Tippaporn

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/standards/ProsecutionFunctionFourthEdition/ Standard 3-1.6 Improper Bias Prohibited (a) The prosecutor should not manifest or exercise, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or socioeconomic status. A prosecutor should not use other improper considerations, such as partisan or political or personal considerations, in exercising prosecutorial discretion. A prosecutor should strive to eliminate implicit biases, and act to mitigate any improper bias or prejudice when credibly informed that it exists within the scope of the prosecutor’s authority. How many times has Schiff declared his bias towards Trump? Would this also be cause for Schiff to recuse himself? I'm thinking that given some of the known, indisputable facts surrounding this "investigation" we could all at least come to a unified consensus on certain points, independent of personal political persuasion. We are, after all, unified in a call for justice and that justice is performed fairly. So who here would differ in opinion that Schiff needs to recuse himself and on what basis?

https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fact-witness/ A fact witness is a person with knowledge about what happened in a particular case, who testifies in the case about what happened or what the facts are. Fact witness testimony consists of the recitation of facts and/or events as opposed to an expert witness, whose testimony consists of the presentation of an opinion, a diagnosis, etc. If this ever gets to the Senate you can be darn sure Schiff will be called as a witness. Since he is a fact witness it should disqualify him to lead any prosecution. I would assume that Gowdy, a seasoned prosecutor, would know for certain and would not make a statement to that regard if it was indeed false. Taking Gowdy's word and Kevin McCarthy's word then what I posted is correct. Schiff should recuse himself. If anyone has factual information in contradiction then by all means present it. Otherwise I'm not interested in replying to posters responding with mere, unsupported speculation.

Just a few questions. Since it's confirmed that Schiff has had contact with the whistle blower prior to the filing of the complaint, which makes him a fact witness, then how is it that he can maintain his status as chairman and the face of this "investigation"? Does it bother people that even though he's disqualified himself from leading this "investigation" he refuses to recuse himself? I believe most everyone wants the U.S. to return to it's founding ideal of justice for all. Does it not fly in the face of that ideal to have a man leading an "investigation" of someone else's alleged wrong doing when he himself cannot abide by that ideal? Everything aside, I wanted to raise that single, standalone issue and ask the Americans here how they feel about the duality of Schiff's actions. https://www.foxnews.com/media/trey-gowdy-adam-schiff-has-made-himself-a-fact-witness

As long as the requests are legit. If they're not then I would predict that Gowdy would argue the case quite well.

Per NBC News: Former Rep. Trey Gowdy joins Trump legal team. Ho-ho-ho. I would not want this guy going after me.

None of Jingthing's statements were backed up with fact.

Meaningless.

Then you should have linked to it when you made the claim instead of making the claim without providing a link. Remember, someone said it's incumbent upon the poster to provide links to claims they make in their post. Well, you had failed to do that. So much silliness.

Poster 1: Trump is president. Poster 2: Prove it. Where's the link??? When something is absolute common knowledge it becomes silly to demand links to prove it.

John Solomon: "This is a significant shift in the factual timeline. This is information that is omitted from the whistle blower complaint." Another monkey wrench thrown into the gears corruption.

It's silly to ask posters to provide links to information that any poster could easily obtain themselves, especially a fact which is overwhelmingly common knowledge. And it's completely dishonest to make the accusation that because the poster didn't provide a link to the information that it's "made-up nonsense." I've tried many, many times to point out and explain in detail the many deceitful tactics posters use to discredit, and then disparage as well, other posters. I want posters to understand the tricks which are employed against them.

Easy to find via Googling.

Polls are useless. Where is the guarantee that the random respondents were equally republican and democrat? Remember, Hillary was projected to win by a margin of 70% to 90%. People can, if they choose, believe that polls are an accurate reflection of the true support for impeachment or not. Polls are useless.

"Impeachment joke": Jim Jordan goes off On Democrats Push To Impeach President Trump. Why will Schiff not release Volker's transcript? Because it'll destroy the Dem's narrative. What is Schiff trying to hide? Why did he lie about not having prior contact with the whistle blower? Schiff is now a fact witness and must recuse himself. Why is Schiff cherry picking only parts of Volker's testimony? Republicans convey some of Volker's testimony which Schiff refuses to release in full.

From Japan's Kyodo News: Ukraine president denies being pushed by Trump to investigate Biden President Zelensky was interviewed in Kyiv by the first foreign news media outlet, reported by them on the 6th. President Zelensky again confirms no quid pro quo. He also reconfirms that he had no discussions with U.S. special envoy for Ukraine, Kurt Volker, regarding a Biden investigation as a condition for his visit to the United States. He further goes on to say he would never accept such a condition. Very interesting as well is that he stated that constitutionally he cannot order Ukraine's prosecution and investigative authorities to launch an investigation. Again, here's the liberal logic: The guy that Trump supposedly extorted claims he was not extorted but we'll charge Trump with extortion anyway. And these people truly believe that a House impeachment inquiry is viable? What's the holdup, Nancy? Let's go!!!