The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump

[CoudyBills]

Seems pretty clear that Roberts and the Democrats are engaging in a huge cover up.  Let's here from this "whitsleblower".  

[CoudyBills]

15 hours ago, Tiberius said:

You are cranky today. Trump presidency is swirling the bowl 

To Putin? 

Is that really all you have?  Are you capable of intelligent debate?  The thetas need to dig deeper.  

[BillsFanNC]

30 minutes ago, CoudyBills said:

Is that really all you have?  Are you capable of intelligent debate?  The thetas need to dig deeper.  

 

The vast majority of the board has him on ignore precisely because he has proved countless times that he is incapable of the bolded.  I'd encourage you to do the same.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

14 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

This is why @Bob in Mich and GarBoTibs (plus others who have run under rocks since 2018) fail to understand because they've never stopped to understand the full context. That's one reason, of many, why they're so lost. They still do not understand that Trump/Russia was a lie weaponized by the White House and the DNC in order to interfere in the 2016 election (and then, after they lost, to launch a palace coup). They still think that's "conspiracy theory" while they cling to a now proven debunked "conspiracy theory" that Trump was a Russian asset who helped them steal the election. 

 

And rather than do the work themselves, reading the multiple IG reports, Mueller report, two House reports, and Senate report that prove this to be truth beyond all shadow of a doubt -- they scoff at it and revel in their own ignorance like a pig in *****. 

 

I'd feel bad for them if they didn't scorn every attempt to show them the light over the past 4 years. Now, it's just fun to point out their ignorance and watch them run from it like a Vampire running from a cross. 

 

 

 

 

 

I don’t think it’s a failure to understand.  I think it’s an acceptance of weaponization for political purposes.  It’s like Pats fans accepting wrongdoing arguing it was worth it, or Oprah claiming weight loss victories when none seem to exist. @Bob in Mich writes down thread about “perspective”, and advocating for witnesses.  Using a true crime analogy to match some that he referenced earlier, there was no “perspective” issue with the Brown/Goldman crime, there was simply a crime and the ensuing chaos.

 

3 years. $30m+. Doors kicked in. Unlimited investigative power. Mueller House Managers clearly political advocates for the candidate who lost.  And....nothing splashed on Trump.  The Accusers were either staggeringly incompetent (like Columbus setting off for the New World and ending up in Barcelona), or, well weaponization for political gain to gut the elected President.  Not to overstate the obvious, but they’re pimping one of the chief co-conspirators as a leading candidate for pres. 

[Nanker]

Engaging those dolts in a conversation is a Sisyphean task. Yet posters here engage them regularly and after a long, long string of back and forth posts, express frustration that the dolts just don’t get it, lack intellectual honesty, or are goalpost movers. 
 

You’re being played. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

13 minutes ago, Nanker said:

Engaging those dolts in a conversation is a Sisyphean task. Yet posters here engage them regularly and after a long, long string of back and forth posts, express frustration that the dolts just don’t get it, lack intellectual honesty, or are goalpost movers. 
 

You’re being played. 

Sometimes it sharpens the saw for discussions.  Good to know how the opposition frames the argument.  

 

Plus I ain't no sisyphean, which obviously is Greek for sissy.  Nice try making it sound cool. 

[Foxx]

impressions/thoughts on yesterday's question and answer session.

 

i could be wrong but i thought the questions were pretty much evenly divided between the House Managers and the WHC. while both sides had their 'prepared' questions delivered, i thought that the House Managers presentation as quite a bit more orchestrated than the WHC. again, without having looked at the twitterverse to gauge reaction , i could be wrong but i don't know that either side won or lost yesterday. i thought they both had their good moments and bad.

 

i thought the WHC was cruising along and doing quite well until Sekulow took those two questions just before dinner break where he appeared quite impassioned and stated unequivocally that if they called witnesses, they were going to keep the Senators there an awful long time. it may have been a true statement and i don't think me meant it that way, however, to me at least, it came off as somewhat of a threat.

 

after the dinner break, i thought Schiffty had a pretty good couple of answers. it was here he offered that Roberts had the authoirty to rule on a myriad of items and to abide by whatever the Chief Justice ruled, on anything, and asked if the WHC would do the same. while it was just another ploy to goad the WHC and Trump into giving up their constitutional rights, i thought it played strongly.

