Every Republican votes against making hearings public!

[mudwhistle]

Not at all.

The official transcript is the only version that exists. It has already been released.....before Pelosi announced her fake impeachment inquiry.

Note the key word "inquiry"

Meaning it isn't an official impeachment. An official impeachment is a resolution voted on by the House after evidence is provided by the DOJ to the House Juducial Committee of a public official who has committed criminal acts. The Judiciary committee votes to recommend an impeachment and produces articles of impeachment to the full House, to which the full House votes on. The House jumped the shark and didn't wait for articles of impeachment in this case. They simply voted to recognize the ongoing inquiry.

A vote in the full House is an official impeachment and is sent to the Senate for trial. None of this has happened. THEY ARE LYING TO US ABOUT WHAT THIS IS AND WHAT THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT IS!!!!

THEMS THE FACTS!!

Turns out the "transcript" isn't a transcript. Also turns out it isn't complete, or even really honest.

Lol, conspiracy nutter as well.

FOAD

Witness testimony, not conspiracy theory.

There's a difference, but I guess you don't understand that.

Lol, again with rationalizing bullshit rules meant to let the dems make bullshit statements without any backup.

That you call any refutation "conspiracy" without even getting into what is being refuted, or who would refute it, just shows you don't want an open process, and neither do dems.

They want news soundbites and ammo for their base.

No, it's actually witness testimony.

this is not a trial......it's a deposition.
That means this garbage isn't testimony.
It means nothing.
This is supposed to be about discovery.....but only Democrats get to call witnesses.
All of the so-called witnesses are hand-picked and coached by the Democrats.
Many are the same jackasses that helped start and carry out the Russian Collusion hoax.

 

[initforme]

Oh come on televise it so us retired folk can grab our popcorn and treats. It'll be like watching a movie.

 

[mudwhistle]

Turns out the "transcript" isn't a transcript. Also turns out it isn't complete, or even really honest.

Lol, conspiracy nutter as well.

FOAD

Witness testimony, not conspiracy theory.

There's a difference, but I guess you don't understand that.

Lol, again with rationalizing bullshit rules meant to let the dems make bullshit statements without any backup.

That you call any refutation "conspiracy" without even getting into what is being refuted, or who would refute it, just shows you don't want an open process, and neither do dems.

They want news soundbites and ammo for their base.

No, it's actually witness testimony.

"Witness"

I heard this guy who saw this guy who overheard this guy say this"

I heard he passed out at 31 flavors last night.

 

[Crepitus]

That's because your tRumpling "leaders" will try to side track the proceedings with crazy conspiracy theories.

Wow, talk about trying to excuse hackery.

First it was they voted against access, then you say they don't deserve the access.

Keep moving those goalposts, mouth-breather.

BZZZT!

I'm sorry, that is incorrect.

I said they shouldn't be allowed to disrupt the proceedings with crazy conspiracy theories.

The rules let Dems decide who can appear as a witness, and what questions can be asked.

You are the one bringing up some bullshit justification, I am telling you the rules.

hacks wanna hack.

There are generally reasons for rules.

All I'm doing is pointing them out.

Without a veto on witnesses the tRumplings will have Rudy up in the stand promoting lame conspiracy theories.

Just keep justifying limiting the investigation to democrat wet dreams....

No, we want it limited to reality. No conservative conspiracy theories needed thank you.

 

[Crepitus]

Turns out the "transcript" isn't a transcript. Also turns out it isn't complete, or even really honest.

Lol, conspiracy nutter as well.

FOAD

Witness testimony, not conspiracy theory.

There's a difference, but I guess you don't understand that.

Lol, again with rationalizing bullshit rules meant to let the dems make bullshit statements without any backup.

That you call any refutation "conspiracy" without even getting into what is being refuted, or who would refute it, just shows you don't want an open process, and neither do dems.

They want news soundbites and ammo for their base.

No, it's actually witness testimony.

"Witness"

I heard this guy who saw this guy who overheard this guy say this"

No, witness. Lt. Col. Vindman testified to it's inaccuracies. In the first person.

 

[Crepitus]

They can call witnesses.

They won't be allowed to derail the process with stupid conspiracy theories.

They can only call witnesses approved by the Democrats.

Again you have to go with half truths to make your point.

Pathetic.

Not. They won't be allowed to derail the proceedings with crazy conspiracy theories. Without that rule they'd have Rudy up there spouting nonsense for days.

So anything the Republicans will bring up is a conspiracy?

So much for wanting an open process. It figures. Progressives only can function when other ideas or concepts are banned.

Such nice wibble snowflakes you are.

No, not anything, everything.

Just kidding.

