[Pants-of-dog]

Why should it be easy?

All I want is for it to be fair. If fair holding their feet to the fire, so be it...

And now we get back to my point that merely being difficult is not a good reason to force the whistleblower to testify.

Hey, that ship has sailed. Everyone knows he's the whistleblower. Hell, if he'd provided evidence against one of the Clintons he'd have committed suicide by now. But if you don't want to believe he's the whistleblower because there's no "evidence", knock yourself out...

If you want to believe something with no evidence, and do so just because some right wing pundit said so, feel free.

It does not change the fact that you have no evidence that would lead us to think that he should testify.

Well, then another source can't hurt. Swear him in...

1. It exposes the whistleblower to reprisal.
2. Any evidence that the whistleblower might be able to give has already been provided by other non-anonymous sources.
3. There is no reason to provide Republicans with ammunition in their campaign to distract from Trump’s misdeeds and vilify the messenger.

I see.

So you're not interested in a fair proceeding.

You want the left to have all the power. Well, guess what? That's not happenin'...

Ad hominem. Ignored.

[BigSteve]

And now we get back to my point that merely being difficult is not a good reason to force the whistleblower to testify.

Why do you keep ignoring my point that, first and foremost, I want fairness. If that happens to make democrats uncomfortable (and it will), then so be it. But that's not the reason to call him as a witness...

If you want to believe something with no evidence, and do so just because some right wing pundit said so, feel free.

I don't know why I'm asking this, because you'll only prove to be too afraid to answer it but, yes or no: Do you believe Ciaramella is the whistleblower?

It does not change the fact that you have no evidence that would lead us to think that he should testify.

The presence or absence of evidence is not what determines whether or not someone should testify...

1. It exposes the whistleblower to reprisal.

What sort of reprisal?

2. Any evidence that the whistleblower might be able to give has already been provided by other non-anonymous sources.

What's the detriment of having another non-anonymous source?

You're making an argument as to why Ciaramello doesn't have to testify. You're failing miserably, though, at making the argument as to why he shouldn't...

3. There is no reason to provide Republicans with ammunition in their campaign to distract from Trump’s misdeeds and vilify the messenger.

Your irrational fears that Ciaramella will be vilified and suffer reprisal are completely unfounded, so there's no reason to believe that those would happen...

Ad hominem. Ignored.

Ignore what you want, but it's true. You want to see this Senate trial tilted profoundly in favor of the democrats...

[Pants-of-dog]

Why do you keep ignoring my point that, first and foremost, I want fairness. If that happens to make democrats uncomfortable (and it will), then so be it. But that's not the reason to call him as a witness...

Why would I care about your idea about what is “fair”?

So what is the reason to call him as a witness?

I don't know why I'm asking this, because you'll only prove to be too afraid to answer it but, yes or no: Do you believe Ciaramella is the whistleblower?

I have no idea. There is no evidence either way.

The presence or absence of evidence is not what determines whether or not someone should testify...

I thought the whole point of calling witnesses in a trial is so that they can provide their testimony as evidence.

But if not, then why should this man testify?

What sort of reprisal?

Getting fired would be the obvious example that comes to mind.

What's the detriment of having another non-anonymous source?

1. It exposes the whistleblower to reprisal.
2. Any evidence that the whistleblower might be able to give has already been provided by other non-anonymous sources.
3. There is no reason to provide Republicans with ammunition in their campaign to distract from Trump’s misdeeds and vilify the messenger.

You're making an argument as to why Ciaramello doesn't have to testify. You're failing miserably, though, at making the argument as to why he shouldn't...

1. It exposes the whistleblower to reprisal.
2. Any evidence that the whistleblower might be able to give has already been provided by other non-anonymous sources.
3. There is no reason to provide Republicans with ammunition in their campaign to distract from Trump’s misdeeds and vilify the messenger.

Your irrational fears that Ciaramella will be vilified and suffer reprisal are completely unfounded, so there's no reason to believe that those would happen...

Since Trump fires anyone who disagrees with him, the case is pretty strong.

Ignore what you want, but it's true. You want to see this Senate trial tilted profoundly in favor of the democrats...

