Taylor Admits His Opinion Based On Conversations With Anti-Trump Staffers

[Oldstyle]

Again, we have a transcript, nothing can change that. That is what the left are using to impeach. Now, all of these hearsay conversations, especially those from the anti trump group should probably be disregarded, as it's not admissible as evidence. The problem with hearsay is that, it may be true, or it may not be true. Some of it may be twisted to make a desired narrative, and some of it could be incorrect with people getting facts wrong with the transition of the story from one person to the next.

About the only 2 people who have direct knowledge are the whistleblower, and apparently sondland. Those are the only two who's testimony would have any relevancy.

Without that testimony, then it boils down to the interpretation of the transcript, which says nothing about getting dirt on biden, nor asking ukraine to influence a campaign.

Yes, you do have trump asking ukraine to look into the server, and also to look into why the prosecutor who was investigating burisma was fired, but that could be because trump was genuinely wanting to know more about those events, or it could be because he was wanting dirt. The point being, the transcript doesnt give any actual context either way, and everything else is just hearsay, some of it from people with an anti trump agenda.

If sondland does have direct knowledge, then his testimony alone would probably be the most damaging to trump.

Pure fact free nonsense. All of it.

all of the witnesses have knowledge of what occurred. Many because they dealt with it in Ukraine as diplomats. Others because they were privy to what occurred in the White House

First hand knowledge? Who has that? If this were in a court of law the defendant's lawyer would constantly be popping out of his seat like a Jack In The Box yelling "Objection...hearsay!" and the judge would be agreeing with him! This is political FARCE!

 

[ph3iron]

"A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

William Taylor, the charge d’affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, told lawmakers in secret testimony two weeks ago that his opinions about an alleged quid pro quo demanded by Trump were formed largely from conversations with anti-Trump staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy."

"Taylor also testified that his knowledge of the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky wasn’t first-hand knowledge."

Wow - that's got to be completely disappointing to / deflating for Pro-coup snowflakes / Democrats.....still no evidence.


Transcript: Taylor Wasn't On July 25 Phone Call, Never Spoke To Trump

.

Where did you get the italics?
I didn't hear Taylor say that .
Only that he was reporting facts.
So, because we don't have first hand accounts of Gatti speak, he's not innocent?
Don't you realise how dumb that sounds?
The con has taken huge steps to never give any examples of him directly speaking.
They do it though underlings.
Can't believe how dumb people are.
We need tapes of the con to convict him.??
Even he is smarter than that

 

[ph3iron]

Why is the White Housing stonewalling the impeachment process by withholding hard copy evidence and pertinent staff's availability?
If this whole thing is a nothing burger, why not flood the impeachment proceedings with evidence of no wrong doing?

Why do you believe the fact the suspect refuses to cooperate with the prosecution proves the suspect is guilty?

If the White House had been cooperative and forthcoming, maybe taxpayers wouldn't be footing the bill of the impeachment process?
And, why stonewall? Your response is very weak.

The taxpayers are footing the bill for impeachment because the dems were determined to impeach him before he took office. These hearings are not even needed as there is no way at all that the dems are not going to impeach him.

They could simply write up their articles and turn them over to the senate. What all this is about is them trying to damage public opinion of trump in hopes it will hurt him in the election.

1. The M investigation made $ for the gov
2. The write ups have been hidden by the con. And hidden deep in a security server
3. If Barr, the architect of hiding guys from Iran Contra had followed his own guy the congress wouldn't be involved

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why is the White Housing stonewalling the impeachment process by withholding hard copy evidence and pertinent staff's availability?
If this whole thing is a nothing burger, why not flood the impeachment proceedings with evidence of no wrong doing?

Why do you believe the fact the suspect refuses to cooperate with the prosecution proves the suspect is guilty?

If the White House had been cooperative and forthcoming, maybe taxpayers wouldn't be footing the bill of the impeachment process?
And, why stonewall? Your response is very weak.

Ah.
You can't tell me -why- you believe the fact the suspect refuses to cooperate with the prosecution proves the suspect is guilty - you just do.
Thanks.

What pathetic reasoning.

Nothing here changes the fact you can't tell me -why- you believe the fact the suspect refuses to cooperate with the prosecution proves the suspect is guilty - you just do.

