...  lol.  The majority is in possession of sworn testimony & supporting documents.  We have contemporaneous press releases, stories about the case being filed etc.  

Defendant "judge, my wife is alive & well she's right outside the court room"

Judge "no, I deem that witness out of order" 

Mikey: "murderer"

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.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

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.

Dude.
You have, multiple occasions on this forum, touted yourself as someone with experience working for our government.  I forget if you served in the armed forces or were on the defense contractor side of things.  Either way, you held it over me, saying I sounded ignorant because I lacked your knowledge/experience/jargon whatever.

If you don't understand the whistleblower statutes and the protections they offer and require, I can't help you.  You wouldn't listen to me even if I could.

Everything in the unredacted version of the whistleblower report has been read in and confirmed by other witnesses anyhow.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

There is no whistleblower, never was.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

There is no whistleblower, never was.

I think that's implausible, but even if there is no whistleblower at all, you still have to contend with the testimony that we do have under oath.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Eric Ciaramella is not a whistleblower but a serial leaker.  If he was a real whistleblower they would not have changed the rules to accommodate his particular case.

---

There is no whistleblower, never was.

I think that's implausible, but even if there is no whistleblower at all, you still have to contend with the testimony that we do have under oath.

Calling a turd a flower doesn't make it a flower.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

  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.

Dude.
You have, multiple occasions on this forum, touted yourself as someone with experience working for our government.  I forget if you served in the armed forces or were on the defense contractor side of things.  Either way, you held it over me, saying I sounded ignorant because I lacked your knowledge/experience/jargon whatever.

If you don't understand the whistleblower statutes and the protections they offer and require, I can't help you.  You wouldn't listen to me even if I could.

Everything in the unredacted version of the whistleblower report has been read in and confirmed by other witnesses anyhow.

The whistleblower statute 

A.) Doesnt apply to Eric Ciaramela.  That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of the office of legal counsel for the doj.  

B.) Only Prevents the IG from revealing the name of the whistleblower.  That's one public officer.  It says nothing about universal guarantees of anonymity.  

Moreover, the majority already outed the whistleblower by not redacting his name from certain released depositions.  

As to testimony "confirming" the whistleblower complaint...  have u been paying attention.  We have a transcript.  The leaker contended that there were multiple references to a quid pro quo involving military aid and investigations.  The military aid in question was NEVER MENTIONED on the call.

---

Dude.
You have, multiple occasions on this forum, touted yourself as someone with experience working for our government.  I forget if you served in the armed forces or were on the defense contractor side of things.  Either way, you held it over me, saying I sounded ignorant because I lacked your knowledge/experience/jargon whatever.

If you don't understand the whistleblower statutes and the protections they offer and require, I can't help you.  You wouldn't listen to me even if I could.

Everything in the unredacted version of the whistleblower report has been read in and confirmed by other witnesses anyhow.

The whistleblower statute 

A.) Doesnt apply to Eric Ciaramela.  That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of the office of legal counsel for the doj.  

B.) Only Prevents the IG from revealing the name of the whistleblower.  That's one public officer.  It says nothing about universal guarantees of anonymity.  

Moreover, the majority already outed the whistleblower by not redacting his name from certain released depositions.  

As to testimony "confirming" the whistleblower complaint...  have u been paying attention.  We have a transcript.  The leaker contended that there were multiple references to a quid pro quo involving military aid and investigations.  The military aid in question was NEVER MENTIONED on the call.

The transcript is redacted.  We know how many minutes long the call was.  Unless they were talking extremely slowly, much more was said than what we have.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The whistleblower statute 

A.) Doesnt apply to Eric Ciaramela.  That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of the office of legal counsel for the doj.  

B.) Only Prevents the IG from revealing the name of the whistleblower.  That's one public officer.  It says nothing about universal guarantees of anonymity.  

Moreover, the majority already outed the whistleblower by not redacting his name from certain released depositions.  

As to testimony "confirming" the whistleblower complaint...  have u been paying attention.  We have a transcript.  The leaker contended that there were multiple references to a quid pro quo involving military aid and investigations.  The military aid in question was NEVER MENTIONED on the call.

The transcript is redacted.  We know how many minutes long the call was.  Unless they were talking extremely slowly, much more was said than what we have.

False, it was not redacted, it is a consensus notation. Four people taking individual notes did not find anything about withholding aid to record in the transcript. It's an inference by a person without personal direct knowledge of the call, hearsay, propped up by several testimonies with no more direct knowledge than the rumour monger. It's a sham and you know it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The whistleblower statute 

A.) Doesnt apply to Eric Ciaramela.  That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of the office of legal counsel for the doj.  

