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

[Getin the ring]

We all know the answer and that is the fact that Moscow Mitch is a criminal and aiding and abetting another criminal.

attn. nut**bags

you will hear from whomever Senator McConnel tells you, you will hear from, why you can not or have not to date grasped that reality is mind boggling

YES!

There is no guarantee about what Bolton's testimony will be. It may be more damaging to the president's position...or it may be exculpatory.

But it should be heard.

Why is the president so anxious that it not be heard?

see above ^^^

why are you nut**bags not understanding who is in charge here, you lost this battle, move on

 

[Earl]

The Senate is running the show now.

The House Democrats can sit down and be quiet.

Send the Articles, Nervous Nancy. What are you afraid of?

 

[Southern Chicken]

Hello Southern Chicken,



If that could be arranged in a way which would protect that individual's identity then perhaps that might be agreeable. It should be understandable that many wish ill will towards that individual, so revealing their identity would place them in great mortal danger. Also, most of the evidence which was identified by the WB has been supported, repeated, corroborated by others. The WB is not needed to make the case against the President. Also, it is unlikely that the WB will offer any information in defense of the President.

The President is free to offer any key witnesses with direct information about the case which may dispute any of the charges made. Let us hear from Giuliani or Mulvaney, for instance. Trump could testify himself, as Clinton did in his own impeachment. Is Trump afraid to come forward and be sworn in? That does not speak highly of innocence. That leads us to suspect he is guilty. Why not come forward and tell his side, under oath? He seems to be extremely willing to explain his reasoning via twitter as long as he is not sworn in... Do Republicans only wish to hear from the President if he is not sworn to tell the truth?

A WB in any case must be protected from retribution or else no one with inside knowledge will ever report any wrong doing ever again. That is why we have WB protections.

This is the federal law cited by Schiff:

CRS, Sept. 23:*Section 7(b) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) provides for the identity of an employee making a complaint, such as a whistleblower, to remain undisclosed to the extent practicable:

The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.


Now can you point to the section that prohibits Congress from disclosing the identity?

 

[Getin the ring]

Politalker the nut**bag has no clue ever what she is talking about, her thinly coherent posts are all over the place, I'm still waiting for "it" to say something even remotely educated

"It" doesn't even read "it's own posts back to "itself" before posting

 

[Southern Chicken]

Hello Southern Chicken,



The WB is not needed to make the case against the President. Also, it is unlikely that the WB will offer any information in defense of the President.

Like Hell, when has it ever been accepted for a US citizen to not have the ability to face their accusers in trial?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Southern Chicken,

This is the federal law cited by Schiff:

CRS, Sept. 23:*Section 7(b) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) provides for the identity of an employee making a complaint, such as a whistleblower, to remain undisclosed to the extent practicable:

The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.


Now can you point to the section that prohibits Congress from disclosing the identity?

There is none. It is my understanding that it was modified by EO from President Obama to include protection of a WB identity.

 

[Earl]

Politalker the nut**bag has no clue ever what she is talking about, her thinly coherent posts are all over the place, I'm still waiting for "it" to say something even remotely educated

"It" doesn't even read "it's own posts back to "itself" before posting

Indeed.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Southern Chicken,

Like Hell, when has it ever been accepted for a US citizen to not have the ability to face their accusers in trial?

That right does not extend to impeachment. Impeachment is not a criminal trial.

If President Trump wants to face someone, that would require him to actually show up at the proceedings. So far, President Trump has declined to speak up for himself under oath, nor even appear. But he is at no loss for words on the matter, firing off hundreds of not sworn tweets. Do Republicans only prefer to listen to Trump* if he is NOT sworn to tell the truth?

I would urge President Trump to come to Congress and be sworn in to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

JUST LIKE PRESIDENT CLINTON DID.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

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.

I don't believe that they will change, either. That being said, I want all the testimony against TRE45ON to be under oath and public. That way we'll all know who disregarded evidence to vote the party line, and revealed themselves to have no integrity or principles.

 

[cancel2 2022]

We all know the answer and that is the fact that Moscow Mitch is a criminal and aiding and abetting another criminal.

CINNAcal BARtard doing what it does best??

 

[evince]

silly demycunt......he offered to testify, Cinnibar thinks he knows what he's going to testify to, Nancy probably did too, which is why she didn't accept his offer when he also said he would testify in the House......

he didn't offer to testify in the house idiot

 

[Southern Chicken]

Hello Southern Chicken,



That right does not extend to impeachment. Impeachment is not a criminal trial.
.[/B]

That is true for under house rules not true for senate rules. The senate can vote on whatever adjudication measures they see fit. You really dont know what you're talking about.

 

[Darth Omar]

That is true for under house rules not true for senate rules. The senate can vote on whatever adjudication measures they see fit. You really dont know what you're talking about.

Which is one of the reasons Pelosi won’t let go of the articles.

Nancy wants a continuation of the Schiff Show. The Senate will be the Mitch Show.

 

[Nordberg]

No impeachment until the Articles are at the Senate...per the Democrats’ own witness, Professor Feldman

Send the Articles, what is Nervous Nancy afraid of?

