@milton friedman: Nothing screams “innocent” like obstructing a hearing.

@Fred the Muss: It is not a “serious investigation “ Mr Muss. Do try harder please.

@Fred the Muss: Just more evidence what childish f@#£&rs they truly are.

@Brian: How would we know about it, Schiff sets the rules and nobody is allowed talk about what was said, so no, we wouldn’t have heard about it.

Schiff has openly admitted that the aim of keeping the testimony secret is to keep Trump’s defense in the dark. Does that sound like justice to you?

@Burn_the_Witch: it sounds like a normal investigation.

When the articles of Impeachment are written and voted on Trump will then settle on his defence. That’s how ALL trials work.

Please point to a single investigation that takes place “in the public eye”.

And in this case there are 40 Republican members of Congress involved.

This BS is a deflection tactic and you know it. Bill Taylor’s opening Statement (all 16 pages that I read last night) is a slam dunk.

Trump withheld the aid and the promised White House meeting to try and force Ukarine to investigate the 2016 election AND the Bidens.

And he did it to influence the 2020 election.

So what do Republicans do? They “invade” the hearings because that can’t think of anything else to do.

@Burn_the_Witch: Again, the members of the GOP on the committee are free to discuss the nature of the evidence itself, without going into specifics. They haven’t.

And of course a prosecution are entitled to keep evidence secret while investigating potential impeachable offence – just like any other prosecutor in any other type of investigation is

@Bob Earner: @Brian: Did you read the NBC article I posted above? If you haven’t, please do and then critique that.

@Burn_the_Witch: I read the piece – the problem with her reasoning is that in Nixon’s case, it was assumed that the GOP would put country above party. This no longer applies. Not to mention that the Democrats have already confirmed that hearings from the Judiciary committee will be done in public.

Also, it doesn’t change the fact that the GOP members of the committee aren’t speaking out about the evidence provided, a point you seem to have missed twice.

@Brian: They are not allowed speak about any specifics. They did speak out about Schiff’s leak about Ambassador Bill Taylor, saying Schiff leaked what suited him but failed to mention that what he said was soon dismantled and debunked by Rep. Radcliffe straight afterwards. This is why it is so important to have an open inquiry so we get to see for ourselves. As I said and you won’t change my mind because I believe in a fair justice system and you nor nobody else has provided anything remotely close to a good reason why this is not an open inquiry like in previous impeachment inquiries. Nixon resigned during the open inquiry as it was so obvious he was finished by the public reaction. You can’t justify it. But please try as I am open to understanding.

@Burn_the_Witch: “failed to mention that what he said was soon dismantled and debunked by Rep. Radcliffe straight afterwards” – Who leaked that?

You’re not “open to understanding”. No one believes you. You have zero credibility.

Are you really accusing Bill Taylor of lying under oath?

@Burn_the_Witch: You had no issue with the Bengazi investigation taking place behind closed doors. Why was that?

@Bob Earner: Sorry Bob I was away for the day. To answer your question, that wasn’t a leak by Jim Jordan as he didn’t go into detail as it’s not permitted. He just said it was completely debunked by Radcliffe.

And no need be going on the personal attack Bob, I am completely open to understanding why the inquiry is being held behind closed doors. Why wouldn’t I be interested, I’m only dying to hear a rational explanation and you haven’t provided one. So unless you want to provide one, don’t go around saying I lack credibility. Provide an answer rather than yanking your chain. You seem to me to be the local hot headed nutter around these parts, always losing your mind shouting everyone down who you disagree with. So do you think I honestly give two hoots what you make of my credibility?

@Burn_the_Witch: Maybe the Former Judge Andrew Napolitano from Fox News will help you out somewhat ? Here’s what he said ; “As frustrating as it may be to have these hearings going on behind closed doors … they are consistent with the rules. … When were the rules written last? In January of 2015. And who signed them? John Boehner. And who enacted them? A Republican majority.” Hope that helps.

@Burn_the_Witch: The Congress is only the first stage and supposed to be private. The president will have an opportunity to face his accusers and publically challenge the accusations in the Senate trial. This stunt yesterday is a disgrace and attempts to paint the congressional hearings as sinister is another attempt by trump’s brownshirts to undermine the structure of law and democracy.

