Impeachment Investigation: Independent Counsel vs. Intelligence Cmte.

1. 87

   GA Andersonposted 4 years ago

   Relative to the argument that the House Intelligence Committee was unfair because the president did not have a chance to defend himself.
   
   A quick look at Pres. Clinton's impeachment shows that an Independent Counsel was used to do the investigating and its product was used by the House Judiciary Committee to draft articles of impeachment. During this investigation, there were no"defense" interactions offered or demanded by the president, (Clinton).
   
   It was at the Senate trial that the president got his chance for defense efforts. And Clinton did just that via a defense council of 8 lawyers(?)*
   *I didn't dig deep enough to be sure they were all lawyers
   
   In Pres. Trump's impeachment case the House Intelligence Committee filled the role previously held by an Independent Counsel.
   
   A great outcry has been heard about the lack of Republican "defense" opportunities during the Committee's work, but, as would have been the case with Clinton's Republican accusers—they are the majority. so it would not have made any difference. The majority Republicans got their way then just as the majority Democrats did now.
   
   So what difference would unfettered Republican participation have made? Other than in the eye of the public of course?
   
   If the process wasn't wrong for the Independent Counsel, why is it wrong for the Committee—they both fulfilled investigative duties.
   
   It seems logical to me, (and as illustrated in the Clinton process), that the trial is where the defense should take place. Remember, the majority party was going to get its articles regardless of defense party objection.
   
   It seems logical to me, both politically and judicially, that Pres. Trump's defense should counter the articles in the trial phase.
   
   Other than the obvious answer regarding public opinion, what am I missing?
   
   As a caveat, I think the Democrats have railroaded Pres. Trump with their public hearings, and I think they would have still produced articles of impeachment even if the Republicans had been allowed full participation. I do not think the process was fairly conducted. But I think it was unfair because it presented a one-sided public picture, not because the Republicans were denied the opportunity to provide defense participation.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I keep comparing this to a detective that has received a tip, and failing to find a comparison.
      
      Cops receive a tip that GA robbed a liquor store last night at 9PM.  The detective calls your ex wife, a neighbor you called animal control on for having dog fights in the back yard and a disgruntled employee that you fired.  They hear GA say he was with Wilderness in a bar 50 miles away, but do not interview Wilderness.  They do not interview the bartender and they do not check his till.  Instead they go the the grand jury...and are laughed out of the room for lack of evidence.
      
      But here we find that the Dems are the grand jury as well as the detective that failed to do his job and look at all evidence possible.  GA is indicted by that grand jury...because the detective ignored any and all evidence that did not lead to an indictment.  And the comparison fails.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         And why would the witnesses and paper documents be denied in Gus's defense? Even though we know he did it!
         
         I've been a witness in a Grand Jury proceeding, have you?

         replyreport
      2. 87

         GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I am unsure what your "and the comparison fails" means, but I do think your comparison fails. Do you think the detective is required to allow me to be a part of his investigation? I don't.
         
         As for the rest of your example, the detective failed his duty, he ran a shoddy investigation, and that will be shown when we get to the trial part and it is required that I get a chance to defend myself. I think this part of your comparison is valid because that is how I see the Intelligence Committee's investigation—shoddy, political, and biased.
         
         However, that doesn't change my thought that the president was not denied any required opportunities in the investigation. I see those opportunities as part of the trial process, not the investigative process. That is why I offered the comparison to an Independent Counsel's investigation.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            What would be the other options since Trump stonewalled the documents and witnesses, Gus? Waiting for the courts to decide--which isn't a Constitutional requirement--would perhaps be after the election.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               dianetrotterposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Trump is no stranger to litigation.  Time is on my side is his mantra.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Don't forget his possible indictment for the same crime Michael Cohen is now serving time for. Unless he wins reelection he'll be subject to arrest  for the same charge.
                  
                  If he wins in 2020 the Statute of Limitations will expire before he's a citizen again. In this respect he's above the law because he is indeed a sitting POTUS. Somehow this doesn't seem right as no other person can evade being indicted because of their position in government.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     dianetrotterposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     It must have been very satisfying that, not only could he shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it, BUT he could also do ANYTHING he wants to do as President and get away  with it.

                     replyreport
         2. 61

            dianetrotterposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Good logic GA

            replyreport
   2. 61

      Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      What other choice did the House have since AG Barr refused to investigate the incident? If there had been a Special Councilor appointed by Barr, there would have still been closed door Grand Jury sessions held where the other side had no say in the process.
      
