(10-29-2019, 01:07 PM)Gabe Wrote:

(10-29-2019, 12:36 PM)jj82284 Wrote: Your "simple question" sidesteps the point I made, which is that u dont need testimony from people giving "interpretations" or "concerns" about what was said when u have 1.) Transcript of the call 2.) The alleged target of as n extortive act says there was no pressure applied.  3.) Evidence to support reasonable suspicion.

See how easy that was? And believe it or not, I really did ask because I wanted to know if you honestly considered Vindman as a never-trumper or resistance operative. I asked because the left seems to tout him as a key witness. In reaction, the right seems to be discrediting him and his loyalty to his country. That isn't a side-step. 

Perhaps that's just me wanting to hear more from everyone involved. I believe it's understandable to want transparency in an impeachment - to hear questions and answers about this entire thing in an open-to-the-public setting, especially considering that we only have leaked opening statements and yes, a TELCON memorandum (based on notes of NSC and Situation Room staff) of the call. If it's truly pearl clutching as you believe, then I'd like to see/hear it firsthand. I said it before, in response to you directly: I look at any impeachment as ultimately a lose-lose situation. 

Furthermore, I'd argue that the investigation, which is what this or any impeachment is at its core, is about more than just the call - hence the continued testimony during the initial stages - an attempt to discover evidence, if it exists, to support reasonable suspicion. This means interviews/testimonies/etc. surrounding the entire Ukraine situation, not just the call. 

At the end of the day, the house will likely vote to impeach, the senate will likely vote not to remove.