It’s easier to listen to him if you moo during each pause in his remarks… 
Wouldn’t that be sweet.
He is now speaking to the witness before she has provided evidence. He is a joke.
Who thinks that Nunes et al will attack Dr Hill personally rather than her evidence?
Does she have evidence of quid pro quo?
One would need to wait for her evidence to answer that question.
As an aside is quod erat demonstrandum allowed per the ToS? If it is not I will remove it. Thanks.
Don’t insult the forums intelligence.
You know the only reason The president released the memo of call (not transcript) was due to the whistleblower.
Do me a favor.
Transparency? 
You must be kidding.
Also not letting people testify.
Transparency?
You must have a different dictionary than the rest of us.
Allan
It was smart to present the Republucan report about Russia.
The Republicans need to distance themselves from that hairy Russian funk.
Was it in the transcript or not?
Whilst I am not intimately aware of your parliamentary practices and procedures I would assume that the report has already been included in your parliamentary record.
It is clear why it was done and reflects badly on Nunes.
That means that in the days that he doesn’t tweets or only tweets a couple of things, there is not a lot of thinking going on?
If any.
Well, first thing is we don’t have a parliament.
Nunes is going to have a hard time with that…
I would love for Schiff to call Parnas to testify.
That would be amazing.
1 Like
Should Nunes request that Parnas appear before the hearing?
The only evidence most conservatives would accept he was engaged in bribery, would be a picture of Trump accepting a bag of cash with the word bribe and a $ sign written on it…
1 Like
Nunes introduced the report created by his trips to Europe into the record so it would seem appropriate to call Parnas to verify his involvement in creating the report.
Not a transcript but a memo.
Allan
Looks like it is going to be a very long day (night for me) based on Holmes’s opening statement.
