The Impeachment Thread

#18,579
#18,579
VolnJC said:
It's because when it's an open testimony they can't run with Schiff's cut and paste leaks. Remember when Taylor testified the 1st time and there were reports of "audible gasps" ? yeah right..ppl yesterday were bored and ended up leaving early
View attachment 238431
Click to expand...
Taylor insinuated that people died because that was held up. If Trump did that to get dirt on a political opponent, that is gaspworthy, IMO.
 
#18,582
#18,582
luthervol said:
Just providing a desperately needed different perspective.
Click to expand...
Not sure how ignoring reality is a desperately needed different perspective. It's okay to have feels, but never allow your feels to fuel delusion.
 
#18,589
#18,589
So the person that heard the “bombshell” cell phone call from Kiev is talking to lawmakers behind closed doors today. My question is why? It has already been established that this person has important testimony so why start behind closed doors? I thought the point of these public hearings is transparency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin and BigOrangeD
#18,590
#18,590
37L1 said:
Who died because of this? Did he give names? Incidents? Examples?

If, if, if.
Click to expand...
Taylor seems like a trustworthy witness and truly worried and concerned. As you said, He didn't give names and that would have been a better defense for the Republicans then trying to find out who the Whistleblower is.

I also think it was "gaspworthy" when it was said that one of the conditions to get the aid was that the Ukraine President had to go on CNN and publicly bring up the Biden investigation.

CNN knew that there was suppose to be an interview and it was cancelled (edit "Fell apart") after the aid was let go (just after the Whistleblower spilled the beans.)

This thing isn't a trial, but definitely some smoke here, and not the big bore and nothing burger that some try to sell.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128, RockyTop85 and tvolsfan
#18,591
#18,591
hUTch2002 said:
So the person that heard the “bombshell” cell phone call from Kiev is talking to lawmakers behind closed doors today. My question is why? It has already been established that this person has important testimony so why start behind closed doors? I thought the point of these public hearings is transparency.
Click to expand...

This is how the legal process works - even in a quasi-legal case like impeachment. For starters, any potentially classified information needs to be shared in private. Second, the deposition process allows both parties the ability to do a deep dive into establishing material facts in the case.

This is the proper protocol.
 
#18,592
#18,592
Weezer said:
Not sure how ignoring reality is a desperately needed different perspective. It's okay to have feels, but never allow your feels to fuel delusion.
Click to expand...
Agree, that's why I base everything on rational and reasonable thought firmly rooted in reality.
I'm hoping it catches on.
 
#18,593
#18,593
JCP201 said:
Taylor seems like a trustworthy witness and truly worried and concerned. As you said, He didn't give names and that would have been a better defense for the Republicans then trying to find out who the Whistleblower is.

I also think it was "gaspworthy" when it was said that one of the conditions to get the aid was that the Ukraine President had to go on CNN and publicly bring up the Biden investigation.

CNN knew that there was suppose to be an interview and it was cancelled after the aid was let go (just after the Whistleblower spilled the beans.)

This thing isn't a trial, but definitely some smoke here, and not the big bore and nothing burger that some try to sell.
Click to expand...
Smoke, yes. But when all the major parties deny impropriety and the best they have is hearsay, I'm not sure you really have a case. But I'm not sure that matters either. I fully expect this to divide along party lines. I can't escape the feeling this is more political theater than actual inquiry.
 
#18,594
#18,594
I guess today marks the end of the hearsay defense.

Yovanovitch should be interesting and Taylor's aide will give first hand corroboration.
 
#18,596
#18,596
luthervol said:
Agree, that's why I base everything on rational and reasonable thought firmly rooted in reality.
I'm hoping it catches on.
Click to expand...
What's the rational reasonable thought behind denying Clinton did anything wrong when he admitted to breaking the law? Not sure how you can justify that and remain in reality, but I'm up for being entertained.
 
#18,598
#18,598
luthervol said:
I guess today marks the end of the hearsay defense.

Yovanovitch should be interesting and Taylor's aide will give first hand corroboration.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure an allegedly overheard conversation would be considered first hand. Actually being on the phone call would be first hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#18,599
#18,599
Weezer said:
Smoke, yes. But when all the major parties deny impropriety and the best they have is hearsay, I'm not sure you really have a case. But I'm not sure that matters either. I fully expect this to divide along party lines. I can't escape the feeling this is more political theater than actual inquiry.
Click to expand...
The CNN interview which had been set up for months and then "fell apart" once the aid was released verifies what Taylor told the congressmen. Trump is blocking the people who could give evidence, which IMO is obstruction and should also be illegal and an impeachable offense. (Even the hated Hilary sat before the congress for hours and gave testimony) If what Kent and Taylor testified is true, I do think this is far more serious than anything either Clinton, Nixon or Andrew Johnson did, but if you are a Republican in the house or Senate, that fool can do whatever he wants, which is disgusting and sets a terrible precedent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: samanderson and luthervol
#18,600
#18,600
hUTch2002 said:
So the person that heard the “bombshell” cell phone call from Kiev is talking to lawmakers behind closed doors today. My question is why? It has already been established that this person has important testimony so why start behind closed doors? I thought the point of these public hearings is transparency.
Click to expand...
So bug eyes can leak certain parts of it so it sounds really bad and the people don't get to hear the whole thing
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top