can all see that the House hasn't done a damn thing with their majority to help the nation. They have only focused on trying to remove Trump.

That's not much of an agenda when the upcoming election is about whether we keep Trump. We would have been much better served had the House worked for the People and let the Electorate decide whether Trump will serve another term, because that is who will make the decision anyway. The House has wasted all of this year, and likely the next, rather than working for The American People.

And there is no trial going on.

Impeachment is not a trial.

I can't repeat it often enough

 

[sealybobo]

Remember how at the beginning of Ukrainegate Republicans lined up behind Trump and proclaimed:
"There can be no crime because there was no quid pro quo"

Sen. Pat Toomey called the conversation “inappropriate,” the Pennsylvania Republican said “it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
It “reveals no quid pro quo,” he added.

“I didn’t find it concerning,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “There was no quid pro quo, you’d have to have that if there was going to be anything wrong.”

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of Trump’s top confidants on Capitol Hill, had tweeted four separate times about the absence of a “quid pro quo" by lunchtime.

Well now we know that there was a"Quid Pro Quo" offered, and expected by the President.
The incredibly damning Ukraine texts from State Department officials, explained
Volker writes, “Heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / “get to the bottom of what happened” in 20-16, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”

Later in a response from the Ukrainian rep:
“Once we have a date,” Yermak says, he’ll call for a press briefing in which he’ll announce “among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

Sondland asks Volker, “Do we still want Ze to give us an unequivocal draft with 2016 and Boresma?” Volker answers: “That’s the clear message so far...”

Remember Boresma is the company that Trump is trying to tie Biden to- in Trump's phone call Trump never mentions Boresma but instead asks him to investigate Biden.

The quid pro quo is very explicit here- the new Ukrainian President very much wants a White House meeting with President Trump. He is offered that meeting if he investigates Boresma- or as Trump made clear on his call- Biden.

The quid pro quo is there- even without the pretty obvious quid pro quo of the arms money:

Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat at the US embassy in Ukraine:“Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?”........“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

Now the Republican line is: 'nuttin illegal about 'quid pro quo' to get a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent- well if Trump is doing it.

I am sure we will see all of the Republicans who proclaimed that the President did nothing wrong because there was no 'quid pro quo' offered, will be finding other reasons why it is okay for the President to offer a quid pro quo to a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political rival.

Can't have a quid pro quo, if the other side never knew about, which is what they are all saying.

What? We catch trump trying to mafia the guy into lying about his political opponent, the foreigners doesn’t get it, and you say because of that trumps innocent of not trying to shake the guy down?

This is the kind of argument a good lawyer makes up for his clearly guilty client.

Facts
The Ukraine's did not know that the military aid was being withheld while being looked into ,that the new government was not corrupt like the last two were.

If they didn't know you can't have a quid pro quo.

Except that the Ukrainians did know that the funds were being withheld.
Top US diplomat to Ukraine testifies there was a quid pro quo

During this same phone call I had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a

conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at Warsaw. Ambassador

Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until

President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation. I was alarmed by

what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation. This was the first

time I had heard that the security assistance—not just the White House meeting—was

conditioned on the investigations.

It’s so obvious their arguments are weak and ridiculous

 

[Syriusly]

Again you are simply confused by the lies fed to you by Trump and his Right Wing lie machine.

Do you think you have the right to confront witnesses when you are being investigated by the police for burglary?...

Of course. After studying their claims about your conduct, the attorney takes their deposition and under an adversarial process asks them very tough questions so that all may assess their credibility.

... Do you think you have the right to confront witnesses when a Grand Jury is investigating
White House Letter Distorts Both Law and History on Impeachment...

Do you think one goes directly from Grand Jury referral to trial?

...the right to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel...the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity...

It can be ignored because the House has not voted on inquiry. If they had, the Republicans would have already assured Trump of his inherent rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses to rebut them or to make points of his own and of course to be represented by counsel. To have his counsel present at the deposition of witnesses to cross examine them under an adversarial process that allows weaknesses to be uncovered.

The Senate Trial is going to a great education for the American People. They are going to learn that the folks who illegally spied on him and then spent 3 years trying to illegally drive him from office are working hand in glove with the folks who impeached him, who claimed they could do so in secret, depose witnesses without the involvement of Trump's legal team and believe that Trump's right to confront witnesses against him could be violated in secret precedents in the House basement. All these deluded folks think they have the power to undo an election if they disagree with the outcome.

