The tits and tats of witnesses, this includes Hunter

[Oldstyle]

I said it justifies his actions.

It doesn’t. Let’s say a cop doesn’t like someone and he pulls him over for no reason. The cop finds a bag of pot in the back seat. Does that bag of pot justify the cop’s actions?

I hate to point out the obvious here, Colfax but aren't you liberals the cop in your little car stop scenario? You're looking for anything you can in Trump's "back seat" and your searches are based on lies and innuendoes!

Incorrect. Trump is a public servant. He serves the people and that gives the people a right to know what he is doing on our behalf. It is our right as citizens.

Trump may be a public servant but that doesn't give you the right to violate his rights as an American citizen or the rights of the people who work for him! What people like Clapper, Brennan, Page and Strozk have done has ZERO to do with informing the people...it was a deliberate attempt at misleading the people!

This is a conversation about the impeachment trial. Don't get distracted, this has nothing to with Clapper, Brennan, Page, Strzok or any other boogey men. We are asking about their official duties as government officials. We have a right to know what they're doing in that capacity.

What rights are being violated?

Now Clapper, Brennan, Page and Strzok are "boogey men"? I assume that means you think we should ignore how they abused the power of their positions in an attempt at influencing our election?

As for your right to know things as a citizen? Presidents are given the right to have private conversations with their staffs...you have zero right to be privy to what those conversations consist of unless they involve criminal acts and before you claim that they DO involve criminal acts let me be quite clear that you don't get to look at those private conversations unless you've got a crime that you are investigating such as the Watergate break in and subsequent coverup! There was no crime in this case. No criminal charges have been brought against ANYONE involved in this farce!

 

[Oldstyle]

If the cop pulled them over because someone told him that he was dealing drugs out of his car, the search would be justified and the person would go to jail in most locations, or just get a ticket in NY

Only if the source of the information is credible, correct? I mean, you can’t go violating people’s rights based on unsubstantiated information.

You mean like you folks did with the entire "Russian Collusion" thing? Wow...talk about clueless!

In part yes. We were given credible information that turned out to be correct which launched the investigation. We were also given non-credible information that should not have been used.

You’re doing the same thing you accused the FBI of doing. Aren’t you?

You were fed made up information paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC! That is what launched the investigation! What credible information are you referring to?

The information that launched the investigation came from the Australian diplomatic staff. You probably should know this by now.

About a comment someone made at a cocktail party? That's laughable! What "launched" the investigation was the smear job bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC! The excuse that people like Clapper, Brennan, Page & Strozk used was that comment made at a cocktail party. They took a bunch of lies...the Steele dossiers...called them credible intelligence when they knew they were not... and used that to both spy on the Trump campaign and to smear Donald Trump personally!

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Because Mitch wants as little attention to the impeachment trial as possible....

He can call Hunter -- but when it comes to under oath testimony, the testimony Bolton and Mulvaney gives will be far more damning than Republicans asking Hunter shit that they themselves don't have any evidence of...because if they did have evidence of his corruption, there would have been an FBI and DOJ investigation already ongoing...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Huh?

Biden has nothing to do with Trump's actions. There is nothing Biden could say that would shed any light on what Trump is accused of doing.

If the corruption was true, it woulf justify trumps actions.

Would it? How does that prove he wasn’t politically motivated?

I said it justifies his actions.

It doesn’t. Let’s say a cop doesn’t like someone and he pulls him over for no reason. The cop finds a bag of pot in the back seat. Does that bag of pot justify the cop’s actions?

Holy crap. I think you took the wrong offramp off the highway lol

 

[Oldstyle]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Because Mitch wants as little attention to the impeachment trial as possible....

He can call Hunter -- but when it comes to under oath testimony, the testimony Bolton and Mulvaney gives will be far more damning than Republicans asking Hunter shit that they themselves don't have any evidence of...because if they did have evidence of his corruption, there would have been an FBI and DOJ investigation already ongoing...

If Hunter Biden testifies then Joe Biden is toast as far as Presidential aspirations go. There's little question that although the Burisma board position isn't illegal...it's as sleazy as it gets and I think the Biden's knew that only too well! It's why Hunter gave up that cushy job. He knows damn well that it was influence peddling at it's worst. He knows damn well that if a spotlight is shown on how he was cashing in on his father's position in both the Ukraine and in China that the American public would be disgusted by what they'd done.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Because Mitch wants as little attention to the impeachment trial as possible....

