(12-17-2019, 03:31 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(12-17-2019, 01:20 PM)mikesez Wrote: 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 etrying to move on flimsy evidence, and then prevent them from accessing better evidence. That's unfair and you know it.

They have the transcriot. Nothing else is needed.