Why is Mitch McConnell refusing to subpoena any documents and witnesses?

They got factual material.

1. Trump empowered Giuliani to employ the help of various members of the US diplomatic contingent to Ukraine, and some who were not part of that contingent, to put pressure on Ukraine to announce an investigation in to Joe Biden. A campaign that began in the spring of 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50492438
2. Leverage was used, at Trump's direction, as a means to get Ukraine to acquiesce to Trump's requests in the form of the withholding of military aid authorized by Congress.
"Clear direction from POTUS to continue hold."
https://www.justsecurity.org/67863/...ts-reveal-extent-of-pentagons-legal-concerns/
3. Resulting from the WB complaint, a summary of the transcript of the Zelensky call was released revealing Trump speaking to Zelensky about the investigations he wanted Ukraine to announce. A transcript WH officials tried to hide from other members of the government and the public by placing it in a code level secret server typically used for keeping national security matters secret. https://apnews.com/817c0c285bc9485d88608635e0fef3e3
4. Trump and Sondland were overheard discussing the efforts to get Ukraine to announce an investigation in to Biden.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/21/imp...ow-he-overheard-trump-call-with-sondland.html
5. Officials in the admin and the Pentagon expressed concern the hold was illegal.
https://publicintegrity.org/nationa...rried-ukraine-aid-halt-violated-spending-law/
A GAO analysis of the laws pertaining to the hold found it was, in their opinion, illegal.
6. Ukrainian officials asked about the aid on the day Trump called Zelensky when he said, "I need you to do us a favor though," prior to asking Ukraine to investigate Biden (and the server).
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/ukr...ump-zelenskiy-call-impeachment-testimony.html
7. Part time, acting Chief-of-Staff Mick Mulvaney publicly acknowledged the quid pro quo.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/17/poli...d-pro-quo-donald-trump-ukraine-aid/index.html
So did EU ambassador Sondland.
Sondland acknowledges Ukraine quid pro quo, implicates Trump, Pence, Pompeo and others
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...741e3c-0b92-11ea-8397-a955cd542d00_story.html
8. US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was relieved of her post by Trump as a result of a smear campaign launched against her by Giuliani because she posed on obstacle to carrying out the scheme to extort Ukraine. https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/15/trump-yovanovitch-impeachment-070988
Lev Parnas recently stated her removal was directed as a payoff to get a Ukrainian official to produce dirt on Biden. https://slate.com/news-and-politics...risma-biden-dirt-fire-ukraine-ambassador.html
9. All of the 17 witnesses who testified during the House inquiry corroborate 1-8.
10. If any of the witnesses or documentary evidence Trump has blocked as part of his obstruction of the investigation can offer a refutation of the evidence above it is his prerogative to present it.
11. The solicitation of help in a US election from a foreign person or government is illegal.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...s-illegality-of-soliciting-campaign-help-from

 

We were subjected to three years of the Democrats and their "evidence" during the Russian collusion delusion. NO, I do not want more time and taxpayer money wasted on Democrat witch hunts.

 

Of the 17 witnesses who testified, most of whom worked in the Trump admin, what testimony do you dispute?

 

Do you want all the evidence to be presented or not? Clearly, the answer is no.

 

What stopped the House from seeking judicial subpoenas to compel witness testimony and the handover of documents? Why was sending out toothless House subpoenas the "extent" of the House's ability to "find the facts"?

 

Yes, my answer is NO. The Dems had their chance, and they blew it. Enough with this nonsense already.

 

Why are you blaming Dems for Trump's obstruction of the investigation?

 

Nonsense?

