cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Advisor

Re: Some things the Senate should get to the bottom of

You're all making Trump Legal Dream Team quality process arguments.

Amuse yourselves.

Senior Advisor

Re: Some things the Senate should get to the bottom of

What you have managed to do is prove the house doesn't have the evidence to prove the president committed impeachable crimes. Thanks.

Advisor

Re: Some things the Senate should get to the bottom of

Sticker being that crimes aren’t a requirement.

If there have been any after the transition is soon enough.

Senior Contributor

Re: Some things the Senate should get to the bottom of


@sdholloway56 wrote:

You're all making Trump Legal Dream Team quality process arguments.

Amuse yourselves.


As you pointed out, this is not a standard criminal proceeding.    Lets find out the totality of what is going on.  Then lets bring out the guillotine.

Senior Advisor

Re: Some things the Senate should get to the bottom of

"Sticker being that crimes aren’t a requirement."

 

 

Then there is no need of witnesses.

Advisor

Re: Some things the Senate should get to the bottom of

OK, ignorant lyin' children of satan (and legal beagles), listen up.

Hypothetically, Lil' Jimmy Bond Squeals to da feds on Big Donnie The Festering Chancre.

The Feds convene a grand jury and present evidence, including, or not including, testimony from "lil Jimmy. But presumably he would be an important part of the case. The Grand Jury returns an indictment, or doesn't, but in this case they do. The Chancre is not aware of this until a warrant for his arrest is issued and had no right to present his defense to that point (even though Our Festering Chancre did, but claims not to, in this real world analogy).

At which point The Chancre is entitled to all of the protection of the law- counsel, habeas corpus etc. At trial he and his counsel may call Lil' Jimmy or anyone else they regard as "accuser" as witnesses. "The accuser" is The State, which has brought the case, and anyone who the defense would like to call as such. Or not call, in the unlikely case that the prosecution hasn't chosen to call this witness and the defense deems it not in the defendant's interest to hear from that witness.

All of this is, of course,  Angels on the Head of a Pin pseudo-legal sophistry anyway. Just a red herring to impugn the whistleblower on the basis of motive and thus undermine the testimony of a dozen or so corroborating witnesses.

But tell Mitch to call him, by all means.

I might commend you all on your legal scholarship but crib notes are served up by the minute.

BTW, none of this specifically, exactly applies- ether way- except in the "case closed" wingersphere.

 

 

Advisor

Re: Some things the Senate should get to the bottom of

Sorta like some guys who watch Law and Order sure they can get their meth cook cousin off on a Miranda violation.

Advisor

Re: Some things the Senate should get to the bottom of

"The whistleblower" might be able to resist testifying by claiming protection under the whistleblower act, but that doesn't mean they can't issue a subpoena.

But he could certainly choose to honor the subpoena if he chose, and I can't imagine why he wouldn't, now that he's been illegally outed by various of the usual suspects.

If he decided to fight the subpoena it would actually lend a tiny bit of support for your conspiracy theory.

Advisor

Re: Some things the Senate should get to the bottom of

The obvious conclusion for those not engaging in motivated reasoning is the same as for the rest of the witnesses.

You don't call witnesses who aren't going to be helpful to your case.

And unlike in a real trial (so much for all the legal sophistry) the prosecution can't call witnesses if you get to write the rules and don't permit any.

Slam dunk, no duh stuff for all but the willfully oblivious.

Senior Contributor

Re: Some things the Senate should get to the bottom of


@sdholloway56 wrote:

 

 

 


Complete nonsense, the house and senate can fairly well define what the impeachment and trial consist of and the rules of with almost complete leeway.