If Republicans are not ready to admit there was a quid pro quo...

No, I'm saying how it sounded to Zelenskiy.

 

You mean the quid pro quo that would have seen Hunter go to jail if it had been carried out? That quid pro quo?

 

You seem to have conveniently ignored what I said that already addresses what you are asking.

Since he does not have direct information, all that he has ever had is conjecture and opinion. Since he was allowed to ramble on unchallenged about his opinion, Republicans should be allowed to explore his perspective in forming that opinion.

To directly answer your question.....what is to be gained by cross examining the whistleblowers opinion, is to ascertain his political perspective when forming that opinion. If he were a dyed in the wool Republican, his opinion would tend to carry more weight. If he is an over the top Democrat whom has been pushing for impeachment since he was elected, that too would be very revealing. The public has a right to know how this person has come to the conclusions contained within their opinion. They have a right to assess that person's believability for themselves. This is the same reason that any defendant has a right to confront their accuser. If this person were a Republican, you can rest assured that Democrats would be more than happy to let him be cross examined in a public forum.

 

Actually I think the real motivation is to pull Trump back into line and stop him acting unilaterally

 

Fair enough.

 

Especially since there is a fair chance that the senate may swing to the democrats

 

Or, more precisely, the source(s) of the information that he used to form that opinion.

 

The same can be said for Republicans and Trumpettes who elected a criminal. You shouldn't have started the war. Now you are stuck with the blame and the consequences.

 

How are political affiliations or opinions relevant? No. That is not a naive question.

The whistleblower provided a road map to actions taken by the administration. Witnesses to the actions verified the road map. The administration took the actions, can they coherently defend them?

Presenting the incomplete memo to the public, the back channel crew, clearing those with the experience and expertise out of the way, the hiding of documents, and obfuscation.

Then explain how any of this behavior is to the country’s benefit without wiggling down a rabbit hole.

The whistleblower is only relevant if you can’t defend yourself as are the partisan claims and Ukraine conspiracy theories. It’s all they have, misdirection.

 

I feel as if I have already addressed every point that you have raised, but I will do so again......

If the whistleblower was a fact witness with first hand knowledge, and there was not any form of a transcript detailing what was said on the call, then presumably, the political affiliation of that whistleblower would be irrelevant in regards to the first hand facts being presented by that person. That isnt what occurred. This person has zero first hand knowledge, and the only thing of relevant that they had to offer was their opinion and interpretation of what they were told second hand. In truth, once the transcript was released, the whistleblower was irrelevant and should have never been called to testify. The problem is that they WERE called to testify on their opinion, without any form of cross examination, and then their opinion was selectively leaked to the public. Since they testified on their opinion, and their opinion is subsequently in the public sphere, the political affiliation is ABSOLUTELY relevant in regards to the perspective from which their opinion was emanating. When a tried of those facts (the public) is determining the credibility of their opinion, their political affiliation is EXTREMELY relevant in assessing their credibility.

The whistleblower provided their OPINION based on their interpretation of what they were told. Once the intelligence apparatus transcript was released, that person had no relevance. Schiff called them to tesify regardless, and their "opinion" was selectively leaked into the public sphere. Since their opinion was wrongly thrust into the debate, it is absolutely fair game to cross examine that person so that their credibility in expressing their opinion can be assessed.

 

Republicans are leaving.

Highly respected Republican rep Peter King from New York has quit. He gave the usual B.S.about wanting to spend more time with his family.

The 75-year-old Republican says he intends to still be politically active. So, why is he quitting? By resigning his post, he will have no impact on politics. There is only one possible explanation as to why the moderate Republican is quitting, and his name is Trump.

King is the 23rd House Republican who has quit or will quit in terms of the 2020 election. They join over 40 Republicans who quit before the 2018 election, providing the reason why Democrats took control of the House.

Politico reports, "Five sitting Republican senators have already announced their retirements."

 

Hmmmmm......perhaps because he is 75 YEARS OLD!!!

 

It is called testimony in a Congressional hearing, not opinion, and lying is federal offense.

Of course, witnesses should be cross-examined. Duh. No one has said anything different.

 

Except the Democrats and a number of people on this board, of course.

 

-Without first hand knowledge, all he had to offer is second hand information and conjecture as to what their source meant, neither of which is considered fact. His direct testimony was therefore solely an opinion.

