Schumer proposes that Bolton and Mulvaney testify in Senate impeachment trial

No need, watched it all. They dropped what they started it with and ended up with some vague charges.

 

You watched Obstruction of Congress?? Did the missing witnesses and documents make the Article 1 charges better or worse for Trump?

 

I googled both of these names.

Duffy is a reporter. Why would he be called to testify? What role did he play?

As for Robert Blunt, all I got from google was multiple pages about a rock guitarist named Robbie Blunt.

Please clarify?

 

You mean the dem clown show bypassing process to make a charge unlike all other impeachments?

 

If impeachment is a sinking ship, how come so many rats have left the White House?

 

Don't see the iceberg?

 

In light of the calls between Nunes and Rudy and Lev Parnas, perhaps Schumer should call Nunes as a witness, eh? He certainly seems to in this up to his neck, and he seems to be hiding something.

All the Republicans in both the Intelligence and Judiciary committees did the same thing: complain, and lie, about the process. Most of them did nothing but shout about this whole thing somehow being a sham. It's the only move they have.

 

Are you running for office?

 

The House Intelligence Committee released a 300 page report. The House Judiciary just released a ~140 page report.

Broadly speaking, the evidence supports these two statements:

The President abused his power when he sought campaign assistance from a foreign government in the form of an announced investigation against his domestic political opponent while he simultaneously and unilaterally held up hundreds of millions in military aid, a requested meeting, and a restoration of trade rights. He then obstructed Congress when he tried to hide and lie about the contents of a whistleblower complaint and then further obstructed Congress when he demanded that all current and former employees refuse to cooperate on the grounds that the President is "absolutely immune" from all Congressional investigations.

 

That may be so, but that would be a separate case. Neither of the Bidens have any knowledge about Trump's actions here, so their testimony would not be relevant to the articles of impeachment. This process does not, and should not, include whataboutisms. Investigating the Bidens is the DOJ's job.

 

Yet still all based on hearsay and presumption. No facts.

 

The witnesses the republicans wanted to call were to point out the democrats lies about Ukraine.

 

From the OP article:

 

None of the witnesses sought, with the exception of the whistleblower who wished to remain anonymous, by Republicans had any knowledge regarding Trump's conduct.

 

Oh, she's still around... but she's not being subpoenaed....

 

You are not persuasive.

 

Neither Hunter nor Joe will testify. Just saying.

 

No, he doesn't. But if 50 other Senators agree, the witness is included. That part only takes a simple majority. Removing Trump from office would reguire a super majority, which won't happen regardless of all the solid evidence.

 

None of the democrats witnesses had any knowledge regarding Trump's conduct. Just hearsay and presumption.

 

Good luck .

 

Not having any direct evidence certainly is.

 

I would tell Schumer to pack sand, mostly just because he's Schumer.

"Schumer, a New York Democrat, was a new senator in January 1999 when he cast one of his first votes in the chamber to dismiss the case against Clinton and against a motion to subpoena witnesses.


"I wonder if the House managers aren't a little more interested in political theater than in actually getting to the bottom of the facts,” Schumer said on CBS at the time, explaining his objection to calling witnesses in the trial against Clinton."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...p-trial-but-rejected-them-for-clinton-in-1999

Video:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4780159/schumer-house-impeachment

 

You mean the report that was based off people options, speculation and hersay? That has no "real" evidence? That report?

 

All of the witnesses (with the exception of Yovanovitch) had direct knowledge regarding Trump's conduct in Ukraine.

 

Define "real" evidence.