Comments
Follow Comments Sorted by time
guest_
· 5 years ago
· FIRST
Well... the constitution grants right to face any accuser or witness that would testify against one. Here is the thing though... that only applies to criminal trails. Impeachment isn’t a criminal proceeding. What’s more- there are several factors to what defines “testimony”- for instance, a deposition or statement made in the INVESTIGATION of a crime is generally explicitly held not as testimony but as stated fact.
3
guest_
· 5 years ago
Of course- the right to cross examine witnesses seems a bit muddy when the guy on trail has said “there is no need for witnesses” and tried to block witnesses from testifying. If you don’t think the statement is relevant- why would you need to know who it is? Your defense isn’t based on the witness or the validity of their claims but the validity of a trail.....
▼
guest_
· 5 years ago
But of course there’s an irony here. The most recent pertinent ruling on the right to confront the accused? It lays out that “self evident fact,” in other words-the practice of trying to classify information as statement instead of testimony in the grounds it’s truth is universal and known: isn’t valid because that is akin to saying you don’t need a jury trail because the defendant is “obviously guilty.”
▼
Show All
guest_
· 5 years ago
That’s somewhat pertinent given that Donald Trumps primary objection to calling witnesses- his exact words: were that you don’t need witnesses to speak on what he said because there is a recording- and the recording is clear in its meaning. So... his logic is that the recording clearly paints the picture of innocence- therefore calling witnesses could only cast doubt on that innocence- and a trail isn’t needed because he is... clearly innocent. That’s... the president of the United States... and his pal... Mayor/Governor/Lawyer.... saying that you don’t need to hold a trail because he’s obviously innocent.
▼
guest_
· 5 years ago
That’s... not... how this works. There is an investigation. There isn’t a trail unless said investigation reveals enough evidence to support a trail. To take the president of the US to trial.... you need some pretty good evidence. Now- let’s say that this trial is in fact an attack.... then.... the point of a trial would be to allow yourself a defense- a chance against the wrongful accusations. Let’s say it is a show trial and he’s being railroaded? Then... without evidence they’d still determine you’re guilty... not... innocent as he seems to think the tape makes him... so either way the idea that he doesn’t need a trail would work against him.
guest_
· 5 years ago
A president... a damning tape.... An impeachment? I’ve seen this one. It’s a re run. Nixon was smart enough to resign and avoid the trail. This should be fun.
▼
funkmasterrex
· 5 years ago
This whole argument they are throwing out is basically "Let the drug dealer know everything about the sting operation and who tipped the cops off to the drug dealer". It's fucking retarded.
guest_
· 5 years ago
Yeah. It’s pretty sketchy when they’re like “who snitched? I just... I want know. It doesn’t matter. They’re lying. Why do I want to know then? No reason. Just because. Give me a name...” like.... yeah.... no. You have a right in a CRIMINAL trial to CROSS EXAMINE a witness against you IN COURT. There’s... many reasons for that, and the way they are acting speaks pretty much to a strong feeling those are good reasons.
▼
funkmasterrex
· 5 years ago
Aye.
deleted
· 5 years ago
Since when is holding white guys accountable for their crimes a witch hunt Lmaoooo
3
garlog
· 5 years ago
Yes, surely race is a significant factor here.
▼
guest_
· 5 years ago
It is not a contributing factor to crime. However there is a correlation with race in context. “White collar” criminals tend to be rich and well connected. The majority by numbers of both those in “white collar” power and those who commit “white collar” crimes are white males. A majority of white collar crime either has no effective consequence- or has a consequence to the individual disproportionate that the consequence to those committing lesser crimes. Statistics show that those of races other than white tend to not only be disproportionately represented in criminal populations compared to the general population demographics...
2
Show All
guest_
· 5 years ago
But that they also tend to face greater consequence to the individual for a given crime on average. Therefore- race is not a factor in the commission of a crime- but it is a factor in the sentencing and consequences of a crime- and statistically: a wealthy white male is likely to receive effectively no punishment or a reduced punishment for a crime than a counterpart of another race or social status.
1
guest_
· 5 years ago
But there is an element of speculation: that being the assumption that white guys on the whole are committing criminal acts. The general assumption that politicians and business people are “crooks” who go unpunished because of money or position plays to that. One could phrase the statement without making it an issue of race simply by saying “making politicians/business people accountable for their crimes.” However statistically and historically there is a strong link between these things and race- and there is a discussion on race that could be had here in a way that doesn’t generalize to this degree.
1
guest_
· 5 years ago
Tl:dr- the link between wealth, power, the ability to get away with or receive lesser punishment for a crime and race DO have a strong statistical relationship. However in this case the statement conflates race and power and crime- so removing the element of race would make the statement less bias but it reads as factual either way.
1