 

anytime Nadler takes the spotlight, it is bad for the Dems, it is funny to watch him sit at the table for HM council and watch him either sleeping or just staring out into space, no one and i mean no one talks to him except when he is getting council from the lawyers before going to the podium. i don't like Demmings demeanor. Jeffries never answered a question asked. he sidestepped each time. i thought Crow was okay on his time at the podium. i didn't like Garcia, she is too wrote and reads only from the prepared notes. i think Lofgren is probably their best presenter.

 

for the WHC, Cippilone spoke once and did nothing out of the ordinary, Sekulow spoke 4 or 5 times and outside of those two opines just before the dinner break did okay, though on the ones after, i was cringing a bit waiting for him to do something stupid. Dershowitz i think was 50/50. i don't agree with his argument that a president can't be impeached for abuse of power. neither did Schiffty and took Alan down a couple times on it. he did have a particularly strong argument in his last appearance of the night however.

 

Philbin was the star of the night for the president. though he may be somewhat dry, i think he comes across as knowledgeable and even tempered. he spoke often and it was probably a good thing as he kept responding to the questions with smart, well balanced and reasoned opines. i hope we see more of him today.

 

i don't know where the direction of the mindset of the Senators is going as far as witnesses, based upon the questions asked yesterday. i saw it reported somewhere yesterday though that while McConnell didn't think he had the votes to deny, he thought that by the time came for the vote that he might have the numbers.

 

all in all... what a boring ***** day.

Edited January 30, 2020 by Foxx

[Gary M]

 

[B-Man]

 

Historians must add asterisk calling this a farcical partisan impeachment

 

 

It’s Time to Pull the Plug on the Impeachment Farce

by John Hinderaker

 

Original Article

 

Mitch McConnell set up the rules for the Senate’s current impeachment hearing so that there would be an early vote on whether to call witnesses, or simply proceed to an up or down vote on impeachment. Either way, the result is foreordained, just as the impeachment process itself was foreordained when the Democrats captured the House in 2018. The president will be exonerated. The vote on whether to proceed with witnesses apparently will take place on Friday.

 

 

.

[Tiberius]

This is truly insane: 

 

 

Quote

that, “If a president does something, which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

So the Plumbers breaking into the Democrats HQ in 1972 to bug the phones was ok, because Nixon just wanted to win. They are trying to kill the Republic 

[B-Man]

 

Justice Roberts blocks Sen. Paul from naming whistleblower, source says -- and Paul may force the issue

by Gregg Re *

 

Original Article

 

Chief Justice Roberts blocked Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul from posing a question during the Senate impeachment trial that would have named the alleged whistleblower at the center of the episode, Fox News is told--and Paul may try to force the issue during the question-and-answer session that begins Thursday afternoon.

 

 

.

[Tiberius]

Crazy 

 

defense against impeachment

 

 

Attorneys argue that nearly any action is not impeachable if it’s in the public interest

The assertion from Alan Dershowitz, one of the attorneys representing President Trump, seemed to take GOP senators by surprise, and few were willing to embrace his argument.

• By Erica Werner, Karoun Demirjian and Elise Viebeck

[B-Man]

 

 

Major OOPSIE: House Managers’ argument about timing on Trump’s interest in Biden contradicts whistleblower’s claims

 

 

Wednesday was by far one of the worst (if not THE worst) days of the Impeachment trial for Democrats, and especially House Managers who made it all too clear they have no real case against Trump and they never have. Beyond their silly emotional preening about EVIL president this, what about the Constitution that, their actual facts don’t even line up.

 

And in some instances even completely contradict the whistleblower’s claims:

 

 

So was the whistleblower lying?

 

Or are the House Managers just full of it?

 

Probably both.

 

 

.

[B-Man]

The Schiff impeachment circus run should end this week

 

 

We are approaching the witching hour in the Senate impeachment trial. It could all but end this week, or go on for weeks or months, depending on which way the media wind blows a handful of wobbly Republican Senators.

 

So far, the impeachment process has been a bad faith effort by Adam Schiff and crew, and that’s being charitable towards him.

 

As noted by me and others, Schiff’s strategy has been to ‘Kavanaugh’ the trial, to drag the process out by serial supposed ‘bombshells’ exploited for the purpose of justifying calling witnesses Schiff either never subpoenaed or never sought to compel the testimony of in the House.

