(11-18-2019, 06:16 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:

(11-17-2019, 03:44 PM)mikesez Wrote: The rules say that the Republicans can call witnesses in this proceeding.
Even if I'm wrong about that, or even if perhaps schiff would allow the witness to be called but not allow a certain question to be asked, once the proceedings move to the Senate, the president's own lawyers will be able to decide who is called and what is asked, and chief justice Roberts will be the one to decide if certain witnesses are irrelevant, or certain questions are out of order.

  The rules say otherwise.  Watch this and please comment.  This is footage from an "unbiased" source, PBS (and I say unbiased while puking in my mouth a bit).



Then perhaps watch this.



This is the testimony of one of the witnesses that the democrats called to the kangaroo court going on as well as Representative Elise Stefanik outlining multiple news sources where the chair of the kangaroo court had said that the "whistle-blower" would testify.  Why have we not seen that yet?  surely the #1 "witness" to this whole charade should have to testify.

Why would the whistle-blower need to testify?  What questions would you ask him or her?  Everything in the whistleblower's allegation has been backup up by multiple witnesses under oath already.  Some of them were even appointed to their jobs by Trump himself.  

I think the Republicans can't refute the evidence, so they have decided to go after the process.  And they throw a bunch of stuff at the wall to see what sticks with their base.  Because as long as Trump maintains his base, the Republicans are afraid to go against him.

---