-I was brought into this topic by responding to the OP questioning why Republicans want to cross examine him. .......Clearly someone HAS said something different. DUH.

 

Since I don't vote, I didn't start anything.

 

The only purpose of this impeachment is to attempt to hurt Trumps prospects for re-election. It may help. I tend to doubt it but I can't see the future.

 

According to the Ukrainian Presecutor-General's office there is no record of Hunter Biden ever being under investigation. Burshima's President was under investigation for mpney laundering. And Viktor Shokin, the Prosecutor-General who was fired was also investigation, for taking bribes and rigging investigations (That's why he was fired) But there is no record of Hunter Biden ever being investigated by the office. So Trump's claims that Shokin was fired to cover up an investigation into Hunter Biden have been proven false.

 

Well you have certainly trained the republicans on how deal with a president from the opposing party.

 

The Republican talking points to defend Trump are all over the various networks. This is the perfect thread for Trump's supporters to use those talking points.

But they have not. Moreover, I can't find them anywhere.

Why aren't Trump supporters using the Republican talking points to defend Trump? One answer is, they are useless. Those talking points will be overwhelmed by the mounting evidence, and, in one case, a talking point is ridiculous. It assumes that someone other than Trump is responsible for foreign affairs in the White House.

Conclusion: Trump's fans are smart enough to know the talking points are useless. I wonder when House Republicans will come to that conclusion.

 

Facing Trump's obvious guilt, the White House is tearing itself apart. The messy skirmish could be on full display this week.

The Post reports, "Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney has urged aides not to comply with the inquiry and blocked any cooperation with congressional Democrats. Top political aides at the Office of Management and Budget, which Mulvaney once led, have fallen in line with his defiant stance, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to talk freely about the behind the scenes developments.

"Mulvaney’s office blames White House counsel Pat Cipollone for not doing more to block other government officials from participating in the impeachment inquiry, as a number of State Department officials, diplomats, and an aide to Vice President Pence, have given sworn testimony to Congress.

"Cipollone, meanwhile, has fumed that Mulvaney has only made matters worse with his Oct. 17 news conference, when he publicly acknowledged a quid pro quo, essentially confirming Democrats’ accusations in front of television cameras and reporters, and Cipollone did not want Mulvaney to hold the news conference."

The Times writes, "Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, on Monday abruptly withdrew his effort to join a lawsuit over impeachment testimony after a sharp collision with his colleague, John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser.

"Mulvaney’s retreat came hours after a lawyer for Mr. Bolton argued in court papers that the acting chief of staff should not be allowed to jump into the existing lawsuit as a plaintiff because his interests are significantly different. The legal schism underscored a broader rift between Mulvaney, who facilitated Trump’s effort to pressure Ukraine, and Mr. Bolton, who tried to resist it."

Trump and his Republican defenders are feuding. Current and former state department officials will testify on camera this week, relaying their firsthand accounts claiming Trump withheld military aid to get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. Trump's own chief of staff confirmed that fact. On Twitter Trump warned his party that they should not “be led into the fools trap of saying it was not perfect, but is not impeachable.” Trump insists the call was "perfect."

Trump refuses to face reality. He incriminated himself as is proven in the transcript provided by the White House. The President cannot face that reality.

 

I have no idea who you are talking about.

But, I can say this, the witnesses worked for Trump. They are voicing what their superiors told them.

Are you saying there is no chain of command in the Trump government?

Taylor's instructions from SecState Pompeo are worthless. Is that what you are saying?

Are you saying the only viable witnesses are those who talk directly to Trump?

Then we have a problem because Trump will not allow people who speak directly to him to testify, Mulvaney, Bolton, others. There is only one reason. They will incriminate him. That is called Obstruction of Congress, a federal crime.

Are you saying the criminal behavior of the accused, Trump, is a defense?

 

wut? It was carried out.

 

Nope. But when it's done for personal gain it absolutely is.And trying to get a foreign government to open a bogus investigation on a political rival is that...and more.

 

Umm... well, I haven't seen any law about this. Any idea why this is somehow bad? We already know that Biden used it for monetary gain, but what's wrong with using it against a "political rival"?

Never heard of oppo research before? It seems you haven't, but let me assure you that it happens all the time. Just seems like now you invented a law that doesn't exist because your boy biden is being targetted.

So sorry, but conservatives love targetting hapless dems. So yeah, have fun with your impeachment. We will bury you in the general!