1. Trump empowered Giuliani to employ the help of various members of the US diplomatic contingent to Ukraine, and some who were not part of that contingent, to put pressure on Ukraine to announce an investigation in to Joe Biden. A campaign that began in the spring of 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50492438
2. Leverage was used, at Trump's direction, as a means to get Ukraine to acquiesce to Trump's requests in the form of the withholding of military aid authorized by Congress.
"Clear direction from POTUS to continue hold."
https://www.justsecurity.org/67863/...ts-reveal-extent-of-pentagons-legal-concerns/
3. Resulting from the WB complaint, a summary of the transcript of the Zelensky call was released revealing Trump speaking to Zelensky about the investigations he wanted Ukraine to announce. A transcript WH officials tried to hide from other members of the government and the public by placing it in a code level secret server typically used for keeping national security matters secret. https://apnews.com/817c0c285bc9485d88608635e0fef3e3
4. Trump and Sondland were overheard discussing the efforts to get Ukraine to announce an investigation in to Biden.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/21/imp...ow-he-overheard-trump-call-with-sondland.html
5. Officials in the admin and the Pentagon expressed concern the hold was illegal.
https://publicintegrity.org/nationa...rried-ukraine-aid-halt-violated-spending-law/
A GAO analysis of the laws pertaining to the hold found it was, in their opinion, illegal.
6. Ukrainian officials asked about the aid on the day Trump called Zelensky when he said, "I need you to do us a favor though," prior to asking Ukraine to investigate Biden (and the server).
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/ukr...ump-zelenskiy-call-impeachment-testimony.html
7. Part time, acting Chief-of-Staff Mick Mulvaney publicly acknowledged the quid pro quo.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/17/poli...d-pro-quo-donald-trump-ukraine-aid/index.html
So did EU ambassador Sondland.
Sondland acknowledges Ukraine quid pro quo, implicates Trump, Pence, Pompeo and others
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...741e3c-0b92-11ea-8397-a955cd542d00_story.html
8. US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was relieved of her post by Trump as a result of a smear campaign launched against her by Giuliani because she posed on obstacle to carrying out the scheme to extort Ukraine. https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/15/trump-yovanovitch-impeachment-070988
Lev Parnas recently stated her removal was directed as a payoff to get a Ukrainian official to produce dirt on Biden. https://slate.com/news-and-politics...risma-biden-dirt-fire-ukraine-ambassador.html
9. All of the 17 witnesses who testified during the House inquiry corroborate 1-8.
10. If any of the witnesses or documentary evidence Trump has blocked as part of his obstruction of the investigation can offer a refutation of the evidence above it is his prerogative to present it.
11. The solicitation of help in a US election from a foreign person or government is illegal.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...s-illegality-of-soliciting-campaign-help-from

 

Hope they do a good job for his photo ops.

 

I can't believe that we are paying their salaries while they don't work for America. Enough, I say!

 

He didn't obstruct the investigation. The Whistleblower, another partisan water cooler gossip, suggested he was uncomfortable with a phone call, which he didn't hear directly.

The House asked Trump to declassify and release the call transcript. Trump said, "Okay. Here."

Shouldn't have gone any further than that.

 

Time. Why should they be compelled to wait for the courts to rule again on legally issued subpoenas that were illegally ignored?

 

Schumer Rips McConnell’s Plan To Fast-Track Impeachment Trial: ‘A National Disgrace’
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/...t-track-impeachment-trial-a-national-disgrace

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) blasted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) proposed Senate impeachment trial rules on Tuesday morning and Monday.

“After reading his resolution, it’s clear Senator McConnell is hell-bent on making it much more difficult to get witnesses and documents and intent on rushing the trial through,” Schumer said in a statement released on Monday. “On something as important as impeachment, Senator McConnell’s resolution is nothing short of a national disgrace.”

 

Aside from Sondland, the only fact witness, it was all hearsay and "feelings" about the temporary freeze on the funds and distaste in not wanting to shift away from Obama's foreign policy goals to Trump foreign policy goals. All the witnesses serve at the pleasure of the President. Obama is no longer President. The House witnesses sounded like a bunch disgruntled employees participating in a televised group therapy session.

The only thing Sondland said which was a direct fact, and not his presumptions about Trump's intentions was that the President told him there was "No quid pro quo."

 

You are blind.

