Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Shabibilicious

Ex-DOJ Official Dares Trump To 'Say It Under Oath' With Impeachment Testimony

Recommended Posts

Politics

Ex-DOJ Official Dares Trump To ‘Say It Under Oath’ With Impeachment Testimony

January 13, 2020, 5:22 AM EST
 
 
HuffPost
377d613780a3ccfee2323139df7d0847
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:  

 

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 

 
 
 

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

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This coming from a crooked Obama DOJ official? :D

That is funny.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 5
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 6
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Thanks 5
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by umbertino
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  :shrug:

 

GO RV, then BV

Edited by Shabibilicious
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  :shrug:

 

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. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Theseus
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by nstoolman1
  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  :facepalm:

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.