No. I think the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans in most things. I think Obama and Clinton should (like Bush and Bush Jr.) be tried for war crimes and other crimes against humanity.

The US government has never been a friend to democracy. The only difference is that this time, you folks are targeting yourselves.

[BigSteve]

Why would I care about your idea about what is “fair”?

Exactly. You don't want fairness...

So what is the reason to call him as a witness?

Why is any witness called? To find out what he knows...

I have no idea.

No argument there...

I thought the whole point of calling witnesses in a trial is so that they can provide their testimony as evidence.

That's exactly correct.

His name has come up as the likely identity of the whistleblower (whether you accept that or not is of no consequence). As such, let's put him on the stand and find out...

But if not, then why should this man testify?

Answered ad nauseum...

Getting fired would be the obvious example that comes to mind.

Getting fired by who??

1. It exposes the whistleblower to reprisal.
2. Any evidence that the whistleblower might be able to give has already been provided by other non-anonymous sources.
3. There is no reason to provide Republicans with ammunition in their campaign to distract from Trump’s misdeeds and vilify the messenger.

None of those are a detriment, unless you consider giving Republicans additional ammunition to bolster a defense a detriment, which would be understandable seeing as you want this trial slanted heavily in favor of the democrats...

1. It exposes the whistleblower to reprisal.
2. Any evidence that the whistleblower might be able to give has already been provided by other non-anonymous sources.
3. There is no reason to provide Republicans with ammunition in their campaign to distract from Trump’s misdeeds and vilify the messenger.

[insulting image deleted - Prosthetic Conscience]

Since Trump fires anyone who disagrees with him, the case is pretty strong.

Ciaramella can't be fired by Trump.

The fact that you think the case for it is "strong" has no basis in reality and, therefore, is unworthy of any consideration...

[Pants-of-dog]

Exactly. You don't want fairness...

Why is any witness called? To find out what he knows...

No argument there...

That's exactly correct.

His name has come up as the likely identity of the whistleblower (whether you accept that or not is of no consequence). As such, let's put him on the stand and find out...

Answered ad nauseum...

Getting fired by who??

None of those are a detriment, unless you consider giving Republicans additional ammunition to bolster a defense a detriment, which would be understandable seeing as you want this trial slanted heavily in favor of the democrats...

Ciaramella can't be fired by Trump.

The fact that you think the case for it is "strong" has no basis in reality and, therefore, is unworthy of any consideration...

Well, since you have no argument for why Ciaramella needs to be put in the stand, we can move on to the next name:

Why should Schiff be called as a witness?

[BigSteve]

Well, since you have no argument for why Ciaramella needs to be put in the stand, we can move on to the next name:

I've stated numerous times why he needs to be put on the stand.

That you don't like that reason is irrelevant...

Why should Schiff be called as a witness?

Schiff said his committee had no contact with the whistleblower/Ciaramella prior to him receiving the compaint. Schiff stated “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower,” when the whistleblower had in fact reached out to and spoke with a committee aide before filing a complaint.

Schiff lied. Then he changed his story.

He needs to be put under oath so we can find out which story is true...

[Pants-of-dog]

I've stated numerous times why he needs to be put on the stand.

That you don't like that reason is irrelevant...

The reasons you gave are not good.

Being difficult is not a good reason.

Schiff said his committee had no contact with the whistleblower/Ciaramella prior to him receiving the compaint. Schiff stated “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower,” when the whistleblower had in fact reached out to and spoke with a committee aide before filing a complaint.

Schiff lied. Then he changed his story.

He needs to be put under oath so we can find out which story is true...

So you want to question Schiff about something you think Schiff did.

Since Schiff is not on trial, this is a bad reason.

Do you want to try again, or should we move on to the next name?

[BigSteve]

The reasons you gave are not good.

Being difficult is not a good reason.

The reason to do it is not to be difficult, it's to be fair...

So you want to question Schiff about something you think Schiff did.

Since Schiff is not on trial, this is a bad reason.

Schiff has since acknowledged that his committee had contact with the whistleblower.

We need to ask him, under oath, why he lied about that. Since he was the one in charge of the impeachment hearings, this is especially pertinent.