White House refuses to cooperate with impeachment investigation
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...uments-democrats-impeachment-inquiry-n1063771
White House tells Dems it won’t cooperate with Judiciary impeachment hearings
https://www.rollcall.com/news/white...wont-cooperate-judiciary-impeachment-hearings

 

2. Leverage was used, at Trump's direction, as a means to get Ukraine to acquiesce to Trump's requests in the form of the withholding of military aid authorized by Congress.
"Clear direction from POTUS to continue hold."
https://www.justsecurity.org/67863/...ts-reveal-extent-of-pentagons-legal-concerns/

7. Part time, acting Chief-of-Staff Mick Mulvaney publicly acknowledged the quid pro quo.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/17/poli...d-pro-quo-donald-trump-ukraine-aid/index.html
So did EU ambassador Sondland.
Sondland acknowledges Ukraine quid pro quo, implicates Trump, Pence, Pompeo and others
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...741e3c-0b92-11ea-8397-a955cd542d00_story.html

 

Imagine Democrat Schumer blasting Republican McConnell in the totally partisan farce, started and run by Democrats.

This is just a more vicious repeat of the Clinton impeachment, except that Clinton committed perjury, and actual crime....and Clinton's impeachment was not 100% partisan (though it was close).

The Democrats of yesterday are saying the same exact things the Republicans are saying today...and vice versa.

This is a big waste of Americans' time and money. If history repeats itself, this won't age well for Democrats.

Nothing new under the sun....

 

Executive privilege is just about entirely for foreign affairs, as your examples show. It is completely inappropriate in this case where it is obviously and blatantly being used to allow the President to get away with wrongdoing and you are insulting the intelligence of the American public to use this argument.

It's one thing to not give over info until necessary but quite something else to use every legal and illegal trick to avoid giving any information at all even when you are specifically asked for it and it SHOULD exonerate you if you are innocent. The ONLY reason Trump has for not testifying at this point is that he is guilty as sin and his refusal is as complete an admission of guilt as you are going to get. I truly fail to see how anyone can not see this and don't think that most of those in Congress fail to see it either. It's just another example of the Trumper's "**** you" attitude to anyone who dares disagree with Dictator Don.

 

Au contraire! I am not blind.

Trump released the call transcript of his conversation with Zelensky.

Within a few hours or days, most Americans made up their minds whether he said anything wrong or not...and even if so, whether he said anything which would constitute an impeachable offense.

Since then, everything has been nothing but political "show biz". A big waste of time and energy. Trauma, drama and red meat for the most partisan of their respective bases.

Almost no one has changed their minds either way, nor will they with the Senate trial. But since Nancy decided to start this circus caravan, the Senate is obligated to entertain us with the final performance acts and fold down the tent until next time a House goes rogue.

 

After the WB complaint was made public. Until then the WH tried to cover up the transcript. And with good reason since it shows Trump's guilt.

 

If the Witnesses Could Exonerate Trump, Why Aren’t They Testifying?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/trumps-defense-cant-save-him/603277/

 

Because they want to get the facts, right? That's why they should wait.

 

If the Witnesses Could Exonerate Trump, Why Aren’t They Testifying?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/trumps-defense-cant-save-him/603277/

 

In other words, you don't CARE if Trump has feloniously tried to cheat the election yet again and will almost certainly do it even more in the future if he gets away with it now. Fine. Some of us would rather have our votes count and be counted rather than stolen by a treasonous mountebank who is trying to overthrow the nation that our ancestors died for. Trump hates the right people and that is all that matters for some but not for all of us.

 

They didn't try to cover up the transcript. Every single phone call between a U.S. President and another head of state is private and classified. That's been the case long before Trump took office.

At least a dozen people sit in on those calls and take notes. Not one of them made a peep about any improprieties. Then this not-so-mysterious partisan whistleblower files a fishy complaint about a call where he wasn't even a participant.

As soon as Congress asked for the transcript, Trump released within days without any subpoena.

That's the only "fact" document needed. Americans made up their minds.

The House wasted everyone's time and taxpayer money.