The American People are going to be shocked at just how out of your mind you guys are.

...The BILL OF RIGHTS IS NOT AT ISSUE...

Have fun making that claim to the American People and the US Senate. It's an open admission that you guys have raped his rights. l.

Frankly that is just an admission that you have no fucking clue what the Constitution says.

That you think that your Messiah somehow has 'rights' in an Impeachment that are not afforded to any defendant in any criminal investigation just shows how much kool aid you have drunk

The White House demands that the House afford Mr. Trump the rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel. And it claims that unless the House yields to these demands, the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity. But of course, thousands of defendants are indicted every day by federal grand juries in which those defendants have no right to call or confront witnesses or to be represented by counsel. To suggest that “due process” requires that a president facing only loss of office get more rights at the accusatory stage than a criminal defendant facing loss of liberty or even life is not only constitutionally unsupportable, but ludicrous.

What is happening now is an investigation. Not an impeachment.

Until you understand that.....well hell......you will never understand that....

It's simply not true. Schiff is fictionalizing again with his claims that impeachment is "like" a grand jury, it's nothing of the sort.

Impeachment is solely about political accountability. It is a quintessentially public question.

Grand juries, moreover, are presumptively impartial. The grand jury exists as a constitutional protection: Before the state may charge an American with a crime, it must satisfy a body of objective citizens that there is sufficient evidence (probable cause) to proceed to trial.

In marked contrast, this impeachment inquiry is a political inquest conducted by partisans. There is no pretense of objectivity, this impeachment inquiry is as partisan as it gets. No one is enough of a moron to believe that Adam Schiff is an impartial fact-finder. This is the same clown who started the Trump presidency spouting allegations from the farcical Steele dossier, and more recently started his impeachment proceedings with a caricature of the Trump-Zelensky phone call that was too farcical for a Grade-C mob movie script.

Schiff has no response to this. What response could he have, since it could not be more obvious that his impeachment inquiry, which still has not been endorsed by a vote of the full House, is nothing like a grand jury investigation?

So he offers a different rationalization: The witness interviews need to be secret to prevent administration officials from getting their story straight by hearing each other’s version of events before testifying. The implication, of course, is that the public officials he is summoning would otherwise commit perjury, clearly no presumption of innocence, there.

As Schiff well knows, secrecy does not prevent witnesses from comparing notes outside the hearing. Even in criminal investigations, where grand jury secrecy applies, witnesses commonly form joint defense agreements which enable them to share notes about what the investigators are asking.

Andrew McCarthy: Americans deserve a public impeachment inquiry – Schiff and Dems should end the secrecy

....Trump is not having any of his 'rights' being denied- any more than con-man...

I see you have no difficulty with the presumption of innocence!

... who is being investigated by a Grand Jury...

Impeachment is nothing like a Grand Jury.

How the House handles the impeachment is for the House itself to decide...

The Whole House. Your problem is the secret underhanded process that violates Trump's rights discredits impeachment an important check on the Judiciary and the Executive Branch.

Impeachment cannot be a 'coupe' because it is provided for in our Constitution. It is not an 'ursurptoin of an election because again- it is provided for in the Constitution...

You are rendering it ineffective by denying the president and the Republican minority due process rights to cross-examine and subpoena witnesses.

Instead, you refuse to vote, hide behind closed doors, withhold key documents and testimony, and provide their media friends with selectively skewed leaks. It's very ugly what you are doing and it not only will not work, it weakens a constitutional check that helps secure our Liberty.

... goes onto the Senate ...

They aren't going to impeach him based on the Dem's shameful kangaroo court.

... Would this Senate vote to impeach a Nixon or a Trump ...

With Courtroom Quality Evidence, proving beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that the individual in front of them was guilty of treason, bribery or other high crimes? Absolutely. The vote would likely be 100-0

This Senate would only impeach Trump if they felt that they would get booted out of office otherwise- they would not vote to impeach Nixon or Trump at this point.

Again- this is impeachment. Trump's rights are not being 'violated'. It is not a trial.

And since you can't seem to understand that....well I can't help you much.

 

[Zorro!]

