Pattently false incorrect statement.
Every GOP member of the relevant committees could be present and were given equal time to question witnesses before the committee.
And guess what? Under the McConnell Rules of Impeachment any witnesses (if they are forced to have any) will be deposed in private just like the GOP deposed Senate witnesses in the Clinton. Are you saying Mitch support secret soviet style questioning in the basement of the Senate?
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
1 Like
I don’t believe that the House of Reps impeachment inquiry/hearing was broadcast from a basement by either Fox News or CNN. Also, I have a vivid recollection of Messrs Nunes, Jordan and Gaetz speaking in the impeachment inquiry/hearing. Therefore, your assertion that it excluded Republicans is not sustainable.
2 Likes
Scratch
219
Thing is…Trump is blocking the evidence that would prove him guilty. So it’s not your typical trial scenario…
1 Like
Zodiac
220
Democrats should not have had sessions excluding Republicans who voluntarily chose not to show up and should have held those non-televised meetings above ground level. Only then, would they have been taken seriously.
2 Likes
Which sessions excluded Republicans who were members of the appropriate committee?
Zodiac
222
The sessions Republicans voluntarily excluded themselves from.
What I am reading says a lot depends on the Republican Senate Caucus lunch today (or tomorrow?) Looking at the members of caucus who are presumed to be most inclined to call witnesses: Romney, Murkowski, Alexander, Collins (?) no one really knows whether they will dig in on the issue. The risk to the Trump Presidency of allowing this process to continue is enormous.
On the other hand, Trump’s defense has emphasized that no witness under oath has been able to say they heard Trump tie the aid holdback to “investigations” first hand. Everyone has reported what they heard from someone else. Bolton is flat out saying he heard it from Trump… like a great big pin in the middle of the defense balloon. Failure to follow up on that will be the evidence for a cover-up that will haunt Murkowski, Collins, Gardner and Tillis in the elections this fall… and that represents enough seats to swing the Senate to the Democrats.
The path of protecting Trump has definitely become more dangerous but has it become so dangerous as to be untenable. That’s anyone’s guess.
2 Likes
So the Republicans were derelict in their duty? Did they get docked their wages for not doing their job?
I would so love to be a fly on the wall to that closed soviet style luncheon where the people are excluded - is it in the basement?
The reason? I would love to see the outcry of the Senators at Mitch going “What have you frakking done to us!!!”
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
2 Likes
Piper
227
For what reason? The burden of proof is on the House.
Zodiac
228
I’m being facetious, but I do wish there was some consequence to such a stunt. Refusing to uphold their duty for the sake of making a rhetorical argument that Democrats excluded them. Absolutely dock their pay.
In my Aussie opinion given that it is extremely unlikely that the Senate will vote guilty it plays to the political advantage of the Democrats if there are no witnesses. If there are witnesses I don’t think that helps Trump.
From what I have seen Gaetz and Jordan reminds me of a joke where a member of the congregation weighed up how good the sermon was and depending on how good it was influenced the amount of money the member put in the plate. One Sunday the priest eagerly checked out how much the member of the congregation had put in the plate, after what he thought was a memorable sermon, only to find a note with a message saying that he owed the member of the congregation money.
1 Like
tnt
231
Can you answer the question?
That appears nowhere in the Constitutional definition of impeachment.
DougBH
233
I don’t see either Trump or Bolton having much credibility in this.
Bolton was fired as a leaker and there is a reasonable chance he leaked this to get back at Trump plus make a ton of money for his book.
What has changed since yesterday is Trump is saying he never told this to Bolton. I wouldn’t take either at their word.
Now, if others were told this by Trump and come forward we shall see.
But I don’t get it. We know Trump asked for an investigation. He isn’t and can’t deny that. Now if he used the withholding of funds to pressure for that, then at most it was noncompliance with a budget law. That would still probably get him through the Senate.
But lying about it and getting caught? Even if he still makes it through the Senate, that could make a difference in the general election…and sometimes you don’t need but a little difference to change the results.
Zodiac
234
Democrats would need a continued flow of evidence coming out, like such as the case here with Bolton, in order for them to achieve a political advantage long term. All evidence uncovered after a swift acquittal would build up the case of a cover up, but a lack of or slow timing of additional evidence might make the case easier for Republicans that Democrats are still desperately clawing themselves out of the grave they made for themselves by starting the impeachment process too early. Such a volatile situation that seems out of Democrats control, they are still praying for a hail Mary TD that is still yet to be seen due to how entrenched President Trump’s support is.
tnt
235
Not true.
The guy he - and the EU, and other allies - wanted fired let the Burisma investigation go dormant, essentially clearing the company.
