Senate Impeachment Trial Thread.

[easyt65]

You don't know that it was hearsay.

Negative on that one - the whistle blower made it clear they had no direct knowledge. this has already been made clear.
The DOJ reviewed the complaint and DISMISSED it based on the fact that there was NO CRIME, NO EVIDENCE, and NO WITNESS BEFORE it ever got to Schiff and his committee, at which point he manufactured the Impeachment case.
-- The DOJ pointed out that the 'whistle blower' does not qualify as a 'whistle blower' according to the law.

NOT ONE person involved for the Democrats, to include the non-qualifying 'whistle blower', has / had 1st-hand knowledge. 'Hearsay' was not allowed to be sent directly to the House Intel Committee / Schiff...until the IC IG changed the rules and did just that.
-- 'Funny' how the IC IG now works for Schiff, isn't it?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

another huge bombshell

 

[Zorro!]

So what will Republicans running for re-election do about Bolton?

Will they risk their political careers to protect Trump?

Acquit quickly and hope it blows over by November. Democrats are already prepping "no witness" ads, I'm sure. Who the fuck knows? We're in a post-truth, post-reality world, created by marketing and branding. The one area Trump truly understands is marketing and branding - he never quits pitching.

Do you think anyone really buys their post-modern horse pucky?

This is about facts and evidence. I think Americans tend to be pretty fair minded and clearly the Dems have been engaged in a Witch Hunt.

Do you think the guy who told you Birther lies for 6 years should be trusted when he says Obama spied on him?

Obama was the First Birther, Hillary Clinton was the second.

Sure, they put a gun to Trump's head and made him a Birther. Told him to go on FOX a few dozen times and spill Birther bullshit. There's no way that was Trump's doing - it had to be Obama and Clinton.

While there's never an obligation to answer a question, do you trust Trump?

It's not a question of trust, it's a question of results. You really have to get your head out of your post-modern cloud. We that support Trump look at his results and he's having one hell of a presidency. Quite welcome after 16 years of Dumb and Dumber!

WHERE’S WALDO WHISTLEBLOWER?
In his presentation on behalf of President Trump in the Senate impeachment trial yesterday, White House Deputy Counsel Patrick Philbin raised the question of Adam Schiff and the whistleblower. Why have we not heard from him? Why has Schiff deep-sixed the testimony about him?

 

[joaquinmiller]

You don't know that it was hearsay.

Negative on that one - the whistle blower made it clear they had no direct knowledge. this has already been made clear.
The DOJ reviewed the complaint and DISMISSED it based on the fact that there was NO CRIME, NO EVIDENCE, and NO WITNESS BEFORE it ever got to Schiff and his committee, at which point he manufactured the Impeachment case.
-- The DOJ pointed out that the 'whistle blower' does not qualify as a 'whistle blower' according to the law.

NOT ONE person involved for the Democrats, to include the non-qualifying 'whistle blower', has / had 1st-hand knowledge. 'Hearsay' was not allowed to be sent directly to the House Intel Committee / Schiff...until the IC IG changed the rules and did just that.
-- 'Funny' how the IC IG now works for Schiff, isn't it?

We're talking about the IG's testimony, not the whistleblower's. It's still classified and neither you nor I know what he said.

 

[Zorro!]

The Impeachment trial is so boring Trump tweeted about i

He says what he needs to say. If you want to call him a liar, feel free. You brought him up. Stay away from any new evidence or testimony. You'll feel better.

There will always be another bullshit slant.
I actually am starting to relish the idea of President Pence.

Yeah, 2024 for Pence, unless there is someone better.

CAN’T TRUMP DO ANYTHING RIGHT? Social Media Stats Suggest America’s BORED by Impeachment Trial.

I’m sure it must be Trump’s fault. I just haven’t figured out how.

It's so boring that Trump broke his own Twitter record, defending himself thru tweets. Conveniently, tweets are immune to cross-examination.

Now you want to cross examine tweets? You aren't showing a lot of confidence in the case that was sent to the Senate!