Of course. After studying their claims about your conduct, the attorney takes their deposition and under an adversarial process asks them very tough questions so that all may assess their credibility.
Do you think one goes directly from Grand Jury referral to trial?
It can be ignored because the House has not voted on inquiry. If they had, the Republicans would have already assured Trump of his inherent rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses to rebut them or to make points of his own and of course to be represented by counsel. To have his counsel present at the deposition of witnesses to cross examine them under an adversarial process that allows weaknesses to be uncovered.

The Senate Trial is going to a great education for the American People. They are going to learn that the folks who illegally spied on him and then spent 3 years trying to illegally drive him from office are working hand in glove with the folks who impeached him, who claimed they could do so in secret, depose witnesses without the involvement of Trump's legal team and believe that Trump's right to confront witnesses against him could be violated in secret precedents in the House basement. All these deluded folks think they have the power to undo an election if they disagree with the outcome.

The American People are going to be shocked at just how out of your mind you guys are.
Have fun making that claim to the American People and the US Senate. It's an open admission that you guys have raped his rights. Our rights are not provided by the Bill of Rights, they are recognized by the Bill of Rights. We held these rights long before the Constitution recognized them.
That will be another fun point to watch you guys make. It's JUST impeachment, as if overturning the election of The President Of The United States is just a minor issue, so minor, that you can't just wait a matter of months and let the Electorate decide who the President will be. But you see, we all know why you won't wait for the electorate. You think The Electorate made the "wrong" choice last time, so hey, they could make the "wrong" choice again!

A vile bitterly deranged group of partisans are misusing the impeachment process to attack the Electoral Process, because they do not agree with The American Electorate about who should be The President of The United States. This is a tremendous violation of their constitutional oath.

Folks don't know how crazy you folks are, we are doing you a favor in warning you that you really shouldn't do this, because there will not be any hiding it any longer. But hey, no danger in warning you, we know you won't listen, SO BY ALL MEANS, CONTINUE!
Now that's funny. Everyone with brain knows about this. And you who are ignorant, claim I'm ignorant, based on your ignorance of what the entire nation saw during the Senate vote during the Clinton Impeachment trial.

A vile bitterly deranged group of partisans are misusing the impeachment process to attack the Electoral Process, because they do not agree with The American Electorate about who should be The President of The United States. This is a tremendous violation of their constitutional oath.

Impeachment is every bit as Constitutional as Trump's electoral college electoral win.

Properly done, of course.

There is no good reason for the secrecy. An impeachment inquiry is vastly different from a grand jury investigation in its nature and purpose.

Grand jury investigations are criminal inquiries in anticipation of prosecution in judicial courts. They do not focus on the actions of public officials – except in comparatively rare public corruption investigations, and even in those cases the issue is the alleged criminal behavior, not the status of the suspect.

Under our fundamental principles, Americans are presumed innocent until proven guilty of a criminal offense after a trial or guilty plea, with all the due process protections that apply. If grand jury proceedings were public, it would undermine the presumption of innocence by suggesting that law enforcement officials believed the suspect was guilty.

Moreover, our jurisprudence holds that in a criminal case, the court is entitled to every person’s evidence. If a witness possesses information relevant to a criminal investigation, our law allows prosecutors to issue a subpoena compelling the witness to provide testimony and produce documents and other physical evidence. Grand jury secrecy promotes the fulfillment of this obligation by witnesses who might otherwise defy subpoenas out of fear of retribution from violent criminals.

An impeachment inquiry is nothing like this.

An impeachment inquiry is exactly like this. It is not a criminal investigation though it is most like a Grand Jury

It's nothing like a Grand Jury.

Grand juries are presumptively impartial. This is a political inquest conducted by partisans. There is no pretense of objectivity. And the Trump impeachment inquiry is as partisan as it gets. Does anyone believe that Adam Schiff is an impartial factfinder? We are talking, remember, about the same Adam Schiff who started the Trump presidency spouting allegations from the farcical Steele dossier, and more recently started his impeachment proceedings with a caricature of the Trump-Zelensky phone call that was too farcical for a Grade-C mob movie script.

No one is going to mistake this for anything other than what it is, an ongoing farce by folks that did not accept the 2016 election and are hoping that this farce will help them with the 2020 election, because we can all see that the House hasn't done a damn thing with their majority to help the nation. They have only focused on trying to remove Trump.