B.) Only Prevents the IG from revealing the name of the whistleblower.  That's one public officer.  It says nothing about universal guarantees of anonymity.  

Moreover, the majority already outed the whistleblower by not redacting his name from certain released depositions.  

As to testimony "confirming" the whistleblower complaint...  have u been paying attention.  We have a transcript.  The leaker contended that there were multiple references to a quid pro quo involving military aid and investigations.  The military aid in question was NEVER MENTIONED on the call.

The transcript is redacted.  We know how many minutes long the call was.  Unless they were talking extremely slowly, much more was said than what we have.

U know, the new heavy duty non stick tin foil is great for cooking.

---

There is no whistleblower, never was.

I think that's implausible, but even if there is no whistleblower at all, you still have to contend with the testimony that we do have under oath.

In which the facts backTrump.  100%

It's unfathomable why they expected this stunt to fool anyone paying attention to the facts.

But, perhaps they were relying on those who don't.

---

I think that's implausible, but even if there is no whistleblower at all, you still have to contend with the testimony that we do have under oath.

Calling a turd a flower doesn't make it a flower.

Such is the false worldview of the left.  Pure fantasy, a complete disconnect from reality.  A self sustaining psychosis of alternate "reality."

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

The limp wristed whistleblower definitely got wedgies in high school. Atomic ones.

---

I think that's implausible, but even if there is no whistleblower at all, you still have to contend with the testimony that we do have under oath.

In which the facts backTrump.  100%

It's unfathomable why they expected this stunt to fool anyone paying attention to the facts.

But, perhaps they were relying on those who don't.

---

Calling a turd a flower doesn't make it a flower.

Such is the false worldview of the left.  Pure fantasy, a complete disconnect from reality.  A self sustaining psychosis of alternate "reality."

Funnyily enough that's exactly what the left would say about the right too

---

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.

---

  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.

Have u been paying attention? Did u read the transcripts?  0 mentions of aid during the phone call.

---

  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.

Nothing, at all, has been backed up by the testimony of the past two weeks. Everything they've presented has been hearsay, biased interpretation of partial facts, and Schiff's abuse of the gavel.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

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.

Have u been paying attention? Did u read the transcripts?  0 mentions of aid during the phone call.

We don't have a complete transcript of any of the calls

---

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.

Nothing, at all, has been backed up by the testimony of the past two weeks. Everything they've presented has been hearsay, biased interpretation of partial facts, and Schiff's abuse of the gavel.

hearsay is complicated.
Some things that you would not think are hearsay, are and some things that you would think are hearsay, are not.
www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801#

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Have u been paying attention? Did u read the transcripts?  0 mentions of aid during the phone call.

We don't have a complete transcript of any of the calls

---

Nothing, at all, has been backed up by the testimony of the past two weeks. Everything they've presented has been hearsay, biased interpretation of partial facts, and Schiff's abuse of the gavel.

hearsay is complicated.
Some things that you would not think are hearsay, are and some things that you would think are hearsay, are not.
www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801#

On your first point, what you are saying is that you have no evidence. What transcript there is exonerates Trump, what there isn't cannot be evidence.

On your second point, you always try to make things more complicated than they are, only by confusion and obfuscation can you get any kind of traction for your narrative.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

We don't have a complete transcript of any of the calls

---

hearsay is complicated.
Some things that you would not think are hearsay, are and some things that you would think are hearsay, are not.
www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801#

On your first point, what you are saying is that you have no evidence. What transcript there is exonerates Trump, what there isn't cannot be evidence.

On your second point, you always try to make things more complicated than they are, only by confusion and obfuscation can you get any kind of traction for your narrative.

Nah, the incomplete transcript we have includes, "I would like you to do us a favor though" which is probably bribery, depending on the context.  All of the testimony lays out the context, and shows that it was bribery.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

On your first point, what you are saying is that you have no evidence. What transcript there is exonerates Trump, what there isn't cannot be evidence.

On your second point, you always try to make things more complicated than they are, only by confusion and obfuscation can you get any kind of traction for your narrative.

Nah, the incomplete transcript we have includes, "I would like you to do us a favor though" which is probably bribery, depending on the context.  All of the testimony lays out the context, and shows that it was bribery.

I see you're leftist handlers have converted you to the "bribery" word. I hope they are, er, bribing you to use it.

In what reality is asking for a favor bribery? The favor was not forthcoming. The aid was still sent.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"