Does any anyone believe that the impeachment rules are set up to gain the truth?

Hillary Clinton was not afraid to show up and confront the people under oath  whom she believed were running a show trial.  And she memorably kicked their ass on national TV when they questioned her.    Donald Trump refuses to engage on that same level of integrity and respect for our instituions.  Further, he has instructed all officials within his umbrella to obey that same directive.    

Thats one difference.

People who want to believe the propoganda  the current proceedings are a show trial would be well reminded that Democrats did not bring this scandal to the fore.   

It wasn't Adam Schiff.

It wasn't Maxine Waters.

It wasn't Nancy Pelosi.

It was a myriad of lfetime public servants from both parties who all corroborrated each other and came forward with what they believed to be a massiv abuse of power and danger to our national security.     

And all the crybaby complaining about politics in the proceedings does not change that.

The usually articulate Don Diego has been reduced to babbling about conspiracy theories and mindlessly repeating slogans like show trial.  Give that man a red MAGA hat and a bandana. He is ready for action on the front lines with the rest of the Trumpers. 

Today the Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee Chairman, leading the impeachment proceedings against President Trump stated that he did not know who the Whistleblower is.

Perhaps a more liberal-leaning LVA poster could inform him through unofficial secret liberal communication channels that he can find out who the Whistleblower is by looking up DonDiego's post of 10:06 on 1 November entitled "The Whistleblower".

Or, . . . maybe he's just lying.

Golly, you mean he was following the law? Even if he read it in the newspaper if he follows the law he can't confirm the guy's identity either for his own purposes or public consumption. I sure do wish Republicans would follow the law instead of breaking it. Anyway, the whistleblower's role is finished. His job was to tip off the government that somebody was doing something wrong so the government could investigate the matter. The whistleblower's report has since been confirmed by the testimony of numerous career diplomats, a high ranking military official and Trump's own appointees.  Clamoring to out the whistleblower serves no legal purpose. The only purpose it serves is illegal retaliation.

Here is a suggestion. Instead of voluntary aborting your intellect to mindlessly repeat slogans, why don't you make a substantive argument that Trump is innocent because the call didn't happen, aid wasn't withheld until an investigation was opened, a sale of weapons wasn't conditioned upon opening an investigation into the Bidens, a state visit wasn't offered in exchange for opening an investigation or that Trump didn't do all of these things in part because he had a psychotic belief in a conspiracy theory that the DNC's email server was hidden in Ukraine despite numerous experts in his own administration telling him that it was a debunked conspiracy theory. 

I will be waiting.

And maybe who cares?  

What does that have to do with  Bill Taylor corroborating (under oath) everything the whistleblower reported?     What Adam Schiff knew and when he knew is not releveant to anything regarding the alleged crimes against the president. 

At some point the FOX Newsies are going to have to explain why all these witnesses are telling the same story under oath while the president tweets from  under his desk.

Is that the bill Taylor who has never spoken to President Trump.

Corroborating hearsay doesn't mean anything.

Schiff has consistently lied.  Remember he saw all the evidence about the Russian collusion?

He never spoke to the whistleblower, then he did & today he didn't.  

If Adam Schif says he does not know the whistle blowers identity, he is lying. 

Adam Schiff did not say, "I cannot identify the whistleblower."

Adam Schiff did not say, "I never spoke to the whistleblower."

Adam Schiff did say: "I don't know the identity of the whistlblower."

Lying is a helluva way to start a serious impeachment hearing.  But then again, lying . . . eh, it's a small price for a political putsch to get rid of President Trump.  

Tom, Bill Taylor had first-hand knowledge via conversations with White House aides, national security officials and Trump’s point people in Ukraine that there was a concerted effort to force Ukraine into a quid pro quo. Over the course of several months, he talked to high-level officials at the National Security Council, officials in Ukraine’s presidential office and two of the “three amigos” designated by Trump to handle Ukraine policy outside the normal diplomatic channels. “I was in the regular channel” of diplomacy, Taylor testified, “but I was also in the irregular one.” He also testified that his aid had first-hand knowledge of what Trump said and we also learned that she will be testifying under oath to that first-hand knowledge. 

Schiff did not lie, but I will entertain your point given you are doing better than Don Diego and you actually made a substantive argument in part of your post.  Even if he did, it isn't relevant to what Trump did. It is a ludicrous argument to make.  Devin Nunes and Gym Jordan's pants were on fire today.  Is their telling of lies evidence that Donald Trump did the things that he is accused of? In court, a judge would say what Gym Jordan, Devin Nunes and Adam Shiff said are irrelevant to the proceeding as they have no probative value.  Such claims would be inadmissible. If you want to start a thread about Adam Shiff lying, and then provide evidence to make your point do so, but it is unrelated to Trump's guilt or innocence. 

Don Diego, see my answer to Tom's questions. 

Oh, I almost forgot.  If you want more first-hand evidence of what happened or what Trump said or did, tell Trump to quit obstructing justice and allow those with first-hand knowledge to testify. Hell, Trump can testify himself. I hope when the charges are prepared to send to the Senate a count of Obstruction of Justice is added for every witness that was subpoenaed but didn't appear because Trump instructed them to break the law. 

Thats all you got, huh?    Nothing about the content of the testimony?  Nothing to refute the damning testimony of Bill Taylor and the host of other witnesses corroborating the same story?   Just.... Adam Schiff?    Hmmm.   Good luck with that.    And to Susan Collins too.

Oh, and uh, playing the gotcha game with lies doesn't go over wiell standing in front of the mega-glass house of Donald Trump.    Just sayin.  

Since when are the DemocRats concerned with the truth? It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.