Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Schiff the Witch Hunter

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Schiff the Witch Hunter

    In another sign of just how one-sided the "impeachment" (I decided to go with facetious quotes because the process is a joke at this point) process, Schiff is refusing to allow the Republicans to call any of the witnesses they submitted a list of to testify.

    Republican lawmakers stepped up pressure Sunday on House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff to allow them to call Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, to testify in the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump.

    The GOP lawmakers said if the Intelligence Committee's Democrats block the committee's minority choices of witnesses, it would cast further doubt on the fairness of the inquiry's process.

    Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that if Schiff and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., "prevent the Republicans from calling their own witnesses," they would be "doubling down on stupid."
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ny/2554571001/

    https://republicans-intelligence.hou...ss_request.pdf

    This is like the prosecutor gets to call all the witnesses he wants, he alone gets to question them, and when the defense objects, he shrugs them off.

    It seems to me that Schiff's case is so tenuous, so shaky, so likely to fail that he can't risk even the slightest objection from the defense. Instead, they must be silenced at all costs. And, those costs are starting to look like the national debt...

  • #2
    Solid proof that the whole thing is an illegal scam attached to a treasonous coup attempt. The main question is: Why are the Dems being allowed to continue at all, if they are not following the law?

    Figure that one out and you can be the next president.
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #3
      If you are so concerned with following the law, why don't you criticize Trump who routinely either ignores it or violates it?
      We are not now that strength which in old days
      Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
      Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
      To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Massena View Post
        If you are so concerned with following the law, why don't you criticize Trump who routinely either ignores it or violates it?
        Why aren't you concerned about how the inquisition in the House is being run?

        Comment


        • #5
          So far US congress has clearly done nothing it is not constitutionally and legally mandated to do, in order to exercise oversight of the office of the presidency. The incumbent does not have to like it.

          So far it is the incumbent and his supporters who have claimed that this kind of clearly legal and fully mandated oversight is somehow "illegal". Which is a bit like war is peace, slavery is freedom, i.e. "Newspeak".

          End result? If Trump wins out in the situation, then congressional oversight over the office of the presidency will henceforth be regarded as actually illegal?

          At least elsewhere this would be regarded as a standard pattern for a showdown where, if the executive branch wins, the legislative branch is brought under control of the executive branch, or at least where the executive branch is henceforth able to just disregard the legislative.

          Of course it could always be one way of getting out the problem that the US constitutionally mandated checks and balances have become so good at checking and balancing nothing is allowed to really move anymore, more of a gridlock situation.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
            So far US congress has clearly done nothing it is not constitutionally and legally mandated to do, in order to exercise oversight of the office of the presidency. The incumbent does not have to like it.

            So far it is the incumbent and his supporters who have claimed that this kind of clearly legal and fully mandated oversight is somehow "illegal". Which is a bit like war is peace, slavery is freedom, i.e. "Newspeak".

            End result? If Trump wins out in the situation, then congressional oversight over the office of the presidency will henceforth be regarded as actually illegal?

            At least elsewhere this would be regarded as a standard pattern for a showdown where, if the executive branch wins, the legislative branch is brought under control of the executive branch, or at least where the executive branch is henceforth able to just disregard the legislative.

            Of course it could always be one way of getting out the problem that the US constitutionally mandated checks and balances have become so good at checking and balancing nothing is allowed to really move anymore, more of a gridlock situation.
            The problem right now isn't whether Congress can hold impeachment hearings, but rather the methodology the Democrats have chosen to go about it. First we've had Democrats calling for his impeachment almost before he took office. They clamored for, then got, a special council to investigate Trump who after nearly two years of searching can't find anything to pin on him. They then took some commentary in the Mueller report about obstruction of justice and thought that might work, only to see the train derailed. Then comes a "whistleblower" under more suspect circumstances it would seem, to start a new impeachment investigation to replace the past failures. But, it's looking like it's down to Schiff as the last true believer who can't seem to grasp that doing everything in secret, and shutting out the Republicans to the maximum extent he can will be seen as nothing but political machinations by all except the other true believers like himself.
            The Democrats have been trying like hell to pin something, anything, on Trump to get him out of office. The one thing they haven't tried is coming up with a better candidate and a better platform of ideas to better him. If Trump truly is just a troll and an idiot, that shouldn't be too hard to do. But, their current crop of candidates for President are a bunch of nobodies and losers.

            If the Democrats can't even be sure their own party will vote for impeachment, and they have ZERO Republican support, it's probably not a good idea to be betting on impeachment other than a way to shoot themselves in the foot.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

              Why aren't you concerned about how the inquisition in the House is being run?
              I'm very concerned about it as Trump and his chief of staff have actually admitted they attempted to extort/bribe the Ukrainian government for Trump's own political advantage at home. That is illegal and it is also dishonorable.

              I believe those that have already testified and we'll just have to see what comes out in the open hearings.

              And what is wrong, by the way, with the way the House is running the impeachment inquiry?
              We are not now that strength which in old days
              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                Why aren't you concerned about how the inquisition in the House is being run?
                By the way, answering a question with a question is ludicrous as well as disingenuous.
                We are not now that strength which in old days
                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Massena View Post
                  And what is wrong, by the way, with the way the House is running the impeachment inquiry?
                  Secrecy. Most of the current testimony is done behind closed doors. The danger here is that when or if it comes to a floor vote on actual impeachment, Pelosi will hold it much like she did with Obamacare: "We have to impeach Trump to find out what the charges are..." Given Democrat conduct to this point, I'd say that's a very real possibility.

