|
Post by millring on Dec 11, 2019 14:56:27 GMT -5
Their testimonies are not open to charges of perjury. They were carefully tailored. They didn't give any damning facts. Everything that was "damning" was their opinion -- their interpretation of what it meant if the hearsay they were testifying was true. They didn't actually say anything that could be construed as perjury. They gave opinion. Beyond that, they were quite safe in the knowledge that there would be no governing authority who would ever bring about perjury charges if they were to have slipped up. They weren't in a court of law. They were testifying before congress. Beyond that, their testimonies were well rehearsed for months in advance.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Dec 11, 2019 15:03:28 GMT -5
Their testimonies are not open to charges of perjury. They were carefully tailored. They didn't give any damning facts. Everything that was "damning" was their opinion -- their interpretation of what it meant if the hearsay they were testifying was true. They didn't actually say anything that could be construed as perjury. They gave opinion. Beyond that, they were quite safe in the knowledge that there would be no governing authority who would ever bring about perjury charges if they were to have slipped up. They weren't in a court of law. They were testifying before congress. Beyond that, their testimonies were well rehearsed for months in advance. Damn straight!
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Dec 11, 2019 15:06:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by millring on Dec 11, 2019 15:38:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Dec 11, 2019 15:56:40 GMT -5
Their testimonies are not open to charges of perjury. They were carefully tailored. They didn't give any damning facts. Everything that was "damning" was their opinion -- their interpretation of what it meant if the hearsay they were testifying was true. They didn't actually say anything that could be construed as perjury. They gave opinion. Beyond that, they were quite safe in the knowledge that there would be no governing authority who would ever bring about perjury charges if they were to have slipped up. They weren't in a court of law. They were testifying before congress. Beyond that, their testimonies were well rehearsed for months in advance. So even Devin Nunes was in on the fix? Louie Gohmert, too? I knew they were going easy on these damn Deep State operatives.
Somebody ought to tell Trump how easy it is to craft testimony that won't catch him in multiple lies.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Dec 11, 2019 16:05:58 GMT -5
Their testimonies are not open to charges of perjury. They were carefully tailored. They didn't give any damning facts. Everything that was "damning" was their opinion -- their interpretation of what it meant if the hearsay they were testifying was true. They didn't actually say anything that could be construed as perjury. They gave opinion. Beyond that, they were quite safe in the knowledge that there would be no governing authority who would ever bring about perjury charges if they were to have slipped up. They weren't in a court of law. They were testifying before congress. Beyond that, their testimonies were well rehearsed for months in advance. So even Devin Nunes was in on the fix? Louie Gohmert, too? I knew they were going easy on these damn Deep State operatives.
No, and that's not what I said.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Dec 11, 2019 16:07:32 GMT -5
Their testimonies are not open to charges of perjury. They were carefully tailored. They didn't give any damning facts. Everything that was "damning" was their opinion -- their interpretation of what it meant if the hearsay they were testifying was true. They didn't actually say anything that could be construed as perjury. They gave opinion. Beyond that, they were quite safe in the knowledge that there would be no governing authority who would ever bring about perjury charges if they were to have slipped up. They weren't in a court of law. They were testifying before congress. Beyond that, their testimonies were well rehearsed for months in advance. So even Devin Nunes was in on the fix? Louie Gohmert, too? I knew they were going easy on these damn Deep State operatives.
Somebody ought to tell Trump how easy it is to craft testimony that won't catch him in multiple lies.
