OK Boomer.old salt wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 3:22 pmIt's EZ to be a genius when the defense is muzzled, there's no judge, & no Grand Jury secrecy.ggait wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:46 pm Highlights from Vindman and Hill:
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploaded ... 913864.pdf
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploaded ... 137591.pdf
I'm impressed how Schiff is building the case progressively -- WB report, appearances announced, then written opening statements come out, then in-person secret SCIF appearances, then highlight transcripts released, then full transcripts released, then live hearings on TV, then impeachment deliberations in the House.
Considering the stonewall coming from the WH, pretty good job in keeping the narrative on this going. And he's building a lot of credibility as each latest brick that comes out confirms what the earlier bricks said.
Classic rhetorical technique -- (i) tell ’em what I am going to tell ’em; (ii) tell ’em; (iii) tell ’em what I’ve told ’em.
Banana Republic sham "legal" proceedings. Political theatre. Horrible precedent which will be regretted.
There is nothing about the process that has been unfair. Republicans have had equal access to witnesses and documents throughout the process. Republicans could have prevailed on the White House and sympathetic members of the civil service to come forward with exonerating witnesses, documents and electronic evidence. Republicans could have hired special counsel with an investigative and prosecutorial background. Republicans could have and still can proffer facts capable of corroboration — you know, like the whistkeblower’s letter and the now legion of witnesses on the record under oath — that contradict the basic facts of Trump’s bribery scheme using taxpayer money appropriated by Congress for the defense assistance of a front line country. Republicans can still review the oath of office and stop their breach of fiduciary duty to the Country. They haven’t; they won’t. They have chosen this moral leper as their shop steward.
