I am curious to know how many here on the political forums have watched the Senate impeachment proceedings so far? Did you watch part or all of both sides' presentations? Many of us are political junkies so I expect higher viewership from us, but what I am wondering is did you give equal attention to both sides so far?
Me, I watched about 70-80% of the House Managers' presentations and all of the Trump rebuttal so far. I admit it was difficult to sit through the rebuttal but I did it. I also admit that, because the House presentation was so long, my attention was often split between it and household activities.
Yep, watched or listened to most of both sides, Sandy. It was indeed difficult to listen to Trump's team lie and deflect so much about the evidence. I endured though!
I watched only a part of the rebuttal, where videos of the rest of the story were played, and witnesses admitted that they had nothing but their own opinions to give.
Was that what made it so hard to watch? Witnesses admitting they had nothing to add but opinion, and realizing that those parts of their testimony were never presented to the Senate?
And those people were hired by our govt. to give opinions.It' their job, but we can't believe them because.....Why?
They're Trump haters? That's your usual excuse!
Holmes listened to Trump's own words on the phone. Was that simply opinion?
If you had watched the House presentation and then the rebuttal you would have a more complete picture of events. Were you unavailable or unwilling?
I do know many from the Right who refused to watch the House part of the trial, but then watched the Trump team's side and think they have seen it all. But then. they wouldn't understand much of either side anyway.
I watched some of the Democrats making their pretty political speeches. Not much there except "I think it was wrong".
I watched a bit of the rebuttal (not available for much); more political speeches and videos of "I think it was wrong but have no evidence outside of my opinion".
Was there anything else? Did someone testify before the House that Trump admitted an attempt to fix the election? That was the claim - which witness testified to Trump saying that?
Was that the part that made it hard to watch - when witness testified they had no information but their own opinion and it was pointed out that it was very relevant information but was not presented to the Senate?
Since I had seen the vast majority of the House presentation, it was easy to spot the lying and distorting
I'm sure you will get around to reviewing all of the available evidence, thoigh. A fair mind wouldn't want to only hear one side.
Sure, there was nothing but political speeches...if you disregard the evidence and testimony of the witnesses.
And once again, most of the witnesses are relied on for their opinions and experience, Dan. Why would they misrepresent their professional opinions? Trump haters....or what?
"I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Woman"
Why do you think he lied? With his professional reputation on the line, why does anyone lie? If you try, bet you can come with some possibilities - something that isn't based on your own hatred.
Again with the hatred accusation, Dan. Have you ran out of any other excuse for why you enable the cretin to continue his lies?
I don't understand why you equate a BJ to a breach of Trump's oath of office. What's the deal? I'm sure you can show how Clinton's act was worse. Do tell!
I don't know what your point is quoting Bill, unless it's your hatred of him.
I was referring to those witnesses who all told basically the same story as being hired to give their opinions, not a POTUS under impeachment proceedings.
I'm sure if Trump took the stand--we know this won't happen--he'd tell the whole truth and nothing but, aren't you?
He lied. Just as those that claim witnesses testified to something they did not witness.
Okay, Clinton lied so the witnesses in this trial are liars as well. Apparently all of them received BJs. Makes perfect sense...to a Trump enabler, I suppose.
They testified about what they saw and heard, some direct evidence in Sonland's and Holmes case. Apparently you miss this testimony.
You asked why someone would lie. A gave you an example and asked why CLINTON lied - you propose that they all got BJs (see? You CAN think of reasons when you want to). Perhaps all those testifying to what they did not witness against Trump got one too.
I would say I am far more engaged in politics than the average American.
My consistent presence in these threads is proof of that.
I have not spent one minute watching this process, nor one minute watching the news break it down.
Nor will I.
I did hear on the radio, that viewership is down to around one million people or less. This in a country that gets over 100 million to watch the Super Bowl.
I have to conclude that for most Americans, the overwhelming majority, they could care less about this fiasco.
Those who have strong political beliefs, they are already entrenched in their camps and nothing that comes out of this hearing will change their opinions.
Those that are not interested in political games played out in D.C. if they do vote, they will tune in to what is going on just prior to the election... but mostly they will be voting on what is going on with their wallets.
If CNN, MSNBC and even FOX were looking for ways to kill viewership of their channels, they have found it... its all Trump all the time, and no matter what side of the aisle they sit on, most people have chosen to tune the stupidity out.
I can't argue that most people are too busy or don't care to watch the proceedings.
One correction, though.
8.9 million watched first day of opening arguments in Trump impeachment trial
The first day, it was a few million, yes. But by day two or three it was down to around a million.
In any case, it will change no one's mind, those that think Trump is awful will still think so, those that think it doesn't matter will still think so, those that support Trump will still do so...
I see no chance of this eroding the support he has, he is locked in with 40-45% of the country... but I do see this case having a chance at turning off a lot of middle-of-the-road Independents that have a strong dislike for our dysfunctional Congress, going back long before Trump came along.
That will likely turn itself into support for Trump come election time, much like Congress going after Clinton made him more popular than ever.
Which poll, Ken? Over 70% of Americans want to see witnesses in the Senate trial. Take this stat..
I can guarantee you that 70% of Americans aren't paying ANY attention at all to these hearings or what Congress does or does not "find" regarding them.
You don't know what world you are living in if you think most Americans give a crap about these political dramas. They pay attention to their wallets, their taxes, what the future looks like for their kids or their retirement portfolios... I deal with hundreds of people every day, no one brings this circus sideshow up, no one cares.
