The Trump Impeachment Inquiry

[HurricaneDitka]

@Ravenman

So you raise some manufactured reasons why someone needs to testify in an impeachment proceeding, …

If you recall, you asked me this question:

@Ravenman

Maybe you can first explain the Trump supporter point of view that the whistleblower simultaeously knows nothing that isn’t hearsay but also must be called to testify on the things that he supposedly doesn’t know anything about.

And I answered it with this post:

@HurricaneDitka

I’m pretty sure the Republicans want to call him to testify about his collusion with Schiff’s staff and his political motives / biases / history.

Your posts use the phrases “need to testify” and “must be called to testify”. I don’t think either of those imperative phrasings are accurate, which is why in my response I said that “Republicans want to to call him to testify” (emphasis added).

@Ravenman

… someone calls out your manufactured reasons using an analogy, you respond with something about the 6th Amendment; …

JohnT’s traffic court analogy was badly flawed due to his own ignorance of our criminal justice system. I responded with “something about the 6th Amendment” to try to correct his ignorant misunderstanding on that point of criminal justice. It was simply fighting his ignorance, not making any broader claim about President Trump and Ciaramella. Several posters apparently failed to grasp that, yourself included.

@Ravenman

… and you blame someone else for raising the issue of someone being called to testify in the impeachment trial - an issue that YOU raised in the first place. …

You’ve gotten confused again. I wasn’t the one that first raised the issue of Ciaramella being called to testify in the impeachment inquiry. YOU did, in post #4288.