Impeachment

[Joe Fan]

By coincidence, I think there are 31 House members who were elected in districts Trump carried in 2016. So if there is any hope in the House, it is that these 31 will see through this thin political prosecution, realize the voters in their own district are not buying it either, and so will vote in a way that is in their own selfish best interests (which would be against impeachment).

This seems unlikely as Pelosi probably has hidden video on all of them to keep them singing like the Stepford Wives they are. If she is good at anything, it is keeping her misbehaving children in line.

But .....

One more thing -- Nancy specifically told these 31 House Dems to not mention impeachment when they are out campaigning

 

[humahuma]

One more thing -- Nancy specifically told these 31 House Dems to not mention impeachment when they are out campaigning

I just can’t believe these 31 Dems are putting their future in Schiff. The GOP should have a digital counter behind them for a running total $ of the cost of the impeachment “inquiry “.

 

[I35]

Basically, these career diplomats are butthurt over Trump's policy on Ukraine. Their feelings are that his conversation with Zelensky could make their jobs more difficult. Boo hoo.

Actually........the Dems are butthurt over everything Trump and his supporters and would imprison us all if they could.

 

[Joe Fan]

I just can’t believe these 31 Dems are putting their future in Schiff. The GOP should have a digital counter behind them for a running total $ of the cost of the impeachment “inquiry “.

I know that the RNC is already running some adds in some of those districts. They should be running them them in all of them. We need to exact a high price for these dirty politics and treachery.

 

[I35]

Just saying.

 

[Joe Fan]

I sort of watch these hearings a bit like I do our football games, with a lot of backseat coaching -- "Oh no Orlando, dont blitz again on 3rd and long!" "NO MORE horizontal passes!" and so on.

I do something similar with the persons asking the questions in these hearings. I enjoy cross-examination done well and done properly, even if it is by the other side. And I detest horrible direct testimony like what we saw yesterday with the Dem lead counsel putting words in their mouths. Ugh!

Anyway, here is one questioning scheme I came up with that would be both appropriate and would drive Schiff bonkers. See what yall think of this --

I would ask each witness (starting yesterday dammit!) if they were on the call. If they were not, who was on the call? Name every single person you know to have been on the call. Give me a full list of the names. Each individual witness must answer this question independently. Who did you talk to about the call? Who ran the Ukraine desk? Tell me about that person. Was he on the call?

If my side does this, guess whose name will eventually come out, in open session, on the official record?

Eric Ciaramella

"Who is that? Tell us everything you know about Eric Ciaramella"

Schiff is already on record as saying he does not know the name of the whistleblower, so he cant really object. And nothing about the "whistleblower" is even mentioned if you do it this way. But Schiff will object, because he was lying about not knowing who it is and is a liar generally. So it will be very entertaining when he does. All hell just might break lose.

 

[Joe Fan]

And another line of questioning I would ask each one of Schiff's witnesses is political affiliation.
Are you a registered voter?
Do you vote?
Have you attended any political rallies?
Have you donated to any candidate or party?
And so on
All of this needs to be brought out into the open. Under the circumstances, the people have a right to know the answers. It goes to bias.

 

[OUBubba]

Husker and Barry,

Should the whistle blower testify? If not, why?

I will hang up and listen while you copy and paste from CNN.

Why should _ric testify? His complaint laid out what he understood to be taking place. The call summary (not an actual f'n transcript) validates what he said. Witness testimony validates what he said.

The real question that we all should ask is "why don't Mulvaney, Bolton, and Trump testify?" And, to be fair, we all know that putting Trump under oath is a 100% perjury trap. LOL

I guess we shouldn't expect Gym Jordan to do much to stop Trump's activities. I mean he ignored the weird sexual proclivities of the tOSU doc assaulting young athletes.

 

[Statalyzer]

"Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct ... and it's certainly valid in this instance"
~Mike Quigley (D, IL)

 

[I35]

I sort of watch these hearings a bit like I do our football games, with a lot of backseat coaching -- "Oh no Orlando, dont blitz again on 3rd and long!" "NO MORE horizontal passes!" and so on.

