Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like Taylor's testimony is it. He has “remembered some things that previous witnesses somehow failed to remember.”

https://twitter.com/benyc/status/1186692092216696833

And this is why the depositions are behind closed doors and why the transcripts have not yet been released.

So it can’t be challenged or heard? Yes we get that....

Both Republicans and Democrats are on these committees, hearing the testimony and asking questions.

Do you get that?

From USA Today:

Republicans have complained that the meetings should be public and transcripts should be released. Access has been limited to members of the three panels, which prevented one Republican from attending Monday and the half-dozen Wednesday. Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said private sessions are needed to prevent witnesses from hearing each other, the same protocol used by prosecutors in criminal investigations.

Them's the rules.

The January 2019 House rules clearly spell out that only committee members may attend the closed door sessions, but there are Rs and Ds on the committees.

Complain away. Then you look like a bunch of complainers, instead of patriots.

The American people, and that includes other members of congress, deserve to hear the testimony if you have plans to remove a duly elected President. If Schiff has to defend the private sessions by stating what he did above, then those aren’t THE rules, those are Schiff’s ‘rules’.

You sound like someone who, when the Barr report comes out, will scream “it’s not TRUE!! He LIES”.

Actually, you sound like someone who, when the public impeachment hearings start, will scream "But taxes! But judges! But but but!"

Why do democratic underlings have to babysit Rs who want to read the transcripts?

Again, if Schiff has to defend the private sessions in the way he did, then those aren't 'the rules'; they are Schiff's rules

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“There were many things that Ambassador Sondland didn’t remember that Ambassador Taylor remembered in excruciating detail,” Wasserman Schultz said.

Lordy, let there be tapes.

Who to believe - a distinguished lifelong public servant or a grifter hotel magnate who bought his ambassadorship for a million dollars and appears to be involved in a criminal conspiracy. This will be a tough call for Republicans.

Lifelong public servant is a myth - the only people they serve is themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like Taylor's testimony is it. He has “remembered some things that previous witnesses somehow failed to remember.”

https://twitter.com/benyc/status/1186692092216696833

And this is why the depositions are behind closed doors and why the transcripts have not yet been released.

So it can’t be challenged or heard? Yes we get that....

Both Republicans and Democrats are on these committees, hearing the testimony and asking questions.

Do you get that?

From USA Today:

Republicans have complained that the meetings should be public and transcripts should be released. Access has been limited to members of the three panels, which prevented one Republican from attending Monday and the half-dozen Wednesday. Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said private sessions are needed to prevent witnesses from hearing each other, the same protocol used by prosecutors in criminal investigations.

Them's the rules.

The January 2019 House rules clearly spell out that only committee members may attend the closed door sessions, but there are Rs and Ds on the committees.

Complain away. Then you look like a bunch of complainers, instead of patriots.

The American people, and that includes other members of congress, deserve to hear the testimony if you have plans to remove a duly elected President. If Schiff has to defend the private sessions by stating what he did above, then those aren’t THE rules, those are Schiff’s ‘rules’.

You sound like someone who, when the Barr report comes out, will scream “it’s not TRUE!! He LIES”.

And the American people will. This is like the Grand Jury phase. When the committees are done with their work, if the facts lead to it, there will be a formal vote, then open hearings and then a vote to adopt articles of impeachment that would be sent to the Senate.

In the meantime, you are complaining about the exact same rules established by Speaker Ryan, that have been in effect for several years. These are not "Pelosi" rules or "Schiff" rules. Maybe next time the GOP is in charge, it will adopt rules that better share power with the minority?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like Taylor's testimony is it. He has “remembered some things that previous witnesses somehow failed to remember.”

https://twitter.com/benyc/status/1186692092216696833

And this is why the depositions are behind closed doors and why the transcripts have not yet been released.

So it can’t be challenged or heard? Yes we get that....

Both Republicans and Democrats are on these committees, hearing the testimony and asking questions.

Do you get that?

From USA Today:

Republicans have complained that the meetings should be public and transcripts should be released. Access has been limited to members of the three panels, which prevented one Republican from attending Monday and the half-dozen Wednesday. Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said private sessions are needed to prevent witnesses from hearing each other, the same protocol used by prosecutors in criminal investigations.

Them's the rules.

The January 2019 House rules clearly spell out that only committee members may attend the closed door sessions, but there are Rs and Ds on the committees.

Complain away. Then you look like a bunch of complainers, instead of patriots.

The American people, and that includes other members of congress, deserve to hear the testimony if you have plans to remove a duly elected President. If Schiff has to defend the private sessions by stating what he did above, then those aren’t THE rules, those are Schiff’s ‘rules’.

You sound like someone who, when the Barr report comes out, will scream “it’s not TRUE!! He LIES”.

Actually, you sound like someone who, when the public impeachment hearings start, will scream "But taxes! But judges! But but but!"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“There were many things that Ambassador Sondland didn’t remember that Ambassador Taylor remembered in excruciating detail,” Wasserman Schultz said.

Lordy, let there be tapes.

Who to believe - a distinguished lifelong public servant or a grifter hotel magnate who bought his ambassadorship for a million dollars and appears to be involved in a criminal conspiracy. This will be a tough call for Republicans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Page 12, paragraphs 3 and 4 show specifics of the quid pro quo.

Anyone siding with the President on this?

One thing that's funny is how they keep saying "it's not a quid pro quo". And the Rs pick up on that. "But Trump says it's not a quid pro quo!" If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it's probably a duck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Based on what we know of Taylor's testimony, it appears Sondland engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Trump.

The transcript of his testimony is critical. It is surprising he did not invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Why then did Songlund testify at all? He had cover not to show up - why did he?

Anonymous wrote:Taylor's opening statement:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/opening-statement-of-ambassador-william-b-taylor/6b3a6edf-f976-4081-ba7f-bce45468a3ff/

Anonymous wrote:Page 12, paragraphs 3 and 4 show specifics of the quid pro quo.

Anyone siding with the President on this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“There were many things that Ambassador Sondland didn’t remember that Ambassador Taylor remembered in excruciating detail,” Wasserman Schultz said.

Lordy, let there be tapes.

Who to believe - a distinguished lifelong public servant or a grifter hotel magnate who bought his ambassadorship for a million dollars and appears to be involved in a criminal conspiracy. This will be a tough call for Republicans.

It's no call at all. Lifelong public servants are only good for shark food. Rs haven't met a lifelong public servant who they can support.

Anonymous wrote:Page 12, paragraphs 3 and 4 show specifics of the quid pro quo.

Anyone siding with the President on this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“There were many things that Ambassador Sondland didn’t remember that Ambassador Taylor remembered in excruciating detail,” Wasserman Schultz said.

Lordy, let there be tapes.

Who to believe - a distinguished lifelong public servant or a grifter hotel magnate who bought his ambassadorship for a million dollars and appears to be involved in a criminal conspiracy. This will be a tough call for Republicans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“There were many things that Ambassador Sondland didn’t remember that Ambassador Taylor remembered in excruciating detail,” Wasserman Schultz said.

Lordy, let there be tapes.

Who to believe - a distinguished lifelong public servant or a grifter hotel magnate who bought his ambassadorship for a million dollars and appears to be involved in a criminal conspiracy. This will be a tough call for Republicans.