Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It just sad that you imagine these posts are clever.
Eh, I just started ignoring people who basically never contribute anything of substance. It just clutters up threads with white noise. I got a "wannalive" guy on there, a "sea majician" on there, there's a "tall vacationer" on there, there was another guy on there too but I think he got banned. I just look at the post history when I suspect someone never contributes in good faith. To be clear, I care more about whether or not people EVER have anything of substance to contribute versus if they are just "abrasive" or "*******s". I don't mind "*******s" who I disagree with, but "simpletons" are just boring.
Well we all know Trump will never go under oath unless he was absolutely forced to, but it is just a bit disingenuous to complain about people having 2nd hand knowledge on the FIRST day of testimony before Sondland (who has first hand knowledge) testifies AND while Trump is actively blocking many others with first hand knowledge from testimony.
You guys do understand these aren't the only people testifying under oath and there will be other witnesses including first hand witnesses that corroborate their testimony in the coming weeks right? How very Trumpian to declare victory after 1 day of damning testimony just because the people giving it had no direct contact with Trump.
If what Trump did was not wrong why is Trump blocking testimony from relevant first hand witnesses who would exonerate him? Have you guys ever heard of Occam's razor?
What exactly are all these people " witnesses " to ?
" First hand witnesses " to a conversation that everyone has access to ? Aren't we all then " first hand witnesses " ? Or do you mean these " witnesses " that heard the call live , have a different opinion and perception of the content of the call ?
What exactly are all these people " witnesses " to ?
" First hand witnesses " to a conversation that everyone has access to ? Aren't we all then " first hand witnesses " ? Or do you mean these " witnesses " that heard the call live , have a different opinion and perception of the content of the call ?
Which witness specifically is your question referring to? You understand that different witnesses observe different events correct?
Well we all know Trump will never go under oath unless he was absolutely forced to, but it is just a bit disingenuous to complain about people having 2nd hand knowledge on the FIRST day of testimony before Sondland (who has first hand knowledge) testifies AND while Trump is actively blocking many others with first hand knowledge from testimony.
You guys do understand these aren't the only people testifying under oath and there will be other witnesses including first hand witnesses that corroborate their testimony in the coming weeks right? How very Trumpian to declare victory after 1 day of damning testimony just because the people giving it had no direct contact with Trump.
If what Trump did was not wrong why is Trump blocking testimony from relevant first hand witnesses who would exonerate him? Have you guys ever heard of Occam's razor?
Yeah I’m
Sure it will go as well as Comey, Mueler, and now Day 1 of “impeachment”
Eh, I just started ignoring people who basically never contribute anything of substance. It just clutters up threads with white noise. I got a "wannalive" guy on there, a "sea majician" on there, there's a "tall vacationer" on there, there was another guy on there too but I think he got banned. I just look at the post history when I suspect someone never contributes in good faith. To be clear, I care more about whether or not people EVER have anything of substance to contribute versus if they are just "abrasive" or "*******s". I don't mind "*******s" who I disagree with, but "simpletons" are just boring.
Use scroll for ignore if you feel you can't tolerate opposing points of view.
Which witness specifically is your question referring to? You understand that different witnesses observe different events correct?
Start with any of them. What did they " witness" ? Specifically, because I didn't glean that from their testimony at all. Yesterday they were asked if they observed an Impeachable Offense . They neglected to answer. So why is anything they " witnessed " relevant ?
That means the Biden and Son protection racket too!
Strange that Trump never thought to bring up the former director of CIA’s Counterterrorist Center Joe Black who joined Burisma’s board in 2017, surely he must be doing something illegal. He worked on Mitt Romney's campaign so he also must be investigated.
Sure Trump is after corruption if you live in a fantasy world.
If you want the answer to your question, you will have to do the legwork because this stuff can't be captured in a sound bite or paragraph long post. If you don't have time or capacity to read it you will have to stay uninformed until his public testimony next week. Then you can watch it on the tee vee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuele
Yesterday they were asked if they observed an Impeachable Offense . They neglected to answer.
It is not a witnesses job to determine guilt, the question is a non starter. Witnesses are there to explain the facts as they understand them. It is improper to ask a witness to pronounce a judgement of guilt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuele
So why is anything they " witnessed " relevant ?
If you read all the relevant information you could know the answer to that question for yourself rather than asking from a place of ignorance.
What exactly are all these people " witnesses " to ?
" First hand witnesses " to a conversation that everyone has access to ? Aren't we all then " first hand witnesses " ? Or do you mean these " witnesses " that heard the call live , have a different opinion and perception of the content of the call ?
That is why we need to hear from Mulvaney who held up the funds and Sondland. I recall many congressmen were upset at the delay and it was bipartisan including Graham.
Strange I don't recall all this questioning of first hand information when it came to Benghazi and the Clinton Foundation, all they needed was a theory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