All I heard those guys doing was mocking the "witnesses" for not actually witnessing anything.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Dec 11, 2019 16:09:16 GMT -5
You see the hearings as an Eastern. So does the National press (in fact, that's how they have been presenting it. But that is begging the question. The entire debate the rest of the country is still having is whether this is, in fact, a Western and not the Eastern the Democrats and their press is framing it to be. You have probably framed it OK. But my impression is the country as a whole (or majority) always votes (prefers?) a southern; Someone who will change the system from outside the beltway. I don't think the country is ever comfortable with a western who is a rogue and is out to destroy the system. And they are skeptical of an eastern, who is part of the system, ever seeing beyond the blinders of being inside the system. Therein lies the rub. There is not a choice in the matter that most people are comfortable with. Therefore, I say let the House vote impeachment. Get it over with and move on. It changes nothing. It doesn't remove the president. Let the Senate do whatever the Senate is going to do. They certainly won't remove Trump. But I fear the Senate will have to raise as BIG OF A STINK in the opposite direction as the House, just to get even. And that will become even more tiresome for the nation. The good news might be that anyone who is involved in the process, like Warren & Sanders, will have to get their hands dirty, and through the primaries will suffer from being seen as part of the distasteful affair. Thus paving the way for a white knight non-Washington D candidate to rise to the surface. A good southern candidate will beat a western rogue in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Dec 11, 2019 16:18:46 GMT -5
So even Devin Nunes was in on the fix? Louie Gohmert, too? I knew they were going easy on these damn Deep State operatives.
No, and that's not what I said. You said their testimonies were not subject to charges of perjury. That is not accurate.
The defense that these were not fact witnesses is weakened by the fact that any and all fact witnesses have been blocked from testifying by Trump.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Dec 11, 2019 16:20:33 GMT -5
I believe it to be a fact that Trump did not ask Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden. What he asked for was an investigation. He made no precondition about the result of such an investigation. I think that's an important distinction. It's clear from a lot of the testimony that Trump wasn't interested in an actual investigation or the results of an investigation. He knows as well an anyone that there's not much there there. He wanted an *announcement* of an investigation which would have functioned the same as Comey's week-before-the-election we're-re-opening-the-Clinton-investigation announcement, and tipped the election in his favor. And he asked for it in exchange for military aid already approved by Congress and the DOD. That's textbook bribery and foreign entanglement in domestic elections, which the original authors of the Constitution wrote and warned about at great length. Now, if you're up for investigating the corporate and financial shenanigans of the children of high elected politicians, I'm with you. Let's start with Neil Bush and the Silverado Savings and Loan, and his millions "consulting" with a Chinese semi-conductor manufacturer. Then we can fast-forward through Hunter Biden and Burisma to Ivanka's Chinese patents, Trump Tower Istanbul, and Jared's Saudi real estate bailout. I'm with you all the way if you're committed to this, and not just going after the Democrat because it's okay if you're a Republican.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Dec 11, 2019 16:21:52 GMT -5
No, and that's not what I said. You said their testimonies were not subject to charges of perjury. That is not accurate. The defense that these were not fact witnesses is weakened by the fact that any and all fact witnesses have been blocked from testifying by Trump.
You can't be charged with perjury for giving your opinion. That's a simple fact.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Dec 11, 2019 16:22:59 GMT -5
Amen, David.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Dec 11, 2019 16:28:28 GMT -5
I believe it to be a fact that Trump did not ask Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden. What he asked for was an investigation. He made no precondition about the result of such an investigation. I think that's an important distinction. It's clear from a lot of the testimony that Trump wasn't interested in an actual investigation or the results of an investigation. He knows as well an anyone that there's not much there there. He wanted an *announcement* of an investigation which would have functioned the same as Comey's week-before-the-election we're-re-opening-the-Clinton-investigation announcement, and tipped the election in his favor. And he asked for it in exchange for military aid already approved by Congress and the DOD. That's textbook bribery and foreign entanglement in domestic elections, which the original authors of the Constitution wrote and warned about at great length. Now, if you're up for investigating the corporate and financial shenanigans of the children of high elected politicians, I'm with you. Let's start with Neil Bush and the Silverado Savings and Loan, and his millions "consulting" with a Chinese semi-conductor manufacturer. Then we can fast-forward through Hunter Biden and Burisma to Ivanka's Chinese patents, Trump Tower Istanbul, and Jared's Saudi real estate bailout. I'm with you all the way if you're committed to this, and not just going after the Democrat because it's okay if you're a Republican. Except nobody involved seemed to think an announcement was required. And nobody actually made such an announcement. And nothing happened because nobody did anything. Other than that, your analysis is spot on.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Dec 11, 2019 16:39:23 GMT -5
No, and that's not what I said. You said their testimonies were not subject to charges of perjury.
