(01-21-2020, 04:03 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote:

(01-21-2020, 03:39 PM)Gabe Wrote: If that's your stance, then there absolutely isn't any reason not to have witness testimony. If this whole thing is a sham, then show it through witness testimony. Call Trump, I don't care. I'd welcome it. Not having witness testimony for no other reason than "IT WAS SHAM!" only further increases public suspicion. 


Trump is impeached. That's not changing. If I were him and everything is as perfect as he claims it to be, I'd do everything possible to clear my name for the general public, ESPECIALLY considering there's an election coming up. That includes witness testimony, not withholding it.

The transcript this entire sham is about is out there for anyone to read. I think Trump wears this "impeachment" like a badge of honor, as he should because its a sham.

Boy, he certainly acts like it. /s

(01-21-2020, 04:06 PM)homebiscuit Wrote:

(01-21-2020, 03:39 PM)Gabe Wrote: If that's your stance, then there absolutely isn't any reason not to have witness testimony. If this whole thing is a sham, then show it through witness testimony. Call Trump, I don't care. I'd welcome it. Not having witness testimony for no other reason than "IT WAS SHAM!" only further increases public suspicion. 


Trump is impeached. That's not changing. If I were him and everything is as perfect as he claims it to be, I'd do everything possible to clear my name for the general public, ESPECIALLY considering there's an election coming up. That includes witness testimony, not withholding it.

Should the whistleblower be deposed? Honest question.

Honest answer: I'm on the fence. The conservative in me wants that person's identity (and safety) protected...that's the only reason I'd say no. Otherwise, I don't care one way or the other. 

I could offer you another strawman question in return, but I figure it'd get us nowhere.

---

(01-21-2020, 04:14 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote:

(01-21-2020, 02:01 PM)Gabe Wrote: I'm not opposed to that, but Mulvaney & Pompeo (among others) were blocked by the White House from testifying during House proceedings - the arguments were that the proceedings wouldn't be "fair."

I believe the argument was Executive Privilege, but they likely noted the unfair structure of the proceedings also.

He never invoked it. He just stonewalled. ...so I'll go back to my original inquiry: why wouldn't now, when you deem the proceedings to be fair, be the opportune time to have witness testimony? Why the opposition?

---