Still no commentary on the substance of the hearings? Why is that?
Pure people don't run for president anymore, or if they do they will be smeared by the time it's all over with. Politics is a dirty business. That said, do you have any idea of their personal views outside the hearings?
The House has to impeach at this point. I'll be very curious to see if the senate actually holds a trial. I hope they do, as I want to hear from the folks that weren't allowed in the impeachment hearings, and the people that refused to speak.
You mean like Hunter Biden?The House has to impeach at this point. I'll be very curious to see if the senate actually holds a trial. I hope they do, as I want to hear from the folks that weren't allowed in the impeachment hearings, and the people that refused to speak.
If everyone was just solidly in two camps, why would Republicans continue all the way through 2020 with Biden, and the investigation of the investigators? Please. It's dumb to just stop and let them run the show for the campaign season like what happened to Hillary. Pompeo, Mulvaney, et al. would be gold nuggets. They should also NOT make it solely about Ukraine. Add emoluments, the Mueller obstruction, etc..
You mean like Hunter Biden?
I know he does and Mitch is planning to grant his wish in the Senate according to Fox News.You know he means that wish list Nunes cries for every hearing.
"Weren't allowed"? You must mean weren't called because the committee majority chose not to do so. Of course they didn't call the whistleblower who's protected by law & common decency. They didn't call Hunter Biden, either, because he only played the role of intended victim to the smear. Anybody else you think we should hear from? Should we hear from Chalupa & Ohr because the server... they say Ukraine has it? Really?The House has to impeach at this point. I'll be very curious to see if the senate actually holds a trial. I hope they do, as I want to hear from the folks that weren't allowed in the impeachment hearings, and the people that refused to speak.
As far as I know he had nothing to do with it. Why have him testify?You mean like Hunter Biden?
I know he does and Mitch is planning to grant his wish in the Senate according to Fox News.
I don't know who wasn't allowed to testify. Biden has nothing to do with it, and the whistleblower doesn't have any direct evidence, so they don't matter. I'm assuming that there are others because of all the noise the republicains made about it. Perhaps there isn't anyone else, I don't know because I haven't heard any names."Weren't allowed"? You must mean weren't called because the committee majority chose not to do so. Of course they didn't call the whistleblower who's protected by law & common decency. They didn't call Hunter Biden, either, because he only played the role of intended victim to the smear. Anybody else you think we should hear from? Should we hear from Chalupa & Ohr because the server... they say Ukraine has it? Really?
But you assume that people “weren’t allowed to testify”I don't know who wasn't allowed to testify. Biden has nothing to do with it, and the whistleblower doesn't have any direct evidence, so they don't matter. I'm assuming that there are others because of all the noise the republicains made about it. Perhaps there isn't anyone else, I don't know because I haven't heard any names.
I only caught parts of the hearings, and of course the "highlights" reels the news played, so there is a great deal of information I don't have.
No, I didn't assume anything. That's based off what the republicans at the hearing keep saying. How the hell would I know who they want to talk to?But you assume that people “weren’t allowed to testify”
lordy
Does it matter if the whistle blower has any direct evidence? The House Repubs didn't care about any of the witnesses who had first hand knowledge of what happened.I don't know who wasn't allowed to testify. Biden has nothing to do with it, and the whistleblower doesn't have any direct evidence, so they don't matter. I'm assuming that there are others because of all the noise the republicains made about it. Perhaps there isn't anyone else, I don't know because I haven't heard any names.
I only caught parts of the hearings, and of course the "highlights" reels the news played, so there is a great deal of information I don't have.
No, I didn't assume anything. That's based off what the republicans at the hearing keep saying. How the hell would I know who they want to talk to?
Is this a rhetorical question, or have I somehow become P&N's leading expert on the subject?Does it matter if the whistle blower has any direct evidence? The House Repubs didn't care about any of the witnesses who had first hand knowledge of what happened.
Is this a rhetorical question, or have I somehow become P&N's leading expert on the subject?
Let me clarify my thoughts. The republicans claim there are witnesses that they want to have testify, but the democrats wouldn't allow it. If those people actually exist, I'd like to hear what they have to say. I'm not supporting the claim, I'm not endorsing the idea or assigning it merit.
They aren't worthy of calling other witnesses, if they exist. Got it.Well, the problem with wondering about what the Republicans want to hear and who they want to bring, is that they have couched their entire defense off of:
--a thoroughly fake conspiracy theory about Ukraine and some server that was used to help Hilary--factually, this never existed. It can't even be investigated further at this point, because it is less tangible than El Dorado. Likewise, there is no human of any kind of merit that can speak to it in an actual Congressional hearing, where one is sworn an oath to testify about it
--attacking every single witness on invented character flaws, because their testimony is inherently damning, and they are unimpeachable witnesses to the crimes that Trump has committed.
...so there is yet to be any substance to what Republicans have presented to defend their president...so there really is no one they can bring forward to establish a defense, that we know of. The only important people that we haven't heard from yet are the ones that Trump is attempting to prevent from talking, refusing Congressional subpoenas. (all obstruction charges)...and yes: there's a reason he doesn't want them talking.
...of course, Trump could always talk if he wants to. It's a completely open door for him to show up and defend himself at this point. Even Bill did that.
They aren't worthy of calling other witnesses, if they exist. Got it.
My view is a little different than that. They claim there are other people with information to share, bring em on. We have nothing to lose. We're at at the party, might as well dance.
They aren't worthy of calling other witnesses, if they exist. Got it.
My view is a little different than that. They claim there are other people with information to share, bring em on. We have nothing to lose. We're at at the party, might as well dance.
No, I didn't assume anything. That's based off what the republicans at the hearing keep saying. How the hell would I know who they want to talk to?
To clarify, the Republicans have been stating that there's witnesses that the Democrats have not been permitting to testify, specifically so they can send the message that there's information that the Democrats are keeping under wraps. Hunter Biden has been brought up multiple times, and I'm sure everyone paying attention knows that the Republicans are attempting to muddy the impeachment waters with more mock scandals in order to make it look like this is something where 'well, the democrats did some shady things, maybe trump did some shady things, see, this is all just politics!'. The more Schiff refuses to play this dumbshit game with Nunes the more he attempts to point to this as a 'partisan committee' and 'democratic ousting'.No, I didn't assume anything. That's based off what the republicans at the hearing keep saying. How the hell would I know who they want to talk to?
I already said I don't know who they are. I have no idea who they might be. As I said, the statement is based off of what a couple of the republicans said, taking me to task over it is pointless because I don't have the answers. That's why I said I'd like to here from whoever it is.what? no, that's not what I said--you still aren't saying who these people are.....that's because you don't know who they are. I don't know who they are. I don't think anyone knows who they are, because these goons are intentionally being vague (e.g: they've got nothing and they fucking know it.)
Who do you want them to call?
All I'm saying is that they officially submitted two names already, before the hearings: Hunter Biden and the Whistleblower. ...so, logically (we are using logic here), those are the only two names we have to go with, unless the Pubs start getting more specific. You agree with that, right?
You already stated that those two witnesses are immaterial. so...who should they call? Why should you agree that they should call who they want when they won't even submit names, to anyone? You think this is Perry Mason or some shit? Surprise Witness!