• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Whitaker says he will not appear before House panel unless he gets guarantee he won't face subpoena

Chomsky said:
Yes, he amongst others. And I suspect they all will be called back. A large part of the reason the House investigations will be so large and encompassing, is due to the two years of dereliction of duty while under GOP control. It's almost like starting from the beginning. A real yeoman's job. And I hope it's all televised ...
Click to expand...

They will pick and choose what to make public and what not to make public...based on whether it advances their anti-Trump agenda or not.

For example, Cohen was first going to testify in public. Now, it'll be behind closed doors.
 
smallvoice said:
Please respond to my post, not , as you seem to do regularly, respond to your imagination. FYI, there are NO adults in the dim party.
Click to expand...

LOL! Your 'concerns' are paranoid delusions, not backed up by any factual evidence, nor can you provide any.

The house is once again doing its job: oversight. That this upsets and frightens you is irrelevant to the reality that it's happening.
 
Mycroft said:
I don't know about being at the point of a Constitutional crisis, but we are in a very sorry state.

1. We have a past administration that used the power of the government for political purposes in an attempt to influence a past election.

2. We have the Democratic Party transparently using the power of the House to influence an upcoming election.
Click to expand...


Golly. That's sure an interesting assertion.

What evidence indicates that's actually happening?
 
Fletch said:
And democrats arent appealing to their base? To quote you guys, 'this is democrats throwing red meat to their base.'
Click to expand...
Yes, fletch. That was implied in my post. Thy have been mandated by the voters that put them in office.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Perjury is a felony for lying. If you don't want to be charged with perjury, then don't lie. It's pretty simple.
No, this isn't true at all. This is a lie that conservatives like you are perpetuating. There is no way that you can get hit with perjury without knowingly making false statements. Because that's what perjury is.
A great example of perjury: testifying under oath that you have never had contact with someone via text, when you exchanged dozens of texts with them that same day. Pretty clear that you were lying.
What a dumb thing to say. Do you buy home insurance after your house burns down? Do you buy auto insurance after you get in a car accident?
LMAO precious coming from a conservative that supports Trump and his government shutdown.
Click to expand...


I agree DONT LIE and you wont get charged with perjury. THATS very simple and I 100% agree will NOT deny it.

Lie and conservatives like you? This has NOTHING to do with being a conservative. "There is NO WAY"? While I can respect your opinion. I will graciously again err on the side of caution rather than someones opinion. I can make a false statement, in negligence or forgetfulness (PURELY innocent) and it still could be construed as perjury or lying. I could have a personal lapse in memory (purely innocent) as an example I meet with 100's of client every year and if someone asked me to describe a meeting on X day and that conversation I have no idea..... That is truth. YET if a prosecutor wants to nail you ..... they have much greater tools to do so...Im NOT saying that Persecutors act with Malice, but it in this day and age especially with the scrutiny anything related to Trump, EVER word that comes out of your mouth can be used and twisted to fit an agenda.

SO YES me personally I can be innocent ALL I want..... but if I do NOT have to be sworn in under oath etc. I would advoid it at all cost unless required by law.

At this time Barr is making his feelings known (WHILE again. scummy by interpretation) If hes NOT required or they WONT require him yet still shows up. to make statements NOT under oath so be it. If they actually finalized the subpoena and then hold him in contempt then we can proceed to call him more scummy.


As for "LMAO" I have stated, I think the wall is silly as a whole, but hold value by ROI and intent. I would give UP the wall for major immigration reform. (Enforcement of law, birth right citizen reform, Visa reform, illegal worker refrom.) dump the wall for those Im good.


With that Negotiation...... Usually means lets come to the table I want the wall, what do you want, I wont give you the wall, OK, Ill give you 3 years DACA, for the wall, No wall. ok I wont 5.6 Billion instead of the original $25 billion. NO wall.

how is that negotiation? Thats NOT negotiation

BTW - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negotiate , To confer with another so as to arrive at the settlement of some matter. So what settlement has Pelosi, Shcummer or the Democrats offered? Nothing they just said No wall. Again that not negotiation.... to me that just being a jerk..... This is the time to get something of Value for the Democrats and their constituents. No wall.


