The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
*** THE OFFICIAL IMPEACHMENT THREAD ***
|
(01-28-2020, 09:00 AM)Gabe Wrote:(01-27-2020, 08:07 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: Not all of them, but you didn't ask that.I'm interested, mainly, in hearing the testimony of those who were blocked by the WH from speaking - and I'd also like to hear what the Bidens, Pelosis, Clintons, etc. of the world have to say under oath. Those were who I was referring to in my question to you regarding who the democrats want to subpoena are the ones who have yet to testify but were told not to - even though supposedly what they have to say would otherwise exonerate the president. To me, this all looks, smells and feels like a smoking gun - blocking testimony and withholding documentation does nothing more than fan the flames of the general public's suspicion. The president has every right to invoke Executive Privilege with regard to just about everyone save for Bolton - since he talked about his conversations with him on Twitter. I'm just saying it's not a good look, in the eyes of the general public (not just those with OMB syndrome) Nobody was "blocked by the WH from speaking." Whether or not Trump advised, or even demanded, that they not give testimony, they could have always ignored him and testified. Given the government screwing of Flynn and Libby, anyone who testifies before a hostile questioner without a judge requiring it is a fool. If the testimony was so important then Schiff could have taken the matter to court. Instead the House voted that the evidence they collected without those witnesses was sufficient to impeach. If it was sufficient, why ask for more witnesses in the Senate? Clearly because they want to create a circus similar to what the did with Kavanaugh. "Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?" |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |
The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.