Deliberately obtuse, of accidental? I didn't say I wanted to cross-examine tweets. I was pointing out Trump gets to say any bullshit he wants in his tweets, without fear of being questioned. Do you disagree?

Of course I disagree. Anyone on twitter can question him. You brought up cross examination in your post. Here, to refresh your memory:

Conveniently, tweets are immune to cross-examination.

 

[Olde Europe]

Might it refute your linked-story as to why the transcript hasn't been released?

Probably. Also, Schiff classified Atkinson's testimony as a "briefing", as opposed to "witness testimony". Not that it matters, but Rightardia is in spluttering apoplexy. Dutifully.

 

[Zorro!]

You don't know that it was hearsay.

Negative on that one - the whistle blower made it clear they had no direct knowledge. this has already been made clear.
The DOJ reviewed the complaint and DISMISSED it based on the fact that there was NO CRIME, NO EVIDENCE, and NO WITNESS BEFORE it ever got to Schiff and his committee, at which point he manufactured the Impeachment case.
-- The DOJ pointed out that the 'whistle blower' does not qualify as a 'whistle blower' according to the law.

NOT ONE person involved for the Democrats, to include the non-qualifying 'whistle blower', has / had 1st-hand knowledge. 'Hearsay' was not allowed to be sent directly to the House Intel Committee / Schiff...until the IC IG changed the rules and did just that.
-- 'Funny' how the IC IG now works for Schiff, isn't it?

We're talking about the IG's testimony, not the whistleblower's. It's still classified and neither you nor I know what he said.

The IC IG is testifying on why he classified the whistleblower as a whistleblower when he did not have any first hand information. And by the way, where is the Whistle Blower?

WHERE’S WALDO WHISTLEBLOWER?

In his presentation on behalf of President Trump in the Senate impeachment trial yesterday, White House Deputy Counsel Patrick Philbin raised the question of Adam Schiff and the whistleblower. Why have we not heard from him? Why has Schiff deep-sixed the testimony about him? RealClearPolitics has posted video of Philbin’s remarks along with this (lightly edited) transcript:

The whistleblower who we haven’t heard that much about who started all of this. The whistleblower we know from the letter that the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community sent that he thought that the whistleblower had political bias. We don’t know exactly what the political bias was because the Inspector General testified in the House committees in an executive session, and that transcript is still secret. It wasn’t transmitted up to the House Judiciary Committee. We haven’t seen it. We don’t know what’s in it. We don’t know what he was asked and what he revealed about the whistleblower. Now you would think that before going forward with an impeachment proceeding against the President of the United States that you would want to find out something about the complainant that had started all of it because motivations, bias, reasons for wanting to bring this complaint could be relevant, but there wasn’t any inquiry into that.

Recent reports, public reports, suggest that potentially the whistleblower was an Intelligence Community staffer who worked with then Vice President Biden on Ukraine matters, which if true would suggest an even greater reason for wanting to know about potential bias or motive for the whistleblower. At first when things started, it seemed like everyone agreed that we should hear from the whistleblower including Manager Schiff. I think we have what he said.

SCHIFF (tape): Yes, we would love to talk directly with the whistleblower.

We’ll get the unfiltered testimony of that whistleblower.

We don’t need the whistleblower.

PHILBIN: What changed? At first Manager Schiff agreed we should hear the unfiltered testimony from the whistleblower, but then he changed his mind and he suggested that it was because now we had the transcript. But the second clip there was from September 29th which was four days after the transcript had been released. But there was something else that came into play, and that was something that Manager Schiff had said earlier when he was asked about whether he had spoken to the whistleblower.

 

[easyt65]

We're talking about the IG's testimony, not the whistleblower's. It's still classified and neither you nor I know what he said.

If we are going to release transcripts, why not just call the IC IG - now working for Schiff - to testify and then call Schiff to answer for his proven lies about the Whistle Blower.

Oh but wait - Schiff said the whistle blower is insignificant, and Pelosi just declared its not about EVIDENCE, it's all about the 'accusations'.



.

 

[Zorro!]

SCHIFF (tape): We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to.

