• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats invite Trump to testify in impeachment inquiry

JacksinPA

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Democrats invite Trump to testify in impeachment inquiry

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited President Donald Trump to testify in front of investigators in the House impeachment inquiry ahead of a week that will see several key witnesses appear publicly.

Pushing back against accusations from the president that the process has been stacked against him, Pelosi said Trump is welcome to appear or answer questions in writing, if he chooses.
==========================================================
If Trump feels that he's being treated unjustly, it's only right that the Dems give him a chance to dig an even deeper hole for his own burial. He tells so many lies that he cannot possibly remember them all.
 
Trump supporters aren't interested in first hand information. They just want the whistleblower to testify so they can get second hand information. But they don't accept the whistleblower report because it's second hand information. :prof
 
Fake News, Constitution, clear effort to undermine the 2016 vote, this is a COUP!!!!

Arms flailing in the air in hysterics as we pace around the house in panic!

(That about sum it up?)
 
JacksinPA said:
Democrats invite Trump to testify in impeachment inquiry

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited President Donald Trump to testify in front of investigators in the House impeachment inquiry ahead of a week that will see several key witnesses appear publicly.

Pushing back against accusations from the president that the process has been stacked against him, Pelosi said Trump is welcome to appear or answer questions in writing, if he chooses.
==========================================================
If Trump feels that he's being treated unjustly, it's only right that the Dems give him a chance to dig an even deeper hole for his own burial. He tells so many lies that he cannot possibly remember them all.
Click to expand...

I would advise Mr. Trump not to testify. There is no actual "charge" he need respond to, and there is no "evidence" of any.

Just a lot of (as already pointed out) hearsay, opinion, and arguments about policy. All by persons whose job is to FOLLOW his policies, not debate any once his decision is made, or choose to follow their own ideas instead of his policy.

This is something people never seem to understand, that an accused has the right to remain silent and not testify. People think this presumes guilt. However, at least in a court of law, we have to instruct the jury that the presumption is not of guilt but of innocence and the Prosecution has the sole and full burden of showing guilt. Even in this case, there should be no requirement to prove innocence.

Cardinal said:
Trump supporters aren't interested in first hand information. They just want the whistleblower to testify so they can get second hand information. But they don't accept the whistleblower report because it's second hand information. :prof
Click to expand...

The call for the "second-hand" witness is to find out:

1. Who his FIRST-HAND sources are, so they ALL can be questioned, and

2. To determine his alleged involvement with either Schiff, or any other possible "cabal" trying to undermine a seated President, or both.

If the whistleblower has nothing to say, i.e. Schiff and sundry have nothing to fear from his/her testimony, then there should be no concerns about this accuser facing the accused. Whistleblower protections are in place to protect such people (as long as they themselves broke no laws) from retaliation.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Trump supporters aren't interested in first hand information. They just want the whistleblower to testify so they can get second hand information. But they don't accept the whistleblower report because it's second hand information. :prof
Click to expand...

That just want to tar & feather him for fulfilling his responsibilities.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I would advise Mr. Trump not to testify. There is no actual "charge" he need respond to, and there is no "evidence" of any.

Just a lot of (as already pointed out) hearsay, opinion, and arguments about policy. All by persons whose job is to FOLLOW his policies, not debate any, or choose to follow their own ideas.
Click to expand...

Which demonstrates that trumpers aren't interested in first hand info.

The call for the "second-hand" witness is to find out:

1. Who his FIRST-HAND sources are, so they can be questioned, and
Click to expand...

You've had the opportunity to listen to no fewer than seven or eight witnesses with first hand information, and you don't care about that, so your claim that you want to know who his first hand sources are is false.
2. To determine his alleged involvement with either Schiff, or any other "cabal" in actively acting to undermine the President, or both.
Click to expand...

You already have your answer. That you don't like it is immaterial.
 
Trump won't testify until Putin tells him so, lol.
 
Cardinal said:
Which demonstrates that trumpers aren't interested in first hand info.
Click to expand...

I don't know about "Trumpers," but I am all about factual evidence, not hearsay.

