- Nov 15, 2006
- 43,936
- 14,021
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Good Day,
Jordan and Stefanik did a very effective of laying the ground work that the Senate will need to expand the narrative. I think that is the last we will hear from many of the people that testified. The Senate Intel has had some hearings on the issue, and surly will find those hearings more relevant and weighty to the legal questions of Justice and factual evidence. It will be a very interesting trial there the house proceedings IMHO have very little direct evidence that will stand the legal requirement of what constitutes evidence. The Senate will have to decide that as well. Trumps witness list will be quite long and interesting including Schiff, the whistle-blower, and Hunter Biden. I am sure there will be others that the Senate judicial committee will recommended.. Chairman Graham has already requested some documentation from the sate department.
Remember the weight falls on the house to prove it's case by the legal standard of the Justice system. If they can not do that the Senate may dismiss that "case out of hand".
No doubt this will be historic...
In Him,
Bill
Of course, this ignores that fact that Trump has prevented all of those with first hand evidence from testifying. That's an obstruction of justice.
Good Day,whatbogsends
I am sure that will be an article of the impeachment put forth by the house. There is some historical discussions with in the Judicial committee if that is obstruction of Justice, or historical preference given to the POTUS... The Senate is more than able to determine and rule on the validity of that article and if the raise to a level of impeachment... You may see it one way subjectively , but never the less the Senate gets to decide it's reality.
In Him,
Bill
But hold on now. John Bolton said he would but wanted to refer to the Courts to get their take on what I gather to be the legal position of the President's Executive Privilege. So isn't the bigger question being why did the Dems withdraw the subpoena? Here you have someone (Bolton) with a direct link into the White House which none of the other witnesses had and his lawyers said he had knowledge of the issue in question and even more things which might settle the issue whether yeah or nay if the President did anything wrong.....and yet the Dems backed away from it? Why?Of course, this ignores that fact that Trump has prevented all of those with first hand evidence from testifying. That's an obstruction of justice.
But hold on now. John Bolton said he would but wanted to refer to the Courts to get their take on what I gather to be the legal position of the President's Executive Privilege. So isn't the bigger question being why did the Dems withdraw the subpoena? Here you have someone (Bolton) with a direct link into the White House which none of the other witnesses had and his lawyers said he had knowledge of the issue in question and even more things which might settle the issue whether yeah or nay if the President did anything wrong.....and yet the Dems backed away from it? Why?
Good day, Bill.
I understand that the Senate has the Constitutional authority to make the decision as they see fit, but the decisions made by either the House or Senate don't actually change the facts, although they will surely color many people's interpretation of them.
And of course you probably would at least admit that others will say that's what you're doing too? Coloring people's interpretation of things which have taken place?
Because Bolton wouldnt testify without going through other legal hurdles. Its a clock management matter, like in football......and yet the Dems backed away from it? Why?
My understanding is that it would be a legal battle which would cause delays in the process. Trump continues to damage our democracy every day he is in office.
Re all the big names who ignore subpoenas, Im guessing they all have something to hide.
Above we see some posters who don't understand how the trial will be conducted.
Only the House prosecutors will be allowed to manage the indictment and presentation of it before the Senate. The Senators merely vote at the end of the trial. No grandstanding will be permitted by the presiding judicial officer, Chief Justice Roberts.
IOW, my dear friends, the GOP Senate will not be able to present "other" narratives or evidence.
They did not withdraw a subpoena for Bolton, they never subpoenaed Bolton at all because his attorney said they would go to court.But hold on now. John Bolton said he would but wanted to refer to the Courts to get their take on what I gather to be the legal position of the President's Executive Privilege. So isn't the bigger question being why did the Dems withdraw the subpoena? Here you have someone (Bolton) with a direct link into the White House which none of the other witnesses had and his lawyers said he had knowledge of the issue in question and even more things which might settle the issue whether yeah or nay if the President did anything wrong.....and yet the Dems backed away from it? Why?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?