So dont preach to me about morals....THEY are ALL responsible.... Not just Trump, not just Pelosi. I can accept fault.... Can you as well?
 
haymarket said:
The man does not want to be forced to answer all questions. For a big fella he is one tiny coward.
Click to expand...
And dig this: He's the top lawman in the country! WTH?
 
Chomsky said:
I think it has the possibility to transcend mere posturing, Mycos. I think it has the distinct possibility of turning the country into bifurcated factions, eschewing Constitutionality (in part), and throwing us into Constitutional crisis.
Click to expand...


When posting sarcasm you need to make a footnote or use an emoji, or something!
 
Exactice said:
I can make a false statement, in negligence or forgetfulness (PURELY innocent) and it still could be construed as perjury or lying. I could have a personal lapse in memory (purely innocent) as an example I meet with 100's of client every year and if someone asked me to describe a meeting on X day and that conversation I have no idea..... That is truth. YET if a prosecutor wants to nail you ..... they have much greater tools to do so...Im NOT saying that Persecutors act with Malice, but it in this day and age especially with the scrutiny anything related to Trump, EVER word that comes out of your mouth can be used and twisted to fit an agenda.
Click to expand...

No, this is the lie that you are perpetuating. This isn't true at all. There is no way to prosecute perjury without proving to a judge or jury of your peers that you made a false statement and did so knowingly.

Making a false statement "in negligence or forgetfulness" is clearly not knowingly. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. Saying something that is wrong mistakenly is not grounds for a perjury indictment. That is a lie that you are perpetuating because it is politically convenient to downplay committing a felony.
 
Mycroft said:
I don't know about being at the point of a Constitutional crisis, but we are in a very sorry state.

1. We have a past administration that used the power of the government for political purposes in an attempt to influence a past election.

2. We have the Democratic Party transparently using the power of the House to influence an upcoming election.
Click to expand...
Actually "Constitutional Crisis" essentially refers to conflict between two co-equal branches. It has a huge range of latitude, and while it congers-up catastrophic images - it usually isn't so. It gets worked-out in court.
 
haymarket said:
The man does not want to be forced to answer all questions. For a big fella he is one tiny coward.
Click to expand...

He’s not a coward.

It’s completely rational not to answer questions that will implicate your boss in obstruction of justice.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
No, this is the lie that you are perpetuating. This isn't true at all. There is no way to prosecute perjury without proving to a judge or jury of your peers that you made a false statement and did so knowingly.

Making a false statement "in negligence or forgetfulness" is clearly not knowingly. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. Saying something that is wrong mistakenly is not grounds for a perjury indictment. That is a lie that you are perpetuating because it is politically convenient to downplay committing a felony.
Click to expand...
You are correct here. Perjury requires intent.
 
Threegoofs said:
Weird that these guys are so afraid of testifying under oath when they are all totally innocent.
Click to expand...

Yup,. meanwhile Hillary underwent many hours of testimony under oath and they still claim "lock her up".

Everybody but dumb, dishonest hacks know that they are guilty as ****, the evidence continues to poor in, the links continue to be made to Trumps inner circle
 
Chomsky said:
You think the bolded was sarcastic?
Click to expand...

“..turning” refers to a future or present occurrence. We have been “bifurcated” for some time now. I didn’t follow my own rule. I was being sarcastic. :mrgreen:
 
Threegoofs said:
Weird that these guys are so afraid of testifying under oath when they are all totally innocent.
Click to expand...

We saw what happens when someone is innocent and the Democrats want to turn a hearing into a public spectacle. Ask Kavanaugh. Anything goes.
 
Rexedgar said:
“..turning” refers to a future or present occurrence. We have been “bifurcated” for some time now. I didn’t follow my own rule. I was being sarcastic. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
:mrgreen:

Alright man, fair enough.
 
Chomsky said:
Source: (CNN) Whitaker says he will not appear before House panel unless he gets guarantee he won't face subpoena

Well, here we go. It seems it's beginning.

As the Dems won the House on election night 2018, I postulated that Trump & his administration would dig-in and resist Congressional appearances and subpoenas. We may be seeing the beginning of this. And I fear it could get extremely, extremely, ugly. I hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Kind of reminds one of Nixon and watergate. No?
 
Threegoofs said:
He’s not a coward.

It’s completely rational not to answer questions that will implicate your boss in obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

I guess that is one way to look at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom