Posted on 11/18/2019 5:06:16 AM PST by EyesOfTX
Another set of focus groups, another new talking point. This is how the Democrats do “impeachment.” – Last Thursday, as chronicled here at the Campaign Update, San Fran Nan and Bug-eyes Schiff rolled out their “bribery” talking point after testing the word with polls and focus groups. It turned out that “quid pro quo” hit too close to “Quid Pro Joe,” and people just fall asleep whenever Pelosi or Schiff utter the whole “obstruction of congress” nonsense,” so the Democrats needed a new word to describe the fantasy they were trying to construct.
“Blackmail” being an actual English word that most Americans – even Democrats – actually understand the meaning of helped, plus it had all those negative connotations that the man on the street can relate back to episodes of Chicago Law and Law and Order, so it’s just awesome for this purpose.
But another problem came up after the first two days of mindless testimony from three gossips in the diplomatic corps: Everything they said was hearsay. None of the three witnesses actually witnessed anything remotely related to any supposed wrongdoing by the President. Faced with a group of GOP congress members who are actually organized around a set of core messages for once, the Democrats had no effective response to the GOP contention that this is all just gossip and hearsay, mainly because it is just all gossip and hearsay, with much more gossip and hearsay to come.
So, apparently San Fran Nan and Bug-eyes got a focus group or twelve together on Saturday and rolled out this question to them: “Hey, how would you respond if we taunted President Trump to come testify himself?” That apparently produced nodding heads around the rooms, and thus we had the spectacle of San Fran Nan and Chuck Schumer saying this on Sunday:
Pelosi: “If he has information that is exculpatory, that means ex, taking away, culpable, blame, then we look forward to seeing it,” she said in an interview that aired Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” Trump “could come right before the committee and talk, speak all the truth that he wants if he wants.”
Schumer: “If Donald Trump doesn’t agree with what he’s hearing, doesn’t like what he’s hearing, he shouldn’t tweet. He should come to the committee and testify under oath. And he should allow all those around him to come to the committee and testify under oath,” Schumer told reporters. He said the White House’s insistence on blocking witnesses from cooperating begs the question: “What is he hiding?”
In other words, in the grand tradition of Democrat politicians trying to corrupt the American system of justice, they now want President Trump to come prove his innocence before their impeachment circus.
Sorry, but that’s not how this works, Nan and Chuck. That’s now any of this works.
But it obviously does well with focus groups, and that’s all any Democrat really cares about. All of which clearly demonstrates one more time how un-serious these people are, and how low their regard is for the health and survival of this country.
It’s despicable. It’s demented. It’s disgraceful and disgusting. But hey, it’s Democrats – you expected something else?
That is all.
According to the resolution HR660 which gives Bug-Eyes Schiff total control over witnesses, questions, subpoenas, and just about everything else, there would be absolutely no reason to testify. One man’s testimony would not outweigh a biased presentation lasting weeks or months, and a partisan party line vote.
Not to mention, it would be a bad precedent.
That’s racist! The democrats always hated black men. It figures they would attack them.
Talking points for GOP:
1. Innocent unti proven guilty - Law school 101;
2. Projection - crimes committed, want to commit or will commit;
3. Democrats haven’t won an honest election since Andrew Jackson; and
4. Impeach and you own the consequences.
Oh, so now we're back to the Dark Ages thing of having to prove your innocence, otherwise you're guilty crap.
I hope Pelousy and Schifty really push this junk. Then, at just the right moment for maximum effect, Trump can ask why people have to prove their innocence, maybe the Dems just can't prove guilt, eh?
How much is it costing us for these imbeciles to still not be able to find a crime?
James Comeystain tried to blackmail President Trump with a discussion of a Russian pee pee video and how even the rumor leaking to the press could be damaging to his leadership.
Then Comeystain leaked it anyhow and it became the talk of facebook conspiracies and late night comedians.
>>Pelosi: “If he has information that is exculpatory, that means ex, taking away, culpable, blame, then we look forward to seeing it,” she said in an interview that aired Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
Lying beyotch. They have denied crossexamination, they have denied exculpatory witnesses.
Nutzi Peelousy needs to be run out of office. Joe McCarthy was shamed through history for less.
God forbid any president ever diminishes the office that way.
Worse than a bad precedent, it would validate the proceedings, and that must never happen.
In line one the word “until” gives a perception of inevitability. IMHO I would prefer the word “unless.”
5. Everything the Democrats accuse Trump of doing, they are actually doing.
I believe that the time has arrived for the Real Americans who are still among us to take off the gloves and take down these Subversives and Commies that are openly engaging in an attempted Coup D’etat. The nonsense has to be put to an end!
> Trump “could come right before the committee and talk, speak all the truth that he wants if he wants.”
But... he did.
He lambasted the Ambassador in real time. Schiff quoted his comments into the record. He told the truth: that the Ambassador was fired for incompetence and had no first hand knowledge of the calls in question nor of any actionable wrongdoing. And he did it in a way that was unavoidable, uncensorable, accurate, concise, and did not waste anyone’s time. It was practically as though he were in the room questioning her himself, with devastating impact.
To be politically correct, they shouldn’t call it ”blackmail”. Sort of like Redskins?
It occurred to me that all this focus on “focus” groups stems from that idiot new TV show, BULL.
After watching 1/2 hour of the first show, I knew it would play a part in future court cases.
Full of nonsense, drama, impossible tactics and a typical loser show, with NO saving grace.
Jury manipulation...Focus Groups.
Brings tears to the eyes considering the crappola.
A lot of bluster and hyperbole but no specifics.
Exactly HOW do you plan on Real Americans taking down these democRATS? Most of them hold office, voted in by Americans who believe the same as the politicians.
Take the gloves off? Are you talking people going to DC and start fisticuffs with these politicians?
What exactly are you suggesting people do to end this?
As I recall, in 1998 Clinton was questioned in the Oval Office on videotape as part of the investigation of the Lewinsky scandal. I don’t remember exactly at one point that happened. I don’t think that serves as a good precedent since Clinton had clearly committed perjury (as well as a lot of other illegal things).
Extortion is a better word for what they’re alleging. Blackmail is keeping someone’s dirty secret for money.
Of course, it’s fraudulent no matter what you call it.
This, from Mr. Star Chamber? Mr. Secret Witness, Secret Testimony, Secret Charges, Witness Coach, Selective Media Leaker, I-don't-know-who-the-whistleblower-is? Schiff may be impervious to his own stink but the rest of us pick it up just fine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.