454

It’s what they already did. Senate will wipe that snot away.

Then what will your TDS do?

455

Good faith, has nothing to do with it. Regardless whether it is a criminal case or not, the accused is not required to participate affirmatively in his prosecution.

456

I’ll continue to marvel at the rape and pillaging of a once noble republican party, and then probably go make a sandwich.

1 Like
457

No, but a typical defendant surely cannot object to subpoenas to material witnesses on the grounds of blanket executive privilege. No, in the real world, Pompeo and Mulvaney and Bolton would all be testifying at trial, and ooooooo booooooy that would be fun.

Only the president can do what he has done here because, my god, what other choice does he have? It’s his only hope. Those witnesses can never see the stand.

458

So Mr. Defendant, your close advisor said you were involved in a drug deal, but oh crap, we can’t make him testify because of blanket drug dealer privilege, crap cakes.

#winning! vindication! Like, totes.

459

Of course it is and that’s been the process used during prior head butting between congress and the EB including prior impeachments.

Democrats are fully aware of the process, they chose not to follow it.

460

Pure supposition on your part. You have no basis for stating their testimony would be damaging to Trump.

461

It is a post within this thread. The title of this thread is “Trump is vindicated, found not guilty in the Senate. What next?”.

462

And in few days that will be the case despite your wailing and handwringing.

463

You state that as though it is some great revelation except it isn’t. The Republican Party’s partisanship has been evident throughout this entire process.

464

Maybe so. Unfortunately for you, Trump is likely to be running against Bernie, Warren or Biden.

465

you don’t think Bolton on the stand talking about the “drug deal” would be damaging? This conversation is pointless if you’re doing play la la land.

Better yet, if it weren’t going to be damaging, why are they not testifying?

466

The fact that he got upset and said “drug deal” and someone heard it and latched onto it those many months ago may not lead to the damaging testimony you imagine. You have completed the story in your head. You are free to do so. Do not expect the Senators or all voters to complete the story the same way you have.

When the prosecution has not made a prima facie case, it is reasonable to not want to bring in a lot of additional noise.

1 Like
467

You’re just making things up in your own mind to fit your partisan narrative. You’re right, this conversation is pretty well pointless as a result.

1 Like
468

It is a post within this thread that was flat out wrong. It has not happened; he has not been found guilty. Your alternative universe is interesting though.

469

Google “One of These Things Is Not Like the Other” from Sesame Street. That might help you understand.

470

Trump certainly has supporters who live in an alternate universe such as those who claim there are alternate facts.

471

Done. It said (D)ifferent from ® watch next week for bias.

Did Holder testify.

1 Like
472

Watch it again. A lot of repetition is needed in these children’s lessons.

Did Obama assert a blanket privilege covering not only everything in the Oval Office but anyone else he talked to in any context. That’s what we are talking about here.

473

Aren’t you one of the libs always whining about “personal”?

Did Holder testify?

1 Like