snafu Posted January 21, 2020 Posted January 21, 2020 16 minutes ago, jrober38 said: If witnesses could exonerate the President, why on earth would he block them from testifying? If the people accusing the President of wrongdoing haven't made out a coherent case, then why does the President need to exonerate himself? 2 1
HamSandwhich Posted January 21, 2020 Posted January 21, 2020 13 minutes ago, Foxx said: come on... this isn't that hard. in case you are unaware, this is following precedent and protecting future actions against the presidency. much like has happened in the past. separation of powers. It's not for the accused to prove their innocence, it's for the accuser to prove the guilt. Why put people on stand that could potentially say things they did not mean and can be taken apart and ran with by the other side. No reason to, the Dems did not prove the case, their case is very weak. No matter how many times they try to say that they have overwhelming proof, they actually have 0 factual proof. 1 3
B-Man Posted January 21, 2020 Posted January 21, 2020 (edited) Impeachment Lessons from ‘The Princess Bride’ Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, every other elected Democrat on cue, and every Democrat operative in the legacy media are DEMANDING a “fair trial.” How many times have you heard one of them use that euphemism over the past month? And sure enough, just as I am writing this, I glance up at the TV and see Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) making the Democrat case for a “fair trial” on FNC’s “Your World with Neil Cavuto.” The Democrats are nothing if not predictable – and relentless in their use of Democrat poll-tested phrases. In the 1980s movie “The Princess Bride,” the evil Sicilian Vizzini repeatedly used of the word “inconceivable” as the movie’s hero, the “Dread Pirate Roberts,” continually overcame obstacles placed in his path. Vizzini’s hireling, Inigo Montoya, eventually responded to Vizzini: “You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.” Likewise, the euphemism “fair trial” as used by the Democrats doesn’t mean what they seem to think it means. Let’s explore the real meaning and give the Democrats a taste of what a REAL fair impeachment trial in the Senate would entail. The Democrats insist that a “fair trial” has to do with ensuring that the prosecution (the House managers) is afforded the opportunity to call whomever they wish as witnesses and present any and all documents that they think need to be produced regardless of legal protections. They conflate the meaning of fair trial in service of their partisan politics, hoping to convince enough of the public that what they are claiming is reasonable. But what does a “fair trial” real mean? First of all, the US Constitution ensures all accused parties of the right to a jury trial, but the Constitution is silent on the meaning of a “fair trial.” Here is what the Sixth Amendment says: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Over the 239 years since the Constitution was ratified, the concept of a “fair trial” has been defined and evolved from case law and legal consensus to include the following rights afforded to the accused: The right to an impartial jury The right to due process of law The right to confront accusers and evidence against him and to call witnesses in his defense The right to legal counsel In short, a fair trial is intended to protect the accused against legal excesses by an all-powerful state, which is just the sort of situation that the partisan Democrats have foisted upon the President and the rest of us – a sham impeachment based on no impeachable crimes cited (an historical first) and hearsay evidence and personal opinions of witnesses. If the Democrats’ definition of “fair trial” were to rule the day, then the rights of the accused (the President) would be violated many times over as concept of “fair trial” is commonly understood. Let’s look at the four characteristics of a fair trial in terms of what they would really mean in a Senate impeachment trial. The right to legal counsel. This is a no-brainer. The President will have legal representation (to be determined) during the Senate trial. So far, so good. The right to due process of law. Due process in a Senate impeachment trial is whatever a majority of senators agree to. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) isn’t going to roll over and let the Democrats call the shots on process and procedures. Regarding the introduction of new witnesses, let’s see if the Democrats are willing to go down the path of “witness reciprocity” as proposed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) (Republicans would be free to pick any witness in exchange for whomever the Democrats demand). Somehow, I don’t think the Democrats want the American people to listen to testimony by the fake whistleblower or Hunter Biden. So this characteristic isn’t a “slam dunk,” but it is pretty close to one. The right to confront accusers and evidence against him and to call witnesses in his defense. Now it starts to get really prickly from the Democrats’ point of view. I can’t wait for Mitch McConnell and the Republicans to throw this characteristic in the Democrats’ faces. The President should be allowed to confront the accusers directly, to challenge testimony associated with the presentations of the House impeachment