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.
None of the witnesses have had any evidence of illegal conduct by President Trump.
That's what reasonable people call a clue.
Or it's called building a case. Start with people who can set up the history, then move to those with first hand knowledge.
Next week Sondland who was on the restaurant call and has already filed a correction to his testimony because his memory got jarred by others testimony that there was in fact an expectation of an investigation before aid would be released. Then Vindman who was on the call between Trump and Zelensky. Also Jennifer Williams who was on the July 25th call and Tim Morrison who was on the call.
1. The whistleblower must testify! defense. No he doesn't. The whistlebower doesn't matter anymore and even if he did, he can't be compelled to testify. That's what whistleblower protections are all about.They can't put that genie back in the bottle and make the bad stuff go away.
2. The But Obama!/But Hillary!/But Biden! defense. None of them are president now and none of this concerns any of their actions, but Trump's.
3. The "There was no quid pro quo because the aid was eventually released!" defense. Just because someone is a bad criminal doesn't make them innocent. After all, Trump is still a husband and a businessman
4. The "Everything is hearsay!" defense. There is firsthand testimony still to come (Gordon Sondland and others,) and even if there wasn't, Mick Mulvaney incriminated Trump went he held the press conference telling America to "Get over it."
I already explained the obvious purpose of her testimony. If you want to pretend to be uninformed (or, in fact, be uninformed) that is entirely up to you. A witness's lack of knowledge concerning a particular act does not necessarily render that witness's testimony pointless if they can proffer information describing the relevant circumstances in which the act occurred.
For (a simplistic) example, a witness might describe the weather conditions in a particular location on a particular day relevant to the occurrence of a car accident irrespective of whether he or she saw the accident itself. Asking that witness "do you have any knowledge as to whether 'Person A' caused the accident?" would be useless in that context, but would not render the testimony irrelevant.
You're missing the key phrase: "any crimes at all." She said no. Under oath.
I'm not sure you are watching the same hearing everyone else is.
The Democrats are posting up witnesses who have never met the president, provide biased opinions about the president, and have heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from another he'd been corrupting around. LOL
It amounts to nothing but a gossip fest, really
This is so bad for the Dems, it's comical at this point.
Yeah, it's the "Gossip Girls" impeachment and it's making the Dems look like the clowns they are.
Opening statements from the person that was sitting next to Sondland and overheard the call between him and Trump have been released. Waiting for a link.
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.
