What a load of butt-hurtedness from the Democrats. They just don't like the president that Americans elected so they are going to impeach him. No worries. They will find some crime somewhere if they keep sorting through things and boring the hell out of everyone.
And here's Schiff-for-brains being the typical arse-hat:
Republicans are furious that Schiff interrupted Republican questioning of Taylor to remind Taylor of what he does and does not have to answer. "Parliamentary inquiry: are you seriously interrupting our time here?"
Nunes laughs. Schiff goes on to say that Taylor should be "cautious" about answering questions that assumes facts not in evidence before him.
Rep. John Ratcliffe then objects angrily: "I sat here through the first 45 minutes and literally had an objection to almost the foundation of every question that Mr. Goldman asked regarding facts not in evidence/leading, but House resolution 660 does not say we are under the federal rules of evidence." "If it is your position that I should be asserting objections to questions that violate the federal rules of evidence, let me know now because this hearing is going to change significantly."
"As I said, Mr. Ratcliffe, I will allow the question," Schiff says. But Nunes asks again about the rules. Schiff says only that the witness should "not to presume questions from the majority or the minority that may represents facts not in evidence are correct."
This is hilarious if nothing else.
And here's Schiff-for-brains being the typical arse-hat:
Republicans are furious that Schiff interrupted Republican questioning of Taylor to remind Taylor of what he does and does not have to answer. "Parliamentary inquiry: are you seriously interrupting our time here?"
Nunes laughs. Schiff goes on to say that Taylor should be "cautious" about answering questions that assumes facts not in evidence before him.
Rep. John Ratcliffe then objects angrily: "I sat here through the first 45 minutes and literally had an objection to almost the foundation of every question that Mr. Goldman asked regarding facts not in evidence/leading, but House resolution 660 does not say we are under the federal rules of evidence." "If it is your position that I should be asserting objections to questions that violate the federal rules of evidence, let me know now because this hearing is going to change significantly."
"As I said, Mr. Ratcliffe, I will allow the question," Schiff says. But Nunes asks again about the rules. Schiff says only that the witness should "not to presume questions from the majority or the minority that may represents facts not in evidence are correct."
This is hilarious if nothing else.