I do something similar with the persons asking the questions in these hearings. I enjoy cross-examination done well and done properly, even if it is by the other side. And I detest horrible direct testimony like what we saw yesterday with the Dem lead counsel putting words in their mouths. Ugh!

Anyway, here is one questioning scheme I came up with that would be both appropriate and would drive Schiff bonkers. See what yall think of this --

I would ask each witness (starting yesterday dammit!) if they were on the call. If they were not, who was on the call? Name every single person you know to have been on the call. Give me a full list of the names. Each individual witness must answer this question independently.

If my side does this, guess whose name will eventually come out, in open session, on the official record?

Eric Ciaramella

"Who is that? Tell us everything you know about Eric Ciaramella"

Schiff is already on record as saying he does not know the name of the whistleblower, so he cant really object. But he will (because he was lying and is a liar) so it will be very entertaining when he does. All hell just might break lose.

Maybe I get confused who is who and what do they know as facts with these characters the Dems brought in after coaching them to say what. I was thinking the leaker (I refuse to call him a whistleblower because he’s anything but that) was also second hand information that he heard something from someone in the room during the phone call? So if that’s the case, would the witnesses not bring up his name because he wasn’t there?

 

[I35]

"Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct ... and it's certainly valid in this instance"
~Mike Quigley (D, IL)

The Dems motto is “Facts are irrelevant”.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

Maybe I get confused who is who and what do they know as facts with these characters the Dems brought in after coaching them to say what. I was thinking the leaker (I refuse to call him a whistleblower because he’s anything but that) was also second hand information that he heard something from someone in the room during the phone call? So if that’s the case, would the witnesses not bring up his name because he wasn’t there?

If he was not on the call, let's see which one of them gave him the information, while they are under oath

 

[Joe Fan]

ABC stepping in it again -- Stefanik was one of the Rs allowed to ask questions yesterday

 

[Chop]

Point of Political Strategy: The Dems jumped the gun. If they absolutely had to go through with this circus, they should have sprung it around September of 2020. They won't get a conviction in the Senate period. When the Senate rejects removal of Trump in the Senate trial, that's a victory for Trump. The Dems may not even get a 'Yes' impeachment vote in the House. In fact, I think many Dems in the House don't want to be pinned down with a vote.

Sooooooooooo, the most political bang for the buck the Dems may get is what's happening right now. But, it's happening way too early for maximum effect. Bad strategy, brought to you by the party that ran Hillary's 2016 campaign.

 

[I35]

Laura Ingraham stated that there needs to be an investigation into the Democrats to see if they have any ties to America.

 

[OUBubba]

Point of Political Strategy: The Dems jumped the gun. If they absolutely had to go through with this circus, they should have sprung it around September of 2020. They won't get a conviction in the Senate period. When the Senate rejects removal of Trump in the Senate trial, that's a victory for Trump. The Dems may not even get a 'Yes' impeachment vote in the House. In fact, I think many Dems in the House don't want to be pinned down with a vote.

Sooooooooooo, the most political bang for the buck the Dems may get is what's happening right now. But, it's happening way too early for maximum effect. Bad strategy, brought to you by the party that ran Hillary's 2016 campaign.

The other argument is that it will serve to get House/Senate people on the record as to supporting the current President or not supporting him. I guess we'll see how it will play out. The real question is how will it play out in the swing states and in the tight senate districts.

 

[Mr. Deez]

"Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct ... and it's certainly valid in this instance"
~Mike Quigley (D, IL)

He must have been sick when they talked about this in Evidence class. There's a reason why hearsay evidence is usually not admissible.

 

[I35]

If Adam Schiff doesn’t know who the “leaker” is, then how can he protect his identity?

 

[Mr. Deez]

If Adam Schiff doesn’t know who the “leaker” is, then how can he protect his identity?

He doesn't know who the leaker is like OJ is out looking for the real killer of Nicole Brown Simpson.

