(12-17-2019, 01:06 PM)copycat Wrote:

(12-17-2019, 12:57 PM)mikesez Wrote: The House interviewed a bunch of diplomats who said that it looked to them as if Trump wanted Ukraine's government to inject a negative story about Biden into the US press while not actually caring if they followed through with punishing any corruption. Did Trump actually say that? Pompeo or Giuliani would know. The lower level diplomats also testified that Bolton tried to keep his distance from this, calling it a "drug deal". Why did Bolton feel that way?

Why wouldn't you want those two questions answered?

This right here says it all.  You are advocating this entire circus on conjecture and zero evidence all because you despise the man in question.  

As for your statement that the public opinion shifting away from the democrats what polls are you watching?  A democrat is even switching party affiliation over this farce.

I am advocating that the people who were in the room when it happened testify under oath. I don't see why that should turn into a circus. If their testimony explains how they were doing this the right way for the right reasons, then there is no need for anything else. If their testimony instead shows that the impressions of these lower diplomats were correct, then the president was abusing his power and needs to be removed immediately.

You can't have this both ways. if you think that all these people who have already testified under oath have false impressions, you should want the people who know better to testify saying so. If you think that their impressions were accurate, but that this is somehow not abusive, you should want them to testify explaining why it was not abusive. if you really think there is a deep state, this kind of open-ended testimony seems like a pretty good chance to expose it, wouldn't you think?

You can't fault to the House prosecutors for trying to move on flimsy evidence, and then prevent them from accessing better evidence. That's unfair and you know it.

---