managers, and to call witnesses in his defense that counter the Democrats’ case. Do the Senate Democrats want to open that Pandora’s box in their insistence on calling new witnesses not deposed during the House impeachment star chamber hearings? They risk directly experiencing Trumpenfreude when/if they walk that plank. While this characteristic is “to be determined” at this point, I cannot imagine the President’s constitutional rights being violated by denying him the ability to confront witnesses and their testimony, as well as to call his own witnesses in defense. The right to an impartial jury. Finally, we get to the “big enchilada” that the Democrats and legacy media do not wish to discuss. What does an impartial jury entail? Many Americans have served on various types of juries over the years as part of their citizenship obligation, and those who have done so understand the jury selection process from PERSONAL experience. They know exactly what is involved in jury selection – the removal of people from the jury pool with conflicts of interest and inherent and/or overt biases against the accused. How might that apply in a Senate impeachment trial, which by definition is a POLITICAL trial? Let’s look at those considerations. {snip} ...Several paragraphs about dismissal of some Senator "jurors" Let’s have that “fair trial” about which Democrats have been caterwauling, but let’s do it consistent with long-held principles and definitions that all Americans understand, not under the Democrats’ false premises. Under these terms, I like the President’s odds of acquittal – and vindication! https://www.redstate.com/stu-in-sd/2020/01/18/impeachment-lessons-from-the-princess-bride/ Edited January 21, 2020 by B-Man 1 1
CoudyBills Posted January 21, 2020 Posted January 21, 2020 16 minutes ago, Gary Busey said: 69% want witnesses Apparently 1 ninja turtle can kick the ***** out of 69%. 1
snafu Posted January 21, 2020 Posted January 21, 2020 Di he say that the House materials are subject to Hearsay objection? HAHAHAHA.... there goes the case. Buh-bye. 4 1
Deranged Rhino Posted January 21, 2020 Posted January 21, 2020 Just now, snafu said: Di he say that the House materials are subject to Hearsay objection? HAHAHAHA.... there goes the case. Buh-bye. It's going to be a disaster for the dems. All they can/will do is cry "cover-up!" and hope their base buys it. The independents and moderates won't. 6
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 21, 2020 Posted January 21, 2020 (edited) 34 minutes ago, jrober38 said: The defense doesn't have any witnesses who actually help their case, unless they want to commit perjury. There's a reason a bunch of witnesses were blocked from testifying. Don't be disingenuous. The entire spectacle is political, and witnesses are blocked and trotted out to serve the master with the allotted time on the clock. For every "there's a reason a bunch of witnesses" will not testify, there is a reason other witnesses were called to testify. It's not the Rs job to "help their case", anymore than it was Kavanaughs obligation to prove he wasn't lead engineer on a rape train. Edited January 21, 2020 by leh-nerd skin-erd 4 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted January 21, 2020 Posted January 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: It's going to be a disaster for the dems. All they can/will do is cry "cover-up!" and hope their base buys it. The independents and moderates won't. It's why I think, if the material implicating Schiff in any way, shape or form will help put this issue to bed, it should be revealed. I hate to say that even in light of the sh6theel that he is, but so be it. 1
snafu Posted January 21, 2020 Posted January 21, 2020 26 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: It gets started really tomorrow. Today is the rules. It'll be lawyers arguing minutia of the Senate all day. It'll be a circus, nasty, and unwatchable. I love this part, actually. If you win the motion practice, you're 80% of the way home. ...and now my feed just crashed!!! 2
Deranged Rhino Posted January 21, 2020 Posted January 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, snafu said: I love this part, actually. If you win the motion practice, you're 80% of the way home. ...and now my feed just crashed!!! Right as Schiff took the mic. Coincidence? Or the universe sending a sign that Schiff is the worst? *************** Schiff is arguing that it's not fair if both sides can't call witnesses, or present evidence. 5
snafu Posted January 21, 2020 Posted January 21, 2020 4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Right as Schiff took the mic. Coincidence? Or the universe sending a sign that Schiff is the worst? Oh, young Dana Scully. Now I'm completely distracted!! 1 2
Deranged Rhino Posted January 21, 2020 Posted January 21, 2020 Schiff takes 20 minutes to make a 4 min argument. Sign of weakness. 1
Tiberius Posted January 21, 2020 Posted January 21, 2020 14 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: It's going to be a disaster for the dems. All they can/will do is cry "cover-up!" and hope their base buys it. The independents and moderates won't. Most Americans know Trump is a scum bag 1
Deranged Rhino Posted January 21, 2020 Posted January 21, 2020 Establishment information warfare rule 101: "Accuse others that of which you are guilty." 1 2
Recommended Posts