You apparently are living a vacuum, Ken. I talk to people everyday who are concerned at the way this trial is being conducted.
Again, which poll?
The poll for what? What Americans care about?
Its called ratings... and no one is watching.
My "vacuum" has plenty of people in it, all sorts. Far more involved in the world, and far more educated than you'd imagine. Your counter probably reflects your own situation far more than it does mine.
The poll stating 40-45% of the people are locked in to Trump.
You made the claim, not me.
I mentioned nothing about the education of the people where I live. You'd be surprised at the people I'm friends with. One of my friends was president of the Harris Corporation for many years. This is the largest military lobbying firm in DC.
He was also one of the Iranian hostages and knows many of today's main political figures. He can tell you how corrupt this administration is, but you apparently think you know more than he.
That has been the case for three years running, the numbers essentially haven't moved.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/pre … trump.aspx
I realize you come on here just to be argumentative and put anyone down who doesn't believe the same limited perspectives you do. Asking for information that is a simple google search away really is a pathetic way to deflect when you know you are wrong.
By the way, Biden is still losing to Sanders despite the play by CNN and Warren to take him down a notch in the recent debate.
And you Ken? You never argue against what you don't believe?
And I don't care who runs against the criminal. Every Democratic candidate has more integrity in their little toes than Trump has ever had. Pull for a draft dodger, he's your speed anyway.
I watched bits and pieces throughout a crazy, busy week for me; but all I ever seemed to catch was Adam Schiff, repeating himself. Did he introduce anything new which I may have missed?
Completely missed any coverage of the Republicans, apparently it was over (for the day) fairly quickly? Anything new there?
The Trump defense continues today.
Were you expecting or wanting something new? That's odd, since the GOP's entire defense so far is "witch hunt," "hoax," "Democrats hate Trump," and "we don't need no stinkin' witnesses. "
Now that's odd - the bit of the defense I watched made it very clear, in video with actual words of witnesses, that the Dem attack consisted mostly of "I presume", "I assume", "I thought" and other such euphemisms for "I didn't see or hear anything so only have my biased opinion to offer".
I'm just sure I saw the defense offering videos of testimony, the clips that had been removed from the offenses show, pointing that out.
That s because it was obvious your questions were not innocent but meant to make a point. Any person who legitimately wants to know what happened during the trial would take the time to either view it for themselves or read multiple summaries of the evidence presented, and the rebuttal (which is not yet finished), to decide for themselves. I know you don't want to get a summary from me, so stop pretending. I'm not that stupid.
Did you not open up this discussion? I didn't randomly reach out to you for a summation, on something you had not opened for discussion.
Except you didn't see the prosecution, so you really don't have a complete picture, do you?
Whoa...easy tiger! Excuse the heck out of me, for having some questions on things I missed throughout the week. Expecting a rundown here, what was I thinking? I might as well have called Schiff's office.
A man from China once told me that according to Confucius, it is too common that people see the same thing and yet see something different.
I didn't see the Democrats provide one iota of proof President Donald Trump did anything wrong. My cousin, who is part of the dark side known as the being a liberal, believes the procedures prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
We actually watched it together. So, there you have it. I believe liberals will see it one way and Conservatives will see it another way.
I don't see this changing.
I watched a good portion of the first day, and caught glimpses of the defendant's rebuttal. Schiff did an excellent job laying out the case. Wilderness' claim that there was no direct evidence is clearly undermined by the phone call Sondlund and Holmes testified to hearing, the one where Trump asked if Zelensky was going to do the investigations.
Mulvaney publicly admitting there was a quid pro quo, and now Bolton's public reveal that there was as well cinches his guilt to me. And giving documents through freedom of information act requests but not providing similar documents to Congress is clearly obstruction.
From Nielsen on the opening of the Impeachment Trial where Schiff made a compelling case:
Early Nielsen research showed that from 12:30-5 p.m. Eastern, Fox News had 2.654 million viewers. That easily outdistanced CBS (1.94 million), MSNBC (1.909 million), ABC (1.6 million), NBC (1.4 million) and CNN (1.4 million). While 2.6 million were watching Fox News, another 8.249 million were watching other channels. And that does not include those who might have been watching on PBS or C-SPAN2, which was not measured by Nielsen.
by Travis Wakeman 6 years ago
In terms of philosophy or theology something like this:X is a mistaken position for reasons A,B,C. This Hub is an example of that position, lets do a point by point dissection of it (while not infringing on copyright) while pointing out the problems in their reasoning.Is that doable? Will it get...
by Stephen Bush 8 years ago
Does it bother you that HubPages allows biased and unproven political propaganda?While I am a new writer on HubPages, I have been writing extensively online for several years. Within one day of joining HubPages, I noticed a number of biased (based on opinion, not facts) political propaganda...
by Sharlee 13 months ago
Today Adam Schiff stood before our Senate and told a long ongoing story. A story that he could not prove. Yet he was allowed to go on and on telling his story. Schiff used all the drama he could muster. He even had the audacity to provide videos of witnesses that testified in the House...
by securityproducts3 4 years ago
Is there a difference between an opinion and an informed stance on a subject?
by ga anderson 13 months ago
I am in a dilemma. I have been presented with an argument that I consider very knowledgeably founded and very well-sourced and researched.I am talking about Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz's Senate floor presentation that the Democrat's impeachment charges are Constitutionally invalid.I have...
by Janis Leslie Evans 7 years ago
Jodi Arias is giving her "closing statement." What?! WHAT!!!? WTF?! Unbelievable. The sympathy card? Really, Jodi? OMG.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|