But do you really want this to be about an imaginary server in the Ukraine or do you want to get this over with?

Nice dodge, oxygen thief.

The fact you can't actually reply shows your hand.

How is it that my reasoned statement = "can't actually reply"?

I reiterate: the inquiry is about tRump's crimes, not crazy RWNJ conspiracy theories.

 

[Crepitus]

Turns out the "transcript" isn't a transcript. Also turns out it isn't complete, or even really honest.

Lol, conspiracy nutter as well.

FOAD

Witness testimony, not conspiracy theory.

There's a difference, but I guess you don't understand that.

Lol, again with rationalizing bullshit rules meant to let the dems make bullshit statements without any backup.

That you call any refutation "conspiracy" without even getting into what is being refuted, or who would refute it, just shows you don't want an open process, and neither do dems.

They want news soundbites and ammo for their base.

No, it's actually witness testimony.

this is not a trial......it's a deposition.
That means this garbage isn't testimony.
It means nothing.
This is supposed to be about discovery.....but only Democrats get to call witnesses.
All of the so-called witnesses are hand-picked and coached by the Democrats.
Many are the same jackasses that helped start and carry out the Russian Collusion hoax.

It's testimony given under oath.

Your post shows just how far down the conspiracy theory rabbit hope you conservitards have gone.

 

[mudwhistle]

Lol, conspiracy nutter as well.

FOAD

Witness testimony, not conspiracy theory.

There's a difference, but I guess you don't understand that.

Lol, again with rationalizing bullshit rules meant to let the dems make bullshit statements without any backup.

That you call any refutation "conspiracy" without even getting into what is being refuted, or who would refute it, just shows you don't want an open process, and neither do dems.

They want news soundbites and ammo for their base.

No, it's actually witness testimony.

this is not a trial......it's a deposition.
That means this garbage isn't testimony.
It means nothing.
This is supposed to be about discovery.....but only Democrats get to call witnesses.
All of the so-called witnesses are hand-picked and coached by the Democrats.
Many are the same jackasses that helped start and carry out the Russian Collusion hoax.

It's testimony given under oath.

Your post shows just how far down the conspiracy theory rabbit hope you conservitards have gone.

Well it's clear you Snowflakes are way ahead of us, because this is a deposition, not a fucking trial.

 

[Crepitus]

Witness testimony, not conspiracy theory.

There's a difference, but I guess you don't understand that.

Lol, again with rationalizing bullshit rules meant to let the dems make bullshit statements without any backup.

That you call any refutation "conspiracy" without even getting into what is being refuted, or who would refute it, just shows you don't want an open process, and neither do dems.

They want news soundbites and ammo for their base.

No, it's actually witness testimony.

this is not a trial......it's a deposition.
That means this garbage isn't testimony.
It means nothing.
This is supposed to be about discovery.....but only Democrats get to call witnesses.
All of the so-called witnesses are hand-picked and coached by the Democrats.
Many are the same jackasses that helped start and carry out the Russian Collusion hoax.

It's testimony given under oath.

Your post shows just how far down the conspiracy theory rabbit hope you conservitards have gone.

Well it's clear you Snowflakes are way ahead of us, because this is a deposition, not a fucking trial.

Ok genius, quote me saying this is a trial.

I'll wait.

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Lol, conspiracy nutter as well.

FOAD

Witness testimony, not conspiracy theory.

There's a difference, but I guess you don't understand that.

Lol, again with rationalizing bullshit rules meant to let the dems make bullshit statements without any backup.

That you call any refutation "conspiracy" without even getting into what is being refuted, or who would refute it, just shows you don't want an open process, and neither do dems.

They want news soundbites and ammo for their base.

No, it's actually witness testimony.

this is not a trial......it's a deposition.
That means this garbage isn't testimony.
It means nothing.
This is supposed to be about discovery.....but only Democrats get to call witnesses.
All of the so-called witnesses are hand-picked and coached by the Democrats.
Many are the same jackasses that helped start and carry out the Russian Collusion hoax.

It's testimony given under oath.

Your post shows just how far down the conspiracy theory rabbit hope you conservitards have gone.

Big news just out

James o keefe has proven the democrats and deep state crooked to the core No theory but actual proof by abc news anchor

 

[mudwhistle]

Lol, again with rationalizing bullshit rules meant to let the dems make bullshit statements without any backup.

That you call any refutation "conspiracy" without even getting into what is being refuted, or who would refute it, just shows you don't want an open process, and neither do dems.

They want news soundbites and ammo for their base.

