Now Trump doesn't want Hearings televised.
It's gone beyond ridiculous.
They want to be able to run a rhetorical dialog that can't be fact checked.
Lt. Rob Polans ret. wrote:
It's gone beyond ridiculous.
But doesn't it make sense to want to hear what is being said?
woodguru wrote:
But doesn't it make sense to want to hear what is being said?
If it was a honest legitimate process, yes.
Lt. Rob Polans ret. wrote:
It's gone beyond ridiculous.
I agree. What's going on with Republicans? They have a hissy fit to have it out in the open and now have a hissy fit because it is. Of course, I can understand why--just be careful what you ask for because you just might get it correct!
Liberty Tree wrote:
If it was a honest legitimate process, yes.
And what would an honest legitimate process be? Do you mean like Bill Clinton's impeachment hearing or are you referring to Nixon?
PeterS wrote:
And what would an honest legitimate process be? Do you mean like Bill Clinton's impeachment hearing or are you referring to Nixon?
They were both run more fairly than this charade.
woodguru wrote:
But doesn't it make sense to want to hear what is being said?
All I can think of is that they are saying that if they stick their heads in the sand and this will all go away. What they need to understand is that Nasty Nancy wouldn't have gone this far if she didn't think she could make an airtight case--which the nation will watch whether they watch or not. What they need to ask is why they think people will vote for someone who is protecting a criminal? The Senate shouldn't be in play but Nasty Nancy is a smart bitch who may have figured out a way to win back the Senate as well as the House!
Liberty Tree wrote:
They were both run more fairly than this charade.
And how is it a charade? What is the pretence that Nasty Nancy is trying to portray?
PeterS wrote:
And how is it a charade? What is the pretence that Nasty Nancy is trying to portray?
That is an objective fact gathering mission when they made their minds up on impeachment the night Trump was elected.
It's a circus and not worth our time.
kankune wrote:
It's a circus and not worth our time.
Circus is that like a Witch Hunt...
PeterS wrote:
And how is it a charade? What is the pretence that Nasty Nancy is trying to portray?
In 2015, Eric Ciaramella, the CIA analyst who focused on Ukraine and Russia (he speaks Russian, Ukrainian and Arabic), was detailed to the NSC where he worked under Obama's NSA, Susan Rice. Now that we know Ciaramella is Schiff's groomed whistleblower, isn't it interesting that he is cited in a key passage of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report?
And you think this impeachment charade is not a charade.
I want a televised hearing. I want to see the Informer er I mean Whistle blower cross examined by Republicans. That will be enlightning.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.