Schumer proposes that Bolton and Mulvaney testify in Senate impeachment trial

Nope, that is how it works and has worked during impeachments but the dems were in a hurry because their polling was so bad.

 

I'm still waiting for that smoking gun evidence.

 

So, do you think it will come from Mulvaney or Bolton?? My guess is Bolton....

 

Why would they even testify since the dem clown show is finished with the investigation and still have no evidence but will vote to impeach anyway.

 

The WB is the one who gave the initial complaint. And the cry that "well, others collaborated it" doesn't fly. Imagine filing a civil suit and saying "Well, others can argue on my behalf so I'll drop out of the suit."

That's ridiculous. This person had the courage to sound the alarm, they should also have the courage to testify. We must hear directly from the WB, there's no exception. Fairness in the American justice system demands it, and Chief Justice Roberts is presiding. I do want a serious and full inquiry into the matter.

So yes, have Mulaveney, have Blair, have all of the Democrat witnesses. And let the chips fall where they may.

 

You cant make the WB into a plaintiff because the WB is not seeking any relief.

The better analogy for the WB is a confidential informant or an anonymous tip to the police. Once they investigate and provide the information to the prosecutor, that prosecutor is free to use or not use the CI/Anonymous tip as the prosecutor deems necessary to make the case in court.

If the prosecutor can present a case which proves the assertions beyond a reasonable doubt without referencing or relying upon evidence from the CI/anonymous tipster, then there is no constitutional right to face an accuser because that CI/anonymous tipster is not an accuser.

 

There is no law protecting the WB identity and since the start of all of this started with Schiff and the WB, the WB is a prime witness.

 

There are multiple laws protecting the WB identity.

 

The smoking guns have smoking guns in this situation, but I asked you to evaluate and explain any component of the allegations that I listed which still needs elaboration in the factual record.

 

Ya see, this is just so wrong and it amazes me that assertions so blatantly false are acceptable.

 

And you have argued personally that the WB had no first hand information.

The 2019 politifact lie of the year is trump's claim that the WB got almost everything wrong.

 

Absolute immunity. Keep up.

 

Only for retribution but not for identity. Obama's administration sent a SWAT team to arrest a WB.

 

So wrong that you have no clue about the law even though you have lawyer in your name.

 

Neither did the dems impeaching Trump.

 

No. Absolute Immunity is the legal theory that Trump has asserted on multiple occasions to keep witnesses and documents from being provided.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/11/mcgahn-testify-subpoena-absolute-immunity-ruling

 

Yes I do have 'Lawyer' in my name and I have said previously, I know sfa about US Law.

 

Publicly identifying the WB without justification is retaliation.

 

Nor was it challenged and of course he could do like the Obama administration, claim executive privilege. The Supreme Court has already ruled the Executive Privilege is more than proper.

 

I say call them ask them what they know about the Ukraine and Biden, then any conversations with the President or others surrounding policy is of course unanswerable due to executive privilege. Also call Rudy, let's find out what he's found out over there, let's call Schiff and find out how this started since he's the only one who knows. Let's call the WB behind closed doors and release his testimony.

 

Who cares what Schumer says on impeachment.

The mans authority consists of 1 vote like all other senators & he has no say on how the
Trial will go.

His comments are as relevant as your paper boy’s.

 

So, who exactly is the plantiff here? The House? And on what grounds can the House be a plantiff? The 'injury' is the Constitution? Essentially, the only way to make a case is to accept everything the Democrats are saying, at their word.

 

Absolute Immunity is actively being challenged. And sure, the witnesses can appear to claim executive privilege, but they have to SHOW UP FIRST.

And executive privilege has limits. Just ask Nixon.

 

Good deal, call your senator and tell them.

 

Where? The dems shelved their subpoena's so there is no 'active challenge'.