He can call Hunter -- but when it comes to under oath testimony, the testimony Bolton and Mulvaney gives will be far more damning than Republicans asking Hunter shit that they themselves don't have any evidence of...because if they did have evidence of his corruption, there would have been an FBI and DOJ investigation already ongoing...

If Hunter Biden testifies then Joe Biden is toast as far as Presidential aspirations go. There's little question that although the Burisma board position isn't illegal...it's as sleazy as it gets and I think the Biden's knew that only too well! It's why Hunter gave up that cushy job. He knows damn well that it was influence peddling at it's worst. He knows damn well that if a spotlight is shown on how he was cashing in on his father's position in both the Ukraine and in China that the American public would be disgusted by what they'd done.

Cool...most progressives don't care if Biden drops out the race...

and more so, if the Bidens are guilty of crimes, then the FBI and DOJ should charge them and they should go to jail...

Now....back to the testimonies of Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, etc -- do you understand that the bullshit they say on Fox News to appease their sycophant base doesn't play well under oath??

 

[Oldstyle]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Because Mitch wants as little attention to the impeachment trial as possible....

He can call Hunter -- but when it comes to under oath testimony, the testimony Bolton and Mulvaney gives will be far more damning than Republicans asking Hunter shit that they themselves don't have any evidence of...because if they did have evidence of his corruption, there would have been an FBI and DOJ investigation already ongoing...

If Hunter Biden testifies then Joe Biden is toast as far as Presidential aspirations go. There's little question that although the Burisma board position isn't illegal...it's as sleazy as it gets and I think the Biden's knew that only too well! It's why Hunter gave up that cushy job. He knows damn well that it was influence peddling at it's worst. He knows damn well that if a spotlight is shown on how he was cashing in on his father's position in both the Ukraine and in China that the American public would be disgusted by what they'd done.

Cool...most progressives don't care if Biden drops out the race...

and more so, if the Bidens are guilty of crimes, then the FBI and DOJ should charge them and they should go to jail...

Now....back to the testimonies of Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, etc -- do you understand that the bullshit they say on Fox News to appease their sycophant base doesn't play well under oath??

I'm amused that you think any of them are lying, Biff. What pray tell would they have to lie about? The actions that the Trump Administration took with the Ukraine aren't any different than actions taken by the last twenty administrations. When is it going to dawn on you that there isn't any THERE...there?

 

[Oldstyle]

Once again...as I've said repeatedly...I don't see criminal actions with what Hunter Biden did. I see actions that are sleazy and corrupt. He took money for a position that he knew he wasn't qualified for and had gotten only because a huge foreign corporation with questionable business practices wanted to buy influence with his father. It happens. When it's exposed...it makes you look sleazy and corrupt because it IS sleazy and corrupt!

 

[colfax_m]

It doesn’t. Let’s say a cop doesn’t like someone and he pulls him over for no reason. The cop finds a bag of pot in the back seat. Does that bag of pot justify the cop’s actions?

I hate to point out the obvious here, Colfax but aren't you liberals the cop in your little car stop scenario? You're looking for anything you can in Trump's "back seat" and your searches are based on lies and innuendoes!

Incorrect. Trump is a public servant. He serves the people and that gives the people a right to know what he is doing on our behalf. It is our right as citizens.

Trump may be a public servant but that doesn't give you the right to violate his rights as an American citizen or the rights of the people who work for him! What people like Clapper, Brennan, Page and Strozk have done has ZERO to do with informing the people...it was a deliberate attempt at misleading the people!

This is a conversation about the impeachment trial. Don't get distracted, this has nothing to with Clapper, Brennan, Page, Strzok or any other boogey men. We are asking about their official duties as government officials. We have a right to know what they're doing in that capacity.

What rights are being violated?

Now Clapper, Brennan, Page and Strzok are "boogey men"? I assume that means you think we should ignore how they abused the power of their positions in an attempt at influencing our election?