Cardinal said:
You've had the opportunity to listen to no fewer than seven or eight witnesses with first hand information, and you don't care about that, so your claim that you want to know who his first hand sources are is false.
Click to expand...

Yes, and not a single one of those "witnesses" had anything to provide other than opinions, hearsay, and confirmation bias. THERE IS NO REAL "EVIDENCE" OF ANY WRONGDOING. Not yet anyway.


Cardinal said:
You already have your answer. That you don't like it is immaterial.
Click to expand...

No, none of us has had an "answer." If I were representing Trump, I would be demanding this person appear on the "stand" so I could question him about who he got his information from, what his motives were, who he talked to or worked with prior to preparing his "statement." I certainly would not assume that a partisan "prosecutor" was laying all the cards on the table.

That YOU (or Schiff) don't like a fair hearing is what is immaterial to such a request. IMO the whistleblower is a material witness and should rightly be questioned. Period!
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
I don't know about "Trumpers," but I am all about factual evidence, not hearsay.



Yes, and not a single one of those "witnesses" had anything to provided other than opinions, hearsay, and confirmation bias. THERE IS NO REAL "EVIDENCE" OF ANY WRONGDOING. Not yet anyway.
Click to expand...

Huh. A flat-out, bald-face lie. WHAT are the odds?!!!
 
The Donald would rather tweet his testimony. That way he can avoid all the perjury traps.:cool:
 
Captain Adverse said:
No, none of us has had an "answer." If I were representing Trump, I would be demanding this person appear on the "stand" so I could question him about who he got his information from, what his motives were, who he talked to or worked with prior to preparing his "statement." I certainly would not assume that a partisan "prosecutor" was laying all the cards on the table.

That YOU (or Schiff) don't like a fair hearing is what is immaterial to such a request. IMO the whistleblower is a material witness and should rightly be questioned. Period!
Click to expand...

He or she is no longer a material witness and therefore no longer needs to appear, as all of his or her second hand allegations have been corroborated by other witnesses with first hand information. Even with only the evidence presented publicly so far, the "partisan prosecutor" can entirely ignore the entire wistleblower report and operate solely on the testimony of these first hand witnesses. If you were representing Trump, you would be wasting your client's money by questioning the whistleblower. There are more reliable witnesses with better information who have already testified. Your time should be spent cross-examining them. They are, in effect, making more serious and more credible allegations against Trump than the whistleblower was. Undermining him or her would be pointless while these more serious and credible witnesses remain unchallenged.
 
Last edited:
lwf said:
He or she is no longer a material witness and therefore no longer needs to appear, as all of his or her second hand allegations have been corroborated by other witnesses with first hand information. Even with only the evidence presented publicly so far, the "partisan prosecutor" can entirely ignore the entire wistleblower report and operate solely on the testimony of these first hand witnesses. If you were representing Trump, you would be wasting your client's money by questioning the whistleblower.
Click to expand...

Wrong. All we know is what SCHIFF has allowed regarding this "witness to nothing."

So we don't know who all may have actually been involved. We don't know his factual motivations, only second-hand assertions of "seeking to do the right thing."

So I posit a couple of issues. Suppose this "witness" gets to present "testimony" at the hearing. That it turns out afterwards he had not been completely truthful about all the parties who "shared" information with him. Thus that other persons must need by heard that otherwise would not because Schiff did not think they would help his "non-case."

We also don't know if he was "assigned" to seek out anything he could to undermine the current Administration. His motive, and that of those who worked with him would IMHO be pertinent to this whole proceeding.

The bottom line remains, if there is NOTHING to hide, why hide the "non-witness." After all, none of those who've testified so far were actual "witnesses" to anything.

Whistleblowers are protected from workplace retaliation, unless they themselves have committed some crime. Therefore, no reason to prevent him from testifying.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
I don't know about "Trumpers," but I am all about factual evidence, not hearsay.



Yes, and not a single one of those "witnesses" had anything to provide other than opinions, hearsay, and confirmation bias. THERE IS NO REAL "EVIDENCE" OF ANY WRONGDOING. Not yet anyway.




No, none of us has had an "answer." If I were representing Trump, I would be demanding this person appear on the "stand" so I could question him about who he got his information from, what his motives were, who he talked to or worked with prior to preparing his "statement." I certainly would not assume that a partisan "prosecutor" was laying all the cards on the table.