 

It’s an attempt to make the trial process so miserable and chaotic that it becomes political punishment. It has zero to do with finding the truth, which is something Democrats never sought through their biased House process.

 

 

 

.

[Bob in Mich]

16 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Fair enough on the 40 replies, fair enough on the lengthy posts I send in return.  I simply see these issues as all intertwined, I see a pattern, and if I did not, I might well agree with you on some of these issues.  Feel free to screw up the grammar, even if I talk behind your back no one would know. 

 

OJ question--I thought the analogy was lacking and had nothing to do with the situation.  That said, if OJ was charged with another crime, he should be investigated and charged as the facts played out.  His acquittal in the Nicole/Goldman case should have no bearing on the investigation of a crime if they find his bloody gloves and Bruno Maglia (sp?) shoe prints at the scene of a crime in 2020. 

 

We reach an impasse on the House hearing v. the Senate.  In one of your emails, you seemed to suggest the Senate should disregard precedent and all parties should seek the truth.  The Rs are on record as to complaining about the House process, the heavy-handed approach to their request for consideration and their perception that that portion of the process was demonstrably unfair.  Still, if you feel the Dems were fair, and followed the rules to the letter and did not selectively leak and mislead the public on key issues, that's fine.  Regardless, I simply state let's do the same in the Senate.  If the majority can close out without witnesses, without breaking the law they should do so.  That's the beauty of the majority. 

 

And while we're at it, what happened to Brett Kavanaugh was a disgrace and you should stand with me on that issue.  If not, you're supporting oppression and tyranny, and your grammar sucks. ?

 

 

Lucky Strike, thanks for the reply and the replying to my OJ analogy.  It is a work in progress I admit, but the salient similar points:

 

- OJ underwent a massive investigation that cost taxpayers $Millions

- Same for Trump

-OJ was acquitted of charges but a lot of suspicion of his possible guilt remained

-Similar for Trump

-The investigations and eventual trial put OJ through a very difficult process personally that damaged his reputation

-Same for Trump

-OJ and his supporters claim now that those that still investigate/watch him are harassing him even though he was acquitted

- Same for Trump

-OJ's detractors claim the guy is a criminal who needs to be watched closely for future crimes

- Similar for Trump detractors

 

The point then that I was making is that you claim that Trump should not be investigated by Congress going forward just because Mueller did not charge him after that massive previous investigation. 

 

Try to follow here, but that logic put to OJ would be like saying OJ should not be investigated if there are any new allegations because he was already acquitted after a massive investigation that has put him through hell. 

 

Regarding closing out the trial without witnesses, it appears you will get your wish.  As I posted before, the impact on Trump is obvious and immediate.  Remains to be seen the future impact on the campaigns of the deaf and blind Repub Senators.  Americans have short memories though so maybe none.

 

Kavanaugh...we talked about this issue previously and I gave you my honest though limited take.  I recall I had a question for you on that that you never answered.  I will look for that but probably enough for one posting anyway

[Bob in Mich]

52 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Crazy 

 

defense against impeachment

 

 

Attorneys argue that nearly any action is not impeachable if it’s in the public interest

The assertion from Alan Dershowitz, one of the attorneys representing President Trump, seemed to take GOP senators by surprise, and few were willing to embrace his argument.

• By Erica Werner, Karoun Demirjian and Elise Viebeck

 

Dersh, who just a day or so earlier was hailed as a savior for the Repub Sens, sort of came off as a bit kooky yesterday, imo.  Much tougher today for those Sens to say, 'well I believe Dersh, he's an expert'. 

 

At one point I think I understood him to say that all these so called experts have their constitutional opinions flipped by money, politics, and power.  Fair enough.  Those Clinton hearing videos pretty much show that with lots of politicians. 

 

The funny part to me though is that Alan's position has flipped too as evidenced by a 1999 video of him.  He claims however that he didn't flip.  He claims that he just now knows more and is really the only expert that has resisted the affects of money and power. 

[B-Man]

 

 

The Senator is correct..........

 

 

 

.

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Dersh, who just a day or so earlier was hailed as a savior for the Repub Sens, sort of came off as a bit kooky yesterday, imo.  Much tougher today for those Sens to say, 'well I believe Dersh, he's an expert'. 

