Why not witnesses?

A question for conservatives and republicans. Given that a vote to remove a president is one of the most important votes a senator will take why wouldn’t they want to hear from witnesses like Bolton.
The is a trial to see if trump used his office to seek dirt on a political rival. It’s not a criminal trial so due process doesn’t apply. Trump can’t go to jail or be fined.

So why not hear all the evidence?

And before you talk about calling Biden it doesn’t matter if he’s corrupt or not for this trial. The question is did trump seek dirt on him for political purposes.

Why not let Bolton, Mulvaney Pompeo and others with direct knowledge testify?


The truth will not set them free…I would say a majority of conservatives/Republicans know deep down that he is crooked. But no way in hell are they going to admit it and give one to the “Libs”.


The house should have waited for the courts to rule on their subpeona’s. They were in the Rush to get Trump impeached. They thought they had all the evidence they needed why should the senate need any more?

1 Like

And if they did, you would have said they were drawing it out too long to effect the election.


Not really the question asked

1 Like

That’s now solely in the Senate’s hands. If that’s what they want then yes if not then no.

The Senate makes it’s own rules, per the Constitution.

If it decides No-Witnesses, then there will be No-Witnesses.

Yes it is

There were a lot of “why nots” during the impeachment. What did the libs say?


Hard to abide by the oath they took to do impartial justice if they choose not to hear from witnesses who have pertinent facts to the case.

Shouldn’t the house have called them for testimony (and waited for it to work through the courts) if they thought it was relevent and would help with the case they sent to the Senate? if they didn’t think it was important, why should the Senate?

And boom goes the dynamite.


The decision to impeach is beyond important. Can “we” all agree on that? Those leading this impeachment stated that they have “overwhelming evidence”. Now…present it.

Here’s a better question; what should you do to those who voted to impeach if after this “overwhelming evidence” is presented…that even Democrat Senators vote not to impeach? What should happen to those who’ve led this charge?

Same thing for those who led the benghazi charge I guess

1 Like

Given the non-answers from Trump supporters here, it’s fairly obvious @Scratch is right on the money with his post.

After thinking about how ridiculous your relative comparison was, please feel free to try again.

Yes it was ridiculous. Benghazi was ■■■■■■■■■ This actually has a little meat to it

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ :tumbler_glass::sunglasses: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And those who vote that way IMHO many of them will go down with the SS Trump.
Those who are in purple states might find that defending Trump will not save them come November.

Looks like we’re gonna get the answer to the question the title poses.