That YOU (or Schiff) don't like a fair hearing is what is immaterial to such a request. IMO the whistleblower is a material witness and should rightly be questioned. Period!
Click to expand...

You forget these people do not care about facts.
They do not care that so far no one has offered any evidence at all.

They do not care that these witnesses have actually helped trump more than hurt him.

They were called to have evidence and not only do they not have evidence they have all testified that the president has committed no wrong doing.

There is no need for trump to testify. It is Schiff's job to provide all of this evidence he says he has and so far he has provided nothing.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Wrong. All we know is what SCHIFF has allowed regarding this "witness to nothing."

So we don't know who all may have actually been involved. We don't know his factual motivations, only second-hand assertions of "seeking to do the right thing."

So I posit a couple of issues. Suppose this "witness" gets to present "testimony" at the hearing. That it turns out afterwards he had not been completely truthful about all the parties who "shared" information with him. Thus that other persons must need by heard that otherwise would not because Schiff did not think they would help his "non-case."

We also don't know if he was "assigned" to seek out anything he could to undermine the current Administration. His motive, and that of those who worked with him would IMHO be pertinent to this whole proceeding.
Click to expand...

The whistleblower no longer matters. Let's assume for a moment that the whistleblower is a never-Trumper partisan Democrat with a long history of liberal activism who is well-known for lying to promote a political agenda. This would make him a terrible witness with no credibility. We now have other credible witnesses with first-hand knowledge making these allegations. No matter how unreliable the whistleblower might be, this doesn't undermine these credible witnesses in the slightest, nor does it do anything to exonerate Trump from their allegations.

Say you have six witnesses to a series of alleged crimes committed by a powerful member of the mafia. Five of them are police officers who each witnessed different aspects of the crimes in question and have testified to what they know. The sixth is an anonymous homeless meth addict with a rap sheet a mile long who only heard about the crimes second hand, and would rather not testify.

What purpose would there be for the prosecutor to insist that the homeless meth addict be forced to testify? How do you think this would affect the outcome of the trial, if at all? The only outcome would be to humiliate the sixth witness, and expose him to extreme danger of retaliation.
 
JacksinPA said:
Democrats invite Trump to testify in impeachment inquiry

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited President Donald Trump to testify in front of investigators in the House impeachment inquiry ahead of a week that will see several key witnesses appear publicly.

Pushing back against accusations from the president that the process has been stacked against him, Pelosi said Trump is welcome to appear or answer questions in writing, if he chooses.
==========================================================
If Trump feels that he's being treated unjustly, it's only right that the Dems give him a chance to dig an even deeper hole for his own burial. He tells so many lies that he cannot possibly remember them all.
Click to expand...

No one's watching this clown show of a impeachment hearing so of-course they want Trump to testify. People would actually tune in

The Democrats held these hearings for one reason. To sway public opinion in their favor and get more Americans on board for impeaching Donald Trump.

I guess those polls that showed a majority of Americans supporting impeachment were bogus all along

They already have sworn written statements from every witness they've called and are going to call are going to say. Problem is no one's paying attention to this farce, and the Democrats choice of witnesses is making things worse
 
lwf said:
He or she is no longer a material witness and therefore no longer needs to appear, as all of his or her second hand allegations have been corroborated by other witnesses with first hand information. Even with only the evidence presented publicly so far, the "partisan prosecutor" can entirely ignore the entire wistleblower report and operate solely on the testimony of these first hand witnesses. If you were representing Trump, you would be wasting your client's money by questioning the whistleblower. There are more reliable witnesses with better information who have already testified. Your time should be spent cross-examining them. They are, in effect, making more serious and more credible allegations against Trump than the whistleblower was. Undermining him or her would be pointless while these more serious and credible witnesses remain unchallenged.
Click to expand...

Reliable witnesses have already testified ? When did this happen ?
If the Democrats had reliable witnesses with better information then why haven't they testified in public yet ?