PHILBIN: It turned out that that statement was not truthful. Around October 2nd or 3rd, it was exposed that the Manager Schiff’s staff at least had spoken with the whistleblower before the whistleblower filed the complaint and potentially had given some guidance, some sort to the whistleblower. After that point it became critical to shut down any inquiry into the whistleblower. During the House hearings, of course Manager Schiff was in charge. He was chairing the hearings. That creates a real problem from a due process perspective, from a search for truth perspective, because he was an interested fact witness at that point. He had a reason, since he had been caught out saying something that wasn’t truthful about that contact, he had a reason to not want that inquiry. It was he who ensured that there wasn’t any inquiry into that.

Now this is relevant here I think because as you’ve heard from my colleagues, a lot of what we’ve heard over the past 23 hours, over the past three days, has been from Chairman Schiff. He has been telling you things like what’s in President Trump’s head, what’s in President Zelensky’s head. It’s all his interpretation of the facts and the evidence trying to pull inferences out of things. There’s another statement that Chairman Schiff made that I think we have on video.

CHUCK TODD (tape): But you admit all you have right now is a circumstantial case.

SCHIFF: Actually, no Chuck. I can tell you that the case is more than that and I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now. Again, I think —

TODD: So you have seen evidence of collusion.

SCHIFF: I don’t want to go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial and is very much worthy of investigation.

PHILBIN: That was in March of 2017 when Chairman Schiff was ranking member of HPSCI was telling the public, the American public, that he had more than circumstantial evidence through his position on H that President Trump’s campaign had colluded with Russia. Of course, the Mueller Report, as Mr. Sekulow pointed out, after $32 million and over 500 search warrants or roughly 500 search warrants, determined that there was no collusion. That wasn’t true. We wanted to point these things out simply for this reason. Chairman Schiff has made so much of the House’s case about the credibility of interpretations that the House Managers want to place on not hard evidence but on inferences. They want to tell you what President Trump thought. They want to tell you don’t believe what Zelensky said. We can tell you what Zelensky actually thought. Don’t believe what the other Ukrainians actually said about not being pressured. We can tell you what they actually thought. That it is very relevant to know whether the assessments of evidence he’s presented in the past are accurate. We would submit that they have not been and that that is relevant for your consideration.

 

[joaquinmiller]

The Impeachment trial is so boring Trump tweeted about i

There will always be another bullshit slant.
I actually am starting to relish the idea of President Pence.

Yeah, 2024 for Pence, unless there is someone better.

CAN’T TRUMP DO ANYTHING RIGHT? Social Media Stats Suggest America’s BORED by Impeachment Trial.

I’m sure it must be Trump’s fault. I just haven’t figured out how.

It's so boring that Trump broke his own Twitter record, defending himself thru tweets. Conveniently, tweets are immune to cross-examination.

Now you want to cross examine tweets? You aren't showing a lot of confidence in the case that was sent to the Senate!

Deliberately obtuse, of accidental? I didn't say I wanted to cross-examine tweets. I was pointing out Trump gets to say any bullshit he wants in his tweets, without fear of being questioned. Do you disagree?

Of course I disagree. Anyone on twitter can question him. You brought up cross examination in your post. Here, to refresh your memory:

Conveniently, tweets are immune to cross-examination.

I don't think that constitutes cross-examination, but feel free to display a definition, if you like.

 

[joaquinmiller]

We're talking about the IG's testimony, not the whistleblower's. It's still classified and neither you nor I know what he said.

If we are going to release transcripts, why not just call the IC IG - now working for Schiff - to testify and then call Schiff to answer for his proven lies about the Whistle Blower.

Oh but wait - Schiff said the whistle blower is insignificant, and Pelosi just declared its not about EVIDENCE, it's all about the 'accusations'.



.

"Now working for Schiff"? Go ahead and pretend that about a man who works at the pleasure of President Trump, but I won't join you.

 

[joaquinmiller]

If Sekulow seems stiff, it may be the Bolton Spanner stuffed up ass.

 

[jc456]

Schiff kept talking about 17 witnesses. But there were 18.

Should we see transcripts of the 18th witness?

