Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

If there is a transcript, there has to be tapes, right?

Journal by fustakrakich

Because without tapes, this shit ain't gonna fly. It's just another TV show to compete with Brexit for ratings.

In Watergate, we had tapes, not just bullshit "testimony". And people were caught in the act, by real policemen. So far all we have are a bunch of blabbermouths. I certainly hope there is something real to hang 'em with, but the ineptitude is so overwhelming, and given history of the Party, it's not just rope-a-dope.

And this "whistleblower"? please! Goddamn cops tell us, "If you see something, SAY something!" So what's up, ya bastard? If you have solid proof, out with it, pronto! You hear about real heroes falling on the grenade, now it's your turn.

Eh, like I said in ol' boy's journal, the dems will tread lightly, or collateral damage will be severe in discovery. Actually, probably not. People just don't care how crooked they are anymore. As long as their guy wins... That rule applies equally to both sides of the imaginary line.

*sigh* All this bullshit and the republican/democrat party will still receive 95% of the vote next year, and of course the pissing and moaning will never cease.

And a shout out to the morons (no offense to morons) who want to believe I advocate not voting! Love you all!

If there is a transcript, there has to be tapes, right? | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 89 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Comment Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 26 2019, @11:47PM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 26 2019, @11:47PM (#899346)

    Except impeachment isn't a trial in the Article III [wikipedia.org] court sense.

    What's more, the House of Representatives role in impeachment is one of *investigation and (if warranted) creation of articles of impeachment*. That's the equivalent in US-based (Federal and state) court systems of a prosecutor obtaining an indictment. However, as I mentioned, the impeachment process is *not* an Article III court.

    Are you arguing that Congress should not exercise its oversight role? Are you arguing that (for whatever reason), Congress should allow the Executive Branch to do whatever it wants, with no oversight or check?

    While impeachment has some similarities with the Article III process, it is not that. It is inherently a *political* as well as legal mechanism. As such, there are risks to both sides when moving forward.

    You're once again showing your ignorance of the constitution.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Procedure [wikipedia.org]

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday September 27 2019, @02:14AM (9 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday September 27 2019, @02:14AM (#899392) Journal

    Are you arguing that Congress should not exercise its oversight role?

    No, so far they are sorely lacking. They are only protecting themselves from exposure. This is why I am convinced they are not serious. We need proof. Without it this is a totally bogus clown show.

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @03:00AM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @03:00AM (#899412)

      So...issuing subpoenas and holding hearings is "protecting themselves from exposure"?

      I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday September 27 2019, @04:14AM (7 children)

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday September 27 2019, @04:14AM (#899428) Journal

        They are not enforcing them. They have only produced hearsay. And without tapes your "transcript" is pure *he said/she said*, a screenplay for your next Netflix movie.

        Vote them out

        --
        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @03:36PM (6 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @03:36PM (#899600)

          Trump gets unlimited subpoena powers if impeached: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1177051152409604096.html [threadreaderapp.com]

          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday September 27 2019, @05:32PM

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday September 27 2019, @05:32PM (#899649) Journal

            This is my whole point since the beginning. This is why we have this most delicate, very tribal dance. A culture show for the tourists. Discovery blows it all wide open. This can go nowhere. Real evidence will implicate everybody in the business. That's why Epstein had to die. Other threats will share the same fate.

            The only workable remedy is to vote them out. All of them. 95% reelection rates only make the whiners look like shit, and makes the tyrants look good.

            --
            La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @08:02PM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @08:02PM (#899690)

            Post something from an actual expert and maybe you've got something:

            It’s not clear where the post first originated, who wrote it, and whether “Hyram F. Suddfluffel” even exists or has a doctorate in political science. We discovered multiple versions of the “impeachment backfire” text, the earliest being in a June 3 post on the right-leaning political forum Free Republic. There, a user with the handle “lonster” outlined the theory, saying it had been “passed on by an old friend”:
            [...]
            In some versions, no author is named. In others, especially those submitted by Snopes readers in September, the author is claimed to be “Hyram F. Suddfluffel, PhD.” In still others, the author is given as “Gary Knoepke.”
            [...]
            Perhaps the most important claim made in the post, and the one that has arguably caused it to be gleefully shared by supporters of the president, is that which relates to the ability of Trump’s lawyers to subpoena and interrogate some of their client’s perceived foes: “The President’s attorneys will have the right to subpoena and question anyone they want.”
            [...]
            It’s not specified in the Senate impeachment “Rules of Procedure,” but the rules of federal criminal procedure state that anyone issued a subpoena as part of a criminal trial (on which Congressional impeachment is loosely modeled) can apply to the court to have the subpoena quashed.