@LynchTrea: Rubbish. Take a read of what NBC makes of it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1068871

@LynchTrea: It’s not supposed to be private and never has been before. Now it’s their choice to make it private but there is no legitimate reason for it to be so. It should be completely transparent. They are trying to remove the President after all, just a year before an election. What’s to hide.

@Burn_the_Witch: That’s not NBC :)

That’s a contributor for the Washington Times writing an opinion piece….. which you surely aren’t going to claim isn’t partisan! LOL

@Bob Earner: Did you even read it Bob. It’s on NBC and there’s no mention of the Washington Examiner. Please show me where you think it is being partisan, there’s nothing partisan about it. Im really looking forward to you pointing it out to me. The floor is yours.

@Burn_the_Witch: Absolutely not. This is a congressional committee hearing which is open to members of the committee. For example Trey Gowdy blocked non members for attending the committee hearings on Bengazi.
The journalist to deliberately confusing the steps in the process. What happened yesterday was a circus and there are house committee rules in place to prevent it for a reason.

@Bob Earner:
Deflection? From an American journalist,a life long democrat voter, using multiple news outlets from across the political spectrum talking about the issue the article is on about.

@Maurice: I asked you a question. You deflected.

Seems a common tactic amongst Trump supporters. I wonder why that would be?

So again I ask “Should ANY President use the Office to try and force another country into investigating a political rival for their own electoral benefit?”

@Bob Earner:
I posted first bob, you replied to me.
You said in your first line it was deflection,
To anyone who watched, it is 100% clearly not deflection as outlined above
When you’re that far wrong with your first line, your question doesn’t deserve to be responded to.

@Maurice: It does need to be responded to – that’s the whole premise of this impeachment process. Don’t be a coward, engage in the debate. Make a point and back it up.

@A2 Poster:
If bob wants to admit he was wrong calling it deflection we can move on from there.
Surely you think a 20 minute video (admittedly a bit rambly) from a US journalist talking about republicans storming the proceedings, showing various news outlets from across the political spectrum is not a deflection from this article about republicans storming the proceedings.

@Maurice: I’m not going to critique a 20 min You Tube video.

“Should ANY President use the Office to try and force another country into investigating a political rival for their own electoral benefit?”

@Bob Earner:
Bye bob

@Maurice: Remarkable how not a single Trump fan on here will answer the question.

They either ignore it, or ignore it and deflect to irrelevant issues.

@Maurice: Bye, Maurice’s credibility

@Bob Earner: It looks for all intensive purposes that Biden while vice president – sold out his country (with his son the beneficiary $). This is the huge scandal. Trump is the chief law enforcement of the U.S.

Should he turn a blind eye to the clear indications of the highest levels of corruption of a former vice president, just because that person wishes to run for president this time round?

It’s astonishing that Biden HASN’T been investigated to this point, and just goes to the point that there are corrupt career untouchables in Washington, something Trump campaigned very strongly on when he promised to drain the swamp. At least you can’t accuse him of being a hypocrite.

@Jonathan Moloney: Except that’s not what happened here. Not to mention there isn’t any evidence to support the claims about Biden.

This wasn’t an action to benefit the US.

Getting Ukraine to investigate Biden was a purely personal request. The President of Ukraine was to go on CNN and announce the investigation into Burisma and the 2016 Election. Why the insistence on the announcement having to be public?

Why exactly was the focus on Trump’s potential election opponent?

It is an abuse of power to use the office of the President to try and force another country into investigating your political opponent in order to influence an election.

A President can absolutely call for a country to do something about corruption. That would be considered to acting on behalf of the country.
But to call for a specific investigation into a political rival, make Congressional approved aid contingent upon Zelensky going on TV and announcing that investigation is a clear abuse of power.

But nice try attempting to justify it :)

@Bob Earner: Try to be serious here, there’s serious evidence to warrant an investigation into Biden. If things were switched and one of Trump’s sons were involved in such a manner, the screams of indignation from Democrats could be heard from here to China. Which reveals Democrats’ achilles heel – they always demand a different standard of others and never apply that same standard to their own. Secondly, zero evidence has been shown to prove any ‘quid pro quo’ regarding an investigation into Biden and the aid to Ukraine has been shown. Unlike, of course, Dopey Joe who bragged on live TV about getting the previous Ukrainian prosecutor fired by withholding over $1bn in aid – the very same prosecutor who was looking into Burisma(who Hunter Biden has received millions from despite zero expertise).

@Jonathan Moloney: Bidenazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzi