(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.

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.

---