McConnell says he doesn't have enough votes to block witnesses

[Bobber]

Three, the Dems are going to win massively this fall, then fix the EC so that the GOP remains a permanent minority party.

They are are they? Well we'll see about that. As for one of the parties becoming a minority funny that you don't consider this could be the fate of the democratic party. Even AOG stated she felt in any other country her and Biden would be in different parties. Which of course is what Nancy Pelosi was terrified about that her own party could split in two thus her reason to go for impeachment. They still might with the Bernie camp not seeing eye to eye with the Biden group.

 

[Bobber]

He has already been impeached! What the Senate is deciding is whether to remove him from office. They will not.

But keep in mind what that really means to the American people. To them it means he is not guilty if not removed.

 

[stevil]

But keep in mind what that really means to the American people. To them it means he is not guilty if not removed.

Does that mean Bill Clinton was not guilty of perjury?

 

[Bobber]

Does that mean Bill Clinton was not guilty of perjury?

Clinton was guilty of it for it was a clear event that took place without question. You can't get any more clear than Yes I did OR No I didn't and it took place when he swore under oath. Nothing like this has taken place with President Trump.

 

[Fantine]

Clinton was guilty of it for it was a clear event that took place without question. You can't get any more clear than Yes I did OR No I didn't and it took place when he swore under oath. Nothing like this has taken place with President Trump.

Let's call him to testify so he can defend himself then. Midnight tweets are very different from testimony under oath.
And if he doesn't testify: proof of obstruction (Article 2). If he doesn't submit documents: proof of obstruction. If he coerces present and former employees not to testify: proof of obstruction. If he tries to get a restraining order against Bolton publishing his book: proof of obstruction.
So it's his choice--testify and give his side of the story under oath--or prove the obstruction charges over and over, ad nauseam, as he has already done.

 

[Bobber]

Let's call him to testify so he can defend himself then. Midnight tweets are very different from testimony under oath.
And if he doesn't testify: proof of obstruction (Article 2). If he doesn't submit documents: proof of obstruction.

Nope! Sorry you're wrong. The Congress can't obstruct and stand in the way of Executive Privilege! ONLY if it goes through the Courts, and up to the Supreme Court if after then he resists then you can go ahead with your Article 2....BUT NOT BEFORE THEN.

What you're talking in favour of is a Parliamentary form of Government that the Founding Fathers rejected.

 

[stevil]

But keep in mind what that really means to the American people. To them it means he is not guilty if not removed.

Clinton was guilty of it for it was a clear event that took place without question. You can't get any more clear than Yes I did OR No I didn't and it took place when he swore under oath.

Can you please put these two quotes together and make them logically consistent.
Especially considering that we all know Clinton was not removed from office.

 

[stevil]

Nope! Sorry you're wrong. The Congress can't obstruct and stand in the way of Executive Privilege!

No-one has claimed executive privilege. What are you talking about?

 

[Belk]

Because there's also a bigger picture that needs to be considered. I agree most of the mob really might not have the capacity to understand this but the question is.....EVEN IF what Bolton said is true.....does even that amount to an Impeachable offence? If the feeling is that it is not then why be wasting time with all this....why not get it over?

Wait, let me make sure I am understanding your argument. You are saying we should not have witnesses testify because the truth might not result in an impeachment so why waste the time?

Mark my words if it goes down this road the issue would have to be addressed....is it an impeachable offence? I think most already agree it would not. So why not cut out the unnecessary wasting the tax payers time and money over a given?

I think you are mistaken and do not find this in any way a valid reason against calling witnesses.

I'm not a legal expert and perhaps couldn't work this way....but if it goes down this road I wonder before calling witnesses perhaps a vote should be brought forth to consider FIRST if Trump through clear documentation linked money to exactly having Biden investigated then FIRST is that an impeachable offence? Answering that FIRST before calling witnesses can do away with the purpose of even doing so. I think that's really the mindset of the majority of Senators now anyway.....so why have witnesses? So there's a perfectly just reason NOT to bring forth more witnesses.

If you feel Trumps defense should stipulate a quid pro quo happened and we should move on to if that is an impeachable offense I think you will find very few democrats opposed to the idea.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

IOW, if a witness was in the room speaking to or listening to the President, their testimony is purely speculative.

When they are speculating motive and intent.... yes.

 

[Bobber]

Wait, let me make sure I am understanding your argument. You are saying we should not have witnesses testify because the truth might not result in an impeachment so why waste the time?