No, it's actually witness testimony.

this is not a trial......it's a deposition.
That means this garbage isn't testimony.
It means nothing.
This is supposed to be about discovery.....but only Democrats get to call witnesses.
All of the so-called witnesses are hand-picked and coached by the Democrats.
Many are the same jackasses that helped start and carry out the Russian Collusion hoax.

It's testimony given under oath.

Your post shows just how far down the conspiracy theory rabbit hope you conservitards have gone.

Well it's clear you Snowflakes are way ahead of us, because this is a deposition, not a fucking trial.

Ok genius, quote me saying this is a trial.

I'll wait.

Testimony is given when you testify during a trial in public, not in secret. During a deposition they fill out a questionnaire and answer questions from the lawyers. They want this BS to sound official but it's really just Democrats presenting evidence from witnesses they coached. They don't really allow cross-examination.

 

[Crepitus]

No, it's actually witness testimony.

this is not a trial......it's a deposition.
That means this garbage isn't testimony.
It means nothing.
This is supposed to be about discovery.....but only Democrats get to call witnesses.
All of the so-called witnesses are hand-picked and coached by the Democrats.
Many are the same jackasses that helped start and carry out the Russian Collusion hoax.

It's testimony given under oath.

Your post shows just how far down the conspiracy theory rabbit hope you conservitards have gone.

Well it's clear you Snowflakes are way ahead of us, because this is a deposition, not a fucking trial.

Ok genius, quote me saying this is a trial.

I'll wait.

Testimony is given when you testify during a trial in public, not in secret. During a deposition they fill out a questionnaire and answer questions from the lawyers. They want this BS to sound official but it's really just Democrats presenting evidence from witnesses they coached. They don't really allow cross-examination.

Lol, where do you kids come up with this garbage?

He testified under oath.

Get over it.

 

[Billy000]

Every Republican votes against allowing the President and his lawyers to participate!

House approves impeachment rules, ushering in new phase of inquiry — live updates
A resolution authorizing public hearings and laying the groundwork for eventual proceedings in the Judiciary Committee passed by a vote of 232 to 196. All but two Democrats voted for the measure, with all Republican members voting against it.

They voted against the impeachment hearings in general, not any specifics about it.

What a fucking hack you are.

If Trump is innocent, why wouldn’t they want the public to see first hand?

 

[mudwhistle]

this is not a trial......it's a deposition.
That means this garbage isn't testimony.
It means nothing.
This is supposed to be about discovery.....but only Democrats get to call witnesses.
All of the so-called witnesses are hand-picked and coached by the Democrats.
Many are the same jackasses that helped start and carry out the Russian Collusion hoax.

It's testimony given under oath.

Your post shows just how far down the conspiracy theory rabbit hope you conservitards have gone.

Well it's clear you Snowflakes are way ahead of us, because this is a deposition, not a fucking trial.

Ok genius, quote me saying this is a trial.

I'll wait.

Testimony is given when you testify during a trial in public, not in secret. During a deposition they fill out a questionnaire and answer questions from the lawyers. They want this BS to sound official but it's really just Democrats presenting evidence from witnesses they coached. They don't really allow cross-examination.

Lol, where do you kids come up with this garbage?

He testified under oath.

Get over it.

I was under oath when I answered questions to an FBI agent when I interviewed for my TS clearance.
This is no different. Being under oath only means something when the people you're dealing with fully intent on prosecuting you. The Democrats have no intention of prosecuting their partners in crime.

Personally, I think being under oath is simply a tool that corrupt Democrats use to entrap Republicans.....but they didn't put Hillary under oath when they claim they questioned her on her emails.

 

[Kondor3]

Every Republican votes against allowing the President and his lawyers to participate!

House approves impeachment rules, ushering in new phase of inquiry — live updates
A resolution authorizing public hearings and laying the groundwork for eventual proceedings in the Judiciary Committee passed by a vote of 232 to 196. All but two Democrats voted for the measure, with all Republican members voting against it.

Oh, so tell me, would you vote for a Dem President to not be able to have any representation? Substitute the word Republican with Democrat in this statement-2

House approves Trump impeachment process on party lines
Republicans argue Trump won’t get the chance to defend himself from the charges he offered a “quid pro quo” to Ukraine, which he denies. The impeachment measure excludes the White House counsel from participating in the Intelligence Committee hearings, for example.

“The White House counsel would be shut out of this process,” said Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, the top Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Republicans pointed out that the GOP would need permission from Democrats to call witnesses or to subpoena documents.

“This impeachment process is a total sham, and this resolution that seeks to legitimize it misleads the American public,” said Republican Rep. Debbie Lesko, a member of the Rules Committee.

Most excellent.

The White House counsel does not need to participate in highly-sensitive Intelligence Committee hearings.