 

At one point I think I understood him to say that all these so called experts have their constitutional opinions flipped by money, politics, and power.  Fair enough.  Those Clinton hearing videos pretty much show that with lots of politicians. 

 

The funny part to me though is that Alan's position has flipped too as evidenced by a 1999 video of him.  He claims however that he didn't flip.  He claims that he just now knows more and is really the only expert that has resisted the affects of money and power. 

He also said OJ Simpson was not guilty! He also helped that scum bag Jeffery Epstein get off with a slap on the wrist. He is a cancer 

[CoudyBills]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Crazy 

 

defense against impeachment

 

 

Attorneys argue that nearly any action is not impeachable if it’s in the public interest

The assertion from Alan Dershowitz, one of the attorneys representing President Trump, seemed to take GOP senators by surprise, and few were willing to embrace his argument.

• By Erica Werner, Karoun Demirjian and Elise Viebeck

Complete misrepresentation of what he said.  Very trash eating bum worthy.  Good job bro.  

[Albwan]

   Why don't they bring Bolton and the Bidens criminal family on...Bolton has already 

agreed with Trump by stating it was a good phone call on tape...back pedaling will make him a liar...

Do it !!!

 

[Albwan]

2 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

The vast majority of the board has him on ignore precisely because he has proved countless times that he is incapable of the bolded.  I'd encourage you to do the same.

he/she/it is a big time d-bag, a lonely creep just trying to get attention.

[B-Man]

THIS SCHIFF SCHARADE

Yesterday during the question and answer portion of the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, Senators Josh Hawley and Jerry Moran submitted a question for Chief Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff regarding the “whistleblower” who set the train in motion. The gist of the question: “Where’s Waldo Whistleblower?”

 

Everyone in Washington knows who he is, if not where he is. Schiff knows. The senators wondered about his past work with Joe Biden and sought details. Schiff, however, kept up his charade. He responded to the question in the well of the Senate (video below): “I don’t know who the whistleblower is. I haven’t met them [sic] or communicated with them [sic] in any way.”

 

Fox News has a good account of the question and answer along with relevant background here. Schiff’s Republican colleagues in the House commented on Twitter. Lee Zeldin has made this his pinned tweet: “There’s a ZERO percent chance Adam Schiff doesn’t know the identity of the whistleblower. How does he lie so easily? It’s really quite remarkable. He’s prosecuting the Pres of the United States in front of the Chief Justice & these lies just keep flowing right out of his mouth.”

 

Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee colleague Elise Stefanik commented to the same effect: “Stunning that Adam Schiff lies to millions of Americans when he says he doesn’t know the identity of the whistleblower. He absolutely knows the identity of the whistleblower because he coordinated with the individual before the whistleblower’s complaint! His staff helped write it!”

 

Schiff implies that a “conspiracy theory” lies behind the question, though it os a theory with considerably more substance to it than the Trump-Russia collusion hoax that Schiff himself peddled until the “whistleblower” took the baton.

 

 

.

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, Albwan said:

   Why don't they bring Bolton and the Bidens criminal family on...Bolton has already 

agreed with Trump by stating it was a good phone call on tape...back pedaling will make him a liar...

Do it !!!

 

Because it will all take months and not change anyone’s mind. It’s painfully obvious by this thread that those who think Trump is guilty of using foreign aid to influence an election use different rules/excuses/justifications for Democrats versus Republicans. 

[Rob's House]

3 hours ago, CoudyBills said:

Seems pretty clear that Roberts and the Democrats are engaging in a huge cover up.  Let's here from this "whitsleblower".  

 

John "How Will I Look" Roberts has always been more concerned with his image than the law.

[B-Man]

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

Because it will all take months and not change anyone’s mind.

 

It’s painfully obvious by this thread that those who think Trump is guilty of using foreign aid to influence an election use different rules/excuses/justifications for Democrats versus Republicans. 

 

 

................?

 

 

 

.

[Foxx]

i think Roberts has overstepped his authority here.

https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1222699882986835968

 

[Tiberius]

26 minutes ago, CoudyBills said:

Complete misrepresentation of what he said.  Very trash eating bum worthy.  Good job bro.  

Clarify (obfuscate, really)  what he said then. 