Trump's legal team and expert scholars have already pointed out the even if it were true argument. It's been stated prior even BEFORE the Bolton item even if it were true that Trump wanted Biden investigated it would not be unconstitutionally wrong. So the Senate can go off spending a long time trying to fight something out was Bolton right or wrong but if it really doesn't matter....so what? Why call him? Sure it might appeal to curiosities but why should the country continue to be ripped apart by the issue if it's not an impeachable offence?

If you feel Trumps defense should stipulate a quid pro quo happened and we should move on to if that is an impeachable offense I think you will find very few democrats opposed to the idea.

But who says they need to argue it out that is in this case in particular. The question could be asked hypothetically if President A did this would it be impeachable. If the vote says yes it would be then the question could be asked.....should we therefore call forth Bolton to see if this did happen with Trump and I mean actual, detailed precise proof that it did. Not he assumed it was so or thought it was so.

Or to put it this way....you've got two sides....one saying it did happen and the other perhaps claiming it didn't. It really doesn't matter if it did or not IF it's not an impeachable offence. Thus coming back to the FOUNDATION issue is the important thing. Why the need for an unnecessary proving of an issue not relevant. Why keep putting the nation through this?

If I were a Senator I'd be voting no more witnesses on the basis of them not being relevant. And that's what you're going to see in the next few days. And it doesn't even mean some voting no means they don't believe Trump wanted an investigation on Biden. They might feel it wouldn't have been an impeachable offence anyway.

 

[variant]

Democrats know what they're up against. And they also know how .Trump has been subverting our democracy.

It isn't just the case of the President subverting the republic, he has a gang of willing accomplices occupying our highest and most trusted institutions willingly aiding his mockery of the country's legal traditions.

 

[variant]

Wait, let me make sure I am understanding your argument. You are saying we should not have witnesses testify because the truth might not result in an impeachment so why waste the time?

I think you are mistaken and do not find this in any way a valid reason against calling witnesses.

If you feel Trumps defense should stipulate a quid pro quo happened and we should move on to if that is an impeachable offense I think you will find very few democrats opposed to the idea.

I believe the presidents defense so far has been that he has done absolutely nothing wrong...

If he actually wants to have an argument that the constitution doesn't allow removal of a president for bribery of foreign officials, abuse of power, interfering in the democratic process, and obstruction of a congressional investigation, I think we can have that discussion. But, I don't think it will go so well for the president.

 

[variant]

Nope! Sorry you're wrong. The Congress can't obstruct and stand in the way of Executive Privilege! ONLY if it goes through the Courts, and up to the Supreme Court if after then he resists then you can go ahead with your Article 2....BUT NOT BEFORE THEN.

What you're talking in favour of is a Parliamentary form of Government that the Founding Fathers rejected.

Only if we assume executive privilege somehow extends to not having his actions questioned and investigated by congress.

Which is just insane.

 

[pleinmont]

What is going on in America beggars belief. How anyone could have voted in that awful man, Trump defies credibility.

 

[Larniavc]

Proverbs 28: 13
Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy.
tulc(always liked that Scripture)

Also

Psalm 90:8 Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance

 

[Fantine]

Executive privilege does not extend to illegal matters. The GAO has ruled that withholding aid was illegal.

In.addition it goes both ways. If Trump discusses his interactions with Bolton, as he has, giving his own spin, then he has broken the privilege and his story becomes fair game.

Never thought I'd be thankful for those tweets, but they break privilege on a lot of conversations.

 

[Kentonio]

Trump now whining and making up stories on Twitter to try and provoke Bolton into reacting. Hopefully Bolton will ignore it and not get drawn into a mud slinging contest before he testifies.

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
For a guy who couldn’t get approved for the Ambassador to the U.N. years ago, couldn’t get approved for anything since, “begged” me for a non Senate approved job, which I gave him despite many saying “Don’t do it, sir,” takes the job, mistakenly says “Libyan Model” on T.V., and..

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
....many more mistakes of judgement, gets fired because frankly, if I listened to him, we would be in World War Six by now, and goes out and IMMEDIATELY writes a nasty & untrue book. All Classified National Security. Who would do this?

 

[KCfromNC]

Somehow, I am not surprised. The GOP may want to steam roll this, but I think some of the Senators have found they have been in the dark and want some light.

If by light you mean polling data from their home states, I'm right there with you.

 

[KCfromNC]

Agreed. And as has been pointed out: why not have the people who can prove his innocence testify under oath nothing he did was wrong?
tulc(just a thought)

Because as much of a sham as the GOP defense has been so far, trying to talk to an empty chair is going to make it worse.