Why Is Mitch McConnell So Afraid of John Bolton? The Senate must hear his testimony..

ThatOwlWoman said:
And that would do what? Credible witnesses appeared before the House committees and testified under oath -- and even then the Reichwing decided that they were lying. Do you think for a New York minute that they would believe Bolton in an interview, even on FOX, if he had damaging statements about TRE45ON?
Click to expand...

If Bolton has something relevant to say and he is not invited to testify, that would be a way to get out that information. Testifying in the Senate is not going to change anything. Neither side is going to change its mind.
 
Hello Cinnabar,

Cinnabar said:
We all know the answer and that is the fact that Moscow Mitch is a criminal and aiding and abetting another criminal.
Click to expand...

You can't have a fair trial while suppressing the key witnesses.

And thank you to the NYT for finally saying that Trump himself should testify.

Bill Clinton testified!

McConnell is saying the Senate is adopting the same rules as the Clinton impeachment...

WELL?
 
Hello reagansghost,

reagansghost said:
Moscow is shitting bricks

and word is Nancy is drawing up new Articles of Impeachment anyway, the House can impeach as many times as they wish, once again the GOP is misunderestimating Madam Speaker
Click to expand...

Yeah, we wish. What new articles? I've heard nothing of the sort. Link?

Where's all the new threads about this?

Wishful thinking. Make me eat my words.
 
he is correct the only limit to the number of impeachments is the number of crimes he committs
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Cinnabar,



You can't have a fair trial while suppressing the key witnesses.

And thank you to the NYT for finally saying that Trump himself should testify.

Bill Clinton testified!

McConnell is saying the Senate is adopting the same rules as the Clinton impeachment...

WELL?
Click to expand...

Correct but Moscow Mitch's lies are catching up to Trump's. He is even more evil than Trump.
 
Hello Darth,

Darth Omar said:
The way *impeachment* works, Frank, is the House builds the case—it’s their responsibility to gather evidence, not the Senate. The Senate’s role is to render a judgement on the case/articles sent to them by the House. And then either acquit or vote for removal of office.

Democrats had a shot at Bolton but they dropped the ball on it. The why doesn’t matter. The spin doesn’t matter. Democrat didn’t complete the investigation prior to passing the articles. It’s that simple.
Click to expand...

Just as simple is the fact that there is no double jeopardy in impeachment. Trump can be impeached as many times as the House wants. Even as many times as the Republican House went after Hillary Clinton for Benghazi if they so decide.

There is nothing to stop the House from conducting another impeachment and calling any witnesses they deem appropriate. I think they should.

Darth Omar said:
And they did this for crass partisan purposes:
Click to expand...

You have absolutely nothing to back that up. Pure rhetoric. Anybody can say that. Just string the words into a sentence and stick it out there. Anybody who can speak can do that. Doesn't make it true. Words are cheap.

Darth Omar said:
they wanted Trump impeached by Christmas to appease their, radical, Trump hating base.
Click to expand...

Once again, more baseless claims. Made up baloney. Meaningless. If you had a defense for Trump's misconduct you would use it. You don't. This arguing process is like a neon sign saying: "Trump has no defense!"
 
Hello Flash,

Flash said:
Would Bolton's testimony change any Senate votes? Certainly not enough to get two-thirds.
Click to expand...

Good. Then let us hear from him. Most Americans want to hear from the key witnesses. A sham trail will not settle anything.

Flash said:
Bolton can always give a TV interview or relay any relevant information if not called to testify.
Click to expand...

No. He needs to be sworn in. America deserves a real trial.

Clinton took the stand.

We want to hear from Trump!
 
Hello archives,

archives said:
No one knows exactly "how impeachment works," there is little in the Constitution and there has only been two over a century apart, and the Senate's role is to render a judgement, but after a fair trial, which according to Mitch isn't going to happen regardless

And this line of all evidence now being locked doesn't make any sense, if a trial is about to begin and the prosecutor comes across new evidence even before the trial begins, you are telling us he can't use it since it wasn't part of the original indictment? That is what you are saying
Click to expand...

Clinton took the stand.

We want to hear from Trump!
 
Hello reagansghost,

reagansghost said:
Moscow sez he's using the same rules the Senate used for Clinton's impeachment

another lie, the Senate got tons of grand jury testimony and sworn depositions in 1999
Click to expand...

And the WH cooperated with the House and the Senate in 1999. Clinton testified. Let us hear from Trump!

!!! SWEAR HIM IN !!!


!!! SWEAR HIM IN !!!


!!! SWEAR HIM IN !!!
 
Hello Darth,

Darth Omar said:
Well, it’s pretty clear ‘how Impeachment will work’ in the future if republicans cave on this.

Republicans can do the same thing. Do a partial investigation ‘just to get that impeachment’ hung on the opposition president. And if leads to acquittal, ‘oh well, at least he’s impeached going into the next election’.

Is damaging Trump really worth that?

And again, why did House Democrats vote on the articles even though they knew they didn’t have Bolton’s testimony? Don’t try the ‘they had to hurry, because Trump might commit more crimes’ because that went out the window the minute Pelosi decided to sit on the articles.

Why did they do that?
Click to expand...

Pelosi has explained her motives.
 
Hello archives,

archives said:
The setting precedent argument is lame, any House, past and present, could have done the same, and maybe they will, did you say Mitch set a dangerous precedent by making SCOTUS nominees just a majority vote thereby eliminating the role of the Senate as deliberating body as the Founders wanted and into a straight majority entity?

Cause they couldn't get Bolton's testimony, they couldn't get any one closely associated with Trump's testimony, nor could they obtain any relevant documents

And Pelosi sat on the arguments cause Mitch declared ahead of time that the trial was going to be anything but a trial, he was even going to work hand and hand with White House to insure it was anything but a trial, why would she proceed knowing everything was already set up as a shame?
Click to expand...

Nah, that's just setting the stage for an actual sham impeachment if Republicans ever get the majority in the House with a Dem President again. You know how it works. First, it's HORRIBLE that the other side is doing such and such. Then later its OK 'because the other side did it.'

Well if it was horrible it's horrible.

and if it's OK it's OK.

Freaking musical morals with Republicans.

Right and wrong is a moving target with them, depending on who is doing it and when.
 
Hello Flash,

Flash said:
I was asking if you still wanted Bolton to testify if it exonerated Trump?
Click to expand...

An absurd question because the condition cannot be known prior to giving the answer upon which it is predicated.

We cannot know the outcome of any trial until it is concluded.

But I assure you, given what is now known, America wants a real trial with all the witnesses.

We want to hear from Trump.

Clinton testified.
 
Hello ThatOwlWoman,

ThatOwlWoman said:
And that would do what? Credible witnesses appeared before the House committees and testified under oath -- and even then the Reichwing decided that they were lying. Do you think for a New York minute that they would believe Bolton in an interview, even on FOX, if he had damaging statements about TRE45ON?
Click to expand...

They would be the first to say he was not sworn in.
 
Hello evince,

evince said:
he is correct the only limit to the number of impeachments is the number of crimes he committs
Click to expand...

Not even that.

There is nothing to prevent unlimited impeachments for the same crime. There is no double jeopardy for impeachment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top