Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Manic Moran · 13-11-2019 5:21pm

everlast75 wrote: »

I get that, if you are the accused.

But if the call was perfect, and you have witnesses to that fact (both of these statements Trump claims are 100% true) then why not reinforce that with your witnesses.

If you have an issue that they may be caught in a "perjury trap" then say so.

The optics are that those witnesses will not say what he wants them to say.

No, you misunderstand the simple statement. "Never talk to the police and investigators".

Watch the video. Reason #4 from the lawyer gives the example of "even if your client is innocent and only tells the truth".

He then quotes the US Supreme Court in 2001. "Truthful responses of an innocent witness may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker's own mouth".

SCOTUS in 1956: "Too many view the privilige [of silence] as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege"

It may be that there is something to hide. But even when there is nothing to hide, nothing good, legally, ever comes from talking to investigators if it can be avoided, and this applies to you being pulled over for a traffic violation, or to congressional inquiries. They could be testifying about the Ukraine, and then provide evidence of the federal crime of possessing a lobster. He says this basically in his opening comments. Political ramifications are another matter, but we're talking for the investigation, not the appearance of the investigation.

aloyisious · 13-11-2019 5:27pm

Listening to Ambassador Taylor, I can see the Fox News script scrolling across the screen; hearsay, hearsay, hearsay.

Stallingrad · 13-11-2019 5:56pm

Taylor is illustrating more knowledge and nuance on this issue than T could ever comprehend. It illustrates perfectly how zero understanding of foreign policy is incompatible with being President.

Leroy42 · 13-11-2019 5:59pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, you misunderstand the simple statement. "Never talk to the police and investigators".

Watch the video. Reason #4 from the lawyer gives the example of "even if your client is innocent and only tells the truth".

He then quotes the US Supreme Court in 2001. "Truthful responses of an innocent witness may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker's own mouth".

SCOTUS in 1956: "Too many view the privilige [of silence] as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege"

It may be that there is something to hide. But even when there is nothing to hide, nothing good, legally, ever comes from talking to investigators if it can be avoided, and this applies to you being pulled over for a traffic violation, or to congressional inquiries. They could be testifying about the Ukraine, and then provide evidence of the federal crime of possessing a lobster. He says this basically in his opening comments. Political ramifications are another matter, but we're talking for the investigation, not the appearance of the investigation.

Thats all fine and dandy, but if others are accusing you of wrongdoing, and have provided evidence of same, then failing to put your part forward not only looks suspicious but leaves one open.

Of course it is the job of the prosecution to prove wrongdoing, and accused can simply sit there and say nothing whilst they continue to fail to provide proof.

What is deeply worrying is that Trump is more than happy to continue to state on his own communications how innocent he is (so silence is not really is driving force) but he refuses to put those claims to the test.

Leroy42 · 13-11-2019 6:00pm

aloyisious wrote: »

Listening to Ambassador Taylor, I can see the Fox News script scrolling across the screen; hearsay, hearsay, hearsay.

It is hearsay though, isn't it?

Penn · 13-11-2019 6:17pm

"I'm going to spend a few minutes reading the transcript, as we've been encouraged to do..."

It's extremely refreshing how the House Committee has structured the hearing. Having someone with experience of questioning people having continuous time to properly frame and follow up on questions works so much better than members of Congress having 5 minutes each, alternating back and forth between Rep and Dem etc, which is just always disastrous. Some proper questioning going on.

brooke 2 · 13-11-2019 6:17pm

Igotadose wrote: »

I miss the days when politicians were orators. Adam Schiff fumbles a lot when delivering his lines.

I was shocked at how inarticulate Nikki Haley was at times.....sometimes unable to construct an intelligible sentence. Her boss's influence??

:rolleyes:

Overheal · 13-11-2019 6:21pm

The last 90 minutes have been explosive so far.

