Schumer proposes that Bolton and Mulvaney testify in Senate impeachment trial

I keep returning to the thought of Bolton testifying at the Senate trial.

1. I'd assume if he did, he would have received WH clearance to do so, bringing up the issue of why they didn't clear him BEFORE the impeachment vote.

2. If he has something to say that would "clear" Trump of Aid for Investigations, it will look very bad politically that he didn't testify BEFORE the impeachment vote (again). Ditto if he has something that makes it worse for Trump.

3. What if he comes out with material evidence in his book, that either clears or dooms Trump? I guess since his Congressional subpoena wasn't enforced, he's under no other obligation to provide his information other than in book form.

Very interesting dynamic to watch...

 

Even if Guilani was sent there for the best reasons, using someone whose loyalty isn't strictly to the US was a bad call, and is in part what I mean when I say, at best, Trump badly hamfisted this thing.

 

Not seeing the difference between a family owned company and pulling strings in the private sector vs using the power of the govt? You think any Trump needs any govt job they’ve attained temporarily? Once Trump is out of office they’ll all go back to their old extremely successful and happy lives.

 

Frankly, and this is equally unlikely to happen due to his current legal issues, Sputnik Goon #1 would be a more appropriate witness to these proceedings than anybody named Biden..

 

From the list of democrat witnesses and only two of the democrat witnesses. In Nadler's they got one that they actually asked for and not even a fact witness.

 

To back up a fact which the dem clown show does not have.

 

Actually, the republicans should do what the democrats did in the house and not honor any of the democrats requests for witnesses.

 

Certainly the probable path... I know Mitch doesn't want any of these 4 people under oath...

But Schumer easily wins the political argument here.... Hard to scream "Where's the evidence?", and then deny the 4 people most likely to provide it...

 

You can read minds? Schumer wins nothing. The investigation has concluded. Now it is up for a vote in the Senate after the House votes on it.

 

Wouldn't think so. Same way Democrats have to just stop already, vote, accept Trump isn’t going anywhere and move on to the election and beat him fair and square...if they can.

The circus has to end. The longer they drag this out the worse it looks. The more petty it looks and more desperate. Field a candidate that isn’t crazy and move on.

 

Sorry, I've already declared victory for Chuck so you lose...

I didn't make those rules, but I learn fast...

 

Funny how the house did not subpoena these folks because they were in too much of a hurry but now they are supposed to magically appear in the Senate.

 

And Schumer has put some simple and relatively quick date recommendations to McConnell....

Let's see what Mitchy the Kid comes back with before you point your "dragging this out" finger...

This whole thing has moved with lightning speed, by Congressional standards.. You can't have it both way...

 

Mitch should handle it like Schiff for brains did. Ignore all democrat requests and rush to judgement.

 

I am surprised Dems havent been beating this point like a Drum. Republicans saying, its all Hearsay, 2nd hand and no evidence...well the people who WOULD be direct evidence are being blocked from giving their testimony. I have to believe if their Testimony would clear Trump the WH would have let them no?

 

Oh that drum is being pound loud and hard. It is the very basis for the second of the two impeachment articles.

 

You dodged again.

Is there ANY amount of information, and if you would be so kind as to try and describe it, that would lead you to conclude that Trump engaged in impeachable conduct in regards to Ukraine?

 

Conduct ~100 hours of closed door testimony and ~70 hours of public testimony with individuals who possessed first hand knowledge of the situation in Ukraine and Trump's decision to freeze funding before issuing a 300 page report.

I agree.

 

Is it possible you don't know 3 of these 4 witnesses were issued subpoena's in the House investigation?

Nahh..

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/07/mick-mulvaney-subpoena-impeachment-000324
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/20...cials-subpoenaed-in-house-impeachment-inquiry
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hous...-defying-subpoenas_n_5dc042d4e4b0bedb2d4fe227

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/john-bolton-no-subpoena-court-battle/index.html

 

They did subpoena those folks.

Trump declared himself "absolutely immune" from all Congressional investigations.

 

And here I thought you guys were so hoping that the Senate Trial would mean that Republicans got to conduct the REAL investigation. Trump still does.

LOL.

 

Hell, Trump would have called out a full tank parade to get them up to Capitol Hill...

 

Your starting from your conclusion and want other to find your proof for you.
It's for you to prove that a crime as been commited. So far all that you have is people who BELIEVE or have an OPINION about a crime being commited, but you don't even have a single witness with first hand knowledge that a crime has been commited and no victims. In fact, the supposedly victim has publicly said their was no QPQ or bullying of any sort. Hell your star "witnesses" have publicly said the QPQ was never asked.

 

The name "Gordon Sondland" mean anything to you??

 

The guy who admited it was only his oppinion and presumption... Yeah, we all know about him.