WATCH LIVE: Public Impeachment Hearings

Nothing we heard today from these witnesses would be admissible in a court of law. All hearsay and conjecture. That is not evidence, that is a smear campaign.

 

Because people like you keep covering dems/libs crime.Just compare how this major scandal was covered by the liberal press.

Not All Foreign-Influence Scandals Are Created Equal

Two decades ago, the media weren’t obsessed with Chinese interference in a presidential election.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017...ton-reelection-campaign-media-downplayed/amp/

 

So quantify and qualify your legal knowledge with respect to his

 

Yup

 

It has been very hard to watch. Maybe they will have a "surprise" witness for us. One can only hope.

 

I tend to agree... until Sondland... he's the guy who can get Trump directly on the phone, seemingly day or night..

Trump will be impeached.. Sondland will determine who comes along for the ride..

 

I'm still partial to my Greta Thunberg suggestion.

A few "how dare you's" would at least wake everyone up.

 

At least you've been consistent in all your predictions.

 

You will let me know when we are in a court of law and I will let you know when you can raise those objections.

 

And wake up president the next day.
Enjoy

 

The voters will tell you when you can enjoy another 4 years.
Bunch of butthurt, shreiking freaks, losing their collective minds for 4 years is not going to go unnoticed

 

Well. First day yielded a giant turd for the D's.

It was a bit like Mueller testifying!

 

I am sure the Nightly News will paint a different picture.

 

Here's the other key fact Democrats are avoiding:

Ukraine got a new government in April.

 

So general thoughts on the questioning and witnesses.

Bill Taylor and George Kent were both very credible witnesses who made their opinions known and facts disclosed while trying to limit themselves from venturing into the opinions or beliefs of others. George Kent was better for me because he was more decisive in his answers, but Bill Taylor carried a bit more gravitas. I particularly liked George Kent's pushback against the "anti-corruption statement," by noting that it was not an anti-corruption statement given that Giuliani demanded that it must include a reference to Burisma Oil.

I thought the lead counsel for the Democrats was one of the best questioners of the day. He knew the answers he wanted and he got the witnesses there quickly and directly while also allowing them to expand on their beliefs when it benefited. On the other hand, the counsel for the Republicans was one of the worst. He asked about information which would require speculation outside of the purview of the witnesses and they made that clear very early, but he continued. The most damning that he got was that some of the decisions were "not as outrageous as they could have been."

In terms of the Congressmen, I thought Schiff was one of the best on the Democratic side. His opening and closings presented clear and damning summaries of the investigation and he also handled parlamentary inquiries (i.e. attempts to disrupt) with ease. I also thoroughly enjoyed Quigley who focused on the obstruction side and basically said, "If Republicans want to bitch and moan about process, then join us by demanding that Trump stop stonewalling the release of documents and witnesses." I also liked Val Demings who got both witnesses to very clearly state that they believed Giuliani's interest in Ukraine was to dig up dirt on Trump's domestic political rival to help Trump's re-election campaign in 2020.

On the Republican side, I thoroughly appreciated the questioning (and the grandstanding speeches) from Jim Jordan. I knew the move to add him to the Intelligence Committee was a good call and that opinion was further enforced by the failures of Devin Nunes. His closing statement was pathetic and I have no idea why he felt he had to limit himself to under two minutes.

Oh, but I did love the response from Peter Welch after the grandstanding speech from Jordan about not being able to hear from the person who started it all and Welch immediately reacted by saying, "I would love to hear from the man who started it all. Let's get Donald Trump under oath and sitting at that table right there."

 

2018 and last Tuesday demonstrates that the voters have been trying to send you a message too.

Enjoy watching more Republicans "retire" rather than risk electoral defeat and enjoy voting for an impeached President.

 

They're playing Chinese whispers on the Hill today

 

No doubt.

 

That was referencing explicitly and repeatedly throughout the entirety of the hearing today.

 

Well, that was entertaining...

 

There is a process { in the case of Mulvaney } to fight a subpoena.
Like being served the day before.That is objectionable.Unfair and
not abiding proper notice.

 

Mulvaney isn’t fighting, he’s just refusing

 

Well said and generally agree...

Schiff is miles above anybody on either side on that committee... he's calm and very well spoken... he did make a mistake early with his objection, but it was a minor issue. I can easily see why the cons on here fear him and cut him down daily. I would, if I were on that side..

Welch awesome line.. Swalwell usually OK, but he sucked today.. Didn't like Castro either. If they kept it to Goldman and Schiff all day for all important remaining witnesses, that would be an improvement...

All R's except Jordan and Ratcliffe immediately forgettable... except maybe the departing Will Hurd... he seemed like he was trying to get a few answers...

Yovanovitch needs to be more emotional, and it will be, but she won't move any needles on the impeachment question. I'm not 100% sure why she's even coming in, except more background on Ukraine...

Cheers

 

X-Posted from my other thread:

So general thoughts on the questioning and witnesses.

Bill Taylor and George Kent were both very credible witnesses who made their opinions known and facts disclosed while trying to limit themselves from venturing into the opinions or beliefs of others. George Kent was better for me because he was more decisive in his answers, but Bill Taylor carried a bit more gravitas. I particularly liked George Kent's pushback against the "anti-corruption statement," by noting that it was not an anti-corruption statement given that Giuliani demanded that it must include a reference to Burisma Oil.

I thought the lead counsel for the Democrats was one of the best questioners of the day. He knew the answers he wanted and he got the witnesses there quickly and directly while also allowing them to expand on their beliefs when it benefited. On the other hand, the counsel for the Republicans was one of the worst. He asked about information which would require speculation outside of the purview of the witnesses and they made that clear very early, but he continued. The most damning that he got was that some of the decisions were "not as outrageous as they could have been."

In terms of the Congressmen, I thought Schiff was one of the best on the Democratic side. His opening and closings presented clear and damning summaries of the investigation and he also handled parlamentary inquiries (i.e. attempts to disrupt) with ease. I also thoroughly enjoyed Quigley who focused on the obstruction side and basically said, "If Republicans want to bitch and moan about process, then join us by demanding that Trump stop stonewalling the release of documents and witnesses." I also liked Val Demings who got both witnesses to very clearly state that they believed Giuliani's interest in Ukraine was to dig up dirt on Trump's domestic political rival to help Trump's re-election campaign in 2020.

On the Republican side, I thoroughly appreciated the questioning (and the grandstanding speeches) from Jim Jordan. I knew the move to add him to the Intelligence Committee was a good call and that opinion was further enforced by the failures of Devin Nunes. His closing statement was pathetic and I have no idea why he felt he had to limit himself to under two minutes.

Oh, but I did love the response from Peter Welch after the grandstanding speech from Jordan about not being able to hear from the person who started it all and Welch immediately reacted by saying, "I would love to hear from the man who started it all. Let's get Donald Trump under oath and sitting at that table right there."

 

I agree Schiff can come across well in his presentation, but he has a lot of baggage in his history of lies about Trump. Schiff is a material witness to this and shouldn't even be chair of his committee.