What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The GQP Thread: I'm even sick of that fuck's number and, anyway, he's gone (for now)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Handyman said:
Interesting thought experiment:

Let's say a miracle happens and Trump is indicted. Lets add to said miracle and say the GQP uses that as cover to disqualify him.

(None of which will happen but that is not at issue for this experiment)

It is a lock he runs third party and goes scorched Earth. If that is the case and it's gonna be a 3 way race the Dems must convince Biden not to run. They need a younger candidate who can keep the Dem coalition voting and have the tact to watch the Right eat itself alive. Biden can retire saying he did his job restoring sanity to the office and helped restore the GOP (which is bs but so what) and now his job is done.

Who is the Dem candidate you would want? You don't want and Electoral Crisis because if it ends up in The House the Right will sooner or later cut a deal and Hitler gets to be Chancellor. Who is a candidate who can prevent that?

(Again this is a thought experiment not reality)
Click to expand...

This woman thinks Jon Stewart. If that Ukrainian comedian can do it…

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/m...-should-run-on-the-democratic-ticket-00044146
 
rufus said:
Sounds like someone's nervous.

Couping has consequences.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Dump is apparently willing to waive privilege if Bannon works something out. Won't Bannon try to turn this against the Dems? I don't recall his pardon specifics or know how broad a pardon can be, but perjury seems to be the only thing that might keep him from doing all he can to help out his old buddy.
 
burd said:
Whether he can or can't isn't the point I was trying to make. Dump wants Bannon to testify, and I assume there is a reason for that.
Click to expand...

I have to assume that the committee would first have Bannon testify via private deposition. They wouldn't question him (of all people) publicly without having previously asked the same question under oath in private deposition. Perhaps Dump doesn't understand that, or Dump/Bannon are trying to use that for political purposes (i.e. Bannon states that he will only testify publicly, and then when the committee says no, Bannon will refuse to testify and Bannon/Dump will use it to support their arguments).
 
Fighting Sioux 23 said:
I have to assume that the committee would first have Bannon testify via private deposition. They wouldn't question him (of all people) publicly without having previously asked the same question under oath in private deposition. Perhaps Dump doesn't understand that, or Dump/Bannon are trying to use that for political purposes (i.e. Bannon states that he will only testify publicly, and then when the committee says no, Bannon will refuse to testify and Bannon/Dump will use it to support their arguments).
Click to expand...

Yeah no way is a new witness going live for first session
 
Fighting Sioux 23 said:
I have to assume that the committee would first have Bannon testify via private deposition. They wouldn't question him (of all people) publicly without having previously asked the same question under oath in private deposition. Perhaps Dump doesn't understand that, or Dump/Bannon are trying to use that for political purposes (i.e. Bannon states that he will only testify publicly, and then when the committee says no, Bannon will refuse to testify and Bannon/Dump will use it to support their arguments).
Click to expand...

They want Bannon to play the role of Jim Jordan and Matt Gertz that they couldn't turn the commission into a shitshow when this started
 
Fighting Sioux 23 said:
I have to assume that the committee would first have Bannon testify via private deposition. They wouldn't question him (of all people) publicly without having previously asked the same question under oath in private deposition. Perhaps Dump doesn't understand that, or Dump/Bannon are trying to use that for political purposes (i.e. Bannon states that he will only testify publicly, and then when the committee says no, Bannon will refuse to testify and Bannon/Dump will use it to support their arguments). [/QUOTE]

I'm aware of now (discovery) deposition testimony can and cannot be used in civil court (at least in Wisconsin), but I don't have much feel for how similar legislative proceedings like this are. If the rules are similar, what you say is likely. Bannon and Dump are just trying to keep spinning the kangaroo forum narrative. If Bannon does agree to deposition testimony, the Ds will anticipate lies and try to catch him perjuring himself. He's not gonna sing--even a note.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
burd said:
I'm aware of now (discovery) deposition testimony can and cannot be used in civil court (at least in Wisconsin), but I don't have much feel for how similar legislative proceedings like this are. If the rules are similar, what you say is likely. Bannon and Dump are just trying to keep spinning the kangaroo forum narrative. If Bannon does agree to deposition testimony, the Ds will anticipate lies and try to catch him perjuring himself. He's not gonna sing--even a note.
Click to expand...

I don't really do much work related to governmental investigations (fortunately). However, I would imagine that the proceedings work quite similar to the civil proceedings we are familiar with (deposition taken to discover answers to specific questions, and then, if necessary, the same questions are asked at trial--with impeachment available if the answers between the two sworn testimonies are different). However, my guess is that it is probably closer to the Examination Under Oath in the insurance investigation context. For those unfamiliar, if you make an insurance claim, one of the tools that your insurance company may utilize to investigate your claim is to take your sworn testimony under oath (the EUO). During the EUO, it is only the insurance company (or its representative) asking questions. The rules of evidence or civil procedure are not in play (i.e. no objections to "form" or the like, no requirement that the question be within the scope of discovery, etc.). The testifier does not have their counsel ask them questions. In other words, it is the opportunity for the insurance company to investigate the claim and ask the questions it needs to determine various issues (such as coverage, liability, value, etc.). Given that the legislative proceedings are investigative in nature, I would imagine that their "depositions" would operate in a similar way.
 
Fighting Sioux 23 said:
I don't really do much work related to governmental investigations (fortunately). However, I would imagine that the proceedings work quite similar to the civil proceedings we are familiar with (deposition taken to discover answers to specific questions, and then, if necessary, the same questions are asked at trial--with impeachment available if the answers between the two sworn testimonies are different). However, my guess is that it is probably closer to the Examination Under Oath in the insurance investigation context. For those unfamiliar, if you make an insurance claim, one of the tools that your insurance company may utilize to investigate your claim is to take your sworn testimony under oath (the EUO). During the EUO, it is only the insurance company (or its representative) asking questions. The rules of evidence or civil procedure are not in play (i.e. no objections to "form" or the like, no requirement that the question be within the scope of discovery, etc.). The testifier does not have their counsel ask them questions. In other words, it is the opportunity for the insurance company to investigate the claim and ask the questions it needs to determine various issues (such as coverage, liability, value, etc.). Given that the legislative proceedings are investigative in nature, I would imagine that their "depositions" would operate in a similar way.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you have contractual obligations with your own ins. co. that change things some.

Bannon deserves all the bad things that could happen to him.
 
burd said:
Yeah, you have contractual obligations with your own ins. co. that change things some.

Bannon deserves all the bad things that could happen to him.
Click to expand...

That is true. If you don't cooperate with the EUO request, your insurance company will deny your claim. I was just using the EUO to illustrate what some of the nuanced differences may be between a civil deposition and a governmental investigative deposition.
 
Yeah, I think this is just Bannon trying to slow play this into the next congress when the committee will be dissolved. His problem, of course, is that his main problem now lies with the DOJ and not even the committee anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top