(11-23-2019, 11:06 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(11-18-2019, 06:16 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:   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.