That's not much of an agenda when the upcoming election is about whether we keep Trump. We would have been much better served had the House worked for the People and let the Electorate decide whether Trump will serve another term, because that is who will make the decision anyway. The House has wasted all of this year, and likely the next, rather than working for The American People.

And there is no trial going on.

Impeachment is not a trial.

I can't repeat it often enough

Nope. Not even an impeachment inquiry, just a farce. Just play at impeachment, but do nothing of substance. It may seem a silly trajectory, but what are the alternatives in a 3.5 percent unemployment economy—and possible “bombshells” coming from prosecutors William Barr, John Durham, or Michael Horowitz?

What else are Democrats going to do? Introduce in the House legislation to enact the Green New Deal? The wealth tax? Reparations? Health care for illegal aliens? Open borders? Abolish $1.6 trillion in student debt? Or sit back and see whether Andrew McCabe, James Comey, or James Clapper might get indicted in a month or so?

Instead we get the daily venting and screaming without doing anything at all about the ogre Trump under the guise of exhaustively pondering impeachment inquiries, impeachment voting, impeachment hearings, and impeachment verdicts.

They offer no alternative agenda to Trump’s issues that for the most part poll far higher than what we have seen on the Democratic candidate debate stage. After the Mueller implosion they are focused on smear and slander. Impeachment is just a construct to amplify the daily invective.

 

[Zorro!]

Of course. After studying their claims about your conduct, the attorney takes their deposition and under an adversarial process asks them very tough questions so that all may assess their credibility.
Do you think one goes directly from Grand Jury referral to trial?
It can be ignored because the House has not voted on inquiry. If they had, the Republicans would have already assured Trump of his inherent rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses to rebut them or to make points of his own and of course to be represented by counsel. To have his counsel present at the deposition of witnesses to cross examine them under an adversarial process that allows weaknesses to be uncovered.

The Senate Trial is going to a great education for the American People. They are going to learn that the folks who illegally spied on him and then spent 3 years trying to illegally drive him from office are working hand in glove with the folks who impeached him, who claimed they could do so in secret, depose witnesses without the involvement of Trump's legal team and believe that Trump's right to confront witnesses against him could be violated in secret precedents in the House basement. All these deluded folks think they have the power to undo an election if they disagree with the outcome.

The American People are going to be shocked at just how out of your mind you guys are.
Have fun making that claim to the American People and the US Senate. It's an open admission that you guys have raped his rights. l.

Frankly that is just an admission that you have no fucking clue what the Constitution says.

That you think that your Messiah somehow has 'rights' in an Impeachment that are not afforded to any defendant in any criminal investigation just shows how much kool aid you have drunk

The White House demands that the House afford Mr. Trump the rights to confront witnesses, call witnesses, and be represented by counsel. And it claims that unless the House yields to these demands, the whole procedure is constitutionally invalid and can be ignored with impunity. But of course, thousands of defendants are indicted every day by federal grand juries in which those defendants have no right to call or confront witnesses or to be represented by counsel. To suggest that “due process” requires that a president facing only loss of office get more rights at the accusatory stage than a criminal defendant facing loss of liberty or even life is not only constitutionally unsupportable, but ludicrous.

What is happening now is an investigation. Not an impeachment.

Until you understand that.....well hell......you will never understand that....

It's simply not true. Schiff is fictionalizing again with his claims that impeachment is "like" a grand jury, it's nothing of the sort.

Impeachment is solely about political accountability. It is a quintessentially public question.

Grand juries, moreover, are presumptively impartial. The grand jury exists as a constitutional protection: Before the state may charge an American with a crime, it must satisfy a body of objective citizens that there is sufficient evidence (probable cause) to proceed to trial.

In marked contrast, this impeachment inquiry is a political inquest conducted by partisans. There is no pretense of objectivity, this impeachment inquiry is as partisan as it gets. No one is enough of a moron to believe that Adam Schiff is an impartial fact-finder. This is the same clown who started the Trump presidency spouting allegations from the farcical Steele dossier, and more recently started his impeachment proceedings with a caricature of the Trump-Zelensky phone call that was too farcical for a Grade-C mob movie script.