 

[kiwiman127]

Why is the White Housing stonewalling the impeachment process by withholding hard copy evidence and pertinent staff's availability?
If this whole thing is a nothing burger, why not flood the impeachment proceedings with evidence of no wrong doing?

Why do you believe the fact the suspect refuses to cooperate with the prosecution proves the suspect is guilty?

If the White House had been cooperative and forthcoming, maybe taxpayers wouldn't be footing the bill of the impeachment process?
And, why stonewall? Your response is very weak.

The taxpayers are footing the bill for impeachment because the dems were determined to impeach him before he took office. These hearings are not even needed as there is no way at all that the dems are not going to impeach him.

They could simply write up their articles and turn them over to the senate. What all this is about is them trying to damage public opinion of trump in hopes it will hurt him in the election.

Well no!
The Democrats are following the rules that the GOP instituted.
======================================
Trump might label this an attack on “due process,” but his fight isn’t with Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Schiff, it’s with the Republican-led investigative committees who instituted this precedent during their investigations of President Bill Clinton’s administration in 1997 and 1998. That practice was extended in the 112th, 113th, 114th and 115th congresses.
Opinion | Trump has the GOP to blame for the impeachment rules he hates so much
======================================
So if you want to whine about how the Dems are handling the impeachment, blame Republicans.

 

[Lesh]

Again, we have a transcript, nothing can change that. That is what the left are using to impeach. Now, all of these hearsay conversations, especially those from the anti trump group should probably be disregarded, as it's not admissible as evidence. The problem with hearsay is that, it may be true, or it may not be true. Some of it may be twisted to make a desired narrative, and some of it could be incorrect with people getting facts wrong with the transition of the story from one person to the next.

About the only 2 people who have direct knowledge are the whistleblower, and apparently sondland. Those are the only two who's testimony would have any relevancy.

Without that testimony, then it boils down to the interpretation of the transcript, which says nothing about getting dirt on biden, nor asking ukraine to influence a campaign.

Yes, you do have trump asking ukraine to look into the server, and also to look into why the prosecutor who was investigating burisma was fired, but that could be because trump was genuinely wanting to know more about those events, or it could be because he was wanting dirt. The point being, the transcript doesnt give any actual context either way, and everything else is just hearsay, some of it from people with an anti trump agenda.

If sondland does have direct knowledge, then his testimony alone would probably be the most damaging to trump.

Pure fact free nonsense. All of it.

all of the witnesses have knowledge of what occurred. Many because they dealt with it in Ukraine as diplomats. Others because they were privy to what occurred in the White House

First hand knowledge? Who has that? If this were in a court of law the defendant's lawyer would constantly be popping out of his seat like a Jack In The Box yelling "Objection...hearsay!" and the judge would be agreeing with him! This is political FARCE!

So you don't want hearsay...yet you demand the whistle blower testify...who you say only was a hearsay witness.

Logic is not your friend

 

[B. Kidd]

Why is the White Housing stonewalling the impeachment process by withholding hard copy evidence and pertinent staff's availability?
If this whole thing is a nothing burger, why not flood the impeachment proceedings with evidence of no wrong doing?

Why do you believe the fact the suspect refuses to cooperate with the prosecution proves the suspect is guilty?

If the White House had been cooperative and forthcoming, maybe taxpayers wouldn't be footing the bill of the impeachment process?
And, why stonewall? Your response is very weak.

The taxpayers are footing the bill for impeachment because the dems were determined to impeach him before he took office. These hearings are not even needed as there is no way at all that the dems are not going to impeach him.

They could simply write up their articles and turn them over to the senate. What all this is about is them trying to damage public opinion of trump in hopes it will hurt him in the election.

Bingo!

And on the pitiful American taxpayer's dime.
Anyone who supports DemocRats these days might as well turn their paychecks over to the DNC and tell their families to fend for themselves!

 

[B. Kidd]

Why is the White Housing stonewalling the impeachment process by withholding hard copy evidence and pertinent staff's availability?
If this whole thing is a nothing burger, why not flood the impeachment proceedings with evidence of no wrong doing?

