BREAKING: Mueller’s Prosecutor Abruptly Resigns From Roger Stone Case After DOJ Backs Down From Exce

I know it's your personal opinion,. I am just curious why Dems are of the opinion that Americans exercising their rights is a "delay" tactic.....can you shed some light on it?

 

Pretty obvious at this point she has a massive bias against Trump, and all associated with Trump. She's made that clear.

Her big mistake was being some public with it

 

Bolton's attorney said they would not honor a House subpoena. Rather than fight that position through the courts and risk the delay of a decision by a year (or however long it would have taken), House Democrats determined to call Bolton as a witness in the Senate trial. Bolton's attorney had also said that Bolton would honor such a Senate subpoena. Republicans then blocked such a call, refusing to hear the additional evidence Bolton could have provided. If your theory is true, the House Impeachment trial managers would have never called for a vote to allow additional witnesses and documentation.

 

That's incorrect, he said he would if ordered to do so. The House decided not to pursue the matter, likely again because they got word his testimony wouldn't help their case.

The same rights would apply in the Senate, as the House....his rights don't disappear in the Senate...so taht excuse gets your nowhere. Again, it's painfully clear the Dems got word he wouldn't be helpful, so this was simply a show for the Circus. The only reason they called for a vote, was becasue they didn't have a case, and wanted to add to the Circus. It's a huge political stunt by the desperate Dems because they can't be Trump at the ballot box.

 

Our system is weighted in favor of the defendant. That's why we are innocent until proven guilty and in criminal trials an unanimous verdict is required of 12 jurors. Add to that the DoJ standard of only indicting those whom the DoJ believes to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (the same standard the jury will use) and there is additional weight on the side of potential defendants. I have no problem in Stone exercising his legal rights. Nor, do I have a problem in expressing my opinion that it is only a delaying tactic.

 

The law does not require "neutrality" or the absence of bias, only that the juror swear that such will not influence their decision, which must be based on the evidence presented at trial. Trump wasn't on trial (or do you think he was?). Roger Stone was on trial for committing perjury, witness intimidation, and obstruction of justice.

 

trials have to be fair...that's why we have an appeals process. Mistakes happen with juries, judges and prosecutors....again that's why we have appeals in the US

Thankfully we do, and don't follow your opinion....or people's rights would have been drastically violated and we wouldn't have cases like Miranda, US v Wade, Stickland v Washington, US v Hubbell and Terry v Ohio.....

 

You have to disclose it.

 

It requires it to be out of the jury box....he tweets highlight bias towards Trump and his associates, in particular those caught up i nthe Mueller investigation, she was on a jury on a case coming out of it.

 

Calling in the House or the Senate made no difference BOTH would have been challenged on an executive privilege. The House Managers knew that the Senate was not going to investigate their case for them so they used it as an excuse for the lousy and unsupported impeachment case they brought.

 

"We seem to be going around in circles."

I agree.

"The 17 witnesses who testified in the House investigations (save Sondland) were indirect witnesses. Direct witnesses, who may have corroborated their testimony would be "new evidence" and almost assuredly would have been allowed to be summoned to testify at trial as such."

I agree. It seems odd that the Democrats impeached on such weak evidence.

I admit that I don't know anything about court proceedings. It seems inconceivable, to me, that a judge would allow a prosecutor to use a trial as a tool for seeking evidence. My suspicion is that the judge would berate the prosecutor, tell him to come back when he has a case, and pound the gavel.

"Virtually ALL legal jurisdictions have provisions to allow for the introduction at trial of relevant new evidence."

What is your point? The House Managers were not prevented from presenting any new evidence they may have had.

"More specifically...the letter from Bolton's attorney to the House Counsel, states that Bolton has relevant information to the impeachment charges."

Why didn't the Democrats call him to testify; when they had the chance?

"The Republican majority (less 2 or 3), who voted the presentation of such new evidence down, betrayed their oaths to ensure a fair trial."

The House Managers were free to present any such evidence they had. I can't see any justification for blaming the Republicans for the Democrats' failure to pursue any and all possible leads.

I have never heard of any trial being used as a tool to search for evidence.

 

Vindman was a direct witness to the phone call, you know for what Trump was impeached. The trial of the impeachment should be based on the evidence upon which the House voted to impeach him. He is an impeached President and whether he should be removed should be based on the impeachment not a whole new investigation. And bottom line is there was no bribe or extortion or quid pro quo. Ukraine got the assistance within the time limit.