If the GOP comes back from recess with nothing but the wails from the Shambulance, after what was just sworn into the congressional record, it would be a grave error on their part.

Overheal · 13-11-2019 6:23pm

Penn wrote: »

"I'm going to spend a few minutes reading the transcript, as we've been encouraged to do..."

It's extremely refreshing how the House Committee has structured the hearing. Having someone with experience of questioning people having continuous time to properly frame and follow up on questions works so much better than members of Congress having 5 minutes each, alternating back and forth between Rep and Dem etc, which is just always disastrous. Some proper questioning going on.

Objectively speaking that counsel did an exemplary job, and if I don't at least see a similar effo-

Woah this guy sounds pissed off as hell what is this spat on CSPAN3 :eek:

Itssoeasy · 13-11-2019 6:23pm

I've not been able to watch any of this but in the last ten minutes I've been following on twitter. But why is ambassador William Taylor's voice trending on twitter ? Is it a unique type of voice ?

Also for those who have been watching have the GOP pulled any stunts yet ?

Overheal · 13-11-2019 6:24pm

The Democrats scored a viral moment!

DrumSteve · 13-11-2019 6:24pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I've not been able to watch any of this but in the last ten minutes I've been following on twitter. But why is ambassador William Taylor's voice trending on twitter ? Is it a unique type of voice ?

Also for those who have been watching have the GOP pulled any stunts yet ?

He sounds like the president in every Michael Bay film.

Overheal · 13-11-2019 6:25pm

This lad is trying to inject himself out-of-order into this, a bit. Exciting tantrum though.

Itssoeasy · 13-11-2019 6:26pm

DrumSteve wrote: »

He sounds like the president in every Michael Bay film.

Okay so an old school news anchor type from the 1960's ?

mcmoustache · 13-11-2019 6:27pm

Overheal wrote: »

This lad is trying to inject himself out-of-order into this, a bit. Exciting tantrum though.

Who? Still "working" here so only checking twitter from time to time. And the CSPAN3 drama?

I want to know and feel really left out.

Leroy42 · 13-11-2019 6:27pm

Overheal wrote: »

The last 90 minutes have been explosive so far.

If the GOP comes back from recess with nothing but the wails from the Shambulance, after what was just sworn into the congressional record, it would be a grave error on their part.

They have nothing, this is a pretty open and shut case. Either he did or he didn't. So far we have of people saying he did, and basically Trump saying he didn't.

They will try to muddy the waters, claim it all a sham, that it is political rather than looking for the truth etc. It is not about stopping the impeachment, it is about giving them enough PR to drop it without any hearings in the senate.

Both sides know Trump is not going to be impeached, this all comes down to which side can claim the moral advantage.

Overheal · 13-11-2019 6:29pm

I'll watch the repeat on this guy's off-line QA later, I don't recognize which Congressman this is chatterboxing with the press, as seen on CSPAN3

I don't mean to sound clickbaity but this exchange is saucy.

Overheal wrote: »

Objectively speaking that counsel did an exemplary job, and if I don't at least see a similar effo-

As I was saying after the Dem counsel's line of questioning, if I don't see a similar effort from a Republican counsel, I will be severely disappointed in their statecraft.

Itssoeasy · 13-11-2019 6:29pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

Who? Still "working" here so only checking twitter from time to time. And the CSPAN3 drama?

I want to know and feel really left out.

Sounds spicy alright does the cspan 3 drama which is saying something given that listening to cspan radio is like listening to paint dry.

Overheal · 13-11-2019 6:30pm

CPSAN3 Chyron confirms this is Rep. Mark Meadows, R-NC

I will post the surely-inevitable MediaITE aggregate post when his exchange wraps (hasn't it been 5 minutes?!)

DrumSteve · 13-11-2019 6:32pm

Overheal wrote: »

I'll watch the repeat on this guy's off-line QA later, I don't recognize which Congressman this is chatterboxing with the press, as seen on CSPAN3

I don't mean to sound clickbaity but this exchange is saucy.

