"Catch 22" take 2: Impeachment Hearings: In the book by the same name, Yossarian wanted to stop flying dangerous missions. He was told that if wanted to stop on the basis of insanity...

rumitoid

In the book by the same name, Yossarian wanted to stop flying dangerous missions. He was told that if wanted to stop on the basis of insanity, he could. When he told his commanding officer, he told him that only a sane person would want to end dangerous combat missions. We have the same in Congress.

Republicans have said they will only accept as testimony Fact Witnesses. Those Fact Witnesses are Mulvaney, Bolten, Guiliani, and Pompeo. The WH has declined to let those men testify. Only those men can give testimony but they are forbidden from doing so. Ergo, there is no case for impeachment, all the other testimony hearsay and inadmissible. The problem is that hearsay evidence is allowed for a hearing and Mulvaney already announced to the news that there was, indeed, a quid pro quo. So many rabbit holes to go down for the GOP, hard to choose.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

rumitoid wrote:

In the book by the same name, Yossarian wanted to ... (show quote)

Well, when you realize your gamble failed, i.e. backing Trump no questions asked, you have only one of two choices;

1. Cut your losses and back Pence

0r

2. Go "all in" for a "winner take all" last desperate gamble.

It appears that the GOP is going for the desperate gamble.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

rumitoid wrote:

In the book by the same name, Yossarian wanted to ... (show quote)

Good points clearly stated, Rumi.

Liberty Tree

rumitoid wrote:

In the book by the same name, Yossarian wanted to ... (show quote)

If Democrats were interested in t***h it might make a difference. Since the deck was already stacked for impeachment there is little point in joining the game now. Hopefully the Senate will be a whole different story and we will see who refuses to testify then.

rumitoid

slatten49 wrote:

Good points clearly stated, Rumi.

Thank you, slat, good to see you.

rumitoid

Liberty Tree wrote:

If Democrats were interested in t***h it might make a difference. Since the deck was already stacked for impeachment there is little point in joining the game now. Hopefully the Senate will be a whole different story and we will see who refuses to testify then.

Perhaps. But how was the deck stacked against Trump? Too many witnesses and scholarly legal opinions decrying his actions?

Dwight Logan

lpnmajor wrote:

Well, when you realize your gamble failed, i.e. backing Trump no questions asked, you have only one of two choices;

1. Cut your losses and back Pence

0r

2. Go "all in" for a "winner take all" last desperate gamble.

It appears that the GOP is going for the desperate gamble.

I would rather be a Republican with a "Desperate gamble" than a Democrat with pathetic jealousy. I don't need to gamble because I am blessed with trump.

Liberty Tree

rumitoid wrote:

Perhaps. But how was the deck stacked against Trump? Too many witnesses and scholarly legal opinions decrying his actions?

The verdict was in before the hearings and you know it. Opinions are not facts especially coming from those with proven bias. . How about opinions to the opposite?

rumitoid

Dwight Logan wrote:

I would rather be a Republican with a "Desperate gamble" than a Democrat with pathetic jealousy. I don't need to gamble because I am blessed with trump.

How sweet.

rumitoid

Liberty Tree wrote:

The verdict was in before the hearings and you know it. Opinions are not facts especially coming from those with proven bias. . How about opinions to the opposite?

You may be right, yet what so many had to testify against seems compelling.