No, I didn't. I said that: 1. Their testimonies were crafted to avoid perjury -- they were opinion-based and hearsay. 2. There is a serious calculation that there will be nobody to file charges should there be lies in the testimonies. You can't convict someone of perjury when they are merely expressing their opinions. That was the totality of their testimonies. None of them were actual witnesses to the account of which they were testifying. They were second and third hand accounts of hearsay.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Dec 11, 2019 16:43:49 GMT -5
We had a western, rogue, governor in Illinois. Happened to be a Democrat; Mr. Rod Blagojevich. He was a crazy guy. The Democrat machine din't like him. Republicans didn't like him. The people were fed up with politics as usual. He promised a chicken in every pot. He got elected. Then he ran the state into the ground. Got caught trying to pedal Obabm's senate seat. Went to jail. He keeps begging for a pardon from Trump. He was even on Trump's show, The Apprentice.
I'm just saying both parties are vulnerable to rogue Dirty Harrys.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Dec 11, 2019 16:45:21 GMT -5
I believe it to be a fact that Trump did not ask Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden. What he asked for was an investigation. He made no precondition about the result of such an investigation. I think that's an important distinction. It's clear from a lot of the testimony that Trump wasn't interested in an actual investigation or the results of an investigation. He knows as well an anyone that there's not much there there. He wanted an *announcement* of an investigation which would have functioned the same as Comey's week-before-the-election we're-re-opening-the-Clinton-investigation announcement, and tipped the election in his favor. And he asked for it in exchange for military aid already approved by Congress and the DOD. That's textbook bribery and foreign entanglement in domestic elections, which the original authors of the Constitution wrote and warned about at great length. Now, if you're up for investigating the corporate and financial shenanigans of the children of high elected politicians, I'm with you. Let's start with Neil Bush and the Silverado Savings and Loan, and his millions "consulting" with a Chinese semi-conductor manufacturer. Then we can fast-forward through Hunter Biden and Burisma to Ivanka's Chinese patents, Trump Tower Istanbul, and Jared's Saudi real estate bailout. I'm with you all the way if you're committed to this, and not just going after the Democrat because it's okay if you're a Republican. I don't have any problem with what you've suggested. I don't disagree that Trump did seem to be very interested in having Ukraine announce that they were starting an investigation. I've not been able to figure out why. An investigation isn't an accusal, it's an effort to ascertain facts. Had Ukraine announced there would be an investigation I suspect that the press would have duly reported it and then moved on pending news or facts based on the results of the investigation. I do suggest there is a difference between Comey's announcement and an announcement by Ukraine. The timing is very different.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Dec 11, 2019 17:04:14 GMT -5
John is right. With few exceptions the witness testimony was primarily hearsay. I didn't find that particularly illuminating. For the most part they recited facts that were already known. In my opinion that part of it was a big waste of time.
What I did find interesting was the testimony of the career diplomats. They made it clear that they were very uncomfortable with how things were proceeding. Not only did they find Trump's request for an investigation of the Biden's troubling they were also bothered by Giuliani's involvement. That being the case why didn't they do something about it?
The whole Ukraine affair only surfaced after the whistle blower filed a report. Given the concerns stated by the diplomats I'm surprised there weren't more whistle blower reports by much higher ranking officials and by people who had first-hand knowledge of what was happening.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Dec 11, 2019 18:01:59 GMT -5
As to today's IG testimony in the senate, I'm reminded of Comey's 50 minute description of Hillary's illegal activities follow by his, "No prosecutor would bring charges" so she gets a pass finish. The IG agreed that lots of things that you or I would go to jail for can be overlooked because because the perps thought they were doing the right thing for the country. No bias found. It's laughable really.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Dec 11, 2019 22:29:09 GMT -5
Have we all agreed to forget how Comey made an announcement a week before the election that pretty much f@cked Hillary and threw the election to Trump?
Can I get a show of hands?
OK, we are all agreed that didn’t happen and that, in fact, the FBI was out to get Trump.
I think I see a second.
Motion passes.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Dec 11, 2019 22:37:15 GMT -5
PS -
How many of Trump’s former top bobos and/or coffee boys are watching these events from prison?
I have lost track.
|
|