[Bob in Mich]

20 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

We've had to put up with people here for so long that just don't know the facts but have a gigantic fervor based on their feelings. Time and time again people like gator, gary, bob, TH3, etc. kick up shitstorms based on ignorance that it causes any new poster like Margarita to be suspect. As I've said in the past, this forum's usefulness is not so much in giving a person the opportunity to spout off but first the opportunity to listen and learn. We are all mini teachers here but the true value is that we are all much more learners if we take that opportunity. Those of us that realize that, despise people who don't even understand the subject or the players but expect to teach the rest of us. 

 

3rd, I think I found a clip of you on the internet.  Henry, if I can call you that, never met you but this MUST be you.

 

And, as a reminder, I haven't seen yet that you replied to my 'simple question', or have you?

 

(Note, not safe for work due to the F word. About 2 minute clip of movie 'Dream Team')

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H7xlkKEJak

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rob's House]

2 hours ago, Foxx said:

impressions/thoughts on yesterday's question and answer session.

 

i could be wrong but i thought the questions were pretty much evenly divided between the House Managers and the WHC. while both sides had their 'prepared' questions delivered, i thought that the House Managers presentation as quite a bit more orchestrated than the WHC. again, without having looked at the twitterverse to gauge reaction , i could be wrong but i don't know that either side won or lost yesterday. i thought they both had their good moments and bad.

 

i thought the WHC was cruising along and doing quite well until Sekulow took those two questions just before dinner break where he appeared quite impassioned and stated unequivocally that if they called witnesses, they were going to keep the Senators there an awful long time. it may have been a true statement and i don't think me meant it that way, however, to me at least, it came off as somewhat of a threat.

 

after the dinner break, i thought Schiffty had a pretty good couple of answers. it was here he offered that Roberts had the authoirty to rule on a myriad of items and to abide by whatever the Chief Justice ruled, on anything, and asked if the WHC would do the same. while it was just another ploy to goad the WHC and Trump into giving up their constitutional rights, i thought it played strongly.

 

anytime Nadler takes the spotlight, it is bad for the Dems, it is funny to watch him sit at the table for HM council and watch him either sleeping or just staring out into space, no one and i mean no one talks to him except when he is getting council from the lawyers before going to the podium. i don't like Demmings demeanor. Jeffries never answered a question asked. he sidestepped each time. i thought Crow was okay on his time at the podium. i didn't like Garcia, she is too wrote and reads only from the prepared notes. i think Lofgren is probably their best presenter.

 

for the WHC, Cippilone spoke once and did nothing out of the ordinary, Sekulow spoke 4 or 5 times and outside of those two opines just before the dinner break did okay, though on the ones after, i was cringing a bit waiting for him to do something stupid. Dershowitz i think was 50/50. i don't agree with his argument that a president can't be impeached for abuse of power. neither did Schiffty and took Alan down a couple times on it. he did have a particularly strong argument in his last appearance of the night however.

 

Philbin was the star of the night for the president. though he may be somewhat dry, i think he comes across as knowledgeable and even tempered. he spoke often and it was probably a good thing as he kept responding to the questions with smart, well balanced and reasoned opines. i hope we see more of him today.

 

i don't know where the direction of the mindset of the Senators is going as far as witnesses, based upon the questions asked yesterday. i saw it reported somewhere yesterday though that while McConnell didn't think he had the votes to deny, he thought that by the time came for the vote that he might have the numbers.

 

all in all... what a boring ***** day.

 

I believe what Dershowitz was saying is not that the President could never be removed for any abuse of power, but that simply meeting a bare abuse of power threshold is not necessarily sufficient criteria and lacks the requisite specificity.

 

He could have fleshed that out better. He sounded more like he was arguing to the bench rather than the jury.

 

That makes since because [most of] the Senators making the decision are more analogous to a legally savvy judge than lay jurors, but in this situation he needs to break it down to sell it to the lay public as well.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

9 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

3rd, I think I found a clip of you on the internet.  Henry, if I can call you that, never met you but this MUST be you.

 

And, as a reminder, I haven't seen yet that you replied to my 'simple question', or have you?

 

(Note, not safe for work due to the F word. About 2 minute clip of movie 'Dream Team')

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H7xlkKEJak

 

Don't look now, Bob, but you're doing precisely what you accuse others of doing. Hounding them for not answering questions (a move you mastered). 

 

Your hypocrisy is only matched by your lack of understanding about basic facts.  