Calm and serene Pelosi is exerting force on Moscow to have a real and fair trial. If your eyes would open, you would see it is having an effect. It is a brilliant ploy that even rightys should admire.
Pelosi is afraid of exactly what Moscow is doing. He wants to not hold the trial at all, but if forced to, will run a terrible pro-Trump right-wing whitewash. He is not interested in justice and doing the job properly. Those are arcane concepts to Reds.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Southern Chicken,

That is true for under house rules not true for senate rules. The senate can vote on whatever adjudication measures they see fit.

If the Senate wants to make a special rule for this case it would be seen as a partisan ploy.

President Clinton took the stand under oath.

Let President Trump match that, if he has the guts.

The Senate could demand it - if they really wanted the truth.

Republicans do not seem to be interested in the Truth. They quoted President Trump in the House hearings but only when President Trump was speaking without being sworn to tell the truth. If President Trump has so much to say about the impeachment, why will he not swear to tell the truth?

It is time for President Trump to come clean.

70% of America wants to hear from all the key witnesses. Nobody knows more about this case than President Trump. Why does he not come forward and settle the matter under oath?

 

[Southern Chicken]

Hello Southern Chicken,



If the Senate wants to make a special rule for this case it would be seen as a partisan ploy.

President Clinton took the stand under oath.

Let President Trump match that, if he has the guts.

The Senate could demand it - if they really wanted the truth.

Republicans do not seem to be interested in the Truth. They quoted President Trump in the House hearings but only when President Trump was speaking without being sworn to tell the truth. If President Trump has so much to say about the impeachment, why will he not swear to tell the truth?

It is time for President Trump to come clean.

70% of America wants to hear from all the key witnesses. Nobody knows more about this case than President Trump. Why does he not come forward and settle the matter under oath?

Let me get this straight... when the liberal controlled house makes rules it isnt partisan but when the republican controlled senate votes to adjudicate how they see fit it is partisan? Wow that is some double standard your attempting to work with there.

THE SENATE HAS SOLE POWER TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS!
emphasis on sole...meaning it is up to them!

 

[Ross Dolan]

Doesn’t work.

Democrats didn’t want to wait on Bolton’s testimony. All they had to do was wait for a judge to rule on it.

NOT CORRECT. Bolton was waiting on the ruling for another person.

A judge would have to rule on that question...which might take months.

If appealed (which it almost certainly would be) an appellate court would have to hear an appeal...which would undoubtedly take many more months...and if appealed, the Supreme Court, if they decided to hear it, would take many , many more months to rule.

They decided they had enough evidence to impeach Trump. Other evidence could be obtained by the Senate when they fairly tried him.

So...we should see that process start soon.

And we’re still waiting on the why?

No you're not. You are just trying to defend that abomination in the White House.

Okay...that is your right.

 

[Southern Chicken]

Calm and serene Pelosi is exerting force on Moscow to have a real and fair trial. If your eyes would open, you would see it is having an effect. It is a brilliant ploy that even rightys should admire.
Pelosi is afraid of exactly what Moscow is doing. He wants to not hold the trial at all, but if forced to, will run a terrible pro-Trump right-wing whitewash. He is not interested in justice and doing the job properly. Those are arcane concepts to Reds.

A simple vote by the Senate to change the rules and allow for lawmakers to dismiss articles of impeachment would remedy the above.

 

[Darth Omar]

NOT CORRECT. Bolton was waiting on the ruling for another person.

A judge would have to rule on that question...which might take months.

If appealed (which it almost certainly would be) an appellate court would have to hear an appeal...which would undoubtedly take many more months...and if appealed, the Supreme Court, if they decided to hear it, would take many , many more months to rule.

They decided they had enough evidence to impeach Trump. Other evidence could be obtained by the Senate when they fairly tried him.

So...we should see that process start soon.



No you're not. You are just trying to defend that abomination in the White House.

Okay...that is your right.

As is your right to defend trivializing the impeachment process to appease radical Trump haters.

Court proceedings can be expedited—and this one certainly would have been given the circumstances, so that argument is weak. And even if it did run into the election, what’s wrong with allowing voters to decide if Trump needs removed, or not?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Southern Chicken,

Let me get this straight... when the liberal controlled house makes rules it isnt partisan but when the republican controlled senate votes to adjudicate how they see fit it is partisan? Wow that is some double standard your attempting to work with there.

THE SENATE HAS SOLE POWER TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS!
emphasis on sole...meaning it is up to them!

I'm sure it has to be bothersome that the people's House of Representatives is Democrat-controlled.

Why, that means when Republicans were talking about 'what the people voted for,' and they thought it meant Trump*, they were actually mistaken. Trump* lost the popular vote, and then the people voted Democrats into the House.

Republicans seem to have forgotten that the 'duly elected' President lost the popular vote. What 'the people' voted for was not Trump*.

I hope we have a quickie little recession just about October. Just in time to take away the only thing keeping conman Trump* in office.

America needs to Dump Trump* and get a real leader in there who can begin to heal this bitterly divided nation.