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

The prosecution has to prove their case. The dem clown show has no evidence.

 

Just because you did not see it on Fox does not mean no one else did. And just because your boy has fought against anyone testifying and hidden all the documents does not give him a pass. Those who actually paid attention to the people who stepped forward to testify see more than enough evidence and want even more...if your hero is innocent why is he fighting against allowing the folks with information to exonerate him?

 

Same reason 40 other presidents have. Including Clinton and Obama. By the way it isn't his JOb to prove himself innocent it is the Dems to prove him guilty and the AOI basically does nothing more than complain that he wouldn't confess.

 

Clinton did not forbid testimony or data and Obama never went on trial.....that makes no sense.

 

Both used the exact same idea, executive privilege, to keep from turning over documents of one sort or the other or to keep subordinates from having to Testify.

 

Documentation please as I do not recall that.

 

That was during the Fast and Furious investigation which Obama and company stonewalled to a stop. Clinton claimed executive privilege where ever he could but given the nature of the investigation there really wasn't much of a chance for him to use it with any frequency. and the Republicans at least had enough of a sense of propriety to not try to put his lawyers on the stand.

 

I see,,,so you got nothin' to back your claim. As I thought, innuendo and blanket claims without any data to back it is insufficient. Neither situation resembles what is being discussed either.

 

Yet the dem clown show was in such a hurry they didn’t do their job.

 

Have A Nice Day

 

They don’t get a do-over in the Senate.

 

Seriously? Did you read what he said? Fast and Furious. Obama claimed executive privilege so no one would discover his attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment by providing guns to Mexican drug cartels. His attorney general, Eric Holder, was held in contempt of Congress for refusing to provide documents that the Congress had subpoenaed. Does he have to google it for you or do you know how to do that yourself?

 

Obvious as in a wing and a prayer, No one here including you and me has any idea what any of those people would say. In fact the desire to hear testimony from people they have not previously deposed is in fact a sign of just how desperately weak the Dem leadership believes its case is. Only the most desperate if lawyer wants to ask questions to which he does not already know the answer. And I mean know, not just believe he knows.

 

Private criminal matters in a criminal investigation where courts have rule executive privilege claims can be overruled if the parties are engaged in a crime.

 

In this country innocent until proven guilty, those charged do not have to prove their innocence.

 

There are no crimes in the articles of impeachment.

Much less any treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, Russian collusion, or Ukrainian collusion.

 

What crime? Not even the articles of impeachment label a crime.

 

In this situation and case, the charged can either prove his innocent position through his claimed witness testimony that clears him or be shown guilty. It would seem he does not wish to do so and the jury foreman agrees.

 

The burden of proof is on those doing the accusing. The person charged may put up evidence to counter that if they so choose but they do not have to prove their innocence the accuser has to prove their guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

In the Clinton impeachment not here. The testimony of the witnesses derived from the criminal investigation by the Office of Independent Counsel. There was no SP or IC or criminal investigation here. Schiff took it upon himself and then executive privilege comes into play.

 

I was talking the Clinton impeachment.

Hoosier8 said: ↑
Clinton invoked executive privilege on private affairs and not govt dealings. Apples and oranges.

 

And...they have presented the evidence that Trumpists refuse to acknowledge...unfortunately the Senate majority does so as well.

 

Don't know about them but seems to me everyone has acknowledged the phone call. What hasn't been acknowledged is that there was no quid pro quo, no blackmail, no extortion, no bribery and we still need to get a full investigation into Burisma and how it was acting corruptly with a pay to play scheme involving Hunter Biden and that the articles of impeachment include no impeachable offenses.

 

'Them" is quite clearly "You" as defined by what you just typed.

 

I didn't vote for him and can't stand him personal. I support his policies for the most part and the PRESIDENCY and the Constitution. And again what hasn't been acknowledged is that there was no quid pro quo, no blackmail, no extortion, no bribery and we still need to get a full investigation into Burisma and how it was acting corruptly with a pay to play scheme involving Hunter Biden and that the articles of impeachment include no impeachable offenses.

The Democrats could not prove their case so now they want the Senate which is to sit in judgement of their case to prove it for them.