Why do you believe the fact the suspect refuses to cooperate with the prosecution proves the suspect is guilty?

If the White House had been cooperative and forthcoming, maybe taxpayers wouldn't be footing the bill of the impeachment process?
And, why stonewall? Your response is very weak.

The taxpayers are footing the bill for impeachment because the dems were determined to impeach him before he took office. These hearings are not even needed as there is no way at all that the dems are not going to impeach him.

They could simply write up their articles and turn them over to the senate. What all this is about is them trying to damage public opinion of trump in hopes it will hurt him in the election.

Well no!
The Democrats are following the rules that the GOP instituted.
======================================
Trump might label this an attack on “due process,” but his fight isn’t with Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Schiff, it’s with the Republican-led investigative committees who instituted this precedent during their investigations of President Bill Clinton’s administration in 1997 and 1998. That practice was extended in the 112th, 113th, 114th and 115th congresses.
Opinion | Trump has the GOP to blame for the impeachment rules he hates so much
======================================
So if you want to whine about how the Dems are handling the impeachment, blame Republicans.

You're so fucked up and turned around, it's a flaming miracle that you still can find the 'Post Reply' button on this site.
Loser!

 

[kiwiman127]

Why is the White Housing stonewalling the impeachment process by withholding hard copy evidence and pertinent staff's availability?
If this whole thing is a nothing burger, why not flood the impeachment proceedings with evidence of no wrong doing?

Why do you believe the fact the suspect refuses to cooperate with the prosecution proves the suspect is guilty?

If the White House had been cooperative and forthcoming, maybe taxpayers wouldn't be footing the bill of the impeachment process?
And, why stonewall? Your response is very weak.

The taxpayers are footing the bill for impeachment because the dems were determined to impeach him before he took office. These hearings are not even needed as there is no way at all that the dems are not going to impeach him.

They could simply write up their articles and turn them over to the senate. What all this is about is them trying to damage public opinion of trump in hopes it will hurt him in the election.

Well no!
The Democrats are following the rules that the GOP instituted.
======================================
Trump might label this an attack on “due process,” but his fight isn’t with Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Schiff, it’s with the Republican-led investigative committees who instituted this precedent during their investigations of President Bill Clinton’s administration in 1997 and 1998. That practice was extended in the 112th, 113th, 114th and 115th congresses.
Opinion | Trump has the GOP to blame for the impeachment rules he hates so much
======================================
So if you want to whine about how the Dems are handling the impeachment, blame Republicans.

You're so fucked up and turned around, it's a flaming miracle that you still can find the 'Post Reply' button on this site.
Loser!

Says a mindless, goose=stepping Little Trumpster.
My post was based on facts, if you don't like the, you pull a Trump and attack the messenger.
Prove my post false.
Step up to the plate

 

[hadit]

"A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

William Taylor, the charge d’affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, told lawmakers in secret testimony two weeks ago that his opinions about an alleged quid pro quo demanded by Trump were formed largely from conversations with anti-Trump staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy."

"Taylor also testified that his knowledge of the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky wasn’t first-hand knowledge."

Wow - that's got to be completely disappointing to / deflating for Pro-coup snowflakes / Democrats.....still no evidence.


Transcript: Taylor Wasn't On July 25 Phone Call, Never Spoke To Trump

.

We already knew he wasn't on the call. This is not new.

Then he shouldn't be offering opinions about what somebody told him. This is an effort to unseat a duly elected president, and should require the highest of evidentiary standards.

Quite frankly, if this is the best the democrats can do, they're screwed.

 

[hadit]

Why is the White Housing stonewalling the impeachment process by withholding hard copy evidence and pertinent staff's availability?
If this whole thing is a nothing burger, why not flood the impeachment proceedings with evidence of no wrong doing?

Because the opposition is doing a great job of destroying their own case. I think the LAST thing they wanted or expected was Trump releasing the transcript of the call. It took lying about it completely off the table.

 

[hadit]

OOPS: Amb. Taylor’s Awkward Silence in Response to a Question About Hunter Biden Was Very Telling.