 

[Joe Fan]

If Adam Schiff doesn’t know who the “leaker” is, then how can he protect his identity?

Eric Ciaramella's name should be on the table for discussion. He was part of the Ukraine desk for the NSC during some of the time period at issue, thus the inquiry is relevant. He also has a history of going "outside the chain of command." Furthermore, he was also apparently also part of the data collection for the already discredited "Steele Dossier." So, he has a lot to answer for.

On top of all that, Schiff doesnt want him in, which is all the more reason to do it. And there are several different ways to do that.

 

[I35]

Eric Ciaramella's name should be on the table for discussion. He was part of the Ukraine desk for the NSC during some of the time period at issue, thus the inquiry is relevant. He also has a history of going "outside the chain of command." Furthermore, he was also apparently also part of the data collection for the already discredited "Steele Dossier." So, he has a lot to answer for.

On top of all that, Schiff doesnt want him in, which is all the more reason to do it. And there are several different ways to do that.

Joe, have you heard what’s suppose to be a bombshell report coming from Rosemont Seneca Bohai Bank records? Showing a foreign slush fund controlled by Devon Archer, John Kerry Sr, John Kerry Jr, Heinz Jr, Hunter Biden?

Not trying to get ahead and be wrong.

 

[mchammer]

Joe, have you heard what’s suppose to be a bombshell report coming from Rosemont Seneca Bohai Bank records? Showing a foreign slush fund controlled by Devon Archer, John Kerry Sr, John Kerry Jr, Heinz Jr, Hunter Biden?

Not trying to get ahead and be wrong.

I have been to Bohai, China if that matters. LOL

 

[Horn6721]

mc
You realize your admission taints the whole proceedings?

 

[mchammer]

mc
You realize your admission taints the whole proceedings?

So far, no implications that China was involved. I was on a phone call this morning with Moscow talking to a large Russian company.

 

[horninchicago]

A HS shooting in LA a few hours ago, and, poof, just like that, wall to wall coverage of that. No mention of all this impeachment BS for several hours. Goes to show what BS it all is.

 

[mchammer]

mc
You realize your admission taints the whole proceedings?

By the way, I smoked a cigar on the rooftop bar of the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Moscow (the famous one in the dossier where Trump had Russian hookers pee on the bed). It has a fabulous view of Red Square and the Kremlin.

 

[nashhorn]

You get around Mc.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Why should _ric testify? His complaint laid out what he understood to be taking place. The call summary (not an actual f'n transcript) validates what he said. Witness testimony validates what he said.

Here's why he should testify. He laid out the entire case that's at issue, but it was pretty much all unnamed sources and hearsay. You can say the witness statements back it up, but even the witnesses who have testified don't have personal knowledge of very much. That means the people he referenced in his complaint aren't necessarily the people that he heard from. We need to know who these people are, so they can be spoken to and if necessary, subpoenaed.

You can blab on about how we're not in court, and hearsay can be admitted and considered. That's true, but there's a reason why hearsay generally isn't admitted in court. IT'S ******* UNRELIABLE and can easily be manipulated and not cross-examined or scrutinized. So even if it can be considered, it shouldn't be.

And no, he is not entitled to anonymity and is not entitled not to be cross-examined. I wish everybody would cut that ******** out. It's nonsense.

The real question that we all should ask is "why don't Mulvaney, Bolton, and Trump testify?" And, to be fair, we all know that putting Trump under oath is a 100% perjury trap. LOL

I think Mulvaney and Bolton should testify. However, they have executive privilege, which can limit their testimony. (I think they should testify anyway.) The whistleblower does not.

 

[bystander]

If you are going to impeach the President of the United States then I'd think it would be vital that we follow a process that is designed to produce direct evidence. It's too important. But I believe 100% this is a political coup and headlines are all that matter short of removing him from office. It's obvious.

Pelosi is already panicking...

Pelosi ups the ante on impeachment, accuses Trump of 'bribery'