As for your right to know things as a citizen? Presidents are given the right to have private conversations with their staffs...you have zero right to be privy to what those conversations consist of unless they involve criminal acts and before you claim that they DO involve criminal acts let me be quite clear that you don't get to look at those private conversations unless you've got a crime that you are investigating such as the Watergate break in and subsequent coverup! There was no crime in this case. No criminal charges have been brought against ANYONE involved in this farce!

Trump was using our money. Whatever decisions he made are fair game for examination. We have a right to know why he did something. You can live in ignorance if you want, but I don't.

 

[colfax_m]

Only if the source of the information is credible, correct? I mean, you can’t go violating people’s rights based on unsubstantiated information.

You mean like you folks did with the entire "Russian Collusion" thing? Wow...talk about clueless!

In part yes. We were given credible information that turned out to be correct which launched the investigation. We were also given non-credible information that should not have been used.

You’re doing the same thing you accused the FBI of doing. Aren’t you?

You were fed made up information paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC! That is what launched the investigation! What credible information are you referring to?

The information that launched the investigation came from the Australian diplomatic staff. You probably should know this by now.

About a comment someone made at a cocktail party? That's laughable! What "launched" the investigation was the smear job bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC! The excuse that people like Clapper, Brennan, Page & Strozk used was that comment made at a cocktail party. They took a bunch of lies...the Steele dossiers...called them credible intelligence when they knew they were not... and used that to both spy on the Trump campaign and to smear Donald Trump personally!

Well, yeah. Sometimes that's how these things start. Turns out that they were right too.

The rest of your post is factually incorrect.

 

[Oldstyle]

I hate to point out the obvious here, Colfax but aren't you liberals the cop in your little car stop scenario? You're looking for anything you can in Trump's "back seat" and your searches are based on lies and innuendoes!

Incorrect. Trump is a public servant. He serves the people and that gives the people a right to know what he is doing on our behalf. It is our right as citizens.

Trump may be a public servant but that doesn't give you the right to violate his rights as an American citizen or the rights of the people who work for him! What people like Clapper, Brennan, Page and Strozk have done has ZERO to do with informing the people...it was a deliberate attempt at misleading the people!

This is a conversation about the impeachment trial. Don't get distracted, this has nothing to with Clapper, Brennan, Page, Strzok or any other boogey men. We are asking about their official duties as government officials. We have a right to know what they're doing in that capacity.

What rights are being violated?

Now Clapper, Brennan, Page and Strzok are "boogey men"? I assume that means you think we should ignore how they abused the power of their positions in an attempt at influencing our election?

As for your right to know things as a citizen? Presidents are given the right to have private conversations with their staffs...you have zero right to be privy to what those conversations consist of unless they involve criminal acts and before you claim that they DO involve criminal acts let me be quite clear that you don't get to look at those private conversations unless you've got a crime that you are investigating such as the Watergate break in and subsequent coverup! There was no crime in this case. No criminal charges have been brought against ANYONE involved in this farce!

Trump was using our money. Whatever decisions he made are fair game for examination. We have a right to know why he did something. You can live in ignorance if you want, but I don't.

On what do you base your claim that we have a "right" to be privy to private conversations between the President and his Staff? It's established that we DON'T have such a right unless it involves an investigation into a crime. The ignorance is all yours, Colfax!

 

[Oldstyle]

You mean like you folks did with the entire "Russian Collusion" thing? Wow...talk about clueless!

In part yes. We were given credible information that turned out to be correct which launched the investigation. We were also given non-credible information that should not have been used.

You’re doing the same thing you accused the FBI of doing. Aren’t you?

You were fed made up information paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC! That is what launched the investigation! What credible information are you referring to?

The information that launched the investigation came from the Australian diplomatic staff. You probably should know this by now.

About a comment someone made at a cocktail party? That's laughable! What "launched" the investigation was the smear job bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC! The excuse that people like Clapper, Brennan, Page & Strozk used was that comment made at a cocktail party. They took a bunch of lies...the Steele dossiers...called them credible intelligence when they knew they were not... and used that to both spy on the Trump campaign and to smear Donald Trump personally!

Well, yeah. Sometimes that's how these things start. Turns out that they were right too.

The rest of your post is factually incorrect.