Schiff has no response to this. What response could he have, since it could not be more obvious that his impeachment inquiry, which still has not been endorsed by a vote of the full House, is nothing like a grand jury investigation?

So he offers a different rationalization: The witness interviews need to be secret to prevent administration officials from getting their story straight by hearing each other’s version of events before testifying. The implication, of course, is that the public officials he is summoning would otherwise commit perjury, clearly no presumption of innocence, there.

As Schiff well knows, secrecy does not prevent witnesses from comparing notes outside the hearing. Even in criminal investigations, where grand jury secrecy applies, witnesses commonly form joint defense agreements which enable them to share notes about what the investigators are asking.

Andrew McCarthy: Americans deserve a public impeachment inquiry – Schiff and Dems should end the secrecy

....Trump is not having any of his 'rights' being denied- any more than con-man...

I see you have no difficulty with the presumption of innocence!

... who is being investigated by a Grand Jury...

Impeachment is nothing like a Grand Jury.

How the House handles the impeachment is for the House itself to decide...

The Whole House. Your problem is the secret underhanded process that violates Trump's rights discredits impeachment an important check on the Judiciary and the Executive Branch.

Impeachment cannot be a 'coupe' because it is provided for in our Constitution. It is not an 'ursurptoin of an election because again- it is provided for in the Constitution...

You are rendering it ineffective by denying the president and the Republican minority due process rights to cross-examine and subpoena witnesses.

Instead, you refuse to vote, hide behind closed doors, withhold key documents and testimony, and provide their media friends with selectively skewed leaks. It's very ugly what you are doing and it not only will not work, it weakens a constitutional check that helps secure our Liberty.

... goes onto the Senate ...

They aren't going to impeach him based on the Dem's shameful kangaroo court.

... Would this Senate vote to impeach a Nixon or a Trump ...

With Courtroom Quality Evidence, proving beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that the individual in front of them was guilty of treason, bribery or other high crimes? Absolutely. The vote would likely be 100-0

This Senate would only impeach Trump if they felt that they would get booted out of office otherwise- they would not vote to impeach Nixon or Trump at this point.

Again- this is impeachment. Trump's rights are not being 'violated'. It is not a trial.

And since you can't seem to understand that....well I can't help you much.

View attachment 285798

These rights are inherent, and yes, we also enjoy them in criminal trials, and civil actions as well. The American People understand these concepts, they also know why things are done in secret in basements.

Only Democrats would plan to impeach a president on the basis of a “whistleblower” who will not come forward, who is a Democrat partisan, who worked for a current Democratic presidential candidate, who contrary to the whistleblower statutes went first to the Democratic Chairman of what is now the impeachment inquiry committee, Adam Schiff, also chair of the Intelligence Committee, and whose formal complaint was prepped by Democrat-affiliated lawyers. The whistleblower claims second-hand knowledge from leaking White House Staffers who heard a confidential Trump conversation—a conversation whose transcript was immediately released and was at odds in key places with the whistleblower’s second- and third-hand versions.

 

[Lakhota]

Here is a great and easy to read copy of Ambassador Bill Taylor's 15-page opening statement:

Read the full transcript here.

 

[Lesh]

What's revealing is that Trumpers aren't even trying to defend Trump any more.

All they can do is lamely whine about PROCESS...all of which they have wrong

 

[peach174]

He heard.
Where are the ones who was actually involved.
Never rely on important information from 2nd hand.
Can't they find someone who has a 1st hand account?

 

[Faun]

Well lets dig into that- shall we?
Document: Justice Department Releases Carter Page FISA Application
The FISA warrant on Carter Page claimed that he was a Russian agent- which can mean many things. The FISA application also says that the FBI relied on information from the State Department- and as you are aware- vast amounts of info is redacted. Now in order for it to be a lie it would have be a) false and b) made knowing it is false. We have no evidence at the moment that either is true...

You think that if a vague notion floats through a bitterly partisan government hack's brain that someone is working as a spy for a foreign government that the full weight of Intelligence Communities Vast Spying powers can be brought against an American Citizen? You'll have to provide me links to when anyone with a brain made these claims while any portion of FISA was being passed or reauthorized.

But, I will love watching the deranged clowns making arguments like that to the American People once the Barr Durham and Horowitz reports have been released.

