The hypocrisy of Tom's criticism regarding "secret hearings" is only eclipsed by his outrage at Obama for playing golf.
And like the rest of the GOP, Tom has no comment regarding the damning content revealed about Donny treason's behavior. He's just upset the House is playiong by the same rules they did when he was waiving his pom-poms over Bengazhi.
I advise posters to engage Tom with this in mind.
Originally posted by: tom
"if Witness A's testimony was immediately made public, then that might affect the testimony of Witness B, C, etc"
Under that distorted logic all court cases should be held in secret.
Your premise is flawed. Witnesses are segregated in both civil and criminal court cases, so they don't hear each other's testimony.
Again, we arent at the case phase we are at the investigation phase. If the police suspect someone of committing a crime and begin an investigation it happens behind closed doors. They don't inform the suspect of how the investigation is going, they don't interview witnesses in a public setting and they don't publish their statements. Everything is done in secret.
"Witnesses are segregated in both civil and criminal court cases, so they don't hear each other's testimony."
And lawyers don't talk to & coach witnesses after hearing testimony.
So after this kangeroo court finishes, will the Republicans be able to call their own witnesses & question the Democrat witnesses? Will they then be given the testimony? Or will the democrats just present their version of the story & tell people to vote?
No, they don't. It is disbarment if you get caught doing that. As a practical matter, it doesn't work either. It easily becomes apparent to the Jury/Judge/opposing counsel what is going on. In addition, it is often logistically impossible to do. For example, If all the witnesses are being called the same day, you can't coach them as you are in the courtroom. If it is a trial that stretches over days, the judge will often issue no-contact orders with the witnesses.
Furthermore, the best witnesses don't have a dog in the hunt so to speak. As such, it is not worth it to them to risk committing felonies to cover up for someone that isn't a very close friend or family member. If as an attorney you approach one of these witnesses with no dog in the hunt and try and "coach" them the most likely outcome is you being reported.
Republicans have been participating already. They are allowed to question the witnesses and have been doing so. The reason why they aren't saying much about the proceedings is that they know the evidence is damming.
There is no point in calling an investigation a Kangaroo Court as it just makes you look stupid. Investigations aren't Courts. They are two separate and distinct things.
Does Tom even fathom that this inquiry isn't being conducted by "the Democrats" but rather, a bipartisan House committee comprised of Republicans and Democrats?
Does he understand that this is not yet a criminal trial, and so there are no defendants? And therefore, there is no defense that can call witnesses.
Trump will have every opportunity to call witnesses at his impeachment---the actual process, held by the Senate, NOT the inquiry now in progress--or during any criminal trial wherein he is a defendant. Neither of those things has happened yet.
Tom, you don't have to parrot Fox News every waking moment of your life. Think for yourself. Saying nonsense that isn't even remotely true makes you look foolish. We're not lying to you. In fact, we're giving you a patient explanation, probably more than you deserve. Drop the partisan blinders for just a little while and you'll be able to understand what's going on. You may not LIKE it, but so what?
Republicans get to invent their own crybaby rules, constituion and judicial processes as they go along. Thats how they roll:
- Democrats didn't read the Affordable Care Act on public tv before voting on it. Oooooo ! The calamity!
- Obama passed executive orders ...and thats a constituional abuse of power.
- The House of representatives is having hearings and getting testimony from eyewitnesses. Who do they think they are?
But they have no comment on the damning testimony portraying the sitting president as a treasonous felon who has betrayed his oath of office and endangerd our national security. And all their crybaby attempts to complain about process do not change that.
Originally posted by: tom
"Witnesses are segregated in both civil and criminal court cases, so they don't hear each other's testimony."
And lawyers don't talk to & coach witnesses after hearing testimony.
So after this kangeroo court finishes, will the Republicans be able to call their own witnesses & question the Democrat witnesses? Will they then be given the testimony? Or will the democrats just present their version of the story & tell people to vote?
Are you (or anyone on the FOX crybaby network) going to inform us what Democrats are doing that is illegal or different from the last COngress? And More importantly are you (or anyone on the FOX crybaby network) going to inform us what testimony thus far is false? And why?
Or can we just expect you to continue to complain about the House conducting its business the same exact way Trey Gowdy did under Bengazhi? Just curious.
PJ, you have to cut Tom a little slack. He's obviously not very bright, but he might have been a decent person before Trump and Fox News came along and poisoned his mind and destroyed his ethics.
There are basically only three ways for Republicans, Trumpers, or anyone else to deal with an uncomfortable reality--it's called cognitive dissonance.
1. Deny it, even nonsensically so.
2. Attack the person or persons who report that reality.
3. Construct an alternate reality wherein the painful event never took place.
We've seen examples of all three from Trump, Trumpers, Fox News, and the various conservative wingnut pundits who pollute the airwaves. Tom's just copying them. For weak persons such as Tom, comfort is obtained from imitating others who speak and act as those persons want.