[Bob in Mich]

4 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

How would rooting out corruption in an ally be against national policy? 

 

 

I have maintained that without more documents or witnesses Trump defenders can find a defensible position which will be near impossible to disprove.  Claiming his motivation was not for political purposes but was for the national good, is the story and they are sticking to it. 

 

The question I have is : how close are these defensible positions to the actual truth ?  I would like to know the actual truth and whether or not Trump will continue to use foreign governments to attack his political opponents.  Is that now OK for all candidates to do?

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I have maintained that without more documents or witnesses Trump defenders can find a defensible position which will be near impossible to disprove. 

 

The standard is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent Bob. That's not Trump defenders, that's the constitution. The document you're smearing because you're too stupid to think for yourself and too emotional to hold a thought in your head other than "ORANGE MAN BAD!"

 

You're a good little NPC. 

 

3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Claiming his motivation was not for political purposes but was for the national good, is the story and they are sticking to it. 

 

That's what the evidence says. 

 

The evidence you're ignoring or ignorant of (have you figured out why the IC IG matters? Or did you just continue on in ignorance after it was pointed out to you that you should look into that?)

 

4 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

The question I have is : how close are these defensible positions to the actual truth ?  I would like to know the actual truth and whether or not Trump will continue to use foreign governments to attack his political opponents.  Is that now OK for all candidates to do?

 

You had ZERO problem with it when Clinton/Obama used foreign governments (Russia, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and France) to spy on and attack their political opponents. Why didn't you scream and hoot and holler then, Bob? 

 

Could it be that your'e full of *****? Or is it that you're completely uniformed? 

 

(Spoiler alert: It's both)

[Foxx]

https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1222680628447076353

 

[Rob's House]

20 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

3rd, I think I found a clip of you on the internet.  Henry, if I can call you that, never met you but this MUST be you.

 

And, as a reminder, I haven't seen yet that you replied to my 'simple question', or have you?

 

(Note, not safe for work due to the F word. About 2 minute clip of movie 'Dream Team')

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H7xlkKEJak

 

What was the question?

[Foxx]

11 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

I believe what Dershowitz was saying is not that the President could never be removed for any abuse of power, but that simply meeting a bare abuse of power threshold is not necessarily sufficient criteria and lacks the requisite specificity.

 

He could have fleshed that out better. He sounded more like he was arguing to the bench rather than the jury.

 

That makes since because [most of] the Senators making the decision are more analogous to a legally savvy judge than lay jurors, but in this situation he needs to break it down to sell it to the lay public as well.

i agree, the specificity is very weak in these articles. and as you say, perhaps Dersh was not orating very well to the target that matters most.

[Rob's House]

9 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I have maintained that without more documents or witnesses Trump defenders can find a defensible position which will be near impossible to disprove.  Claiming his motivation was not for political purposes but was for the national good, is the story and they are sticking to it. 

 

The question I have is : how close are these defensible positions to the actual truth ?  I would like to know the actual truth and whether or not Trump will continue to use foreign governments to attack his political opponents.  Is that now OK for all candidates to do?

 

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Bob in Mich]

54 minutes ago, Foxx said:

i think Roberts has overstepped his authority here.

https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1222699882986835968

 

 

Maybe you can help me understand the Repub motivation on this.  If so, please take a minute if you would.

 

Agree or disagree?

The whistle blower program in general is useful in uncovering possible misdeeds by government employees.  Agree or disagree?

 

Outing this guy/girl's identity will put his and his family's lives in greater danger from some possibly unstable Trump supporter.  Agree or disagree?

 

Outing him/her too would have a chilling affect on future possible whistle blowing due to the outing of this whistle blower.  agree or disagree?

 

The whistle blower's statement has been, if not exactly, largely supported by the House witnesses who were under oath.  agree or disagree?

 

Couldn't whatever questions the Repub Sens have be answered by the whistle blower either on paper or in secret hearings?  Why is it so important to Repubs (if it is to you) to publicly out this guy/woman given the concerns?

Edited January 30, 2020 by Bob in Mich

[Deranged Rhino]

16 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

The question I have is : how close are these defensible positions to the actual truth ?  I would like to know the actual truth and whether or not Trump will continue to use foreign governments to attack his political opponents.  Is that now OK for all candidates to do?

 

 

 

Things Bob can't answer...

 

******************************