Millions of people missed watching Hicks/Trump blatantly obstruct congress

[Cetacea]

I'm not sure why Nadler even accepted the terms of her "testifying". Closed door session, and no questions concerning her time in the White House.

I know his hands are tied and its probably better than nothing. But an Impeachment Inquiry would speed things up and certainly would be televised. Most Americans still believe there was "no collusion, no obstruction". As a matter of fact, both Nadler and Joyce Vance have said there is lots of collusion in the report...

Any good prosecutor knows the value of a live witness as opposed to transcripts. Even more value in the political sphere.

[mr_lebowski]

1. I believe the problem is that Congress can't FORCE people to testify publicly

Congress has no recourse if they don't want to do it.

Additionally, and potentially to the advantage of Congress is that witnesses can't as easily weasel out of answering questions that are above the 'confidentiality' level of 'public'.

[Iliyah]

2. Nope.

Americans know.

[leftstreet]

3. I doubt millions of people would have watched

I bet many, many people have never heard of Hope Hicks

Now, a televised Trump impeachment hearing...

[Cetacea]

5. True, but a lot of people don't know who the candidates are as well.

That's why we televise the debates.
Buy yea, seeing Trump in front of congress....

[Cetacea]

4. If they knew, the polling numbers would be higher

And Team Trump has had two years of making the rounds on popular news shows on major cable and networks misinforming America while Mueller was forced to remain silent. I cannot see any negatives in televised hearings.

[Iliyah]

7. We know

fake news (Murdoch and Sinclair) and hate radio know also.

[Cetacea]

8. It's not just Fox and Sinclair

Team Trump also hit all of the major popular Sunday shows on network TV.

[UTUSN]

6. Well, Rachel is 17 minutes in, reading the transcript. Hit me on the head with a 4x4.

Yes, I love Rachel for 90% of what she does, the 10% being when she goes into 20 minutes of context and history before she ever gets near making her point, but she does the transcript reading thing fairly often and it is even worse.

I know somebody will pop in to tell me to change the channel, or to disconnect completely from the outside world, or to assume that I don't appreciate the vast amount of context she provides. There, we've got what somebody will pop in to tell me, and my response to all of those points is that I prefer to *know* stuff than not to know stuff whether I like it or not, that I can take it and complain about it at the same time, and that it's my thing to do without being told otherwise. So, whew, we've got *THAT* over with, yay!1

It's not just her. We used to have training sessions at work, sometimes with mock trial exercises and they were the most dreadful crap ever!1 There were two features - the trainer-lawyers who just loved all the preparation crap and the exercise itself and the excruciating critique afterwards ---------- and those classmates of ours who apparently were budding actors, who loved to be given a script and act out their damned part.

Lawyers also love "lawyer jokes". **********TORTURE!!!1

[Cetacea]

9. Well, Hicks only answered a few questions

Nadler should have rejected her terms, imo. It would have been better to have actual footage of Hicks stonewalling.

[UTUSN]

10. Yip, I agree and welcome being informed, am willing to wade through Rachel's presentation!1

Good o.p.! Thanks!

[SHRED]

11. Criminals are setting the terms by which they'll appear

[Rhiannon12866]

12. Exactly!

Criminals can ignore Congressional subpoenas and choose to only answer the questions that won't reflect badly on them and their overlords?? I agree, this is just more obstruction of justice!

[malaise]

13. After watching Rachel last night as she read some of the transcript

I have to disagree - there was valuable information yesterday including the fact that the Con knew about the pee tapes long before he pretended that it was a surprise.

[Cetacea]

14. Update: Nadler says Hicks "played right into our hands"

By not answering questions such as "where did you sit?," a judge will find it difficult to rule against Congress..