pretty good incentive for R's being the ones wanting to keep the charade going.
☆☆☆☆OFFICIAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THREAD☆☆☆☆
- Thread starter BuilderBob6
- Start date
pretty good incentive for R's being the ones wanting to keep the charade going.
Hardly....I wouldn't have wasted any...ANY...effort on it. And I'd have been on the Repub's maybe harder than I am on the Demonat's.
Great comeback. Why is it impossible for you to tell the truth about anything? I know right wing propaganda has rotted your brain, but even stuff that’s not related to politics you are just out of your mind.
Yes, just like you were so pissed off about the Republicans opening 20 investigations about Benghazi.
Maybe Trump shouldn't block those people from appearing then? Why don't we hear from them directly?
Why don't we hear from the "direct" people then? If there's nothing to hide.
Are you a few weeks behind trying to read? That was already proven false.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/politics/ukraine-aid-freeze-impeachment.html
taylor has no first hand knowledge. never even spoke to trump. fake news. top democrats say....
How many people do you think Trump actually spoke to about it? Should we expect them to honor a subpoena?
Sondland is next week. Be patient.
Why do you doubt my honesty? You know, if right wing propaganda has rotted my mind, why did I just vote for a Democrat mayor?
We've been patient. Russian Collusion...Stormy...seven women molested and scorned...what's after this impeachment scam...doctored photos of Trump and Maxine Waters getting it on? You can't believe anything related to this garbage unless you're bat shit crazy.
The best part was when he and his counterpart were silent to the question “what impeachable offense the president committed “? Crickets said it all
Sorry to just crap all over your little story, here, but BOTH Wm. Taylor and George Kent, in their lengthy opening statements, made it ABUNDANTLY clear that they would have absolutely NO commentary whatsoever, of a political or judicial nature, to offer at any point of the proceedings. They were specifically there to offer testimony, only...their words.
So when the GOP House member wanted an answer to the " impeachable offense" question.....
Apparently YOU were one of only a few viewers who were completely oblivious to the reason for the lack of a response.
Don't give up. In the ensuing days of testimony, there might be another occasion to again completely miss the point.
Those two missed the point today. You did too. Trump will win 2020, you'll disappear, and the rivers will rise and the tides will flood. Get over it. Because if that's the best he's got, Schiff should be tossed in jail.
They weren't there to impeach. They were there to offer testimony.
Try to understand things better next time.
The arguments yesterday from Trump defenders were more childish and gaslighty than usual.
That's fine. This is a marathon and these simpletons are blowing their wads right from the start. Nobody is going to take them seriously when they have the same stupid defense every single day for every single witness.
I don’t need to retract anything. Credible - believable, reliable.
“Person A told person B that told person C that told person D that told me.....” is not 100% believable or reliable.
You don’t like it, too bad, too sad. Go see a proctologist.
that's not a a question for the witness. That determination is by the House. Their job is to state the facts of what they witnessed, not determine the criminality of it.
Man how true. The problem with the first two witnesses is they didn't witness anything. They were regurgitating 2nd and 3rd hand accounts of persons opinions.
You know the game you play in grade school where someone says something and by the time it gets ten kids down the story has completely changed.
But hey, according to Dems hearsay is completely permissible and should be prioritizes over the actual transcripts, to impeach the POTUS.
Just like the Russian collusion accusations. Schiff has proof of collusion, Schiff has proof Trump told Ukraine to investigate Biden 8 times. Schiff won't let the wb testify.
If this is all the Dems have they better start damage control or drop this BS.
You people complain about hearsay but won't admit that the only people with first hand knowledge are refusing to testify.
If the call was perfect and and there's nothing to this, simply testify and say so. What's the problem?
If the call was perfect and and there's nothing to this, simply testify and say so. What's the problem?
Last edited:
What are the Trumpers gonna do when they can't move the goalposts any further? Just own up to their blind support of a criminal buffoon?
They won't have to admit it because Fox News, Breitbart, etc., will just lie to them. They won't have to admit to anything because they live in an entirely different world where facts don't matter.
No, that won't happen. Rather, it would that mean that their new tee shirts will have to read
"I am a 'NEVER' Trumper"
True, actually. In about ten years, there is going to be a suspiciously low number of people who'll admit to having supported him.
Let's hear from the alleged WB. Or is he/she a figment of Schiff's imagination like Russian collusion.
Why do you need to hear from the whistleblower when what they put in their report has already been corroborated? Do you have any reason to think that you need to hear directly from the whistleblower other than right wing media has been manipulating you into thinking it's important?
Twindegrees calling someone else an idiot. We've reached the height of irony. You are not a smart person, at all.
That's fine. They stated what they heard. and what they felt about what they heard. That's it. They have done their jobs. The people who are more first-hand, should please come forward as well and tell us what they know/saw/heard/felt or experienced
The only reason that I can guess wanting to hear from the WB is to question him about whether Shiff met with him before the complaint was filed. Why not just call Shiff to the stand? Or the IG that brought the complaint to Shiff in the 1st place? Anyway, all this could be cleared up by just playing the recording of the the the phone call. I am assuming that there is a recording.
Again, while that is hearsay, that has nothing to do with credibility. Credibility has to do with whether the witness is giving reliable testimony based off of their perspective.
For example, when Kavanaugh was going through the rape hearings, Christine B. Ford gave testimony. During that testimony she was unable to remember key details like who else was at the party, where it occurred, and what date it occurred on. She also couldn't pinpoint down details about the lie detector test that she had only taken a few months before. Those are examples of deficiencies that a lawyer can point to and define the witness as not being credible. Obvious faults with their testimony.
Taylor provided direct information about his experiences about what he heard and saw. While many of those items are absolutely considered hearsay, that does not invalidate the testimony. It provides a starting point for the committee to go to the aide who is a direct witness and ask him to testify. He is now a witness to the conversation with Sondland and the President. That removes one layer of hearsay. Then you grab Sondland and throw him on the stand and get direct answers about a conversation that he had with the President and then there is no hearsay at all.
So if you can find parts of Taylor's testimony that are either false or misleading or where he said that he could not remember a particular event, then you can declare that he is not a credible witness. As I said before, if you want to claim that his testimony is not relevant because it's hearsay, that's fine, and I'll agree with you. That does not make him a non-credible witness though.
Last edited:
The people with first hand knowledge wrote the transcript.
Why would anyone want to testify before this 3 ring circus.
General Flynn says hello.
Zelensky also thanked Trump for removing Yovanovitch. Said she was close to the prior Pres and did not support him(Zelenski)
Also, I wonder why Libs so easily ignore Zaid’s tweet?
Last edited:
Not shocking at all, you're lying once again. Is it purposeful, or do you only listen to propaganda so you don't know any better?
