It would be a lovely thing for HD to come back and admit how foolishly inapt his invocation of the sixth amendment was, not only on purely constitutional grounds, but even on the shakiest of analogical grounds.
Also, I’d like a pony.
Meanwhile, the “IT’S BORING DON’T PAY ANY ATTENTION PLEASE DON’T WATCH IT” routine has got to be encouraging. When you’ve got a strong case, you want people to hear it. You only tell people to stop listening when your case is weak as shit.
If you see something, say something, and IDENTIFY YOURSELF!
Until this point, I was pretty sure you and I were in agreement that JohnT’s “traffic court” analogy was stupid and wrong. That’s what my “invocation of the sixth amendment” was in regard to. You seemed to recognize this when you said:
I’m clear that the impeachment inquiry isn’t a criminal proceeding and many of the protections we normally grant to a defendant, such as the right to confront one’s accusers, and protections from hearsay, etc, don’t apply here. I have NOT made the claim that President Trump has a 6th Amendment right to confront Ciaramella. Is that where your confusion is?
You seem to think that the accused has a “right” to confront their accusers during the investigation and not the trial. Do you want to admit that you were wrong about that?
What did I ever post that led you to this conclusion? It (meaning your conclusion about what I “seem to think”) is wrong, BTW.
You are abusing the phrase “face one’s accuser”. The whistleblower relayed accusations. Subsequent interviews have brought straight forward accusations. What possible use is it for Trump to get to “face” the whistleblower?
But you’re fine with outing the whistleblower and calling into question his/her motives and political affiliations. All in spite of the fact that the whistleblower’s reports have been independently corroborated by members of Trump’s own administration.
In service of what are you seeking this unmasking?
In raising the 6th Amendment right to face one’s accuser, you didn’t actually mean this thought to apply to this thread or the topic we are talking about. Wow, that’s clear as glass.
I’ve already answered why I believe the Republicans want to call Ciaramella to testify. See post #4291 and #4322 .
See Ravenman’s post for evidence of your literary contortions.
I “raised the 6th Amendment” in reply to this post by JohnT and it was meant as a reply to that post, which is why I quoted it:
If that’s not clear to you, I’m pretty sure the issue isn’t on my end.
Meanwhile, how many people watched today’s hearings? It seems to have about as much energy as Mueller’s testimony, which is to say, this probably won’t move the football much.
We live in a different age. Regularly televised hearings during the day when everyone’s at work. But for a lot of people, it’s Netflix and viral cat videos at night.
They want some random person to testify about the whistleblower’s background? Does this guy Ciaramella know who the whistleblower is or something?
Well, a new nickname! Bumbler in Chief fits Trump well, besides Agent Orange.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-university-memory-224712
I watched! I watched! Well, I had it on in the background, while I was working. Saw highlights. Came to this nutty message board to get my hourly links to articles and republican idiotic statements. So… what’re my ratings? What’s my Delta Tau name? 
But you’re right. As others have posted, three news networks with three trusted central newscasters with varied guests is SO different from now. You can just shut off the TV, go to Brietbart.shit or just tune into Rush Limbaugh.
And let’s face it… this is BOOOOORING to most Americans. They either don’t get it, don’t really care or have already made up their minds.
You really oughta move out here, Asahi. We have LEGAL WEED. No one that sells it (around here) supports the GOP. It helps! No hangovers! There’s traffic and some o’ them fires though…
Something like that, at least according to reports in the media.
Know what else has been reported in the media?
Oh, I don’t know. Seems to me Americans are paying pretty close attention.
The top 5 search terms on Google today all had to do with impeachment. And Trump’s approval rating on FiveThirtyEight swung nearly half a point toward ‘Disapprove’ within hours after the hearings.
On Day One.
There’s no reaching the hardcore Trumpists.
This. I don’t think people care; it’s international politics, which is something most Americans just don’t understand and don’t care to understand.
And if you tell them that the focus is on the president’s conduct, not international politics, a lot of people will just shrug and say “Well they all do that, don’t they?” Which, by the way, is exactly what someone like Putin wants you to believe. In Putin-speak, there’s no difference the college kid who runs a cash lawn mowing business and Bernie Madoff. Everyone’s a con-artist, so you can’t impeach a president for being a scammer.
You mean, I gotta move back out there - lived on the Left Coast for 7 + years. Miss it sometimes. I mean, football games end at 9 p.m., right?
I’m not confused. You seem to think that the sixth amendment has anything whatsofuckever to do with this thread. I’m pretty clear on why you make that claim.
But perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps I am confused. I welcome correction, if my suspicion as to why you made that risible claim is not correct.