Rep Collins has an interesting question

[hislegacy]

If Chairman Nadler truly believes refusing to call new witnesses is evidence of engaging in a cover up, why did he refuse to allow Republicans to call fact witnesses during the House’s investigation?
​

it is an interesting question imho

 

[Hank77]

If Chairman Nadler truly believes refusing to call new witnesses is evidence of engaging in a cover up, why did he refuse to allow Republicans to call fact witnesses during the House’s investigation?
​

it is an interesting question imho

imho, you know the answer to both of those questions.

 

[hislegacy]

imho, you know the answer to both of those questions.

I didn’t ask the question, just found it interesting. I don’t think Nadler will ever answer it, but that doesn’t change anything.

 

[com7fy8]

Both sides of a disagreement can be wrong. I think of the ones who wanted to stone the adulteress. She was wrong, but so were they.

There are people who have the character to be ok with killing unborn Americans; yet, now all of a sudden they are acting like Donald is some major problem. Yes, he rightly or wrongly had one Iranian guy killed, but meanwhile so many Americans are being killed and a number of anti-Donald people are ok with killing unborn Americans . . . while they claim Donald has some major conscience problem. If people are unjust enough to kill unborn people, how can they be just for trying anyone?

Ones are claiming they are protecting the Constitution, right while they continue to have the character to be ok with killing unborn Americans.

But this does not mean Donald is right or innocent.

But if God loves the unborn, and a person does not . . . but even kills them . . . this is a major problem. And a killer character is going to effect a person's ability for political leadership.

 

[iluvatar5150]

If Chairman Nadler truly believes refusing to call new witnesses is evidence of engaging in a cover up, why did he refuse to allow Republicans to call fact witnesses during the House’s investigation?
​

it is an interesting question imho

The question is neither interesting nor clever.

 

[KCfromNC]

If Chairman Nadler truly believes refusing to call new witnesses is evidence of engaging in a cover up, why did he refuse to allow Republicans to call fact witnesses during the House’s investigation?​

​

Several witnesses who testified were requested by Republicans. I mean, her ignoring that fact is "interesting", but not in the way I image the OP hoped.

 

[hislegacy]

​

Several witnesses who testified were requested by Republicans. I mean, her ignoring that fact is "interesting", but not in the way I image the OP hoped.

him not her.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

NVM

 

[DaisyDay]

If Chairman Nadler truly believes refusing to call new witnesses is evidence of engaging in a cover up, why did he refuse to allow Republicans to call fact witnesses during the House’s investigation?
​

it is an interesting question imho

He didn't. Republican witnesses were called during the hearing.

him not her.

Yes, Rep. Doug, not Sen. Susan.

 

[hislegacy]

He didn't. Republican witnesses were called during the hearing.

Seems to me, the congressman who called for the witnesses who were refused might just know what he is talking about

 

[KCfromNC]

him not her.

Oh, sounded like the other Collins. Either way, the point stands - this question is based on either ignorance of the House hearings or a hope that the target audience was.

 

[hislegacy]

He didn't. Republican witnesses were called during the hearing.



Yes, Rep. Doug, not Sen. Susan.

Here is the Republicans witness list

READ: House Republican witness list for impeachment hearings

Which ones were allowed?

 

[Kentonio]

Seems to me, the congressman who called for the witnesses who were refused might just know what he is talking about

And choses to brazenly lie about it. Seems to be a lot of that going around at the moment.

 

[DaisyDay]

Seems to me, the congressman who called for the witnesses who were refused might just know what he is talking about

Seems like it should be but evidently it is not. Or, similar to Donald's MO, he knows and doesn't care that he is factually wrong.

Here is the Republicans witness list

READ: House Republican witness list for impeachment hearings

Which ones were allowed?

The ones who were relevant to the charges such as David Hale, [url='https://www.npr.org/2019/11/16/779467476/read-testimony-of-tim-morrison-former-russia-director-for-national-security-coun']Tim Morrison, Amb. Kurt Volker (whose testimony was quite damning), and who knows how many were the ones the whistleblower relied on.

Hale's testimony included new details, including confirmation that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke to both Giuliani and Fox News' Sean Hannity about the attacks on former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.

[/url]

 

[hislegacy]

The ones who were relevant to the charges such as David Hale, Tim Morrison, Amb. Kurt Volker (whose testimony was quite damning), and who knows how many were the ones the whistleblower relied on.

Volker didn't look so good after cross examination:

Video shows cross examination of Amb. Volker Starts at 1:48 - Did the President ever say to you he would not allow aide....

Answer - no he did not

 

[Kentonio]

Volker didn't look so good after cross examination:

Video shows cross examination of Amb. Volker Starts at 1:48 - Did the President ever say to you he would not allow aide....

Answer - no he did not

Why does that make Ambassador Volker look bad?