Shabibilicious Posted January 13, 2020 Report Share Posted January 13, 2020 Politics Ex-DOJ Official Dares Trump To ‘Say It Under Oath’ With Impeachment Testimony Ed Mazza January 13, 2020, 5:22 AM EST HuffPost Scroll back up to restore default view. A former top official in the Justice Department is daring President Donald Trump to testify during the upcoming Senate impeachment proceedings. Neal Katyal, who was acting solicitor general under former President Barack Obama and author of the book “Impeach: The Case Against Donald Trump,” said on Twitter that if Trump were innocent, he should be “clamoring” for a chance to clear his name. “The fact that you don’t speaks volumes,” he wrote. Katyal was replying to a tweet in which Trump slammed the proceedings as a “no evidence, no crime, read the transcripts, ‘no pressure’ Impeachment Hoax” and called for an “outright dismissal” instead of a trial. Katyal said that’s not the behavior of an innocent person and that if Trump really believed he was innocent, he should testify to clear his name under oath before the Senate and not via Twitter. Katyal added a hashtag he’s used before for Trump: #SayItUnderOath: Neal Katyal ✔@neal_katyal So come and testify and explain why 18 witnesses, many from your own Administration, have testified in Congress and thrown the book at you. So far, the count is 18-0. Your party controls the Senate. If you are innocent you should have nothing to fear. #SayItUnderOath https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1216448547777908737 … Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump Many believe that by the Senate giving credence to a trial based on the no evidence, no crime, read the transcripts, “no pressure” Impeachment Hoax, rather than an outright dismissal, it gives the partisan Democrat Witch Hunt credibility that it otherwise does not have. I agree! 3:14 PM - Jan 12, 2020 Neal Katyal ✔@neal_katyal If you really believed this, you’d be trying to clear your name—clamoring for a real trial, with witnesses+docs, and you would testify under oath that you did “nothing wrong” The fact that you don’t speaks volumes and far more than your protestations of innocence on,ahem,Twitter https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1216399515948867588 … Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump Why should I have the stigma of Impeachment attached to my name when I did NOTHING wrong? Read the Transcripts! A totally partisan Hoax, never happened before. House Republicans voted 195-0, with three Dems voting with the Republicans. Very unfair to tens of millions of voters! 4:38 PM - Jan 12, 2020 On Sunday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said dismissing impeachment ― as Trump and some Republicans are hoping for ― would amount to a cover-up. “The senators who are thinking now about voting for witnesses or not, they will have to be accountable for not having a fair trial,” Pelosi warned on “This Week.” She is expected to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate this week. https://www.yahoo.com/news/neal-katyal-trump-testify-102214308.html Guilt has been proven, as the majority vote in the House has impeached Trump....He now has the ability to clear his name in a Senate trial which decides removal or not....It does not decide if he's impeached, that has already been established following the guidelines set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Innocent men have nothing to hide. GO RV, then BV 1 1 1 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pitcher Posted January 13, 2020 Report Share Posted January 13, 2020 He’s guilty until proven innocent right Shabbs. Not how our system works. It’s also not the Senate’s job to prove the House Impeachment Verdict. Do you think just maybe the Huff Post and Neal have an agenda? 1 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nstoolman1 Posted January 13, 2020 Report Share Posted January 13, 2020 This coming from a crooked Obama DOJ official? That is funny. 2 5 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shabibilicious Posted January 13, 2020 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2020 24 minutes ago, Pitcher said: He’s guilty until proven innocent right Shabbs. Not how our system works. It’s also not the Senate’s job to prove the House Impeachment Verdict. Do you think just maybe the Huff Post and Neal have an agenda? No no...there were witnesses, over a dozen of them in fact....Donald had every opportunity to allow other witnesses, who would be favorable to his plight, to testify.....He chose to use his constitutional right of Executive Privilege to block them from talking instead....Nobody to blame but himself. He shouldn't whine about it now. GO RV, then BV 1 1 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pitcher Posted January 13, 2020 Report Share Posted January 13, 2020 Do you blame him with all the hysteria to “ Get Trump”. After a failed Coup attempt, a Phony FISA, Spying, a No Russian Collusion verdict from Mueller, an IG report that says there were a lot of wrong doings, after watching the way Schiff held his Inquiry ( which he could have gone to court to try and get those people to testify but was in a Hell Fire hurry to Implicate and Impeach, also a 100% Partisan vote), I don’t blame him one bit. He isn’t the first President to claim Executive Privilege either. The Dems can’t beat Trump in the 2020 elections so they are trying to muddy the water enough to hopefully get the Senate and then BLOCK his next term. Look I get it Shabbs, you dislike Trump. Go get a viable Candidate and Beat him at the ballot. The Dems aren’t doing this so far. Socialism, Medicare for all, and a New Green Deal sound great but how do you pay for it. It’s not a realistic platform. Throw in Sanctuary Cities, Illegal Immigration, (and voting) Gun Grabs, Burdensome Regulations and Taxes on our businesses and I hope you can be open minded enough to realize that the Dems haven’t learned one thing about why Trump was elected. Google President Trump’s accomplishments as President. Those are without one stinking bit of help from the Dems. Just think what could have been accomplished with a little, just a smidgen of help from the Dems. Nope, they threw a hissy fit and decided to demean, resist, obstruct, stage a rebellion, and whine their asses off. I expect the Dems to lose a lot of Congresspeople over this Impeachment fiasco. About 30 House Dems in Red states who voted to Impeach Trump on zero fact based witnesses. Those poor sheep might want to get their resumes in order. 1 6 1 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coorslite21 Posted January 13, 2020 Report Share Posted January 13, 2020 58 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said: Guilt has been proven, as the majority vote in the House has impeached Trump....He now has the ability to clear his name in a Senate trial which decides removal or not....It does not decide if he's impeached, that has already been established following the guidelines set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Innocent men have nothing to hide. GO RV, then BV Congress isn't a court.....and a strictly partisan vote in Congress shouldn't be looked at as a finding of guilt. It would not surprise me if the presiding Judge in the case....Supreme Court Justice Kennedy looks at the existing evidence.......hearsay, opinion, and second and third hand info.....and dismisses the whole thing before he starts the Senate actions. The whole event has the World laughing at the US Government..... CL 5 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coorslite21 Posted January 13, 2020 Report Share Posted January 13, 2020 31 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said: No no...there were witnesses, over a dozen of them in fact....Donald had every opportunity to allow other witnesses, who would be favorable to his plight, to testify.....He chose to use his constitutional right of Executive Privilege to block them from talking instead....Nobody to blame but himself. He shouldn't whine about it now. GO RV, then BV Read the 5 page transcript of the call......that's all the evidence needed......try listening to Zelinski..........(btw....the former comedian with no political experience is crushing it in his new position) CL 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shabibilicious Posted January 13, 2020 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2020 3 minutes ago, Pitcher said: Do you blame him with all the hysteria to “ Get Trump”. After a failed Coup attempt, a Phony FISA, Spying, a No Russian Collusion verdict from Mueller, an IG report that says there were a lot of wrong doings, after watching the way Schiff held his Inquiry ( which he could have gone to court to try and get those people to testify but was in a Hell Fire hurry to Implicate and Impeach, also a 100% Partisan vote), I don’t blame him one bit. He isn’t the first President to claim Executive Privilege either. The Dems can’t beat Trump in the 2020 elections so they are trying to muddy the water enough to hopefully get the Senate and then BLOCK his next term. Look I get it Shabbs, you dislike Trump. Go get a viable Candidate and Beat him at the ballot. The Dems aren’t doing this so far. Socialism, Medicare for all, and a New Green Deal sound great but how do you pay for it. It’s not a realistic platform. Throw in Sanctuary Cities, Illegal Immigration, (and voting) Gun Grabs, Burdensome Regulations and Taxes on our businesses and I hope you can be open minded enough to realize that the Dems haven’t learned one thing about why Trump was elected. Google President Trump’s accomplishments as President. Those are without one stinking bit of help from the Dems. Just think what could have been accomplished with a little, just a smidgen of help from the Dems. Nope, they threw a hissy fit and decided to demean, resist, obstruct, stage a rebellion, and whine their asses off. I expect the Dems to lose a lot of Congresspeople over this Impeachment fiasco. About 30 House Dems in Red states who voted to Impeach Trump on zero fact based witnesses. Those poor sheep might want to get their resumes in order. I am of the opinion that the very reason Trump was elected, was because he won the vote of the Never HRC people.....this same type reaction will likely come back to haunt Trump in the election....As the "Anybody but Trump" voters will show up in droves. 