During Wednesday's impeachment hearings, Steve Castor, House Intelligence Committee counsel for the minority, asked Ambassador Taylor a rather simple question about Hunter Biden and his position at Burisma, that he couldn't (or perhaps refused) to answer, resulting in perhaps the most awkward silence I've ever seen in such a hearing.

CASTOR: Ambassador Taylor, do you know whether Hunter Biden offers anything other than the fact that his dad's the former vice president

AMB. TAYLOR: I don't—

CASTOR: Or at the time was the vice president.

AMB. TAYLOR: I have no knowledge of Hunter Biden—

CASTOR: But you agree it raises questions?

AMB. TAYLOR: (five seconds of silence)

Ambassador Taylor is a key witness of House Democrats whose testimony is based not on direct knowledge, but on hearsay. Yet, that he couldn't admit that Hunter Biden being given a position on the board of Burisma (despite no relevant experience, familiarity with the language, and not having anything to offer besides being the son of the vice president) raised serious, legitimate questions is astounding.

Ambassador Taylor knows the answer, he just couldn't say so because to do so would undermine the very reason this impeachment inquiry is even happening. To admit that Hunter Biden's appointment to the board of Burisma raised questions would justify Trump's belief that an investigation was necessary, and negate this entire sham impeachment.

But, The American People get it.

The biggest silence of the day was when Ratliff asked both Kent and Taylor what was the impeachable offense. They both, along with their
attorneys just stared at each other and Ratliff seized the moment and said..."Go on...shout it out!"

If this is the best the Dems have...they are in deep shit. The former ambassador who is one stupid bitch testifies Friday and then 8 next
week. I have no doubt we'll see this move onto the Judiciary committee for that circus and they probably will vote for an Articles of
Impeachment, but that is where it will get very sticky for the dems. Then they will need at least 17 of their "moderate" rookie
members to vote for impeachment. They may not have that many. Not if the rest of the witnesses are gonna be less than what we
saw today.

Reminds me of Balsey Ford and as she fell apart, suddenly the Porn Lawyer and others were throwing in more witnesses, each less credible than the previous until it collapsed under it's own unsupported weight.

I don't understand their convulsions, but, I do think they think they are accomplishing something. Could it be that they are trying to keep their narrow base consolidated? They probably fund-raise very well during these episodes. And then I think they may truly believe in this "arc of history" crap and figure if they keep throwing for the endzone that at some point they will make a completion, except that this isn't football.

I guess there is no point in me trying to rationalize what may simply be irrational.

You have to understand what they're really trying to do. They know they don't have a winning case and they won't get Trump thrown out of office, at least not with this weak case. What they want is a campaign issue, and they expected Trump to protect the call so they could say whatever they wanted about it.

 

[hadit]

Why is the White Housing stonewalling the impeachment process by withholding hard copy evidence and pertinent staff's availability?
If this whole thing is a nothing burger, why not flood the impeachment proceedings with evidence of no wrong doing?

Why do you believe the fact the suspect refuses to cooperate with the prosecution proves the suspect is guilty?

If the White House had been cooperative and forthcoming, maybe taxpayers wouldn't be footing the bill of the impeachment process?
And, why stonewall? Your response is very weak.

Why should Trump make it easy for them to vilify him? That's stupid, they need to earn everything they get. And right now, they're not doing very well.

 

[Crepitus]

"A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

William Taylor, the charge d’affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, told lawmakers in secret testimony two weeks ago that his opinions about an alleged quid pro quo demanded by Trump were formed largely from conversations with anti-Trump staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy."

"Taylor also testified that his knowledge of the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky wasn’t first-hand knowledge."

Wow - that's got to be completely disappointing to / deflating for Pro-coup snowflakes / Democrats.....still no evidence.


Transcript: Taylor Wasn't On July 25 Phone Call, Never Spoke To Trump

.

We already knew he wasn't on the call. This is not new.

Then he shouldn't be offering opinions about what somebody told him. This is an effort to unseat a duly elected president, and should require the highest of evidentiary standards.

Quite frankly, if this is the best the democrats can do, they're screwed.

They didn't offer any opinions.

 

[B. Kidd]

Why do you believe the fact the suspect refuses to cooperate with the prosecution proves the suspect is guilty?