The White House counsel will have adequate opportunity to fulfill its role during the course of the post-impeachment Trial in the US Senate.

No bull$hit Obstruction of Justice on the part of OrangeMan Whores in the House is to be allowed.

They will be able to debate investigatory findings all-the-livelong-day once those findings become Articles of Impeachment.

Afterwards, as the Trial concludes, Senators will have to go on-record with their Guilty or Not Guilty votes.

That, too, is extremely worrisome for Republicans, and does not bode well for them, with respect to November 2020.

With the rise of Robber-Baron autocracy and disdain for the Rule of Law and the risk to our alliances and global position, the time has come.

Already, the rats are beginning to slip over-the-side to escape the R.M.S. Trumptanic... reversing testimony or willingness to testify, etc.

Masterful, and well-played, for once, Democrats... well-played... didn't think you retards had it in you.

 

[martybegan]

Wow, talk about trying to excuse hackery.

First it was they voted against access, then you say they don't deserve the access.

Keep moving those goalposts, mouth-breather.

BZZZT!

I'm sorry, that is incorrect.

I said they shouldn't be allowed to disrupt the proceedings with crazy conspiracy theories.

The rules let Dems decide who can appear as a witness, and what questions can be asked.

You are the one bringing up some bullshit justification, I am telling you the rules.

hacks wanna hack.

There are generally reasons for rules.

All I'm doing is pointing them out.

Without a veto on witnesses the tRumplings will have Rudy up in the stand promoting lame conspiracy theories.

Just keep justifying limiting the investigation to democrat wet dreams....

No, we want it limited to reality. No conservative conspiracy theories needed thank you.

Again, you define anything that goes counter to the impeachment narrative as "conspiracy"

Just defending the Dem machine from having to answer to the same rules being applied to Trump.

 

[martybegan]

Lol, conspiracy nutter as well.

FOAD

Witness testimony, not conspiracy theory.

There's a difference, but I guess you don't understand that.

Lol, again with rationalizing bullshit rules meant to let the dems make bullshit statements without any backup.

That you call any refutation "conspiracy" without even getting into what is being refuted, or who would refute it, just shows you don't want an open process, and neither do dems.

They want news soundbites and ammo for their base.

No, it's actually witness testimony.

"Witness"

I heard this guy who saw this guy who overheard this guy say this"

No, witness. Lt. Col. Vindman testified to it's inaccuracies. In the first person.

A political operative who wore his uniform to testimony, which is against the rules of his agency.

 

[martybegan]

They can only call witnesses approved by the Democrats.

Again you have to go with half truths to make your point.

Pathetic.

Not. They won't be allowed to derail the proceedings with crazy conspiracy theories. Without that rule they'd have Rudy up there spouting nonsense for days.

So anything the Republicans will bring up is a conspiracy?

So much for wanting an open process. It figures. Progressives only can function when other ideas or concepts are banned.

Such nice wibble snowflakes you are.

No, not anything, everything.

Just kidding.

But do you really want this to be about an imaginary server in the Ukraine or do you want to get this over with?

Nice dodge, oxygen thief.

The fact you can't actually reply shows your hand.

How is it that my reasoned statement = "can't actually reply"?

I reiterate: the inquiry is about tRump's crimes, not crazy RWNJ conspiracy theories.

When you consider anything that goes against the impeachment narrative "crazy conspiracy theories" you show you don't want an honest process.

FOAD

 

[martybegan]

Every Republican votes against allowing the President and his lawyers to participate!

House approves impeachment rules, ushering in new phase of inquiry — live updates
A resolution authorizing public hearings and laying the groundwork for eventual proceedings in the Judiciary Committee passed by a vote of 232 to 196. All but two Democrats voted for the measure, with all Republican members voting against it.

They voted against the impeachment hearings in general, not any specifics about it.

What a fucking hack you are.

If Trump is innocent, why wouldn’t they want the public to see first hand?

if Dems have enough evidence to impeach, why limit Republicans in who they can bring in to testify at the hearings?

 

[Lesh]

Witness testimony, not conspiracy theory.

There's a difference, but I guess you don't understand that.

Lol, again with rationalizing bullshit rules meant to let the dems make bullshit statements without any backup.

That you call any refutation "conspiracy" without even getting into what is being refuted, or who would refute it, just shows you don't want an open process, and neither do dems.

They want news soundbites and ammo for their base.

No, it's actually witness testimony.

"Witness"

I heard this guy who saw this guy who overheard this guy say this"

No, witness. Lt. Col. Vindman testified to it's inaccuracies. In the first person.

A political operative who wore his uniform to testimony, which is against the rules of his agency.

Bullshit. State that rule with a link