Free speech

[Rob C]

Evidence?

Evidence, as Boris and Mr T demonstrate every day, is where one says that it is.

;-)

[PeterAit]

If Schiff wasn't selectively leaking information and repeatably lying, it may not be an issue, but he is.

If you do not like lies, then you must despise the Bone Spur Boy. And what Schiff lies? And with 40+ Republicans on those committees, what's to leak? And transcripts have been--or will soon be--released. And the hearings will soon be public. So don't be more of a dope than you have to.

[JoeKitchen]

If you do not like lies, then you must despise the Bone Spur Boy. And what Schiff lies? And with 40+ Republicans on those committees, what's to leak? And transcripts have been--or will soon be--released. And the hearings will soon be public. So don't be more of a dope than you have to.

Awww Peter, thank you so much for letting me know how much of a dope I am. 

You are aware that it is against forum policies to name call other members correct? 

[Alan Klein]

Awww Peter, thank you so much for letting me know how much of a dope I am. 

You are aware that it is against forum policies to name call other members correct? 

There's going to be a bunch of people soon standing in the corner having to write a hundred times on the blackboard: "I will be polite to my fellow posters.  I will be polite to my fellow posters..."   

[Jeremy Roussak]

So don't be more of a dope than you have to.

Unacceptable. Behave. Name-calling signifies only lack of coherent argument.

Jeremy

[PeterAit]

Having a closed hearing and locking out the other party is not right regardless of which party is doing it. They're trying to impeach Trump by having a secret trial where only the prosecutor is allowed to make his case. That's un-American.

There are 40-some Republicans on the three committees of the impeachment inquiry--and this is "locking out?" And this is, in essence, a grand jury process where, YES, only the prosecutor makes their case as has always been true. It's not a trial, guilty/not guilty, it's a determination if there is enough evidence to charge the person and bring him to trial where guilty/not guilty will be decided.

It's astounding and depressing how many people are totally ignorant of the constitution and the workings of the legal system.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

It's astounding and depressing how many people are totally ignorant of the constitution and the workings of the legal system.

Some even become President. Now there's a depressing thought...

[Peter McLennan]

Unacceptable. Behave. Name-calling signifies only lack of coherent argument.

Jeremy

Agreed.  Especially as it applies to politicians.

[Alan Klein]

There are 40-some Republicans on the three committees of the impeachment inquiry--and this is "locking out?" And this is, in essence, a grand jury process where, YES, only the prosecutor makes their case as has always been true. It's not a trial, guilty/not guilty, it's a determination if there is enough evidence to charge the person and bring him to trial where guilty/not guilty will be decided.

It's astounding and depressing how many people are totally ignorant of the constitution and the workings of the legal system.

The founders of the Constitution wanted to have an open process for a major event like impeachment.  How else could you convince Americans that the process was fair and not just politics as usual?  The pressure of that concept has been borne out as Pelosi had a vote to open the process.  Otherwise she'd be called a Commissar that's running a Star Chamber trial like in the old days of the Soviet Union. 

Impeachment is NOT a grand jury.  Nothing of the sort.  That's just the anti-Trump media trying to convince the world that's what it is to stop any defense of Trump which Americans would ordinarily expect in a fair hearing.  The press and the Democrats just wanted to push the impeachment through without a hearing.  You bought their fake goods.  But most voters aren't going to buy tainted stuff.  They know a setup when they see one.