So That's Why Schiff Won't Release the Transcript of the 18th Witness

It's the one transcript that talks about Adam Schiff and the whistleblower. Now, everyone knows by now that Adam Schiff was not truthful about his contacts with the whistleblower. What they don't know and what's in that transcript is that the whistleblower wasn't truthful about his contacts with Adam Schiff.

The transcript is of the ICIG, and it's classified. The President can de-classify it. Until he does, Ratcliffe can say anything he wants about it - true or not.

nope, it isn't classified. Only in schitt's ass.

 

[jc456]

If Sekulow seems stiff, it may be the Bolton Spanner stuffed up ass.

NY Times never saw it, it's made up. slam dunk

 

[Ame®icano]

The transcript is of the ICIG, and it's classified. The President can de-classify it. Until he does, Ratcliffe can say anything he wants about it - true or not.

Why would the President want to declassify HEARSAY?

Why hearsay is classified anyways?

 

[joaquinmiller]

Policy difference. I'd say you couldn't make this up, but he made it up.

 

[jc456]

Schiff kept talking about 17 witnesses. But there were 18.

Should we see transcripts of the 18th witness?

So That's Why Schiff Won't Release the Transcript of the 18th Witness

It's the one transcript that talks about Adam Schiff and the whistleblower. Now, everyone knows by now that Adam Schiff was not truthful about his contacts with the whistleblower. What they don't know and what's in that transcript is that the whistleblower wasn't truthful about his contacts with Adam Schiff.

The transcript is of the ICIG, and it's classified. The President can de-classify it. Until he does, Ratcliffe can say anything he wants about it - true or not.

That doesn't refute that there are 18 witnesses, and not 17 as Schiff kept repeating.

Might it refute your linked-story as to why the transcript hasn't been released?

it incriminates schitt's

 

[Ame®icano]

Schiff kept talking about 17 witnesses. But there were 18.

Should we see transcripts of the 18th witness?

So That's Why Schiff Won't Release the Transcript of the 18th Witness

It's the one transcript that talks about Adam Schiff and the whistleblower. Now, everyone knows by now that Adam Schiff was not truthful about his contacts with the whistleblower. What they don't know and what's in that transcript is that the whistleblower wasn't truthful about his contacts with Adam Schiff.

The transcript is of the ICIG, and it's classified. The President can de-classify it. Until he does, Ratcliffe can say anything he wants about it - true or not.

That doesn't refute that there are 18 witnesses, and not 17 as Schiff kept repeating.

Might it refute your linked-story as to why the transcript hasn't been released?

Sure, but why to repeatedly lie there are 17 transcripts when there are 18?

 

[the other mike]

"Wow I'm having a deja vu man. "

 

[Zorro!]

The Impeachment trial is so boring Trump tweeted about i

Yeah, 2024 for Pence, unless there is someone better.

CAN’T TRUMP DO ANYTHING RIGHT? Social Media Stats Suggest America’s BORED by Impeachment Trial.

I’m sure it must be Trump’s fault. I just haven’t figured out how.

It's so boring that Trump broke his own Twitter record, defending himself thru tweets. Conveniently, tweets are immune to cross-examination.

Now you want to cross examine tweets? You aren't showing a lot of confidence in the case that was sent to the Senate!

Deliberately obtuse, of accidental? I didn't say I wanted to cross-examine tweets. I was pointing out Trump gets to say any bullshit he wants in his tweets, without fear of being questioned. Do you disagree?

Of course I disagree. Anyone on twitter can question him. You brought up cross examination in your post. Here, to refresh your memory:

Conveniently, tweets are immune to cross-examination.

I don't think that constitutes cross-examination, but feel free to display a definition, if you like.

Do you want to be able to cross examine Trump's tweets or not?

IT’S GOING TO TURN OUT THAT THIS WHOLE BOOK MANUSCRIPT THING WAS A SETUP BETWEEN TRUMP AND BOLTON, ISN’T IT?

I’ve never understood how wanting to do something that is entirely within the President’s power — ambassadors serve at his pleasure and can be fired for any reason or none — constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor, especially when it wasn’t done.