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

[civilwarbuff]

And the response is to blame the House for not getting that testimony. Seems weird to me.

Seems weird to blame the house dems for not doing a proper investigation?....for not doing their job?....for expecting the senate to do their job for them?.....yeah, seems weird to me too.

 

[KCfromNC]

Seems weird to blame the house dems for not doing a proper investigation?

Nope.

What's it called when one asks a misleading question based on a misinterpretation of what someone else wrote?

 

[civilwarbuff]

What's it called when one asks a misleading question based on a misinterpretation of what someone else wrote?

A democratic house impeachment investigation?

 

[KCfromNC]

A democratic house impeachment investigation?

At some point, after enough examples, it becomes obvious this sort of behavior is intentional.

 

[KCfromNC]

Please feel free to post any of the 'overwhelming' evidence that Schiff presented....

Report | Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

 

[civilwarbuff]

At some point, after enough examples, it becomes obvious this sort of behavior is intentional.

The house dems sure prove that statement.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Report | Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Next time I need a potty break I will take it with me.....

 

[KCfromNC]

Next time I need a potty break I will take it with me.....

Sounds like a plan. Better than continuing to be ignorant of the facts surrounding this discussion.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Report | Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

BTW, I asked for evidence not a report. Someone else did a similar posting 20+ hours of video testimony as evidence....I didn't look at that either.....

 

[KCfromNC]

BTW, I asked for evidence not a report. Someone else did a similar posting 20+ hours of video testimony as evidence....

An yeah, the "the evidence wasn't presented in exactly the form I was secretly requiring it to be, therefore it is invalid" dodge.

I didn't look at that either.....

That much is obvious.

 

[Kentonio]

BTW, I asked for evidence not a report. Someone else did a similar posting 20+ hours of video testimony as evidence....I didn't look at that either.....

You’ve spent months demanding evidence, claiming there’s no evidence, and then ignoring all the evidence when people are kind enough to find it for you. It’s a bit rude to be honest. If you don’t want to read something, don’t ask people to find it for you.

 

[civilwarbuff]

An yeah, the "the evidence wasn't presented in exactly the form I was secretly requiring it to be, therefore it is invalid" dodge.


That much is obvious.

Well, it was not presented as evidence, it was presented as a deflection from having to present evidence so nice try but still zilch for evidence.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, it was not presented as evidence, it was presented as a deflection from having to present evidence so nice try but still zilch for evidence.

Yeah, posting a link to the full contents of the House report is obviously an attempt to dodge the evidence contained in the full House report. It is the only explanation possible.

 

[civilwarbuff]

You’ve spent months demanding evidence, claiming there’s no evidence, and then ignoring all the evidence when people are kind enough to find it for you. It’s a bit rude to be honest. If you don’t want to read something, don’t ask people to find it for you.

I ask for evidence not pages or hours of blah blah blah intending to keep me busy not responding to you guys. What is really rude is not validating the claims of evidence made by many here. Not sure if it is an attempt to be disingenuous, lack of evidence, or laziness. When someone asks me to validate a claim I post the relevant info/citation not pages or hours of junk. Not too much to ask for the same sonsideration in return.....then again.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

It is the only explanation possible.

By jove, I think he's got it!

 

[KCfromNC]

I ask for evidence not pages or hours

It isn't our fault that Donald has so much evidence against him.

 

[wing2000]

a. They could still hold additional oversight hearings.

b. The documents, if obtained, could still be used.

Of course the Senate can. Once more, the Senate, with the Republican majority, holds the power over the White House. Nixon didn't resign until members of his own party started to break. The Senate won't vote to admit the additional documents and witnesses, unless Republicans start treating this like a trial and force a court case if necessary....

 

[civilwarbuff]

It isn't our fault that Donald has so much evidence against him.

Really then you shouldn't have any difficulty presenting, in your opinion, the 3 most important pieces of evidence right here. I will wait.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The Senate won't vote to admit the additional documents and witnesses, unless Republicans start treating this like a trial and force a court case if necessary....

1. This is not a real trial
2. It is not the Senate's job to do the House Dems job for them
3. Why didn't the House Dems force a court case like you suggest?

 

[wing2000]

1. This is not a real trial
2. It is not the Senate's job to do the House Dems job for them
3. Why didn't the House Dems force a court case like you suggest?

...yes, I know that's your opinion.

1. An impeachment trial should have all available witnesses and evidence. I think most Americans agree on that point.
2. The Senate is charged with conducting a trial by the Constitution. See #1.
3. I don't know. The point is, the Senate can still do so.

 

[civilwarbuff]

1. An impeachment trial should have all available witnesses and evidence. I think most Americans agree on that point.

It is not a real trial. Even if it were only the presiding judge can allow new evidence presented during trial. Evidence is supposed to be gathered during the investigation and discovery phases. BTW, you realize under the constitution that the House has sole power of impeachment which means investigating and drawing up the articles of impeachment. The senate only listens to and weighs the evidence that they have gathered.

2. The Senate is charged with conducting a trial by the Constitution. See #1.

I agree, see #1

3. I don't know. The point is, the Senate can still do so.

The House Dems declined to do so. They must not have seen any importance in it. Again, the Senate does not need to do the House's job. Maybe the dems will learn from this process.....