                  It's a one-party operation and doesn't even have the full cooperation of that one party. The impeachment inquiry vote was entirely one-party and Republicans aren't onboard with it. This is after three years of investigating Trump.

                  Selective testimony. Only Democrats can call witnesses. The Democrats have cut the Republicans out of that process entirely.

                  Leaking of supposedly secret / sensitive testimony by Democrats to the MSM. Gossip, rumor mongering, and attempts to influence the process and public through such means only adds to the visible dishonesty of the investigation.

                  The Democrat leadership on committees investigating Trump have already stated their position on an impeachment vote without hearing all the evidence. That gives the whole of what the Democrats are doing the appearance of a Stalinesque show trial.

                  We're under a year to the election. An impeachment-- The Democrats have declared a vote on doing this by December, another timeline that shows the testimony is more show than deliberately investigative. It's essentially, "We're going to do a few more weeks of the show trial then impeach Trump..."
                  A better alternative, and one the public would find far more honest is simply beat Trump in the next election. But, I honestly don't think that the collection of losers and hardly knowns that the Democrats are offering up can do that, and the party's leadership knows it too. That's why the smear campaign. It's a very risky strategy for the Democrats but their Progressive Left wing which has grown to being a majority of the party doesn't see it. Their usual political myopia prevents that.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                    Secrecy. Most of the current testimony is done behind closed doors. The danger here is that when or if it comes to a floor vote on actual impeachment, Pelosi will hold it much like she did with Obamacare: "We have to impeach Trump to find out what the charges are..." Given Democrat conduct to this point, I'd say that's a very real possibility.

                    It's a one-party operation and doesn't even have the full cooperation of that one party. The impeachment inquiry vote was entirely one-party and Republicans aren't onboard with it. This is after three years of investigating Trump.

                    Selective testimony. Only Democrats can call witnesses. The Democrats have cut the Republicans out of that process entirely.

                    Leaking of supposedly secret / sensitive testimony by Democrats to the MSM. Gossip, rumor mongering, and attempts to influence the process and public through such means only adds to the visible dishonesty of the investigation.

                    The Democrat leadership on committees investigating Trump have already stated their position on an impeachment vote without hearing all the evidence. That gives the whole of what the Democrats are doing the appearance of a Stalinesque show trial.

                    We're under a year to the election. An impeachment-- The Democrats have declared a vote on doing this by December, another timeline that shows the testimony is more show than deliberately investigative. It's essentially, "We're going to do a few more weeks of the show trial then impeach Trump..."
                    A better alternative, and one the public would find far more honest is simply beat Trump in the next election. But, I honestly don't think that the collection of losers and hardly knowns that the Democrats are offering up can do that, and the party's leadership knows it too. That's why the smear campaign. It's a very risky strategy for the Democrats but their Progressive Left wing which has grown to being a majority of the party doesn't see it. Their usual political myopia prevents that.
                    How were the initial dispositions taken with the Nixon and Clinton impeachments?

                    And the House can run their hearings any way they want, since the procedure isn't outlined in the Constitution.
                    We are not now that strength which in old days
                    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Massena View Post

                      How were the initial dispositions taken with the Nixon and Clinton impeachments?
                      In Nixon's case, the House went out of their way to try and make the process as fair and open as they could. I think this sums it up nicely:
                      On February 6, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee was authorized to launch a formal impeachment inquiry against the president. The House approved the resolution 410–4.
                      The vote, which was not a test of impeachment sentiment, validated the investigation begun by the committee the previous October. During the debate over this measure, Chairman Rodino said, "Whatever the result, whatever we learn or conclude, let us now proceed with such care and decency and thoroughness and honor that the vast majority of the American people, and their children after them, will say: This was the right course. There was no other way." House Republican leader
                      John J. Rhodes
                      said that Rodino's vow to conduct the inquiry fairly and within a short amount of time was "good with me".
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac..._Richard_Nixon

                      There was little secrecy in the process. Nixon was allowed to have lawyers present for the hearings, all of them. The Republicans, against impeachment at first, came aboard as the evidence was presented, and they were allowed to call witnesses, and had ample time given without restraint to question those called.
                      That is, it was very much an inclusive and bipartisan process.

                      Here in Arizona, Ev Meham, a governor (Republican) was impeached. Same process as above. It became a more and more open and bipartisan process as things moved forward.

                      In the Clinton impeachment there was only a short investigation period followed by a floor debate and then a vote. There was no overwhelming consensus nor was there a drug out investigation. This is largely due to the two charges brought being already issues decided before the courts. Impeachment in this case was largely the parliamentary procedure of debate on the floor and a vote.
                      There was little bipartisan consensus and the vote was largely along party lines.
                      In the Senate, the vote for conviction like in Johnson's case missed by one vote. (Obstruction of justice vote was 50 - 50). If you go with the two-third's rule, it didn't even come close.

                      This is what I've been saying about the current process all along. It's one-party, secretive, not deliberative, and many of the principals, like Schiff, have already rendered a verdict to the press.
                      Without bipartisan consensus and an open and fair-- as fair as it can be made-- process impeachment fails and the party bringing it pays the consequences of that.

                      And the House can run their hearings any way they want, since the procedure isn't outlined in the Constitution.
                      True, but they'll have to pay the political price for a show trial which is what they're running right now.

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X