Impeachment

I think people (state dept) are confused as to internal intent for an investigation to be done by Ukraine vs quid pro quo. Even if Trump had Rudy send this message through unofficial channels (which is not unusual, see FDR), I see no problem since the intent (investigate corruption) served the American people.
 
OUBubba said:
Exhibit XIVII
Click to expand...

This is not really that challenging, even for you. In the House, the Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over impeachment. A good argument can be made that those committee members are the only relevant members to any hearing on impeachment in the House. In any event, members of that committee sought to participate in Schiff's secret hearings on impeachment. Schiff refused to allow them the opportunity to participate in those secret hearings. There were others too.
 
IMO, what Quigley said about the value of hearsay testimony is wrong
I dont know much about that guy but I doubt he has ever been a trial atty

"Hearsay can be much better than direct ..."​

This is what someone says when they have no actual evidence..
 
Last edited:
Do we believe he does not know who the "whistleblower" is?
I would like to see that question put to him under oath
Right now he has some Joe McCarthy-style protection for misstatements
 
Mr. Deez said:
Is Mark Zuckerberg sitting behind Taylor?
Click to expand...

This Dem appeared with a paperclip in her hair - maybe under control of the Zuck?

EJRsksaXUAIFAyE.jpg
 
Lindsey Graham is signaling to Schiff here, I think, that he is going to call the "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella regardless whether the House sends over articles of impeachment. And there is nothing Schiff can do about it. Graham is so back and forth, it's hard to ever fully support him, but he seems to be on the right path here


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top