Where TF is the Impeachment Inquiry Thread?

[Geezer]

He did retain a number of the Epstien legal team, seemingly appropriate.

[HouseDivided]

He did retain a number of the Epstien legal team, seemingly appropriate.

In proper context, I assume.

[Shirley]

[Shirley]

Gosh, if we didn't know better, it's as if "the defendant", aka. Donald Trump, has something to hide.

More coverup, please:

[jfish26]

It's absolutely amazing that they're really going to get away with the two-horse Merry-Go-Round (we won't let you see/use/develop evidence; the evidence you've produced isn't sufficient to remove).

[ousdahl]

I think it's been said, but imho the obstruction charge is an even bigger deal than the abuse of power one, and even more difficult to understand how so many Mericans are willing to condone it.

Well, maybe it's not that difficult to understand, I guess: it's all a sham, a witch hunt, fake news, self-fulfills the deep state conspiracy narrative cultivated all along for this very purpose, what about Dowdy, blah blah blah.

[HouseDivided]

I think it's been said, but imho the obstruction charge is an even bigger deal than the abuse of power one, and even more difficult to understand how so many Mericans are willing to condone it.

Well, maybe it's not that difficult to understand, I guess: it's all a sham, a witch hunt, fake news, self-fulfills the deep state conspiracy narrative cultivated all along for this very purpose, what about Dowdy, blah blah blah.

You forgot "At least it's NOT Dowdy."

[ousdahl]

lulz

[jfish26]

I think it's been said, but imho the obstruction charge is an even bigger deal than the abuse of power one, and even more difficult to understand how so many Mericans are willing to condone it.

Well, maybe it's not that difficult to understand, I guess: it's all a sham, a witch hunt, fake news, self-fulfills the deep state conspiracy narrative cultivated all along for this very purpose, what about Dowdy, blah blah blah.

I don't think "average" Americans generally have a sense for the extremeness of the stonewalling that's gone on. To our discussion last week - I think "average" people generally assume that conduct this extreme cannot be done, and that their elected representatives would work to counter it.

[DCHawk1]

I'm not sure why anyone thinks it would be a good idea to have a known con-man, currently under indictment for fraud, testify.


Actually, that's not true. I know why some people think it would be a good idea, but I'm not sure why anyone interested in finding out what actually happened would think that.


Introduce all the evidence -- substantiated, verifiable evidence -- you want. But let him testify? Seriously?

[twocoach]

I'm not sure why anyone thinks it would be a good idea to have a known con-man, currently under indictment for fraud, testify.


Actually, that's not true. I know why some people think it would be a good idea, but I'm not sure why anyone interested in finding out what actually happened would think that.


Introduce all the evidence -- substantiated, verifiable evidence -- you want. But let him testify? Seriously?

It's a shame that Trump and Giuliani didnt involve more upstanding, law abiding citizens in their shady law breaking schemes so that any subsequent court case would have more reputable potential witnesses...

It's like claiming that Jose Canseco isnt a good person to talk about steroid use in baseball because he's a sketchy steroid user. Eh.....

Trump has a long history of employing scumbags and lawyers to do his dirty work for exactly your goofy logic. The scumbags are easy to refute with a simple "he's a scumbag, you cant believe him!" and the lawyers arent allowed to say anything.

[jfish26]

I'm not sure why anyone thinks it would be a good idea to have a known con-man, currently under indictment for fraud, testify.


Actually, that's not true. I know why some people think it would be a good idea, but I'm not sure why anyone interested in finding out what actually happened would think that.


Introduce all the evidence -- substantiated, verifiable evidence -- you want. But let him testify? Seriously?

But this is just part of the Merry-Go-Round, right? In a functioning proceeding, his testimony (where substantiated and verifiable) would be used to confirm/contextualize other evidence. It would not have to be believed, standing for itself.

But where you go out of your way to block such a great swath of other evidence - documentary, testimonial, etc. - you're forcing a scenario (like the one you describe) where you shouldn't accept Parnas' testimony (or even documents).

[DCHawk1]

I'm not sure why anyone thinks it would be a good idea to have a known con-man, currently under indictment for fraud, testify.


Actually, that's not true. I know why some people think it would be a good idea, but I'm not sure why anyone interested in finding out what actually happened would think that.


Introduce all the evidence -- substantiated, verifiable evidence -- you want. But let him testify? Seriously?

It's a shame that Trump and Giuliani didnt involve more upstanding, law abiding citizens in their shady law breaking schemes so that any subsequent court case would have more reputable potential witnesses...

It's like claiming that Jose Canseco isnt a good person to talk about steroid use in baseball because he's a sketchy steroid user. Eh.....

Trump has a long history of employing scumbags and lawyers to do his dirty work for exactly your goofy logic. The scumbags are easy to refute with a simple "he's a scumbag, you cant believe him!" and the lawyers arent allowed to say anything.

ummm...no.

Jose was a steroid user. Parnas is a con man -- a professional liar, under indictment for professionally lying.

Of course, like I said, "I know why some people think it would be a good idea."

You're one of those people.

[DCHawk1]

I'm not sure why anyone thinks it would be a good idea to have a known con-man, currently under indictment for fraud, testify.


Actually, that's not true. I know why some people think it would be a good idea, but I'm not sure why anyone interested in finding out what actually happened would think that.