If the White House had been cooperative and forthcoming, maybe taxpayers wouldn't be footing the bill of the impeachment process?
And, why stonewall? Your response is very weak.

The taxpayers are footing the bill for impeachment because the dems were determined to impeach him before he took office. These hearings are not even needed as there is no way at all that the dems are not going to impeach him.

They could simply write up their articles and turn them over to the senate. What all this is about is them trying to damage public opinion of trump in hopes it will hurt him in the election.

Well no!
The Democrats are following the rules that the GOP instituted.
======================================
Trump might label this an attack on “due process,” but his fight isn’t with Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Schiff, it’s with the Republican-led investigative committees who instituted this precedent during their investigations of President Bill Clinton’s administration in 1997 and 1998. That practice was extended in the 112th, 113th, 114th and 115th congresses.
Opinion | Trump has the GOP to blame for the impeachment rules he hates so much
======================================
So if you want to whine about how the Dems are handling the impeachment, blame Republicans.

You're so fucked up and turned around, it's a flaming miracle that you still can find the 'Post Reply' button on this site.
Loser!

Says a mindless, goose=stepping Little Trumpster.
My post was based on facts, if you don't like the, you pull a Trump and attack the messenger.
Prove my post false.
Step up to the plate

You're so upside down, you ain't worth the time.

 

[hadit]

Again, we have a transcript, nothing can change that. That is what the left are using to impeach. Now, all of these hearsay conversations, especially those from the anti trump group should probably be disregarded, as it's not admissible as evidence. The problem with hearsay is that, it may be true, or it may not be true. Some of it may be twisted to make a desired narrative, and some of it could be incorrect with people getting facts wrong with the transition of the story from one person to the next.

About the only 2 people who have direct knowledge are the whistleblower, and apparently sondland. Those are the only two who's testimony would have any relevancy.

Without that testimony, then it boils down to the interpretation of the transcript, which says nothing about getting dirt on biden, nor asking ukraine to influence a campaign.

Yes, you do have trump asking ukraine to look into the server, and also to look into why the prosecutor who was investigating burisma was fired, but that could be because trump was genuinely wanting to know more about those events, or it could be because he was wanting dirt. The point being, the transcript doesnt give any actual context either way, and everything else is just hearsay, some of it from people with an anti trump agenda.

If sondland does have direct knowledge, then his testimony alone would probably be the most damaging to trump.

Pure fact free nonsense. All of it.

all of the witnesses have knowledge of what occurred. Many because they dealt with it in Ukraine as diplomats. Others because they were privy to what occurred in the White House

First hand knowledge? Who has that? If this were in a court of law the defendant's lawyer would constantly be popping out of his seat like a Jack In The Box yelling "Objection...hearsay!" and the judge would be agreeing with him! This is political FARCE!

So you don't want hearsay...yet you demand the whistle blower testify...who you say only was a hearsay witness.

Logic is not your friend

Of course, because then we get the whole story of how Schiff set this whole thing up and the WB is just a bit player. Interesting that Schiff is desperate to keep him hidden.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Again, we have a transcript, nothing can change that. That is what the left are using to impeach. Now, all of these hearsay conversations, especially those from the anti trump group should probably be disregarded, as it's not admissible as evidence. The problem with hearsay is that, it may be true, or it may not be true. Some of it may be twisted to make a desired narrative, and some of it could be incorrect with people getting facts wrong with the transition of the story from one person to the next.

About the only 2 people who have direct knowledge are the whistleblower, and apparently sondland. Those are the only two who's testimony would have any relevancy.

Without that testimony, then it boils down to the interpretation of the transcript, which says nothing about getting dirt on biden, nor asking ukraine to influence a campaign.

Yes, you do have trump asking ukraine to look into the server, and also to look into why the prosecutor who was investigating burisma was fired, but that could be because trump was genuinely wanting to know more about those events, or it could be because he was wanting dirt. The point being, the transcript doesnt give any actual context either way, and everything else is just hearsay, some of it from people with an anti trump agenda.

If sondland does have direct knowledge, then his testimony alone would probably be the most damaging to trump.

Pure fact free nonsense. All of it.

all of the witnesses have knowledge of what occurred. Many because they dealt with it in Ukraine as diplomats. Others because they were privy to what occurred in the White House

It's not a crime to have a different foreign policy than the entrenched swamp.
Trump needs to fire them all.

correct.

