The President SHOULD testify. And in exchange................?

Politics
79

Tommy,

They took the blue pill.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS

80

Perjure himself on what? Do you expect him go outside of the transcripts? I do not.

81

They don’t care about perjury. In fact, they love it when Trump lies. Why would doing it under oath make any difference to them? They would still repeat those lies over and over again. Plus Clinton got away with it.

82

And in fact, you love it when Nancy, Shifty, and Schumer lie. Are you proud of that?

83

What lies?

84

Literally anything. Maybe something important, maybe something stupid. He lies for no good reason constantly.

They tried to coach him to sit down with Mueller and even in the practice sessions he kept telling lies. His lawyers went to Mueller and begged him to take written answers because Trump would perjure himself in a sit down.

Let’s put it this way: I’d take that deal. Trump goes in front of Congress under oath and I’d let you call anybody you want.

85

Trump may not feel the same way.

86

According to whom?

Shifty? Nancy? Chuck?

87

Maybe not, but what hasn’t Trump gotten away with all his life? He has good reason to think he’s untouchable.

88

The House action is not a grand jury proceeding.

89

How many examples would you like of him lying about saying something that he is on video or audio saying? A dozen? Two dozen? Fifty? Name a number.

1 Like
90

It actually serves the same purpose for impeachment as a grand jury does in a criminal trial. The Framers were incredibly explicit about this. I thought you loved them dudes and their intent.

1 Like
91

I didn’t say it was.

I said it was akin to a Gran Jury proceeding as the Constittution mandates that the trail phase occurs in the Senate.

The preliminary investigation is done by the House and if Articles of Impeachment are warranted, that occurs there. It then goes to the Senate for trial.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS

92

The House is not a grand jury.
If you want to hold that analogy, then the House needs to come out with an indictment showing the crimes and statutes that Trump is charged with violating.

93

They will they are called Articles of Impeachment (AOI) and will be voted on by the House as a full body.

BTW the proper phrase is “high crimes and misdemeanors” which need not be a “crime” under the United States Code. The can issue AOI for such things as abuse of power, obstruction and witness tampering that might not be possible under the criminal code.

AOI comes first, then it goes to the Senate for trial.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS

94

Again, if you actually knew anything about the Framers you worship, you’d know that they explicitly struck down the ide aid impeachment requiring a criminal offense and that the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” translated as “maladministration” or “abuse of office” in the 17th/18th centuries.

95

From the Wikipedia article on the impeachment of Nixon:

“Next, On June 27, the president’s counsel, James St. Clair, opened President Nixon’s impeachment defense before the House Judiciary Committee. He told reporters that he regarded the charge that the president had in early 1973 approved the payment of “hush money” to convicted Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt to keep quiet about White House involvement in the June 1972 Democratic National Headquarters break-in.[108] In Nixon’s defense St. Clair argued that the president could be impeached only on solid proof of “great offenses committed against the government,” not simply “maladministration.”[109] During this phase of the hearings, Republican committee members and St. Clair were permitted to name witnesses they wanted to hear from and devise subpoenas they wanted issued, but any such requests had to be approved by the full committee, meaning the majority had an ability to block said requests if they wanted.[110] After a long contentious debate in closed session, the committee agreed to hear five such witnesses in closed session: John Dean (former White House counsel); Frederick LaRue (a former White House and Nixon re-election campaign aide); Herbert W. Kalmbach (Nixon’s former personal lawyer); Alexander Butterfield (former Nixon deputy assistant); and Assistant U.S. Attorney General Henry E. Petersen.[108]”

And you not surprisingly misunderstood my statement about requiring an indictment for a crime. That was to show that the House is not a grand jury.
Though without a crime, it does look a lot like “we want you removed because we really really don’t like you as President, even if the vote did go that way”.

97

Did you read even one full paragraph of the article you just copy pasted? The impeachment inquiry started like 9 months before that. Thanks for proving your argument is bs I guess?

98

You clearly don’t understand the argument. The allegation was made that the House impeachment hearing was like a grand jury and that defense would not be allowed there, but only in the Senate which would be like the trial.
I demonstrated against the general allegation that in fact a defense was allowed in the House historically.
Did you read any of the background posts before you jumped in?

99

Yeah…im ok with that. Let’s go all in. I wanna see Pence testify too. Let’s Muck this thing up. Drain the Swamp.