|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why hasn't the FBI taken the 24 Republican Congressmen into custody? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: We know why they are doing it this way, of course. The people they are interviewing are not saying what they want to hear, far from it, and they don't want that to get out. If that were so, Republicans would be leaking it. They aren't. Also, if they are going to use these witnesses in an impeachment trial in the Senate then the testimony will have to be public. Also, Democrats are going to have public testimony after the initial depositions, and they have even committed to releasing transcripts of the private testimony.
They are looking for someone who can say something against Trump they can run with. Since they are good at inventing such claims out of a few words they may be able to pull it off. But so far they had this guy Taylor whose testimony seemed promising but Ratcliff ripped that all to shreds. Thankfully, your fantasy world is going to have meet reality when the public phase of the inquiry starts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: Abuse of power is mostly a matter of interpretation and I know how the Left loves to "interpret" what Trump does. Why has Trump continually claimed that he didn't collude with Russia as Russia interfered in our elections? If there is nothing wrong with it, why did they fight those charges? With Ukraine, Trump did the very thing he claimed he didn't do with Russia. Trump asked Ukraine to dig up dirt on his political rivals which is interfering in our elections.
AND again it's the Democrats who have been abusing power against Trump for three years now. What power have they been abusing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: There are other nonspecific rules tht aren't being followed, such as giving due process and other rights to the defendant. Where in due process does the suspect get to be present during the police investigation or the grand jury testimony?
As I understand it both the Nixon and the Clinton impeachments were very careful to be sure the President had all the usual rights of challenging witnesses, proposing other witnesses, and a lot more I can't keep in mind, all of which are far from this House's proceedings. Trump will have those same privileges when there is a trial in the Senate. I strongly encourage you to learn how our justice system works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: Uh huh, and they are going to extend this "interview" phase as long as they can and actually they'll never have a vote to impeach because there will never be anything to impeach him on, but meanwhile this inquiry leaving out the majority of the House is a politically motivated violation of decency if nothing specific though probably of worse only I just am not up on it. You just described the Benghazi hearings. This investigation went on for years, with a lot of testimony behind closed doors. This was run by Republicans who were hoping to fish out impeachable offenses against Obama, but they didn't impeach and never filed a single referral for indictment. In fact, the House rules being used by Democrats right now were crafted by Republicans in their failed impeachment campaign against Obama. The hypocrisy is overpowering.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: They didn't keep loudly threatening Obama with impeachment for three years before it though, all making the headlines, and they didn't have a three year bogus investigation against Obama, with daily headlines claiming they "got him," that ended up finding nothing, and they didn't keep announcing that they were going to impeach him before they had this supposed closed door meeting, which apparently wasn't even publicly known. You just described the Benghazi hearings.
In the case of Trump this closed door meeting is going on at the time they should be having public hearings on impeachment. Why?
And now I see that apparently the Republican sit-n may have had an effect because they are in fact anncouncing an impeachment vote for Thursday allowing for an actual trial with due process for the President's side. Finally. Democrats had been planning this from the start. There was always going to be public testimony prior to an impeachment vote. There will also be a trial in the Senate if impeachment passes the House, and in that trial the President will be allowed to cross-examine and face his accusers. That's due process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: Funny those Congressmen thought something corrupt was going on in that closed door meeting. 12 of those Congressmen were already allowed to be in those hearings, so why did they have to make a big show of it? There were more than 40 Republicans allowed in those hearings, and they had equal time to question witnesses. Democrats are following the rules the Republicans put in place in 2015.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: Trump has done nothing, Really?
quote: There has already been one State Department official who has sworn under oath that there was a quid pro quo of aid and support for an announcement of investigations against Biden.
If he had done even one thing he is accused of he would have long since been impeached. How fast do you think this should go? It hasn't even been two months.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: Taylor is a leftist anti Trump schemer who was involved with Soros and Hunter Biden in somethin I didn't hear very clearly on Limbaugh this morning, as I just reported on the other thread in answer to you. Lol. This is what we mean by Republicans being unable to address the facts. Smearing the witness does not make the facts go away.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: I'm sure Ratcliffe dealt with the facts but we don't have the transcript of that cross examination thanks to the liar Schiff. The real question is if you will give Trump a pass even if all of these charges are corroborated. Do you think a president should be removed from office if they use tax payer dollars to get personal benefits from a foreign power? If Hillary had withheld aid from Ukraine to get dirt on Republican opponents, would you be calling for her to be removed from office?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: Nothing the Left has been putting its hopes on has panned out. What if it does pan out this time? Would you still give Trump a pass?
He didn't. That's not what I asked. If any hypothetical president used tax payer dollars to get personal benefits from a foreign power would you support their removal from office?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: What if it pans out this time? Why can't you answer the question? If the evidence pans out and Trump did in fact do what the Democrats have accused him of, will you give Trump a pass? Yes or no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: I'm not going to answer silly irrelevant tendentious questions. You don't want to admit that you don't care if Trump is corrupt and is abusing his office.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: Not doing hypotheticals. That's all the Left has I understand, which is a good reason not to do them. They have witnesses who are saying that there was a quid pro quo of money for investigations into Biden. This isn't a hypothetical.
The Republicans have due process except when Schiff or Pelosi say they don't. House Republicans have no right to due process because they are not being tried in a trial. House Republicans are not being charged with a crime. You really need to learn what due process is. Not hypothetically what due process is, but what it actually is. No one has the right to have their lawyers question witnesses as investigators are questioning those witnesses. No one has a right to face their accusers in a grand jury trial. That's not how due process works.
And meanwhile there has not yet been one CHARGE they've established to impeach him over. That's what they are doing right now, getting the evidence to determine if there were impeachable offenses. Do you think due process means the police can't investigate anything until there is an indictment? You have the process entirely backwards.
Funny with all those lists of Trump's supposed wrongdoings everybody keeps throwing around here you'd think they'd have one or two or a few charges to announce as what they are going to try to impeach him for. They will announce them once they feel they have gathered all of the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: Oh really. "They have witnesses who are saying" just about anything they want them to say, but it still hasn't amounted to anything but hot air. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
But that's standard for the Left, it's always an unnamed witness or official or whistleblower we often never get to hear named. See above. They are named, under oath, and on the record.
And then if we do find out it will still be a bunch of hot air anyway, it will turn out that the quid pro quo was not what it was insinuated to be or it was perfectly SOP or something. You are doing exactly what you are accusing Democrats of doing. Irony much?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024