As I was saying after the Dem counsel's line of questioning, if I don't see a similar effort from a Republican counsel, I will be severely disappointed in their statecraft.

He's being a bit dramatic...

Cody montana · 13-11-2019 6:34pm

Overheal wrote: »

The last 90 minutes have been explosive so far.

If the GOP comes back from recess with nothing but the wails from the Shambulance, after what was just sworn into the congressional record, it would be a grave error on their part.

We know what's going to happen.

They are going to go after the whistleblower, lie, blame anti trumpers, lie, call it a witch hunt/coup, lie, call it second hand/third hand gossip.

They are going to talk about everything except the facts.

aloyisious · 13-11-2019 6:38pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is hearsay though, isn't it?

Some of it would be in a court [in so far as it's his juniors or other ambassadors relating to him what they were party to in conversations and meetings, inclusive of the direct vocal input from President Trump himself] but Ambassador Taylor is just answering the questions put to him by a lawyer for the committee. EDIT: The lawyers can get around that by having the so far unseen witnesses in to corroborate what the ambassador said they told him of what they directly heard. If the Republicans have a fightback against his and the other persons testimony, they'll have to go back on whatever agreement they made with the Dems on the tools to be used by the inquisitorial lawyers for BOTH sides.

I'm assuming that no one on the republican seats will have a meltdown and try to put questions directly to the witnesses or row with the chairman. If they did, it'd be popcorn time.

Overheal · 13-11-2019 6:39pm

DrumSteve wrote: »

He's being a bit dramatic...

It's still utterly fascinating to watch, objectively speaking. I haven't even had time to properly absorb all the back and forth I just overheard.

Leroy42 · 13-11-2019 6:39pm

Overheal wrote: »

CPSAN3 Chyron confirms this is Rep. Mark Meadows, R-NC

I will post the surely-inevitable MediaITE aggregate post when his exchange wraps (hasn't it been 5 minutes?!)

Just listening to a bit there. A reporter (I assume it was a reporter) asked is it now ok for any future POTUS to look for foreign governments to investigate rivals.

Whilst of course he didn't bring up how disgusted the GOP and Trump were that HC had apparently used an outside agency to gather intelligence on Trump, he simply said that they need to consider the context!

I assume by context he means it depends if it is GOP or DNC

Itssoeasy · 13-11-2019 6:40pm

Btw my comment on CSPAN radio is not a knock on it, but CSPAN is known for being very understated. That's how I see it anyway.

Overheal · 13-11-2019 6:41pm

Some testy off-mic exchange seem to happen between Schiff and one of the minority members before returning to proceedings.

Overheal · 13-11-2019 6:42pm

Minority party 45 minutes has begun.

DrumSteve · 13-11-2019 6:43pm

How is Nunes even allowed in there after his previous...

aloyisious · 13-11-2019 6:50pm

Devin trying to shift the purpose of the hearing to Hillary, not Biden, being happy with the present public service employee, just trying to trip up the ambassador in what he's has said he did not have knowledge of. The GOP counsel is trying to get the ambassador to reply on speculative questions related to something he was, as ambassador, not concerned with. He's trying to blind him with a blizzard of B/S. The ambassador was not in the job during the 2016 campaign, is now as Mike Pompeo invited him back into the job last year. Good to see the other witness is putting his spoke in as he sees what the counsel is playing at. Hmm, now the counsel is happy to put questions to the other witness, even though he said he was not going to.

Leroy42 · 13-11-2019 6:59pm

aloyisious wrote: »

Devin trying to shift the purpose of the hearing to Hillary, not Biden, being happy with the present public service employee, just trying to trip up the ambassador in what he's has said he did not have knowledge of.

OMG,they didn't actually bring up HC did they?

I thought they had nothing, but I assumed they could have at least tried to stay on point.

Trump, the only politician to never get over actually winning!

Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Comments