5 minutes ago, coorslite21 said: Congress isn't a court.....and a strictly partisan vote in Congress shouldn't be looked at as a finding of guilt. By your own line of reasoning then....a strictly partisan vote in the Senate is not a finding of innocence. And let's be honest here....a couple votes by members of the opposite party is not really bipartisan, it's simply the byproduct of political livelihood. GO RV, then BV 1 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coorslite21 Posted January 13, 2020 Report Share Posted January 13, 2020 3 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said: I am of the opinion that the very reason Trump was elected, was because he won the vote of the Never HRC people.....this same type reaction will likely come back to haunt Trump in the election....As the "Anybody but Trump" voters will show up in droves. By your own line of reasoning then....a strictly partisan vote in the Senate is not a finding of innocence. And let's be honest here....a couple votes by members of the opposite party is not really bipartisan, it's simply the byproduct of political livelihood. GO RV, then BV We agree once again.....the whole impeachment process needs some work......perhaps just let the 3rd branch ....the Courts .....handle perceived wrong doings.... And of course enforce the innocent until proven guilty concept. CL 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umbertino Posted January 13, 2020 Report Share Posted January 13, 2020 (edited) Quote I am of the opinion that the very reason Trump was elected, was because he won the vote of the Never HRC people.....this same type reaction will likely come back to haunt Trump in the election....As the "Anybody but Trump" voters will show up in droves. End Quote Yes...That seems to be the trend (arguable likely but that's what it is) in a few countries nowadays including mine..... Many anti-fascists including myself do not want Matteo Salvini (far right "League" party and fmr minister of interiors and fmr.deputy PM) at the Gov't...So as a result we have pretty bad gov'ts and gov't alliances as a result..Right now a dysfunctional and incompetent coalition led by Dem. Party and Five Star Movement ( with Luigi Di Maio , fmr deputy PM, currently as Minister of foreign affairs.....He's 33 old and ignorant ...Doesn't even speak English, apparently...Fact) Still...I'd never want a ( or more than one) fascist at the Gov't Edited January 13, 2020 by umbertino 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pitcher Posted January 13, 2020 Report Share Posted January 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Shabibilicious said: I am of the opinion that the very reason Trump was elected, was because he won the vote of the Never HRC people.....this same type reaction will likely come back to haunt Trump in the election....As the "Anybody but Trump" voters will show up in droves. You may be very right but there are also a lot of people who are very upset with the Spying, The Mueller and Schiff shows. One other thing I’m not hearing but in 4 different polls Trump is doing well with with Blacks. That could turn the election in his favor very fast if he were to get 10-20% of that demographic. Green for your reply 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shabibilicious Posted January 13, 2020 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Pitcher said: You may be very right but there are also a lot of people who are very upset with the Spying, The Mueller and Schiff shows. One other thing I’m not hearing but in 4 different polls Trump is doing well with with Blacks. That could turn the election in his favor very fast if he were to get 10-20% of that demographic. Green for your reply I've heard that as well. It will be interesting to see if the dogs are called off as far as the Right pushing hard to purge the voter rolls, as that type of voter suppression could work against any minority numbers that would help re-elect Trump. As always, just my opinion. And, I'd give you a green for your response as well if I had any to give. GO RV, then BV Edited January 13, 2020 by Shabibilicious 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nstoolman1 Posted January 13, 2020 Report Share Posted January 13, 2020 4 hours ago, Shabibilicious said: I've heard that as well. It will be interesting to see if the dogs are called off as far as the Right pushing hard to purge the voter rolls, as that type of voter suppression could work against any minority numbers that would help re-elect Trump. As always, just my opinion. And, I'd give you a green for your response as well if I had any to give. GO RV, then BV How could purging the voter rolls of ineligible voters hurt? It would be a good thing. If that is your idea of voter suppression you don't understand the process. Preventing people who are dead or illegal to vote should be a sought after activity. 