Don't worry Trump fans, the hearings are going great for Don (wink)

Objective reality suggests otherwise.

 

Abuse of power by one investigation agency does not excuse it for another. To think otherwise is just another example of third world tactics.

 

All that will prove is that his voters don't care what he does, not that he didn't do anything wrong. That won't even be a revelation of any sort, we already knew his voters don't care about who he is or how he acts or about dishonesty and corruption in politics when they elected him in 2016.

 

LOL, the useful idiots think that hearsay about hearsay is solid evidence. Just can't make this up.

 

If you honestly think the democrats gained ANY ground from yesterdays hearings, then you were not watching it unfold as there was NOTHING but hear say and basically complaints about Trumps foreign policy. Nothing stated gained any new ground on the investigation!

 

Whining about the process does not confront the substance of what is being exposed by credible, expert witnesses with impeccable credentials that the most rabid Trumpies cannot befoul.

Don't blame the RINOs of Trumpery in the hearing for their impotence.

​

 

Schiff’s two star witnesses don’t have any facts, only opinion.

No first hand knowledge, only second, third.

Neither could identify a crime or wrongdoing, not even an opinion about that.

This is falling apart on the 1st day.

 

Trump worshipers must take solace in the GOP-run Senate's having already refused to punish the messiah no matter what is exposed, but, ultimately, the American public is the jury, and the truth that is being revealed in the inquiry (as well as what Trump needs to conceal by gagging relevant witnesses) will be the determinant of its verdict in November, 2020.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/​

 

So the same tactics in investigation without the transparency everyone is screaming for, or efforts for evidence of bipartisan view of crime and punishment, are ones you oppose by any investigatory agency including the sheriffs office, and the local police dept as well as the FBI, is that correct? I assume you expect the local police to release its transcripts from interviews in real time and invite the attorneys of any suspect along and maybe an operative of each party, while they look at the crime scene, talk to the medical examiner, the forensic scientists, make initial contact with every potential witness, depose each and every one of them etc. These 'third world' tactics are the way investigations go forth in every single country on the planet including Scotland Yard and the Gendarmerie nationale.

 

Lee, I waited until today because I wanted you to digest the shitshow the democrats presented to the American public. Even you being an unbiased observer had to feel sorry for the way Adam Schiffforbrains presented his "case". Schiffforbrains allowing Jim Jordan to tear his witnesses to shreds was hysterical. The mike drop of the day was Schiffforbrains exclaiming "I do not know the mane of the whistleblower".
The incompetence and buffonery they presented yesterday surpassed their previous FUBAR, the Kavanaugh hearings which was only surpassed by the Muller Report.
I suspect instead of the usual suspects defending yesterdays comedy act with dozens of anti-trump posts, they will take a sabbatical of shame and wait a week or two before posting anything.

 

In your dreams. The value of "second hand" knowledge is dependent on the credibility of one providing that information. These were highly credible witnesses. The Republicans failed to have either witness to show any trace of partisanship. Nor were they able to make charges of being "star witnesses" to the impeachment process. It was humorous watching the sometime laughable attempt to get Ambassador Taylor to say the second path state department Guiliani et. al. was okay. It was a very bad day for Republicans.

A bit of advice, because they really need it, if Republicans keep beating the "where's the whistleblower" drum it will backfire with the public.

 

Is that the best you can do? Point out a travesty and you call it whining. So far the "expert witnesses" contributed nothing but hearsay, not allowed in any reputable court room.

Yes. I do expect it.

 

Now that the congressional inquiry has reached the public stage for which the RINOs of Trumpery claimed to be so eager, they should back up their insistence on transparency by calling upon Fake Don to stop concealing relevant information that insiders such as Bolton, Mulvaney, etc. could provide.

His gagging them contradicts the pretense of openness.

Where did Fake Don get all that duct tape? Was it confiscated from drug kingpins?

"Women are tied up, they're bound, duct tape put around their faces,
around their mouths! In many cases, they can't even breathe!
They're put in the backs of cars or vans or trucks... I mean, you have
hundreds of miles of open space, and they go out there, and they're
loaded up with drugs or they have women in the backseat of the cars
with duct tape all over the place!"
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fact-check-trumps-tales-duct-taped-women-prayer/story?id=60723806​

 

If you need to tell yourself that, you'll just have to go with it.

Please bear in mind that this is a congressional inquiry.

 

LOL, no direct knowledge and hearsay.

 

Do you deny that hearsay evidence is not allowed in a courtroom or the defense is not allowed to call witnesses of its own choosing?

 

LOL, hearsay about hearsay. No direct knowledge. Never even met Trump.

 

Just keep telling yourself that.

 

I come here often in an effort to understand the conservative mindset. What makes conservatives cling to ideas that don't square with reality. I'm starting to think that it starts in childhood. When I was growing up, I was always bothered that my dad and brothers tended to "remember" things differently than I did. Being a natural scientist, I took to detail note taking to use in future comparisons. Sure enough, in almost every instance, they only recalled bits and pieces which they linked together to align with what they wanted the story to be. Over the years, I have had a lot of fun, slapping them upside the head with reality, and watching them squirm, often reacting as you are over Trump's impeachment.

 

What was new and what was damming? The part where they heard about Trump nefarious acts or the part where they disagreed with Trumps foreign policy?

 

Whether "hearsay evidence" is allowed in a courtroom or in a Lutheran synod is irrelevant.
A Congressional inquiry is neither.

In a criminal trial, neither the defense nor the prosecution is allowed to call irrelevant witnesses. The presiding judge decides.

E.g., If a defendant's counsel conveys his client's hope that Beyoncé be called to testify at his trial, and there is no reason to believe she has anything relevant to contribute, the judge will not entertain his frivolous desire to have the entertainer make a personal appearance.

Should those who are likely to have relevant information in this inquiry - e.g., Bolton or Mulvaney - be allowed to share what they know?

Of course. That is clearly in pursuance of truth.

 

I suspect you tend to lean a bit to the left so please help me understand how you could watch the Kavanaugh debacle filled with made up "first hand accounts", No corroboratine witnesses, in fact witnesses to the contrary, no dates, times, places, or anyone else present at the time, the Mueller Report Russian interference hoax which turned out to be a complete flop for the democrats, and now all the second and third hand accounts of their impressions of Trump bribing the Ukraine and absolutely no plans to present Eric Ciaramella's second hand account of his early on collusion with Shiffforbrains who by coincidence, claimed he doesn't even know the guy.
Even the furthest left of lefties has to sit down and say WTF are we doing.
Just a side note, EVERY SINGLE deal the US or any other country makes with another country be it aid or trade, has conditions attached. Both of us know that to be true.

 

It is not allowed for a very good reason. It is not reliable.

 

Hearsay is a perfectly acceptable means of ascertaining the truth - as is the purpose of a congressional inquiry.

"Sorry, Mam. I can't take your claiming that a murderer is breaking your door down seriously,
even if you scream it, because whatever you tell me becomes "hearsay."​

 

The Extortioner in Chief said the call was "perfect." If true...why is he blocking members of his staff that played a prominent role in the extortion scheme...