Its a crime to withhold funds approved by congress for personal benefit.
Its called bribery.

And your proof?

 

[hadit]

"A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

William Taylor, the charge d’affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, told lawmakers in secret testimony two weeks ago that his opinions about an alleged quid pro quo demanded by Trump were formed largely from conversations with anti-Trump staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy."

"Taylor also testified that his knowledge of the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky wasn’t first-hand knowledge."

Wow - that's got to be completely disappointing to / deflating for Pro-coup snowflakes / Democrats.....still no evidence.


Transcript: Taylor Wasn't On July 25 Phone Call, Never Spoke To Trump

.

We already knew he wasn't on the call. This is not new.

Then he shouldn't be offering opinions about what somebody told him. This is an effort to unseat a duly elected president, and should require the highest of evidentiary standards.

Quite frankly, if this is the best the democrats can do, they're screwed.

They didn't offer any opinions.

Every time he said, "I think", or, "I believe", he was offering an opinion. He didn't even talk to the president, so every time he says he knows what he's thinking, it's an opinion.

 

[dudmuck]

Again, we have a transcript, nothing can change that. That is what the left are using to impeach. Now, all of these hearsay conversations, especially those from the anti trump group should probably be disregarded, as it's not admissible as evidence. The problem with hearsay is that, it may be true, or it may not be true. Some of it may be twisted to make a desired narrative, and some of it could be incorrect with people getting facts wrong with the transition of the story from one person to the next.

About the only 2 people who have direct knowledge are the whistleblower, and apparently sondland. Those are the only two who's testimony would have any relevancy.

Without that testimony, then it boils down to the interpretation of the transcript, which says nothing about getting dirt on biden, nor asking ukraine to influence a campaign.

Yes, you do have trump asking ukraine to look into the server, and also to look into why the prosecutor who was investigating burisma was fired, but that could be because trump was genuinely wanting to know more about those events, or it could be because he was wanting dirt. The point being, the transcript doesnt give any actual context either way, and everything else is just hearsay, some of it from people with an anti trump agenda.

If sondland does have direct knowledge, then his testimony alone would probably be the most damaging to trump.

Pure fact free nonsense. All of it.

all of the witnesses have knowledge of what occurred. Many because they dealt with it in Ukraine as diplomats. Others because they were privy to what occurred in the White House

It's not a crime to have a different foreign policy than the entrenched swamp.
Trump needs to fire them all.

correct.

Its a crime to withhold funds approved by congress for personal benefit.
Its called bribery.

And your proof?

The proof is from the inquiry.

Trump admitted he did the crime.

 

[kiwiman127]

If the White House had been cooperative and forthcoming, maybe taxpayers wouldn't be footing the bill of the impeachment process?
And, why stonewall? Your response is very weak.

The taxpayers are footing the bill for impeachment because the dems were determined to impeach him before he took office. These hearings are not even needed as there is no way at all that the dems are not going to impeach him.

They could simply write up their articles and turn them over to the senate. What all this is about is them trying to damage public opinion of trump in hopes it will hurt him in the election.

Well no!
The Democrats are following the rules that the GOP instituted.
======================================
Trump might label this an attack on “due process,” but his fight isn’t with Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Schiff, it’s with the Republican-led investigative committees who instituted this precedent during their investigations of President Bill Clinton’s administration in 1997 and 1998. That practice was extended in the 112th, 113th, 114th and 115th congresses.
Opinion | Trump has the GOP to blame for the impeachment rules he hates so much
======================================
So if you want to whine about how the Dems are handling the impeachment, blame Republicans.

You're so fucked up and turned around, it's a flaming miracle that you still can find the 'Post Reply' button on this site.
Loser!

Says a mindless, goose=stepping Little Trumpster.
My post was based on facts, if you don't like the, you pull a Trump and attack the messenger.
Prove my post false.
Step up to the plate

You're so upside down, you ain't worth the time.

You just can’t prove me wrong, can you?
You’re just another Little Trumpster, gullible and clueless. You have reached your level of incompetency and the stick wasn’t even that high.