Scot free: Ex-FBI official McCabe won't face Justice Department charges

"Because he would not have testified without fighting a subpoena and the Democrats didn't want another 18 month court fight as they were experiencing with Don McGahn."

Thus, the blame directed toward Republicans is specious.

"The new evidence was "presented" by Bolton's attorney's letter...which stated Bolton had new evidence to present."

That leads us back to: What evidence is that?

"Had the Senate voted to hear such, Bolton could have been deposed and Roberts along with the "managers" for the prosecution and defense could have reviewed his testimony and decided whether or not it was sufficiently relevant to present to the Senate jurors."

The Democrats had no such evidence, therefore the Republicans couldn't vote on whether to hear it.

It's absurd to blame Republicans for the failings of Democrats.

 

Because President Trump didn't really do anything that warrants removal from office. What Biden did was pretty shady and that includes Ukraine and China and I think it needs to be looked into. People are also forgetting that Trump has been far better for Ukraine than the Obama Administration. Trump sent them weapons, Obama refused to. He sent blankets and food.

Even if Bolton said it QPQ, Trump stays right where he is.

 

Because he said he would fight a subpoena if it wasn't backed by a Court decision. The House had already subpoenaed WH Counsel Don McGahn and the WH was forbidding McGahn's testimony (even though they allowed it during the Mueller investigation). McGahn and Bolten both essentially said, we want a Court ruling on whether or not we have to respond to Congressional subpoenas or not and will obey the Court decision. The process with McGahn began 18 months ago and is still pending review by the Supreme Court. Since one of the impeachment charges was for interference with the 2020 election (Biden's candidacy) they wanted to resolve the impeachment issue prior to the 2020 election. Also, Democrats believed there was a good chance of the Senate voting to hear new evidence at trial (they only missed that by two votes, 51-49, with Collins and Romney voting with Democrats). Having Bolton testify at trial would have avoided a lengthy court process.

 

You're just talking the "Party Line." The President broke the law in delaying appropriated funding to Ukraine, without first notifying Congress. Secondly, he did so to obtain the quid pro quo of the funding in exchange for the Ukrainian public announcement of two investigations; one to help Putin (the Crowdstrike Conspiracy Theory) and the other to help his 2020 campaign (an investigation of a possible political opponent). The Ukrainian situation has evolved over time, since the Russian invasion. Obama's stand was initially hopeful that a Russian withdrawal from the Crimea and Eastern borders could be achieved and wanted to minimize actions that would escalate the situation. That pretty much failed, particularly following the shoot-down of the Dutch Airliner by Russian separatists. In fact, the Republican mainstream endorsed a cautious approach to "lethal weapon supply." At the 2016 convention, Senator Ted Cruz succeeded in auditing a provision to the Republican Platform in favor of lethal weapons for Ukraine, only to have it withdrawn by the Trump campaign at the last minute. Subsequently, Republicans in Congress voted FOR lethal weapons, but not without caveats such as using the Javelin anti-tank weapons only in defense against a Russian tank offensive deeper into Ukraine and banning them from disputed territory.

 

The evidence relevant to the impeachment charges that Bolton (and Kupperman) held. That evidence, whatever it may have been, could have been obtained through deposition, reviewed by Roberts and the prosecuting and defense managers and, if judged to be significant to either side of the case, presented at trial to the Senate jurors. But that process was blocked by a political vote by Republicans. Since the process is political in the first place...as it was always intended to be...that's fine. What it did do was expose the corruption of the WH and the Republican Party prior to the 2020 election.

 

If you mean "breaking the law" as in the findings from the GOA, then every President would be impeached. The GOA goes after every President and on occasion, lies for a particular President to get a bill passed. There is no evidence of a QPQ and even if he said it, I wouldn't care. I think it is a good idea to look into and start an investigation.

Reminder, it was under Obama/Biden that we refused to sell weapons to Ukraine as Putin took over parts of Ukraine. We literally stood by idly and smiled as Putin rolled in. Now all of a sudden, The Democrats are all up in arms about helping an ally? Sorry, I don't buy it. They are looking to protect Biden and hammer Trump.

Also, Schiff should have done a better job and called Bolton to testify. Schiff dropped the ball and lost his case.

 

Bolton changed his story...after the D.C. Court ruled in favor of the House on the McGahn case, he said he would respond only to a Senate subpoena. The justification for that was laid down in the earlier November 8th letter regarding the differences between the McGahn and Kupperman cases lying in the difference of executive privilege used in domestic cases (i.e. firing Mueller - McGahn) versus national security cases (i.e. the Ukraine - Bolton & Kupperman). I would agree that while not the deciding factor, a Congressional subpoena on foreign policy issues would be both easier to fight and defend in the Senate, rather than the House (the President's foreign policy powers vs. the Senate oversight in foreign policy). So...the conclusion is that it would be quicker to obtain Bolton's testimony via the Senate than through the House...and since one of the charges involved the 2020 election, time was of essence.

 

I've answered your points. If you don't believe my answers, that's your problem, not mine. Ultimately, Trump's impeachment trial will be known for a bunch of Republicans who broke their oaths. Run on that for the next few years.

 

I just don't think Trump was going to get removed from office and did more for Ukraine than Obama did. I didn't see a viable reason and it would do more harm to the country if he was removed. Honestly, he has been light years better than Obama and better than Bush. Removing him would be a disaster.

Besides, I am sick of the Democrats (in office) and their fake witch hunts. Let the man govern and vote him out in the next election.

 

Why are you blaming Republicans for the Democrats' failure to seek this mythical evidence?

 

Why are they attacking this straw man in a thread about mccabe walking free? Hmm...

 

Oops...

 

You don't know the difference between disagree and Obstruction of an investigation? Wow.

 

We don't agree. I see him as a threat to our democratic republic and its institutions. I think you're being conned.

 

The obvious reason...the Republican vote to bar witnesses and new evidence from the trial. I've never heard of any sort of trial, even an impeachment trial, without witnesses, particularly when a key witness attorney is telling us "my client has new evidence you should hear." But, he's speaking at Duke this evening, so perhaps he'll say something relevant.

 

Are you claiming no president has ever been impeached?
When one does a history search on impeached presidents, 3 names pop up. Meaning 3 presidents have been impeached. And it will also state, all 3 have been acquitted b the Senate. Meaning they were not removed from office, but they still are the only 3 impeached.

 

It's been pointed out that we're off-topic.

 

My goodness don’t you twist facts and law, there is a reason your case failed

 

It accomplished its purpose.

 

True. Rumor has it that the Orange Man is turning red with anger over the DoJ decision not to prosecute McCabe. Any truth to that?

 

To highlight Biden was corrupt? Good job

 

No...Senate Republicans, with the exception of Snow and Romney, passed up that opportunity in order to avoid showing how corrupt the President was.

 

Haha that is so weak. You’re hoax failed

 

Why else would they have passed up the opportunity to subpoena the Whistle Blower and the Biden's to testify before the Senate?

 

Will Trump fire Barr for not prosecuting McCabe?

Meanwhile, the Federal Judge's Association, with 1100+ sitting federal judges, whose President is a judge appointed by Bush, has called an emergency meeting in regard to Barr's interference in the prosecutor's sentence recommendations for convicted felon Roger Stone.