Here is 'Kanga':
Zand here is 'Roo':
Or maybe they are just jesters in the kangaroo court that is this trial.
Posted on 11/13/2019 5:19:14 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Day 1 of the public House impeachment hearings on President Trump is in the books, and nothing that happened will move public opinion in a meaningful way. The folks who have wanted to impeach Trump since he won the presidency still do, and the folks who don’t still don’t.
In other words, it’s a lost day for Democrats.
The burden of proof is on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank) to do more than secure impeachment, which is all but certain. Their job is to conduct these hearings in a way that moves public opinion to the point that the Senate will convict the president. That means giving Republican senators something that changes their impression of Trump’s conduct of Ukraine foreign policy. What’s alleged may make many members of the GOP uncomfortable, but it doesn’t come remotely close to requiring that the president be removed from office.
The opening-day witnesses — diplomatic officials Bill Taylor and George Kent — testified professionally and with honor, but they failed to deliver a made-for-TV gotcha. Rather, they simply reiterated that they had no firsthand knowledge of the president’s interactions and had not had conversations with the president directly.
“What I can do here for you today is tell you what I heard from people,” Taylor said at one point to the Democratic counsel, which is not exactly compelling evidence if you are trying to convince the American people that what happened is worthy of taking down a presidency. In Taylor’s defense, he said he did not appear as a witness for either side of this debate, but obviously Democrats were hoping people would view him as a witness helpful to their impeachment ambitions.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Ratcliffe also scored points by asking both witnesses if they had come before the committee to report any offenses stemming from the Trump-Zelensky call that warranted impeachment. Neither would say yes, which for Democrats was a deflating moment.
But according to Chris Wallace it’s practically the end for Trump.
It’s dead, Jim.
The burden of proof is on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank) to do more than secure impeachment, which is all but certain.
That’s the key point. While it is enjoyable to see Ratcliffe dunk on Schiff all day it won’t change the outcome in the House.
Any small- or large-town gossip monger could do the same--and the results would amount to about the same as did his testimony.
Day 1 of the Trump impeachment hearing was a lost day for DemocratsAs well as the NY times, FNC and the slobbering, blubbering liver lipped dimwit AKA Chris Wallace
Hearsay is not allowed in courts, why is it allowed here?
Taylor, the “star witness” testified today: he’s never met the President, never listened to his calls, never spoke with anyone in his Cabinet who has listened to his Ukraine calls, that Ukraine President Zelensky has never mention to him anything about a quid pro quo, and that all this information about such is coming to him 4th hand.
I’d say day 1 was a complete embarrassment for Schiff.
According to Rep. Mike Quigley hearsay is SUPERIOR to actual first hand witnesses.
Because it’s all they have. They want to impeach Trump over RUMORS spread by proven anti-Trump Rat operatives in the deep state.
This is a purely political process and it’s played under Calvinball Rules.
Here is 'Kanga':
Zand here is 'Roo':
Or maybe they are just jesters in the kangaroo court that is this trial.
It’s all about Shifty Schiff and obfuscation.
screw nancy and shitt head. they have not proven a crime was committed. they failed.
The senate will not convict. The senate can make up their own rules and that means that Trumps lawyers will be able to question anyone they want under oath about anything they want.
BRING IT ON.
Madam secretary Clinton, why did your order your illegal unprotected server scrubbed after the congress requested that it be protected as evidence?
The FBI gave many or her aids amnesty so when put back on the stand they are not ever in fear of self incrimination which means they have to answer every question honestly or the amnesty disappears instantly and every word they have said can be used against them.
This is going to be fun.
Wouldn’t it be funny if, at the end of this charade, the dhimmis have so bungled their case that they can’t even get unanimity from their own stooges?
The one that would theoretically be most applicable here is an "admission against interest", where you are seeking to introduce an out of court statement made by someone that makes themselves look bad. The problem is that would really be applicable only to out of court statements made by Trump himself, and that doesn't appear to be relevant here.
If these two dinner party brown nosers are the starting lineup, what can we expect from the bench?
I was thinking Radcliff could have ended his time with the question, So, what are you guys doing here today?
LA Times is more honest than Chris Wallace ?
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.