Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Commonwealth refugees swilling chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 719
    MEMBERS
  • 33095
    MESSAGES
  • 62
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Impeach, or get off the pot!   America - all of it

Started Sep-23 by Jenifer (Zarknorph); 9633 views.
In reply toRe: msg 84
Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Oct-24

katiek2

From: katiek2

Oct-24

This is the only impeachment inquiry in our history that has not allowed the defendant to be present or for that matter, allow his attorney to be present.  There are no witnesses for the defendant allowed, cross examination of Schiff's witnesses is not allowed, Republican members of the Intelligence Committee are allowed to see transcripts only if accompanied by someone appointed by Schiff, while Schiff cherry-picks soundbites that agree with his predetermined endgame, then "leaks" them to the press.  I agree, that was a political stunt today, but this whole trial held in secret is a political stunt.   Research Nixon, Andrew & Clinton impeachments and you will see the stark difference.  Personally, I'd like to see the House take a vote on impeachment and bring it out into the open, as was done with Clinton.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Oct-25

I'm honestly not sure what they are doing right now.

This surely is not the impeachment process.

The ONLY thing I can think of is that they are trying to protect the identity of the Whistleblowers.

Seriously, Trump has "joked" about killing them (honestly not sure if he was joking).  You just need one fanatic with the information they need to "help" the President.

All the other impeachments happened at a time when the average person did not have so much access to the personal information of a stranger.

In reply toRe: msg 87
Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Oct-25

Analysis


BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

Oct-25

katiek2 said:

This is the only impeachment inquiry in our history that has not allowed the defendant to be present or for that matter, allow his attorney to be present.  There are no witnesses for the defendant allowed, cross examination of Schiff's witnesses is not allowed

I don't quite see the problem.

There's no "impeachment process" in operation, this is a preliminary inquiry very much like a Grand Jury. Should be happening without interference.

<oops - lets take out something you might think was an attack>

  • Edited October 25, 2019 4:19 am  by  BerrySteph
katiek2

From: katiek2

Oct-25

BerrySteph said:

There's no "impeachment process" in operation, this is a preliminary inquiry very much like a Grand Jury. Should be happening without interference.

This is not a grand jury, there is no classified information involved (attested to by Schiff himself), the whistleblower, who BTW doesn't fit the definition of a whistleblower, isn't present.  The inquiry should definitely not be secret, and the defendant, by our rule of law, should be able to present witnesses and cross-examine Schiff's witnesses.  This is simply a political stunt, and it will remain that way.  If the House majority wants to impeach, they need to bring it to the House and vote on it.  They won't do that.  

As for saying something I might take as an attack - go for it.  I no longer expect civility.  

BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

Oct-25

katiek2 said:

This is not a grand jury, there is no classified information involved (attested to by Schiff himself) 

So? What entitles the GOP to break into meetings?

katiek2 said:

the whistleblower, who BTW doesn't fit the definition of a whistleblower, isn't present.   

Why doesn't he fit the definition of whistle-blower? He appears to be the spokesman for an entire department of the government, horrified by the "dramatic abuse" by the President.

Bradley Manning may not have known about the video of the killing of the Reuters journalists and the gunning down of "rescuers" - that doesn't mean he/she should not have come forward with the big pile of information proving that, for instance, the US knew it was documenting some of the killings it was engaged in and simply ignoring that in its estimates.

katiek2 said:

The inquiry should definitely not be secret, and the defendant, by our rule of law, should be able to present witnesses and cross-examine Schiff's witnesses.  

There is no "defendant" at this stage - its an inquiry, the threat to the witnesses is huge, they're entitled to secrecy while they make statements.

katiek2 said:

This is simply a political stunt, and it will remain that way.  If the House majority wants to impeach, they need to bring it to the House and vote on it.  They won't do that.     

That sounds to me like an obstructionist talking point.

The inquiry might (in theory) turn up nothing atall - no indictement called for.

Furthermore, in my system anyway, the prosecution cannot continue interrogate the suspect after a charge has been brought. An "impeachment motion" now would (I think) stop them questioning the suspect.

katiek2 said:

As for saying something I might take as an attack - go for it.  I no longer expect civility.  

Look, you have the wrong impression of me - I started to write a judicious and level-headed dissection of the Grand Jury system, one that might inflame you and you might not want to talk to me thereafter.

Would you like me to tell you what I think of your Grand Jury system?

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Oct-26

Well something happened...


katiek2

From: katiek2

Oct-26

BerrySteph said:

So? What entitles the GOP to break into meetings?

They are members of the House of Representatives.  The meeting was a House meeting.  Some of them are even members of the Intelligence Committee overseen by Schiff.

BerrySteph said:

Why doesn't he fit the definition of whistle-blower?

Keeping in mind that I am not an expert in this, it is my understanding that to be covered under whistleblower protection laws, the whistleblower must have first-person information, i.e. must have heard or seen the action in question personally.  This witness passed along information he obtained from second, third and even fourth-hand sources.  He had NO personal knowledge of the situation.

BerrySteph said:

There is no "defendant" at this stage - its an inquiry, the threat to the witnesses is huge, they're entitled to secrecy while they make statements.

If there is no defendant at this stage, why is Schiff et al stating that Trump WILL BE impeached?  Furthermore, Pelosi and Schiff have both stated that impeachment proceedings will be started without bringing the evidence to the House where it would be voted on.  In other words, in defiance of current impeachment rules (as I understand them), only Pelosi and Schiff will decide whether or not Trump stands trial for impeachment.

BerrySteph said:

Furthermore, in my system anyway, the prosecution cannot continue interrogate the suspect after a charge has been brought. An "impeachment motion" now would (I think) stop them questioning the suspect.

The reason the House should go ahead and vote on impeachment is to start the impeachment trial process.  Yes, in the US, when a defendant is placed on trial, both prosecution and defense question the suspect and the witnesses.  I find it hard to believe that in the UK (I'm assuming that is where you are), prosecution cannot question defendant or witnesses once a charge is made.

BerrySteph said:

Would you like me to tell you what I think of your Grand Jury system?

No, not particularly.  When I want someone's opinion, I ask for it.  All a Grand Jury does is decide whether or not there is sufficient cause to bring a matter to trial based on the evidence it is given.  It does not decide guilt or innocence.  That is done by a Jury, supposedly by the defendant's peers, which hears evidence in an open courtroom.  If the defendant pleads guilty, there is no jury trial, and the judge decides the sentence, or outcome of the case.  In Trump's case, should he be impeached in the House, where the Left holds the majority, the matter will be remanded to the GOP majority Senate, which will not convict him.

  • Edited October 26, 2019 8:04 am  by  katiek2
TOP