|
Hearings
Been watching the impeachment hearings today (mainly because it's too freakin' cold out to go outside). One thing that has struck me. If the questions being asked mostly by the Democrats were being asked in a court of law rather than a congressional public hearing, most would never be allowed by a judge. This is more so by the Democrat members of congress. The lawyers (non-congresspersons) did a decent job but the regular office holders, even though many are lawyers, would never get away with their leading questions and conclusions forced upon Taylor and Kent. |
Hearings
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 15:00:19 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
Been watching the impeachment hearings today (mainly because it's too freakin' cold out to go outside). One thing that has struck me. If the questions being asked mostly by the Democrats were being asked in a court of law rather than a congressional public hearing, most would never be allowed by a judge. This is more so by the Democrat members of congress. The lawyers (non-congresspersons) did a decent job but the regular office holders, even though many are lawyers, would never get away with their leading questions and conclusions forced upon Taylor and Kent. Should have spent the time watching 'The Command'. I listened on the radio while driving today. Seems like hearsay is much approved by the Democrats. Wonder how that will play during the trial, if there is one (which I doubt). |
Hearings
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 17:05:19 -0500, John H.
wrote: On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 15:00:19 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Been watching the impeachment hearings today (mainly because it's too freakin' cold out to go outside). One thing that has struck me. If the questions being asked mostly by the Democrats were being asked in a court of law rather than a congressional public hearing, most would never be allowed by a judge. This is more so by the Democrat members of congress. The lawyers (non-congresspersons) did a decent job but the regular office holders, even though many are lawyers, would never get away with their leading questions and conclusions forced upon Taylor and Kent. Should have spent the time watching 'The Command'. I listened on the radio while driving today. Seems like hearsay is much approved by the Democrats. Wonder how that will play during the trial, if there is one (which I doubt). I saw a few minutes and I was thinking the same as Richard. They are telling the witness what they want them to say and asking if it is true. We knew this was going to be a political process, not a legal one from the beginning. One intriguing possibility in the Senate would be for McConnell to move for immediate dismissal on a simple up down vote. I wonder if Roberts would go along? I also wonder how long it is going to take to get this out of the house in the first place. Being political theater, I assume they want to milk this cow as long as they can. The only thing that would slow them down is if polling in swing states started indicating that they think this is a witch hunt. Nobody really cares about what the blue states think, we already know, so national polls are meaningless. |
Hearings
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 17:05:19 -0500, John H. wrote: On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 15:00:19 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Been watching the impeachment hearings today (mainly because it's too freakin' cold out to go outside). One thing that has struck me. If the questions being asked mostly by the Democrats were being asked in a court of law rather than a congressional public hearing, most would never be allowed by a judge. This is more so by the Democrat members of congress. The lawyers (non-congresspersons) did a decent job but the regular office holders, even though many are lawyers, would never get away with their leading questions and conclusions forced upon Taylor and Kent. Should have spent the time watching 'The Command'. I listened on the radio while driving today. Seems like hearsay is much approved by the Democrats. Wonder how that will play during the trial, if there is one (which I doubt). I saw a few minutes and I was thinking the same as Richard. They are telling the witness what they want them to say and asking if it is true. We knew this was going to be a political process, not a legal one from the beginning. One intriguing possibility in the Senate would be for McConnell to move for immediate dismissal on a simple up down vote. I wonder if Roberts would go along? I also wonder how long it is going to take to get this out of the house in the first place. Being political theater, I assume they want to milk this cow as long as they can. The only thing that would slow them down is if polling in swing states started indicating that they think this is a witch hunt. Nobody really cares about what the blue states think, we already know, so national polls are meaningless. Would be interesting if some of the senators brought up the possibility of charging Pelosi with Sedition. Seeing as this is just one of many attempts to impeach and bring down a legally elected president in since the election. |
Hearings
Bill
- show quoted text - Would be interesting if some of the senators brought up the possibility of charging Pelosi with Sedition. Seeing as this is just one of many attempts to impeach and bring down a legally elected president in since the election. —— I always thought they were trying to impeach him even before he was elected.... |
Hearings
Mr. Luddite
Been watching the impeachment hearings today (mainly because it's too freakin' cold out to go outside). One thing that has struck me. If the questions being asked mostly by the Democrats were being asked in a court of law rather than a congressional public hearing, most would never be allowed by a judge. This is more so by the Democrat members of congress. The lawyers (non-congresspersons) did a decent job but the regular office holders, even though many are lawyers, would never get away with their leading questions and conclusions forced upon Taylor and Kent. ——— I watch most of mr Taylor’s report on WGN live stream, until I realized it was eating my non WiFi time. Very eloquent man even with a couple gulps of water in between |
Hearings
|
Hearings
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 08:13:34 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 07:32:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/13/2019 10:08 PM, wrote: On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 17:05:19 -0500, John H. wrote: On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 15:00:19 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Been watching the impeachment hearings today (mainly because it's too freakin' cold out to go outside). One thing that has struck me. If the questions being asked mostly by the Democrats were being asked in a court of law rather than a congressional public hearing, most would never be allowed by a judge. This is more so by the Democrat members of congress. The lawyers (non-congresspersons) did a decent job but the regular office holders, even though many are lawyers, would never get away with their leading questions and conclusions forced upon Taylor and Kent. Should have spent the time watching 'The Command'. I listened on the radio while driving today. Seems like hearsay is much approved by the Democrats. Wonder how that will play during the trial, if there is one (which I doubt). I saw a few minutes and I was thinking the same as Richard. They are telling the witness what they want them to say and asking if it is true. We knew this was going to be a political process, not a legal one from the beginning. One intriguing possibility in the Senate would be for McConnell to move for immediate dismissal on a simple up down vote. I wonder if Roberts would go along? I also wonder how long it is going to take to get this out of the house in the first place. Being political theater, I assume they want to milk this cow as long as they can. The only thing that would slow them down is if polling in swing states started indicating that they think this is a witch hunt. Nobody really cares about what the blue states think, we already know, so national polls are meaningless. My Trumpster wife debate this stuff every morning. Whether we make it to our 50th wedding anniversary in February remains in question. :-) I argue that although I think Trump has done some very good things for the US economy, his bullying, "winning by intimidation" style is contributing big time to the severe division we are witnessing between the "left" and the "right". One thing that I cannot understand for the life of me though is how Trump's alleged "quid pro quo" with the Ukrainian president differs from Joe Biden's confessed threat to withhold over a billion in funds unless the guy investigating corruption involving the gas company his son was involved with (and paid big bucks) was fired in six hours. The Dems seem to think this was perfectly legal and appropriate. Biden has publicly admitted and bragged about it. What's the difference between the allegations regarding Trump and the gleeful, public admission of Joe Biden? My real thought is who cares? There are so many real problems facing is right now and our whole government is doing nothing about it and spending all of their time on this witch hunt. The deficit is going to be over a trillion a year for at least a decade according to CBO but it barely even makes the news. I wonder if they will cover the crash of the US dollar and the double digit inflation that will cause or if that will only be a story after we are all too poor to buy electricity to watch? I care. The Democrats are wasting a lot of time and money on a f'ing witch hunt. |
Hearings
Mr. Luddite
- show quoted text - My Trumpster wife debate this stuff every morning. Whether we make it to our 50th wedding anniversary in February remains in question. :-) I argue that although I think Trump has done some very good things for the US economy, his bullying, "winning by intimidation" style is contributing big time to the severe division we are witnessing between the "left" and the "right". —- Maybe I talking out of my league but wasn’t Truman and Johnson doing the same thing? FWIW of course |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:00 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com