      It's simply a process used all the time to find out whether a case can be brought against the defendant.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "Relative to the argument that the House Intelligence Committee was unfair because the president did not have a chance to defend himself."
      
      LOL. Uh, he could appear before the committee but refused. His attorneys -- who quit every other week -- could appear but refused. Quite a few of his own administration officials did appear and gave plenty of evidence about his corruption and abuse of power.
      
      Other appointees refused to appear despite being invited to testify.
      
      Your "railroad" comment is a great example of Trump apologists denying reality, which they do on an hourly basis.
      
      The ability of the extreme right to vomit on the Constitution and deny what's obvious to normal people is astonishing.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Does this mean I am still being a Trump apologist?
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Naw, just an enabler.

            replyreport
         2. 0

            promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Yes sir.
            
            Note that you responded only to that two-word phrase and not to the facts about Trump and his attorneys refusing to appear despite invitations.

            replyreport
            1. 87

               GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               It is so noted.
               
               Restating something that has already been said 10 or 100 times adds nothing to a discussion.
               
               GA

               replyreport
         3. 61

            dianetrotterposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            What do you think would be the benefit of BIden and/or his son testifying?  IMHO, if they are suspected of doing something wrong, there should be a whole different investigation not tied to this one.

            replyreport
            1. 87

               GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               I don't see any benefit to their testimony, or, from what little I have heard—even their inclusion in this topic's discussion.
               
               At this point, I don't see any reason—relative to this Ukraine investigation—for them to be accused of anything beyond the typical charges of our broken politics-as-usual crimes.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  If - IF - Biden was found to have participated in corrupt activities, as claimed, would it not give a pretty solid reason for Trump's phone call?
                  
                  Recognizing that a great many would ignore it, claim that Trump didn't know or even suspect, and that his call was solely for the purpose of fixing the election, would not an awful lot of people sit back and think about it?  Is it possible that the thought that "Hmmm.  Maybe he DID have a reason beyond election fixing!  Maybe, just maybe, this whole impeachment thing is just as he claims - a political farce to fix the next election!"?

                  replyreport
                  1. 87

                     GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     With your "IF" and "Maybe, just maybe" then of course I could understand a cry for investigation.
                     
                     But from what I have read or heard all we have are charges of "IF" and "Maybe, just maybe" made by partisan hacks and conspiracy promoters. If we used those standards to start Federal investigations then even Mother Teresa would be in trouble.
                     
                     However, I make no claim of authority on whether the Biden's should be investigated, (relative to Ukraine related issues), so I would gladly look at any support for an if or maybe if someone provides it.
                     
                     As a side note in reference to a true Biden connection being a reason for Trump's phone call, would that same question hold for his Crowdstrike request?
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
2. 60

   Live to Learnposted 4 years ago

   I think the House did exactly what they've been accused of. Created a verdict and then searched for a crime. Over and Over until they could create a narrative (woefully void of fact) to appease their base and for the predetermined verdict. I don't care about Republican involvement if the process is fair.
   
   This was not a fair process. No evidence of a crime and a denial of a crime by the main parties involved. This was a trial by rumor and speculation.
   
   Republican involvement was not necessary for a fair trial. All the House needed to do was look at the preponderance of evidence and give real evidence a higher value than rumor.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "All the House needed to do was look at the preponderance of evidence and give real evidence a higher value than rumor."
      
      Unfortunately, if they had done that, that predetermined verdict would have quickly and quietly vanished into the night.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         The left has gone rogue. I read an article today where the Democrat governor of Virginia actually said he has the power to use the national guard against the counties passing second amendment sanctuary laws.
         
         We are not headed in a good direction right now and the lawless attempt at a power grab by the House appears to have emboldened the heavy handed behavior across the left nationwide.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            That governor probably does have the legal right and the power to set the national guard against those exercising their constitutional rights, but guaranteed rights that the left does not want them to have.
            
            Just as the liberals in the House have the legal right and political power to subvert the Constitution to further their agenda in winning the next election via a faux impeachment.
            
            No, we are not headed in a good direction.  Still, there is hope - we have seen gross abuses and perversions of the law before, in the likes of J Edgar and others (it hasn't been that long since the White House set the IRS against any organization not toeing the liberal line), and the nation survived.  Perhaps it will do so once again.

            replyreport