I’ve read the entire thing and it’s quite interesting......No, seriously I watched the hearings, perused the transcripts and unless the report is a complete volume of fiction, it’s a complete nothingburger.
You read iT?!?!? You mean,you wouldn’t prefer that the media just explain it to you?
I’ve read the entire thing and it’s quite interesting......No, seriously I watched the hearings, perused the transcripts and unless the report is a complete volume of fiction, it’s a complete nothingburger.
—
You’re a better man than I. I just wouldn’t have the stomach for it.
I just sped read through it also through the entire work of fiction. Schitt-for-brains seems to think he can overwhelm a lack of cogent conclusions with a lot of section endnotes. Lots of assertions with very little factual foundation in reality. For example Schitt-for-brains has the gall to assert that the President had the opportunity to participate in committee hearings and that Republicans could ask questions of witness. He even makes the comment that the witness lists between the Democrat and Republicans were amazing in how well they agreed when compared. . . Which is most likely after Schifty-Schitt-for-brains had deleted all Republican witnesses he did not agree with from their lists.
No where in the entire report does it quote the transcript of the inter-Presidential phone call of July 25, 2019. It cites some out-of-context quotations, but no complete transcript, which are written in the text of the “report” to misconstrue the context and intent of the phone call.
Nor does it cite ANY of the responses from witnesses elicited by the Republican questions which impeached or completely invalidated their original testimony under direct statement or questioning by the Democrats, such as they only HEARD what they testified from others as hearsay, and had no actual direct knowledge of what they were claiming. The report presents the hearsay testimony as if it were direct testimony, not the actual hearsay it was revealed to be. Not once did it mention the self-impeachment the witnesses later attested to.
Several times in the “Obstruction” section, Schitt-for-brains asserts that mere statutes passed by Congress have, in his mind, a self-serving Constitutional level authority to oversee EVERYTHING about a co-equal branch of government it decides it wants to see, even up to, and including the President’s highest level advisors, in any investigation it chooses to instigate, even without a whole House resolution instigating and authorizing an impeachment inquiry.
No where has this extra-Constitutional authority ever been found before, but Schitt-for-brains asserts its found in the penumbra of Congress’ Constitutional powers, but does not cite where in the Constitution it lies. . . Just assumes everyone knows where he found it. . . claiming there are court cases where congress has been allowed to investigate lower officials and departments of the executive department, where they have had legitimate oversight, which is actually attached to legislative need, not searching for a crime in an investigation with out a legally established predicate.
Can’t it be both?
What strikes me are the references to the Founding Fathers, and the reverence for the Constitution.
Reminds me of when your atheist relative brings up The Bible because he thinks it serves his argument well.