"why look at details when i've already decided it's a hoax before hearing details?"

classic dumb dumb boomer talk. was that a jsp post or a call into talk radio from someone addicted to pain pills?

I used the term "minutiae" for a reason. Substituting the word details is inaccurate.

There is no case for a hearing, let alone an impeachment. We have zero evidence other than pure hearsay. On top of that, we have the past that we SHOULD be learning from here. I refer ofc to Russiagate, Kavanaughgate, etc.
The Dems have NOT been doing the jobs they were voted in to do, they have been wasting taxpayer's money and wasting time they could be spending... legislating.

We have serious problems with illegal immigration, illegal sanctuary cities, the 5th district in Minnesota, etc., etc., etc. Congress should be dealing with these issues and not repeating the fiasco of the previous two and a half years.
Not only that, if Congress should be "after" anyone, they should be after those that created false evidence for Russiagate, they should be after Califonia congressmen that created false evidence for Kavanaughgate.

They should also be working VERY hard to prevent future occurrences of the very many accusations with no proof, that have occurred since 2016 as well. Like #metoo, and all the similar crap that started.

hearsay is evidence, it's just not proof. not all evidence is admissible in court, and an impeachment isn't a court of law.

maybe you should substitute out all legal words for not saying anything above your IQ grade.

Maybe you should get realistic. The House is considering hearsay as evidence, for no other reason than to try and overturn a 2016 election. Everyone already knows this. Kinda makes one wonder why those defending this crap are doing so.

the house only has hearsay because the president blocked anyone with first hand knowledge from testifying.

gosh, why might he do this?

oh right, you'll just say it's a hoax without hearing their testimony because that's your default position.

but im unrealistic, sure sure.

You're not only unrealistic, you're attempting to sell Trump's defending himself against this witch hunt as.... hiding evidence. The fact that anyone he told not to testify, legally doesn't have to obey that order, completely escapes your notice.


Oh look, I've found hard evidence of the hearsay I was referring to...

epstein wasnt legally barred from testifying against anyone either.

generally you defend yourself with words, not silence. but hey, this is just basic logic what do i know?

no one's contesting the testimony is hearsay, but go ahead and keep "proving" whatever you can muster.

https://twitter.com/kbaxter/status/1194768138581217280

Sondland's testimony is going to be big. Good luck evading when Democratic counsel has 45 minutes to grill you.

The interesting thing is that the staffer is testifying on Friday and Sondland is testifying the following Wednesday. I doubt that they'll release the transcript before he testifies. Sondland has the potential to make or break this case but I have a feeling he will say things like "I don't recall." Granted, it's possible that Volker's public testimony (Tuesday) forces Sondland's hand.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/14/trump-sondland-ukraine-phone-call-070913

Get these two people to testify under oath!