            They can do this on several grounds, including on the basis that the subpoena is “unreasonable or oppressive.” Multiple federal court precedents have held that the evidence and testimony requested under subpoena, in criminal trials, must be relevant to the case at hand, and cannot amount to a “fishing expedition.”

            For the record, I didn't go looking on Snopes for this. It was just the first search result for "Hyram F. Suddfluffel"

            More detail here (the *second* search result):
            https://heavy.com/news/2019/09/hyram-f-suddfluffel-impeachment-origin-hoax/ [heavy.com]

            The next five search results:
            https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1177222030179143680.html [threadreaderapp.com]
            https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1177051152409604096.html [threadreaderapp.com]
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR52OcNRBLE [youtube.com]
            https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/go-ahead-impeach-trump-please.1787896/ [glocktalk.com]
            https://www.facebook.com/194090487326109/posts/from-an-email-sent-to-mei-have-a-degree-in-political-science-and-i-am-a-card-car/2304291709639299/?_fb_noscript=1 [facebook.com]

            Oh, and you're welcome.

            https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hyram-suddfluffel-impeachment/ [snopes.com]
              -

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @08:04PM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @08:04PM (#899691)

              Argh! Left out the link to the quoted material.

              It is from here: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hyram-suddfluffel-impeachment/ [snopes.com]

              It’s not clear where the post first originated, who wrote it, and whether “Hyram F. Suddfluffel” even exists or has a doctorate in political science. We discovered multiple versions of the “impeachment backfire” text, the earliest being in a June 3 post on the right-leaning political forum Free Republic. There, a user with the handle “lonster” outlined the theory, saying it had been “passed on by an old friend”:
                      [...]
                      In some versions, no author is named. In others, especially those submitted by Snopes readers in September, the author is claimed to be “Hyram F. Suddfluffel, PhD.” In still others, the author is given as “Gary Knoepke.”
                      [...]
                      Perhaps the most important claim made in the post, and the one that has arguably caused it to be gleefully shared by supporters of the president, is that which relates to the ability of Trump’s lawyers to subpoena and interrogate some of their client’s perceived foes: “The President’s attorneys will have the right to subpoena and question anyone they want.”
                      [...]
                      It’s not specified in the Senate impeachment “Rules of Procedure,” but the rules of federal criminal procedure state that anyone issued a subpoena as part of a criminal trial (on which Congressional impeachment is loosely modeled) can apply to the court to have the subpoena quashed.

                      They can do this on several grounds, including on the basis that the subpoena is “unreasonable or oppressive.” Multiple federal court precedents have held that the evidence and testimony requested under subpoena, in criminal trials, must be relevant to the case at hand, and cannot amount to a “fishing expedition.”

              • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday September 27 2019, @08:11PM (2 children)

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday September 27 2019, @08:11PM (#899692) Journal

                They have the right to discovery, goes to credibility of the witness. Right now, nobody on either side has any. Just one more reason this is such fucking farce.

                --
                La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @10:15PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 27 2019, @10:15PM (#899715)

                  You keep bashing and/or misunderstanding/misrepresenting the Constitution.

                  You're either an anti-democratic (small 'd') shill or ill-informed and ignorant. I'm guessing the latter, as your rhetoric is naive, puerile and not based in reason, logic or fact. More's the pity.

                  How does that old saw go again? 'Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

                  Too late for you, methinks.

                  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday September 27 2019, @10:35PM

                    by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday September 27 2019, @10:35PM (#899720) Journal

                    Whatever. you watch. It won't go anywhere... It can't without burning down the entire house. You either have no recollection or are too young or just playing the fool thinking this is for real.

                    --
                    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..