Impeachment Trial

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'd love term limits, but that isn't going to happen. As for the Oath part, no. Maybe if they are speaking in an official capacity, but not just for idle chatter. That seems highly Unconstitutional to me.

Like when Harry Reid lied on the floor of congress. Or Shifft. Or anyone. When in congress, should always be the truth and nothing but... NOT opinion.

[Gelston]

Like when Harry Reid lied on the floor of congress. Or Shifft. Or anyone. When in congress, should always be the truth and nothing but... NOT opinion.

Oh, I agree on that. I think any official statement by any elected official should be held to the same standard as a court testimony.

[Jeril]

Oh, I agree on that. I think any official statement by any elected official should be held to the same standard as a court testimony.

What if them telling the truth will jeopardize national security? It isn't a good thing to always tell the truth, this nation of idiots can't handle it.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

What if them telling the truth will jeopardize national security? It isn't a good thing to always tell the truth, this nation of idiots can't handle it.

Then they say I can disclose that in a secure setting.

[Gelston]

What if them telling the truth will jeopardize national security? It isn't a good thing to always tell the truth, this nation of idiots can't handle it.

Yeah, then don't talk about it. They can always decide not to speak on a subject at all. Plus, it still has to be proven they lied, mitigating or extreme circumstances can be handled in the court or the prosecutor can be brief and not bring charges in the first place for such instances.

[Stanley Burrell]

I don't get what would have/could have possibly happened, if anything, if the seventeen or whatever witnesses were allowed to testify. Again, some of these folks to me (and it doesn't seem like a copout) revealing their identities and particular motives could *perhaps* jeopardize national security. And what the balancing act is during an impeachment trial like this one and stuff like Bolton's book? I vaguely remember one of the SEAL team dudes' in the raid that killed OBL having gotten into trouble. I don't know if that's a fair comparison.

f

[Stanley Burrell]

^ Er, rather that one of the SEALs was writing a book on how exactly the operation was conducted. My bad, bleeargh.

[Gelston]

I don't get what would have/could have possibly happened, if anything, if the seventeen or whatever witnesses were allowed to testify. Again, some of these folks to me (and it doesn't seem like a copout) revealing their identities and particular motives could *perhaps* jeopardize national security. And what the balancing act is during an impeachment trial like this one and stuff like Bolton's book? I vaguely remember one of the SEAL team dudes' in the raid that killed OBL having gotten into trouble. I don't know if that's a fair comparison.

f

The problem was they could have been called to testify during the impeachment proceedings. The object of the trial is not to introduce new evidence, that should already have been done.

[Stanley Burrell]

The problem was they could have been called to testify during the impeachment proceedings. The object of the trial is not to introduce new evidence, that should already have been done.

With my background, I'm pretty uncertain how trials (especially this one) goooes…

Like, all I can think of is Law and Order: SVU where they're already in the courtroom and new evidence appears and the prosecution is like, "We will introduce blah-blah-blah and so-and-so."

So. Yeah :-\

[Stanley Burrell]

Wait, I think I get you.

So, that evidence already existed and hadn't been doctored or manipulated in any fashion and it wasn't called into question for the hearing in a timely manner like it should have (could have) been? Er?