PeterZ wrote:gcomeau wrote:I'm sorry, did you seriously just try to make an argument that witness testimony from multiple sources NOT contradicting each other about what happened is suspicious?
And if you want to make the accusation that is somehow coordinated provide an IOTA of evidence of that claim. And no, people calling for Sondland to testify at all is not such evidence or anything resembling it.
Yes when the side arguing for impeachment has called for impeachment even before any wrong doing was asserted.
As already pointed out, serious wrongdoing has been occurring from day 1 of this presidency due to Trump's refusal to divest his assets. It was open season on abject corruption from the word go. Even before they hauled away his National Security adviser and all the obstruction of justice began.
He just got too brazenly cocky about getting away with it and it finally made an impeachment hearing impossible to avoid.
This inquiry is an impeachment looking for a pretext.
A whistleblower coming forward and alleging the president is extorting a foreign head of state into interfering in the upcoming election by withholding security funds Congress appropriated to serve US national security interests is a hell of a pretext, particularly after the Inspector General's initial investigation finds that report both Urgent and Credible.
And oh look, they didn't even need to go looking for it because that came first you doofus.
So yes, the use of the Intel Commitee to conduct the inquiry in a skiff rather that the Judicial Committee out in the open is suspicious.
You mean the exact same way all of the 100+ depositions taken in the Benghazi hearing were held in the exact same way (except for Clinton's)? You mean "suspicious" like that?
You. Don't. Let. Witnesses. Hear. Each. Other's. Testimony. So. They. Can't. Coordinate. Their. Answers.
And that is in the rules for such inquiries the REPUBLICAN majority wrote when they were in power.
Denying the President's 6th Amendment rights to face his accuser displays a disregard for the rule of law.
That applies to a trial genius, not an investigation.
The trial part happens in the Senate.
Stop making up imaginary rights just so you can claim Trump had them violated and play fake victim.
So when the only witnesses displayed in public after their time in the skiff all recount a cohesive pattern of opinions, it is suspicious.
So I'm going to circle back to this part you're conveniently skipping over one more time. Explain exactly why all the witnesses I assume you must think exist who know the "truth" of Trump's innocence will not testify? Why they actively and strenuously fight compliance with Congressional subpoenas to do so? Why are they withholding all the documents that were also subpoenaed which I assume you also think would show how innocent Trump is. Why are they so desperately battling to make sure they don't have to go under oath and tell the "truth" about how Trump did nothing wrong? Why are all the Republicans in Congress and the Senate not screaming from the rooftops for these people to come forward to prove Trump's virtuous innocence?
Explain how this conspiracy you are implying is at work here would actually, you know, work. Try to sound sane while doing so, I dare you.