 

They have her tweets and statements and history now. Things she did not disclose.

 

I think you are wrong. Bolton offered to testify in the House contingent on the Court rulings on the McGahn subpoena. When the lower Court ruled in favor of the House on the McGahn subpoena, Bolton and Kupperman (who were represented by the same attorneys) split away from the McGahn decision (which the House argued applied to both Kupperman and Bolton as well). The argument was that McGahn was not involved in foreign policy issues over which the President had a greater claim for "executive privilege," than in the domestic issues involving McGahn. The key sentence, admitting Bolton's relevance, lies in his attorney's letter: "The same is true, of course, of Ambassador Bolton, who was the National Security Advisor to the President, and who was personally involved in many of the events, meetings, and conversations about which you have already received testimony, AS WELL AS MANY RELEVANT MEETINGS AND CONVERSATIONS THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE TESTIMONIES THUS FAR." [My emphasis].

There is the admission, by Bolton's attorney, that his client holds additional and relevant information pertaining to the impeachment charges. Shortly thereafter, Bolton said he would testify only in response to a Senate subpoena, presumably based on a theory that the Senate holds more constitutional authority over the President, than the House, in respect to foreign policy.

Rather than hold up the trial in the Senate until a Court decision was determined on the McGahn subpoena (which is still in appeal after 18 months). The House decided to move ahead with the trial and call upon Bolton at trial. Senate Republicans blocked new testimony and documents at trial.

 

I'll stand corrected on Vindman. There was no "time limit." We've already argued that point. As soon as the President determined to delay the apportionment process, he had to notify Congress of his intent, along with the estimated time of the delay, and the cause. He did not. And, per the GSA opinion, he broke the law.
And, the voters will decide whether or not their representatives in the Senate broke their oaths at the impeachment trial, by refusing additional evidence.

 

McGahn had nothing to do with it, he was waiting to hear the outcome of his aids case, the Dems withdrew that.

what am I wrong about? That people still have their rights before the senate?

yes the house decided not to gather the evidence. There was no new evidence, the people they wanted were always available. They decided not to collect it. One can only presume it’s because they got word it wouldn’t be help so they attempt to make their case with what little they had

 

I said I believed he was using the system to delay his imprisonment. I didn't say he had no right to appeal.

 

Sounds like their is real issues of jury misconduct and at an issue of sufficiently of the evidence on the witness tampering charge.

I remember when Obama used the DOJ to go after Gov McDonald in VA, a potential front runner for 2012...thankfully he didn’t follow your logic and overturned the verdict

 

The McGahn case is pending before the Supreme Court on appeal. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision that McGahn must honor the House subpoena. I think you are referring to withdrawing from the Kupperman subpoena? The Supreme Court may decide to take the opportunity to address the broader issue of "executive privilege" in its entirety, rather than split the privilege into domestic and foreign policies.
What due process rights do you believe the Senate denied the President?

I've already noted the "new evidence" claimed by Bolton's attorney in the letter to the House. You don't seem to want to acknowledge his claim? Roughly half of the Senate believed the House managers made their case factually...some of those also believed that the charges did not justify removal from office (e.g. Lamar Alexander).

 

McGahn has nothing to do with Bolton. It was his aid’s case and the house withdrew the subpenoa

none the senate conducted a fair trial.

Bolton didn’t have “new evidence” whatever he had he had since he left office, and the House was free to collect.

it takes 2/3 to convict. You didn’t get close to that.. so you failed to make your case.

 

They did so through their footnotes and a minor issue anyway, it's a regulation not some crime. The money was release within the time limit, the end of the fiscal year. The voters will decide if the House engaged in an attempted coup for baseless charges.

 

That he must show up, not that he must give the testimony which is protected under executive and attorney client privilege.

 

That's a start. It knocks down the WH claim of a "blanket immunity" due to executive privilege. More like a 5th amendment defense. He must show up and answer the questions. He may claim a 5th amendment privilege or, with Presidential support, a claim of executive privilege. Presumably, that would require the presence of a WH attorney advising him on the answer to each question.

 

It doesn't knock down anything, the President would insert executive privilege and it's off to court. It's been recognized since Washington first asserted. And it is nothing like a 5th Amendment assertion. This is about separation of powers and attorney client privilege, both long recognized. Schiff had the process, he chose not to use it. It was not evidence used to impeach the President and the Senate is to judge whether the impeachment warrants removal. It's not the place to start investigating stuff.

 

If everyone was on food stamps, America wouldn’t have to pay for food.