Why did the House Judiciary not take the subpoena issue to court?

[A_Thinker]

Really?.....where does he say that?

"We have all of the documents. The Dems have nothing."

 

[civilwarbuff]

Trump is accused of abusing his power to illegally influence the next election.

And yet no evidence has been produced to sustain that accusation.

So no, it would be pretty stupid just giving him the freedom to do whatever he wants in the run-up to the next election.

I guess impeachment is one way of trying to win an election; not likely to work though......

 

[civilwarbuff]

The House justified the trial ...

Not so far they haven't.....they haven't produced enough evidence to win a pie eating contest.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

"We have all of the documents. The Dems have nothing."

And again (sigh) where does he say that?

 

[Hank77]

Really?.....where does he say that?

In a press conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland three days ago.

I'd link to a source but I'd rather you google and choose your own.

 

[Hank77]

And again (sigh) where does he say that?

You know not everyone can immediately answer a question because they have other responsibilities. Sometimes we just have to have patience.

 

[Kentonio]

And yet no evidence has been produced to sustain that accusation.

Oh yeah, no evidence apart from all the Trump administration figures who said it happened and happened at Trumps behest.

 

[civilwarbuff]

In a press conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland three days ago.

I'd link to a source but I'd rather you google and choose your own.

That's OK, I am good with your link please.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

Oh yeah, no evidence apart from all the Trump administration figures who said it happened and happened at Trumps behest.

I am still waiting for people to list all this so called 'evidence'.....outside someones obviously satirical posting of 20+ hours of tesitimony as 'evidence' I have seen none here.....

 

[Hank77]

That's OK, I am good with your link please.....

President Trump News Conference in Davos, Switzerland | C-SPAN.org

At the bottom of the video screen, there are gold star points. Choose the third one.

 

[civilwarbuff]

President Trump News Conference in Davos, Switzerland | C-SPAN.org

At the bottom of the video screen, there are gold star points. Choose the third one.

Context matters....
So here's the story

I did nothing wrong. It was a perfect conversation. It was totally appropriate. The best lawyers in the world have looked at it. The Department of Justice has looked at it, given it a sign-off. There was nothing wrong.They never thought I was going to release the conversation. They probably didn't think we had transcribers or we had it trans- - transcribed or taped. But they never thought we were going to release it. When we released that conversation, all hell broke out with the Democrats, because they say, "Wait a minute. This is much different than Shifty Schiff told us."So we're doing very well. I got to watch enough. I thought our team did a very good job. But honestly, we have all the material. They don't have the material.

Context matters....this refers to the Zelensky phone transcript. The relevant parts were published. If the dems don't like that go take it to court....that is the remedy.....

 

[Hank77]

So we're doing very well. I got to watch enough. I thought our team did a very good job. But honestly, we have all the material. They don't have the material.

That is the context.
His team is doing a very good job, BUT honestly, we have all the materials, they don't have the materials.

So if the prosecuting managers had access to 'ALL the materials' would they be able to do a very good job, too?

If ALL those materials are good for his case, why won't he let the whole Senate see them?

 

[civilwarbuff]

That is the context.

Nope, you intentionally, I guess in order to support your own paradigm, ignore everything that comes before your paste job.....very sad.

 

[Hank77]

Nope, you intentionally, I guess in order to support your own paradigm, ignore everything that comes before your paste job.....very sad.

lol,

I just don't see how it changes what he said or what I said that he said. Now you don't think he was bragging, maybe we could call it goading, or rubbing it in the nose of the prosecutors/managers but I do and I am not alone.

So are you going to answer my question?
Why won't he allow the prosecutors to have all the evidence that the defense has if it's exculpatory?

 

[Hank77]

Nope, you intentionally, I guess in order to support your own paradigm, ignore everything that comes before your paste job.....very sad.

So are you going to answer my question?
Why won't he allow the prosecutors and the jury to have all the evidence that the defense has if it's exculpatory?

 

[tall73]

Yep, which makes it kinda weird people are blaming the House for this. They did their job - got convincing, consistent testimony about Donald's actions. The GOP-controlled Senate has no desire to look into this any further by calling more witnesses. And now the spin is trying to blame the House for this for some reason.

Yes, the house had the ability to try in the courts. And they didn't. They could vote to impeach and still keep pressing for other information in the courts.

Nor does it let the Senate off the hook. They should be trying to get it as well. But if the house already heard the Senate leadership planned on working with Trump in the trial, they could not have thought we would be seeing the evidence. So they should have pushed to get it, knowing the Senate wouldn't.

If the House did spend the time fighting this in court we'd be hearing a different, contradictory set of excuses for why what they're doing is wrong. Don't fall for it. Instead, focus on the facts - the best defense of Donald's actions (today) seems to be that the House didn't find even more stuff he did wrong. Along with the idea that he's so totally innocent that he doesn't want the people directly involved telling anyone about it.

Some folks want to see all the evidence, whether it hurts Trump or helps him. You characterizing it as excuses is more about your side of the argument than what is being said.

The American people should hear from the witnesses close to Trump, and see the documents. Both the House and Senate should push for that. Both have the option, and both are declining it. Which to me means both are putting politics first.

All this nonsense about blaming the House for not living up to whatever standard the GOP is making up today is just that.

Getting the evidence they claim they want is not a standard the GOP set. And it should be evidence we all want.

 

[tall73]

What could be better evidence of obstruction than the President publically stating that he would not turn over documents or allow the administration members to testify?

He's now bragging that he has all the evidence that the House managers don't have.

The guy is shameless.

Better evidence would be when the court finds that his withholding them was not warranted under any executive privilege, as they did with Nixon. And then Nixon, with no cover left, cooperated.

They had the option to get that further evidence from the court.

 

[tall73]

It was the House's job to JUSTIFY a trial. They did that. They didn't have to find/obtain ALL of the evidence.

It's the Senate's job to hold a fair trial, including getting as much of the evidence as they can ....

I agree the Senate should be trying to do that. But if the house knows they will not, and also knows that they can do it themselves, then they should do it themselves.

 

[tall73]

So if the prosecuting managers had access to 'ALL the materials' would they be able to do a very good job, too?

Perhaps so. But that is the point, they should have gotten the material. The courts are open.

 

[civilwarbuff]

lol,

I just don't see how it changes what he said or what I said that he said. Now you don't think he was bragging, maybe we could call it goading, or rubbing it in the nose of the prosecutors/managers but I do and I am not alone.

The fact that you are unable to grasp it does not change a thing.

So are you going to answer my question?
Why won't he allow the prosecutors to have all the evidence that the defense has if it's exculpatory?

Executive privilege. If the house disagrees with his stance they have a remedy....it is called the federal judicial system. Now if they don't have faith in that maybe they are simply in the wrong line of work?