1 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theseus Posted January 14, 2020 Report Share Posted January 14, 2020 8 hours ago, Shabibilicious said: No no...there were witnesses, over a dozen of them in fact....Donald had every opportunity to allow other witnesses, who would be favorable to his plight, to testify.....He chose to use his constitutional right of Executive Privilege to block them from talking instead....Nobody to blame but himself. He shouldn't whine about it now. GO RV, then BV 100% Wrong. Schifty Schiff was the only one who decided who the witnesses were and were not. This has caused problems for the faux House impeachment. Now the Demonrats want to call more witnesses in the Senate trial thus asking for a mulligan. Executive Privilege was not used in the House Impeachment star chamber trials. 2 4 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shabibilicious Posted January 14, 2020 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2020 12 hours ago, Theseus said: 100% Wrong. Schifty Schiff was the only one who decided who the witnesses were and were not. This has caused problems for the faux House impeachment. Now the Demonrats want to call more witnesses in the Senate trial thus asking for a mulligan. Executive Privilege was not used in the House Impeachment star chamber trials. Donald made it very clear that no House subpoenas would be honored....so ipso facto, Executive Privilege was used. By not subpoenaing Trump's handlers the House avoided a long drawn out court battle, which would have likely ended with those witnesses ordered to testify anyway, though a year could have possibly passed before such ruling. It was a streamlined hearing for those who wished to do their civic duty as public servants, more than can be said for Trump's silent handlers. I must therefore agree to disagree. Have a great day. GO RV, then BV 1 1 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theseus Posted January 14, 2020 Report Share Posted January 14, 2020 3 hours ago, Shabibilicious said: Donald made it very clear that no House subpoenas would be honored....so ipso facto, Executive Privilege was used. By not subpoenaing Trump's handlers the House avoided a long drawn out court battle, which would have likely ended with those witnesses ordered to testify anyway, though a year could have possibly passed before such ruling. It was a streamlined hearing for those who wished to do their civic duty as public servants, more than can be said for Trump's silent handlers. I must therefore agree to disagree. Have a great day. GO RV, then BV That is not executive privilege, so ipso facto your wrong. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shabibilicious Posted January 14, 2020 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2020 5 minutes ago, Theseus said: That is not executive privilege, so ipso facto your wrong. Donald made the decision to deny subpoenas....and he is the executive....hence, executive privilege. Hope this helps. GO RV, then BV 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theseus Posted January 14, 2020 Report Share Posted January 14, 2020 Denying suponeas is not executive privilege. He was trying to get the demonrats to go to court to enforce the suponeas. People who do not have blinders on can see that this was not executive privilege. Demonrats need brain transplants. Maybe it is them that need the gulags for re-training of de-wussification. 1 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shabibilicious Posted January 14, 2020 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, Theseus said: Denying suponeas is not executive privilege. He was trying to get the demonrats to go to court to enforce the suponeas. People who do not have blinders on can see that this was not executive privilege. Demonrats need brain transplants. Maybe it is them that need the gulags for re-training of de-wussification. Ahh....and there it is....the insulting crack that ultimately follows a Republican debate failure. First time I've heard you rail for the use of gulags, as if it's a viable option. Thanks for playing. GO RV, then BV 1 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theseus Posted January 14, 2020 Report Share Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said: Ahh....and there it