That's a fucking wonderful reason to put him on the stand...

Do you want to try again, or should we move on to the next name?

As I've buried your arguments, feel free to move on.

Or, I would be willing to capitulate that you are not going to accept a single answer I give you. If I told you that water was wet you'd come up with some nonsensical bullshit argument as to why there's no reason to believe that.

Because that's the childish debate tactic you employ, time and time again...

[Drlee]

Schiff said his committee had no contact with the whistleblower/Ciaramella prior to him receiving the compaint. Schiff stated “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower,” when the whistleblower had in fact reached out to and spoke with a committee aide before filing a complaint.

Schiff lied. Then he changed his story.

He needs to be put under oath so we can find out which story is true...

This is irrelevant to the impeachment. Of course if the republican lead senate wishes to subpoena him some day they can try. They won't though. They do not want to open that can of worms. It would be lovely to see the obstruction charge that would result in putting McConnell under oath.

[BigSteve]

This is irrelevant to the impeachment.

It's not at all, considering that Ciaramella was the impetus behind the whole impeachment debacle.

Schiff lied about his committee's contact with him.

Only [insult deleted] would see that and not have a problem with it...

[Drlee]

@BigSteve Only ... would see that and not have a problem with it...

Seriously son. Can you make a post without being deliberately and personally insulting? I guess not.

[deletion - best not to push personal arguments further - Prosthetic Conscience]

[BigSteve]

Seriously son. Can you make a post without being deliberately and personally insulting? I guess not.

I was unaware you were so fragile.

Do you honestly not see a problem with Schiff lying about his committee's contact with the whistleblower? You're perfectly okay with the person who ran the impeachment hearings lying about contact with the whistleblower?

If you're insulted by my comment, I don't care, as it's not my problem. Anyone who would dismiss it and forgive Schiff is nothing but a partisan hack.

[a further descent into a personal fight deleted - Prosthetic Conscience]

[Pants-of-dog]

The reason to do it is not to be difficult, it's to be fair...

Bringing in witnesses to grill them about the behaviour of people other than Trump is irrelevant, no matter how “unfair” you think it is.

Schiff has since acknowledged that his committee had contact with the whistleblower.

We need to ask him, under oath, why he lied about that. Since he was the one in charge of the impeachment hearings, this is especially pertinent.

That's a fucking wonderful reason to put him on the stand...

Again, you are confused about who is on trial.

If you want to put Schiff and other Democrats on trial for their behaviour at a later date, feel free.

As I've buried your arguments, feel free to move on.

Or, I would be willing to capitulate that you are not going to accept a single answer I give you. If I told you that water was wet you'd come up with some nonsensical bullshit argument as to why there's no reason to believe that.

Because that's the childish debate tactic you employ, time and time again...

Can you specify which argument of mine you have successfully refuted?

Now, just to summarise my point in this post:

Trump is on trial, not the Democrats. So any witnesses called would be there to be asked about what Trump did, not what the Democrats did.

[BigSteve]

Bringing in witnesses to grill them about the behaviour of people blahblahblahblahblah...

Here's the bottom line: The person leading the impeachment hearings lied about contact with the person who was the catalyst behind those impeachment hearings.

That's a really, really big problem.

[insult deleted - Prosthetic Conscience]

Schiff needs to be put under oath so he can say one of two things which will have similar outcomes.

1 - He says, under oath, that neither he nor anyone on his committee have contact with the whistleblower. Then we put the whistleblower on the stand to say that, in fact, he did. Schiff is outed as a liar but, more importantly, the impeachment hearings are sullied and quite possibly un-Constitutional. Schiff is then charged with perjury and obstruction of justice as a result of that perjury.

2 - Schiff admits to having had contact with the whistleblower. Then he's asked why he lied about it during the impeachment proceedings. His admission will then sully the impeachment hearings and possibly render them un-Constitutional.

In either case, the worst p[ossible thing for Trump is that it can be shown that the democrats acted deviously throughout the hearings and, as such, no one will really give a shit about the impeachment.

See, that's why libs don't want the whistleblower to take the stand. Ciaramella and Schiff both have their versions of the truth, and only one of them isn't Hell bent on removing Trump from office.

[Stormsmith]

He doesn't need to exonerate himself. He doesn't need to provide witnesses who will say he's not guilty. He doesn't have to produce any evidence which demonstrates that.

It's pretty clear you have no clue how our justice system works...

This is what I said: I wonder who President Trump will call as witnessing that he isn't quilty. I'm not talking about character witnesses, I mean real witnesses that can exonerate him. I've not seen a soul so far, just blanket claims that the evidence at hand doesn't amount to impeachable. And not much to say why


I didn't say "he must". I am well aware it is an option, one that President Clinton successfully used.

[SpecialOlympian]

1 - He says, under oath, that neither he nor anyone on his committee have contact with the whistleblower. Then we put the whistleblower on the stand to say that, in fact, he did. Schiff is outed as a liar but, more importantly, the impeachment hearings are sullied and quite possibly un-Constitutional. Schiff is then charged with perjury and obstruction of justice as a result of that perjury.

2 - Schiff admits to having had contact with the whistleblower. Then he's asked why he lied about it during the impeachment proceedings. His admission will then sully the impeachment hearings and possibly render them un-Constitutional.

This is so fucking stupid lol.

Ignoring the rank stupidity of how you believe that this "un-Constitutionalizes" the prcoeedings, how does any of this change the fact that the president attempted to interfere in an election by coercing a head of state into announcing a fraudulent investigation?

Even in your best case scenario, based on half-remembered episodes of Law & Order that don't even apply to this situation, you assume the president is guilty and that the best he can hope for is to have the impeachment proceedings thrown out on a technicality. Lmao.

[jimjam]

This is so fucking stupid lol.

Ignoring the rank stupidity of how you believe that this "un-Constitutionalizes" the prcoeedings, how does any of this change the fact that the president attempted to interfere in an election by coercing a head of state to announce a fraudulent investigation? What is wrong with you?

Even in your best case scenario, based on half-remembered episodes of Law & Order that don't even apply to this situation, you assume the president is guilty and that the best he can hope for is to have the impeachment proceedings thrown out on a technicality. Lmao.

don't waste your time. the gentleman is self proclaimed the smartest, richest and happiest guy around but it is obvious that he has issues if he has nothing better to do all day than disperse nonsense and insult and pick fights with strangers. he, however, is very entertaining like his hero Impeached President Trump. Good for a good laugh anyway.

[Drlee]

@jimjam .....don't waste your time. the gentleman is self proclaimed the smartest, richest and happiest guy around

But he is not a Mensa member by his own admission if you get my drift.....

[BigSteve]

This is so fucking stupid lol.

Ignoring the rank stupidity of how you believe that this "un-Constitutionalizes" the prcoeedings, how does any of this change the fact that the president attempted to interfere in an election by coercing a head of state into announcing a fraudulent investigation?

Even in your best case scenario, based on half-remembered episodes of Law & Order that don't even apply to this situation, you assume the president is guilty and that the best he can hope for is to have the impeachment proceedings thrown out on a technicality. Lmao.

The fact that the person running the hearings lied about an integral aspect of the hearings is alarming, and I imagine a strong case could be made for dismissal because of it.

Additionally, here are Schiff's comments early on regarding Trump's phone call and what Schiff weanted people to believe was said (the transcript hadn't been provided yet). That Schiff would do this is unconscionable and reprehensible:

We’ve been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though. And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it. On this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I am going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my Attorney General Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him. And I’m going to put you in touch with Rudy. You’re going to love him. Trust me. You know what I’m asking. And so I’m only going to say this a few more times. In a few more ways. And by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked.

Adam Schiff is a piece of human shit. He has done everything in his power to avoid even the appearance of fairness and equity, and idiot libs just gobble it up.

I suspect some of the players in this whole debacle will end up in jail.

I don't think Trump will be one of them...

[BigSteve]

But he is not a Mensa member by his own admission if you get my drift.....

My experience is that people who claim to be a member of Mensa usually aren't and, if they are, they're truly some of the dumbest people on the planet...