Sometimes that's how these things start? That's your rationale? The Australian cocktail party story was what those people attempting to smear Trump and spy on his campaign used to justify their actions once the Steele dossiers were exposed for what they really were.

Now you're claiming they were "right" about collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia? Are you smoking crack today, Colfax?

 

[colfax_m]

Incorrect. Trump is a public servant. He serves the people and that gives the people a right to know what he is doing on our behalf. It is our right as citizens.

Trump may be a public servant but that doesn't give you the right to violate his rights as an American citizen or the rights of the people who work for him! What people like Clapper, Brennan, Page and Strozk have done has ZERO to do with informing the people...it was a deliberate attempt at misleading the people!

This is a conversation about the impeachment trial. Don't get distracted, this has nothing to with Clapper, Brennan, Page, Strzok or any other boogey men. We are asking about their official duties as government officials. We have a right to know what they're doing in that capacity.

What rights are being violated?

Now Clapper, Brennan, Page and Strzok are "boogey men"? I assume that means you think we should ignore how they abused the power of their positions in an attempt at influencing our election?

As for your right to know things as a citizen? Presidents are given the right to have private conversations with their staffs...you have zero right to be privy to what those conversations consist of unless they involve criminal acts and before you claim that they DO involve criminal acts let me be quite clear that you don't get to look at those private conversations unless you've got a crime that you are investigating such as the Watergate break in and subsequent coverup! There was no crime in this case. No criminal charges have been brought against ANYONE involved in this farce!

Trump was using our money. Whatever decisions he made are fair game for examination. We have a right to know why he did something. You can live in ignorance if you want, but I don't.

On what do you base your claim that we have a "right" to be privy to private conversations between the President and his Staff? It's established that we DON'T have such a right unless it involves an investigation into a crime. The ignorance is all yours, Colfax!

I hate being ignorant. Can you point to the case which establishes absolute immunity for the president’s advisors from Congressional subpoenas?

 

[colfax_m]

In part yes. We were given credible information that turned out to be correct which launched the investigation. We were also given non-credible information that should not have been used.

You’re doing the same thing you accused the FBI of doing. Aren’t you?

You were fed made up information paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC! That is what launched the investigation! What credible information are you referring to?

The information that launched the investigation came from the Australian diplomatic staff. You probably should know this by now.

About a comment someone made at a cocktail party? That's laughable! What "launched" the investigation was the smear job bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC! The excuse that people like Clapper, Brennan, Page & Strozk used was that comment made at a cocktail party. They took a bunch of lies...the Steele dossiers...called them credible intelligence when they knew they were not... and used that to both spy on the Trump campaign and to smear Donald Trump personally!

Well, yeah. Sometimes that's how these things start. Turns out that they were right too.

The rest of your post is factually incorrect.

Sometimes that's how these things start? That's your rationale? The Australian cocktail party story was what those people attempting to smear Trump and spy on his campaign used to justify their actions once the Steele dossiers were exposed for what they really were.

Now you're claiming they were "right" about collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia? Are you smoking crack today, Colfax?

I’m claiming they were right to be suspicious and open an investigation. A two year review of the investigation proves it.

 

[Oldstyle]

Trump may be a public servant but that doesn't give you the right to violate his rights as an American citizen or the rights of the people who work for him! What people like Clapper, Brennan, Page and Strozk have done has ZERO to do with informing the people...it was a deliberate attempt at misleading the people!

This is a conversation about the impeachment trial. Don't get distracted, this has nothing to with Clapper, Brennan, Page, Strzok or any other boogey men. We are asking about their official duties as government officials. We have a right to know what they're doing in that capacity.

What rights are being violated?

Now Clapper, Brennan, Page and Strzok are "boogey men"? I assume that means you think we should ignore how they abused the power of their positions in an attempt at influencing our election?

As for your right to know things as a citizen? Presidents are given the right to have private conversations with their staffs...you have zero right to be privy to what those conversations consist of unless they involve criminal acts and before you claim that they DO involve criminal acts let me be quite clear that you don't get to look at those private conversations unless you've got a crime that you are investigating such as the Watergate break in and subsequent coverup! There was no crime in this case. No criminal charges have been brought against ANYONE involved in this farce!