Introduce all the evidence -- substantiated, verifiable evidence -- you want. But let him testify? Seriously?

But this is just part of the Merry-Go-Round, right? In a functioning proceeding, his testimony (where substantiated and verifiable) would be used to confirm/contextualize other evidence. It would not have to be believed, standing for itself.

But where you go out of your way to block such a great swath of other evidence - documentary, testimonial, etc. - you're forcing a scenario (like the one you describe) where you shouldn't accept Parnas' testimony (or even documents).

I think you're ignoring the fact that there is a Constitutional process for establishing all of this -- confirming and contextualizing.

But, for some reason, it was more important to get the articles of impeachment drafted and voted on quickly.

So...that...well...they could sit on them.

[twocoach]

I'm not sure why anyone thinks it would be a good idea to have a known con-man, currently under indictment for fraud, testify.


Actually, that's not true. I know why some people think it would be a good idea, but I'm not sure why anyone interested in finding out what actually happened would think that.


Introduce all the evidence -- substantiated, verifiable evidence -- you want. But let him testify? Seriously?

It's a shame that Trump and Giuliani didnt involve more upstanding, law abiding citizens in their shady law breaking schemes so that any subsequent court case would have more reputable potential witnesses...

It's like claiming that Jose Canseco isnt a good person to talk about steroid use in baseball because he's a sketchy steroid user. Eh.....

Trump has a long history of employing scumbags and lawyers to do his dirty work for exactly your goofy logic. The scumbags are easy to refute with a simple "he's a scumbag, you cant believe him!" and the lawyers arent allowed to say anything.

ummm...no.

Jose was a steroid user. Parnas is a con man -- a professional liar, under indictment for professionally lying.

Of course, like I said, "I know why some people think it would be a good idea."

You're one of those people.

You hire professional con men with ties to the target of the con to run a con, which is what Trump's investigation into the Bidens is and which is what pressuring Ukraine into taking the fall for russian hacking of the DNC was.

Parnas is a material witness who seems to have had direct contact and conversation with all persons in question. In any other trial involving any other person, he would absolutely be called as a witness.

[jfish26]

I'm not sure why anyone thinks it would be a good idea to have a known con-man, currently under indictment for fraud, testify.


Actually, that's not true. I know why some people think it would be a good idea, but I'm not sure why anyone interested in finding out what actually happened would think that.


Introduce all the evidence -- substantiated, verifiable evidence -- you want. But let him testify? Seriously?

But this is just part of the Merry-Go-Round, right? In a functioning proceeding, his testimony (where substantiated and verifiable) would be used to confirm/contextualize other evidence. It would not have to be believed, standing for itself.

But where you go out of your way to block such a great swath of other evidence - documentary, testimonial, etc. - you're forcing a scenario (like the one you describe) where you shouldn't accept Parnas' testimony (or even documents).

I think you're ignoring the fact that there is a Constitutional process for establishing all of this -- confirming and contextualizing.

But, for some reason, it was more important to get the articles of impeachment drafted and voted on quickly.

So...that...well...they could sit on them.

So what were they supposed to do? Wait on voluntary cooperation that was never going to come, or on judicial processes that were 100% going to be obstructed/protracted/delayed (and then, if recent history is any indication, just not complied with (if unfavorable) anyway)?

The system wasn't designed for just an entire fucking side of our politics deciding that laws, norms, good faith and the Constitution simply do not matter.

[twocoach]

I'm not sure why anyone thinks it would be a good idea to have a known con-man, currently under indictment for fraud, testify.


Actually, that's not true. I know why some people think it would be a good idea, but I'm not sure why anyone interested in finding out what actually happened would think that.


Introduce all the evidence -- substantiated, verifiable evidence -- you want. But let him testify? Seriously?

But this is just part of the Merry-Go-Round, right? In a functioning proceeding, his testimony (where substantiated and verifiable) would be used to confirm/contextualize other evidence. It would not have to be believed, standing for itself.

But where you go out of your way to block such a great swath of other evidence - documentary, testimonial, etc. - you're forcing a scenario (like the one you describe) where you shouldn't accept Parnas' testimony (or even documents).

I think you're ignoring the fact that there is a Constitutional process for establishing all of this -- confirming and contextualizing.

But, for some reason, it was more important to get the articles of impeachment drafted and voted on quickly.

So...that...well...they could sit on them.

And calling people as witnesses in the trial is part of that constitutional process.

[ousdahl]

wait, so Parnas testifying wouldn't be a good thing toward the pursuit of what the eff all went down?

is he gonna con the Senate too?

and what are the optics of all this, of a potus blocking even more testimony? How will this read in the history books?

[jfish26]

wait, so Parnas testifying wouldn't be a good thing toward the pursuit of what the eff all went down?

is he gonna con the Senate too?

and what are the optics of all this, of a potus blocking even more testimony? How will this read in the history books?

Depends on whether they're written in English or Cyrillic.

[twocoach]

wait, so Parnas testifying wouldn't be a good thing toward the pursuit of what the eff all went down?

is he gonna con the Senate too?

and what are the optics of all this, of a potus blocking even more testimony? How will this read in the history books?

Everyone knows that books and text books are all part of the Deep State conspiracy to liberalize America's youth.