Just think of all the relevant things we could learn if Trump, Mulvaney, Giuliani, Pompeo, and others in the administration were to testify! We’d learn so much! I assume you’re equally eager for that to happen?
That bumbling, boring testimony? I suspect a relatively few people watched it, and virtually no one was swayed by it.
I agree with you that the impeachment process, being inherently political and not criminal in nature, does not “require” affording the accused a chance to confront the witnesses against them. As I told Ravenman, the Republicans’ interest in having him testify seems to be primarily in understanding his collusion with Schiff’s staff and his previous political activities, not in having him re-hash the hearsay from his complaint. I’m more fascinated by the polite fiction so many Dopers are apparently happily playing along with that the whistleblower is still “anonymous”. His name has been widely reported in the media.
The whistleblower’s testimony is and would be irrelevant, when so many other sources have confirmed the information in their report. Trump can face his accusers (Congress) anytime he wants. The WB isn’t his accuser – they’re a witness who reported information to the authorities.
If I see a guy get assaulted, and report it to the police, and it turns out the police find video footage of the assault that clearly identifies the attacker, my testimony would be irrelevant. And the defendant would have full ability and rights to face his “accuser” (i.e. the local authorities) in court.
This is not a serious argument.
And you believe the fake news media?
The Republicans are represented in this investigation, and purposely so, by a man who allowed people to get molested, and a man suing an internet cow for hundreds of millions of dollars.
What criminal proceedings afford the accused the right to confront the accuser before the trial begins?
What parts were “bumbling”? Be specific. And what does the fact few people watched it have to do with his credibility?
Again: Do you think BT is credible? If not; why?
<Mob Boss Lawyer>
“This so-called “witness” clearly colluded with the police when he cooperated with them to give them information about my client. We demand that you tell us where this witness lives, so we can give him a good strong interview.”
<Investigators> “No, I don’t think we will do that”
That’s exactly it. There’s no legitimate purpose to publicly identifying the WB.
Trumpist
FTFY.
It’s just parroting the latest try at GOP spin:
“The TV show of the impeachment got very bad ratings. Not very entertaining at all. Sad.”
New impeachment defense strategy: “It’s boring!”
I believe it’s still speculation. But I’m not going to a bunch of right wing sites to see what evidence they’re putting out.
Translation: bull and/or shit. 
Sounds like the nonsense that Bernie Bros spewed and still like to pedal. The fact is that Russia and Trump coordinated these things and the items that were released were selectively chosen. There was no cookie jar. The fact that people still say things like what you just posted shows just how valuable that information was and why team Trump took the steps to get as much of it as they could.
The story that our president is beholden to a foreign entity because of their help which might very well have gotten him elected to begin with is kind of a big deal. Especially since it didn’t happen in a vacuum.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
You’re obviously under no obligation to go to any site you don’t want to, but just a reminder, you’re the one that asked:
Apparently it’s a lot more than just Breitbart’s website that you don’t visit. That’s fine, you’re free to live in a left-wing news bubble if you like, I’ll just do my best to remember that the next time you ask “Do we have any evidence …”, you’re really only interested in hearing about evidence from left-wing sources.
Again, does the whistleblower know something important or not? Trumpists can’t get their story straight. “He knows nothing so we need to ask him questions!”
The repeated requests to repeat the question, the numerous times he said some variation of “I don’t know”.
I don’t think “credible” is a very good measure for anything. This reminds me of the Kavanaugh hearing: “he’s been credibly accused …”. As it was in that case, the “credibility” of the witness is an entirely subjective matter.
The bottom line is your side needs to convince 20 Republican Senators to vote to convict, and I don’t think the testimony today made any significant headway towards that goal.
Videotape of Trump shooting someone on Fifth Avenue wouldn’t make any significant headway among Republicans.