Trump was using our money. Whatever decisions he made are fair game for examination. We have a right to know why he did something. You can live in ignorance if you want, but I don't.

On what do you base your claim that we have a "right" to be privy to private conversations between the President and his Staff? It's established that we DON'T have such a right unless it involves an investigation into a crime. The ignorance is all yours, Colfax!

I hate being ignorant. Can you point to the case which establishes absolute immunity for the president’s advisors from Congressional subpoenas?

There is no case that establishes absolute immunity for communications between a President and advisors!
There is in fact only one case regarding Executive Privilege that's been heard by the Supreme Court and that is United States vs. Nixon and in that ruling they stated that there was no such thing as absolute immunity. It is a "qualified privilege" that can be lost if the courts are seeking subpoenaed materials in a criminal case!

"1. The Supreme Court and executive privilege

As the 2014 CRS study explained, “the Supreme Court has never addressed executive privilege in the face of a congressional demand for information.” Instead, the case in which the court first recognized such a privilege—Nixon—arose from a subpoena issued by Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski as part of his investigation into the Watergate break-in. But the court’s 8-0 ruling in Nixon nevertheless provides three important benchmarks for executive privilege vis-à-vis Congress today.

First, emphasizing “the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties,” the Nixon court traced executive privilege not to the common law, but to Article II of the Constitution. As Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote, “[w]hatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art[icle] II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties.” In other words, “the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has … constitutional underpinnings,” meaning that the privilege cannot be abrogated by statute. Indeed, even though President Richard Nixon ultimately lost before the court, this part of the court’s decision was a significant (and, given the result, unnecessary) win for the presidency.

Second, the Nixon court rejected the president’s claim that such a privilege is absolute, emphasizing that “the impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art[icle] III.” Instead, the court held that the executive privilege protected by Article II is a qualified privilege, and concluded that “it is necessary to resolve [the] competing interests” between executive privilege and the role of the courts “in a manner that preserves the essential functions of each branch.”

Third, Nixon held that the president’s interest in the confidentiality of his own communications, as memorialized in the tapes sought by the subpoena, was outweighed by “our historic commitment to the rule of law.” In Nixon, specifically, “when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice.” And as the court would explain three years later in another case involving Nixon, the privilege recognized in the earlier 1974 Nixon ruling “is limited to communications ‘in performance of (a President’s) responsibilities … of his office,’ and made ‘in the process of shaping policies and making decisions.’”
Executive privilege, Congress’ subpoena power, and the courts: A brief overview of a complex topic - SCOTUSblog

 

[Oldstyle]

So tell me, Colfax...is this a "criminal case" where evidence of a crime is being withheld by a Presidency? Who's been charged with a crime?

 

[kwc57]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Bring them all on, including Trump. He is the one at the "heart" of it all.

Negative. That would be Bull Schiff.

 

[Oldstyle]

Or is this a political maneuver...pitting Congress against the President? If so...legal precedent is solidly on the President's side!

 

[Oldstyle]

You were fed made up information paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC! That is what launched the investigation! What credible information are you referring to?

The information that launched the investigation came from the Australian diplomatic staff. You probably should know this by now.

About a comment someone made at a cocktail party? That's laughable! What "launched" the investigation was the smear job bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC! The excuse that people like Clapper, Brennan, Page & Strozk used was that comment made at a cocktail party. They took a bunch of lies...the Steele dossiers...called them credible intelligence when they knew they were not... and used that to both spy on the Trump campaign and to smear Donald Trump personally!

Well, yeah. Sometimes that's how these things start. Turns out that they were right too.

The rest of your post is factually incorrect.

Sometimes that's how these things start? That's your rationale? The Australian cocktail party story was what those people attempting to smear Trump and spy on his campaign used to justify their actions once the Steele dossiers were exposed for what they really were.

Now you're claiming they were "right" about collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia? Are you smoking crack today, Colfax?

I’m claiming they were right to be suspicious and open an investigation. A two year review of the investigation proves it.

They were "right" to open an investigation based on one comment made at an embassy cocktail party in Australia? Really? LOL

 

[mudwhistle]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Because Democrats (and some Republicans) are involved in a cover up over money laundering.