That great power and authority may only be loosed on a US Citizen if based on compelling evidence, the FBI suspects individuals of acting as clandestine agents of a hostile foreign power. Every Warrant requires a Sworn Oath that ALL the information is verified and that the record is accurate and complete. Further, as these are ex-parte proceedings, the government has the highest burden possible to disclose any weak spots in their submission or exculpatory information.

What the upcoming reports are examining is what triggered such an investigation in a democratic republic whose norms strongly discourage an incumbent administration’s use of the government’s spying powers against political opponents?

The Obama administration did not apply this norm to the Trump campaign at a time when they were supremely confident that Hillary Clinton would be elected and that no one would ever know that this vast spy power had been repeatedly unleashed against the Trump Campaign... Ooops!

If all the Obama administration had been trying to do was check out a few bad apples with suspicious Russia ties, the FBI could easily have alerted any of a number of Trump campaign officials with solid national-security credentials — Rudy Giuliani, Jeff Sessions, Chris Christie. The agents could have asked for the campaign’s help. Instead, Obama officials made the Trump campaign the subject of a full-blown counterintelligence investigation, an action that could only be justified by unimpeachable fully verified and corroborated evidence that Donald Trump was a Russian agent.

...Actually it claimed that Source #1- Steele- was assessed as reliable. And when the first FISA request was granted- Steele was still an FBI informant.- Steele was not removed as an informant for the FBI until a month later when the FBI found out he was leaking info to the press....

Yes. He was fired by the FBI for acting in an untrustworthy manner. At that moment they had a duty to immediately inform the Court of his untrustworthy action. They did not. They also did not disclose to the Court of his actions through 3 subsequent renewals.

...the press issue- so you admit that this wasn't relevant during the initial FISA authorization- but for the subsequent ones authorized by Trump officials?...

As soon as learned, they had a duty to update the Court. They did not and they repeated this "corroboration" through three renewals even though they knew it to be false.

...And regarding 'pertinent information' you are getting nowhere there either because the FBI noted the pertinent information in the footnote. to the FISA application. Not a lie- simply your disagreement with the FBI on what is pertinent...

They did NOT reveal in a footnote that the Clinton campaign was funding Steele. They deliberately concealed this from the Court, and the reason for their deliberately duplicity, on all 4 applications is obvious. The Court wouldn't have approved this information had they known it.

...
I for one am looking forward to the FISA report.
What do I expect? Probably critical on details, and not finding that the FISA warrants themselves were illegal or that anyone did anything actually illegal, but there will be some criticism of the process.

I too am concerned that rather than resulting in criminal charges that through this process we will also find that only administration penalties apply, suspensions, terminations, write ups and the like, basically employment actions. If that's the case, that's a big hole in our legal framework that will need to be addressed through legislation. Trusting in the virtue of the FBI and DOJ clearly is not sufficient. Some very despicable characters ended up in the highest DOJ, IC and FBI positions in the Nation.

a bitterly partisan government hack's brain.....
Speaking of bitterly partisan. Face it you didn't have any problem with FISA until your Messiah felt threatened by being investigated.

There is no evidence that the "Obama Administration" had anything to do with the FISA warrant request.
As far as their obligation to notify the court once they terminated Steele as an informant for leaking information to the press and for lying to the FBI about the leaks- that wouldn't change the fact that the initial FISA was correct. Nor does it establish that the FBI no longer felt Steele was credible.

And finally- there was no obligation to do what you- or your Messiah- have ex post facto- decided must be done with a FISA warrant.

Notice by the way- that Trump has not made any moves to eliminate the FISA courts.......nor have the GOP.

You're either ignorant or you're lying.]

Your a Trumpkin- which means you are ignorant- and lying.

All Americans should be against this attempted overthrow of an elected president, whether they like President Trump or not.

Lock him up!

 

[Faun]

I'm way late to this thread and it seems that it's gone in another direction but, I'll ask anyway.

Isn't most American aid given with expectations attached, you know, "quid pro quo"? I know we something give charity with no strings attached, but as far as I can tell, the U.S. doesn't just hand out money and other aid without an expectation of something in return.

Does anyone dispute this?

There's nothing wrong with attaching strings to money we give to other nations. Where trump fucked up was attaching strings that benefited him personally.