McConnell has the votes to block witnesses in senate trial.

Sondland testified that was the desire

 

LOL.. with that rationale, nobody would ever testify in any court case ever.... All witness testimony IS if's at the beginning..

Fine that you don't want to answer my hypothetical though... I would pass if I were you...

 

So was Sen. Schumer wrong when he fought having witnesses during the Clinton impeachment? How about when he wanted a summary dismissal of impeachment?

 

SNIP
“I never heard,” Sondland said, “anyone say that the investigations had to start, or had to be completed. The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise, was that they had to be announced [publicly] in some form and that form kept changing.”
ENDSNIP

How quickly they forget....

 

I don't know the circumstances of the first claim... and you'll have to provide a link to the 2nd one...

And I know you don't want me to bring up McConnell and Graham from 1999...

But each impeachment is different... witnesses are certainly a must with this one...

 

Yes, they are different, the Clinton one involved your party.

 

I don't have a party... I've been as clear as glass on that point my 2+ years on this site. I didn't really follow the Clinton trial closely, but I remember thinking Clintons actions were not remotely removable....

I feel different this time...

 

If a lot of things

 

... and he said he was ONLY SPECULATING and had no confirmation that this was a fact. So again, you have NOTHING. In fact, he 100% exonerated the President here.



Game Over.

 

The whole shampeachment was a bunch of assuming and presuming and "well we just knew" and "well we thought"......

 

Not it. You Democrats, you had your fun with House impeachment. Now, it’s Republicans turn. Simple as that.

 

Perjury is not remotely removable? Why?

I know whatcha think - if he perjured himself lying about anything else but the blue dress...be different. Right?

No difference.

 

Translation: No quid pro quo.

 

Now who's pushing hypotheticals??

 

So all their screaming and whining, and falsely accusing the dems of not allowing those very things, was what then ? Now its apparently OK then right. No evidence being allowed by the White House, no witness’ being allowed by Trump to testify, in the house and now the senate, but he is innocent right ?

So no “trial”, just a vote because they have the majority. If this was Hillary the right would start a civil war over this.

I expect to see your thread apologizing for complaining about dems “not allowing witness’ “ anytime now right ?

 

You do. You imply there are different grades of perjury.

There are none.

 

if winning means rigging the trial, sure, I agree with you

if Trump was innocent, would that be necessary?

 

and if members of the Senate say publicly they will not be impartial and then swear under oath they will be, is that not perjury - they will be asked this under oath, be interesting to see if they commit perjury or not

interesting as that was why Clinton was impeached, they said he allegedly lied under oath about having an affair

 

course the white house is working with jurors now.... saying Mitch... can you do me a favor

 

Trump was so upset by his lies....that he still has his job?!! Lmao

 

So he was shaking down foreign leaders based on an assumption.....so of course he still has his job lmao

 

That's right, you run from the actual discussion and deflect... way to lose honestly.

 

Sondland said he was told they had to announce investigations. If he lied, why’s he still habe his job?? If he didn’t then your excuses are BS. You can pick.

 

You say he was speculating. But the whole Trump defense has been based on preventing anyone with direct knowledge from testifying.

That’s what this thread is about. McConnell and the senate Rs BLOCKING Bolton from testifying. He might confirm what Sondland and others said. Or he might totally exonerate Trump. But you don’t want to know the truth. You prefer wilful blindness.

In a very real sense, “you can’t handle the truth”.