is....the insulting crack that ultimately follows a Republican debate failure. First time I've heard you rail for the use of gulags, as if it's a viable option. Thanks for playing. GO RV, then BV You need to do your research... the gulag comment is in response to current news. Maybe you need to get off of dinarvets once in awhile. And if we used your definition of a losing debate, then your demonrat debate has been the ultimate failure on here. Edited January 14, 2020 by Theseus 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pitcher Posted January 14, 2020 Report Share Posted January 14, 2020 Shabbs you didn’t come close to winning the debate. Unless, you claim victory by making untrue statements backed up by more wrong information. You are wrong on the Executive Privilege statement and you are wrong to think Schiff’s Impeachment Inquiry was anything but a Partisan hack job. 13 witnesses and not one fact based bit of evidence. Any judge in a real court of Law would laugh Schiff right out of the courtroom with his assumptions, 3rd hand evidence, and childish accusations. 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caddieman Posted January 14, 2020 Report Share Posted January 14, 2020 4 minutes ago, Pitcher said: Shabbs you didn’t come close to winning the debate. Unless, you claim victory by making untrue statements backed up by more wrong information. You are wrong on the Executive Privilege statement and you are wrong to think Schiff’s Impeachment Inquiry was anything but a Partisan hack job. 13 witnesses and not one fact based bit of evidence. Any judge in a real court of Law would laugh Schiff right out of the courtroom with his assumptions, 3rd hand evidence, and childish accusations. And any Judge in the court of law would have compelled people who did have fact base knowledge to appear before the court and not have their appearance obstructed by the President of the United States. In a court of law that is called obstruction of justice, which is a Felony. But since it is not in a court of law it’s simply called obstruction of Congress. Is that impeachable? It’s up to the senate to decide, or make them come to the senate trial. If Trump did nothing wrong why block witnesses. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nstoolman1 Posted January 14, 2020 Report Share Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) 37 minutes ago, caddieman said: And any Judge in the court of law would have compelled people who did have fact base knowledge to appear before the court and not have their appearance obstructed by the President of the United States. In a court of law that is called obstruction of justice, which is a Felony. But since it is not in a court of law it’s simply called obstruction of Congress. Is that impeachable? It’s up to the senate to decide, or make them come to the senate trial. If Trump did nothing wrong why block witnesses. Not true. A judge only judges or referees the case. It is up to the prosecution to provide witnesses or proof of guilt. The defense only brings witnesses or proof to refute the prosecution. Also the prosecution has to turn over all evidence that will help the defense. Something the Flynn prosecution team failed to do. Edited January 14, 2020 by nstoolman1 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shabibilicious Posted January 15, 2020 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2020 19 hours ago, Pitcher said: Shabbs you didn’t come close to winning the debate. Unless, you claim victory by making untrue statements backed up by more wrong information. You are wrong on the Executive Privilege statement and you are wrong to think Schiff’s Impeachment Inquiry was anything but a Partisan hack job. 13 witnesses and not one fact based bit of evidence. Any judge in a real court of Law would laugh Schiff right out of the courtroom with his assumptions, 3rd hand evidence, and childish accusations. Obviously I disagree with you. It's been proven time and again, whenever a person sinks to name calling it's because they have nothing constructive left to bring to the table....Trump has made his living on the very same tactic and people who love every opportunity they get to treat others with contempt and disrespect adore him for it. Side note: Ltc. Vindman was indeed on the phone call. He is a first hand "fact based" witness, plain and simple. GO RV, then BV 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shabibilicious Posted January 15, 2020 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2020 19 hours ago, Theseus said: You need to do your research... the gulag comment is in response to current news. Maybe you need to get off of dinarvets once in awhile. And if we used your definition of a losing debate, then your demonrat debate has been the ultimate failure on here. "demonrat"?.....I rest my case. GO RV, then BV 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.