Its a public hearing. The purpose is to get people's attention and sway public support towards the Democrats impeachment effort. The Democrats already have sworn written statements from everyone of these witnesses, so they know exactly what they're going to say

It makes zero sense to lead off these hearings with hearsay testimony, which is exactly what the Democrats did when they called Taylor and Yavonovitch to testify
 
lwf said:
The whistleblower no longer matters.
Click to expand...

All you keep doing is asserting something that is patently not correct.

None of your other questions matter.

In the first place, this action in Congress is primarily political. One Party, acting clearly along partisan lines, is seeking to oust a seated President via impeachment. That means any and all political ramifications of such an action come into play. That is why it is important to question this "non-witness" as to both his, and any and all who worked with him, motivations and possibly improper actions to accomplish their goals.

Secondly, as previously stated, questioning may lead to other FACTUAL witnesses who were involved and might provide either first-hand exculpatory evidence, or evidence of bad motivations. That knowing such exist and may have been deliberately excluded by Schiff as not helpful to his goals. It would allow the Republicans to call these witnesses.

Finally, again thanks to the "politics" of this action, it is also important to show specifically any and all bad faith action on the part of Mr. Schiff, his staff, and this whistleblower, if any.

All of those apply to a good defense in "hearings" designed to show "evidence" that may lead to a vote for impeachment. It might actually affect some Democrat votes if they are shown that impeachment would hurt more than help their cause.

There is no good reason not to allow his/her testimony. Especially as Mr. Schiff previously promised over and over that the "whistleblower" would be providing testimony.
 
Last edited:
The only reason for wanting to identify the whistleblower is to begin the process of retribution. We can't allow this hind of disloyalty to the chosen one to go unpunished.
 
redrover said:
The only reason for wanting to identify the whistleblower is to begin the process of retribution. We can't allow this hind of disloyalty to the chosen one to go unpunished.
Click to expand...

The name of the whistleblower is the worst kept secret in America. Everyone already knows his name
 
Captain Adverse said:
I would advise Mr. Trump not to testify. There is no actual "charge" he need respond to, and there is no "evidence" of any. ...


If the whistleblower has nothing to say, i.e. Schiff and sundry have nothing to fear from his/her testimony, then there should be no concerns about this accuser facing the accused. Whistleblower protections are in place to protect such people (as long as they themselves broke no laws) from retaliation.
Click to expand...

The whistle blower is not an accuser. The WB became aware of something that didn't seem right. Following proper protocol, the WB reported what he/she had learned to the appropriate authority within his agency. That is the full and complete role the WB played. At that point it was the responsibility of those he reported to, to investigate the situation and determine if there was any merit to the claims. This was the case.

It is as if you're saying a person was told there was a hit-and-run auto accident and they called the police who investigated and found there was indeed a hit-and-run accident, now the person who called it in must appear in court to testify. Why? What probative value is there?

The GOP want to distract us from the facts, the real issues at hand. There is nothing the WB can tell us that will bring anyone closer to the truth. They simply want to attack this individual for appearances, nothing more. And it is driving Trump crazy knowing he can't attack if he doesn't know who it is.
 
JacksinPA said:
Democrats invite Trump to testify in impeachment inquiry

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited President Donald Trump to testify in front of investigators in the House impeachment inquiry ahead of a week that will see several key witnesses appear publicly.

Pushing back against accusations from the president that the process has been stacked against him, Pelosi said Trump is welcome to appear or answer questions in writing, if he chooses.
==========================================================
If Trump feels that he's being treated unjustly, it's only right that the Dems give him a chance to dig an even deeper hole for his own burial. He tells so many lies that he cannot possibly remember them all.
Click to expand...

Trump is a damn coward and would never show up to testify under oath. He’s only “brave” behind the keys of his cell phone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OrphanSlug said:
Fake News, Constitution, clear effort to undermine the 2016 vote, this is a COUP!!!!

Arms flailing in the air in hysterics as we pace around the house in panic!

(That about sum it up?)
Click to expand...

Sounds about right. What would be interesting to hear is how it is a coup when the supposed target is invited to clear up the whistleblower's complaint as well as shedding some light on the testimony thus far.
 
guilty people try not testify under oath. way too risky.
 
Pelosi = Criminally insane
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom