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.

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).

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.

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.

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....

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

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?

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?

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.

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