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.
 
Joe Fan said:
John Ratcliffe has a much better flow going
He is from Texas and I think a former US Attorney
Click to expand...

Ratcliff asked something like -- "Can either one of you two witnesses state what the impeachable offense was here?"

I recorded their responses for you

 
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.
 
OUBubba said:
None of that indicates that he did what you said - "barr committee members from attending their committee meetings". ...
Click to expand...
OUBubba said:
That's a cut/paste from your post about 2 pages ago.
Click to expand...

You altered/changed the quote. I said relevant committee members. I dont know if this was an oversight or an intentional attempt at misdealing. But I dont care. I am willing to let it go.
 
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:
Joe Fan said:
You altered/changed the quote. I said relevant committee members. I dont know if this was an oversight or an intentional attempt at misdealing. But I dont care. I am willing to let it go.
Click to expand...
I changed nothing. Seems like you're moving the goalposts.
 
McCarthy did leave Hurd on the panel
He is leaving, I dont have any idea why McCarthy felt the need to leave him on
 
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.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top