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

Prove your statement that he's not. Hint: not calling new witnesses =/= "he's NOT".

I get it though, you're trying to lay the blame entirely on McConnell for the Democrats doing a piss poor job in their investigation.

 

Dirty Donald still trying to prevent Bolton from testifying.

 

Trump has the right to assert executive privilege. If the Dems think it’s a bogus claim, they should take it to court.

 

Trump can assert his rights, including executive privilege.

 

No, of course I do not agree. (And I don't believe the minority, let alone a majority, let alone ALL agree. That is simply prima facie balderdash.) McConnell has absolutely no reason nor any rationale to promise to call certain witnesses in following the long standing rules of the senate on impeachment -- completely opposite of the house's process, BTW.

 

The congressional impeachment hearings were soooo shady that Mitch really has no other choice but to be shady as well. They couldn't get him on the original accusations so they made up the abuse of power bs out of the blue. Sorry but now this is how it is. I'm sick of Republicans always having to be the ones with morals. I'm glad Mitch is stooping to their level. Can't wait to binge drink all the liberal tears!

 

Not quite. My answer is that the accusations for impeachment were all made and confirmed by "partisan hacks" in the House. That was obvious by their "partisan hack witnesses" and "partisan hack whistle blower" and "partisan hack Schiff" as well as "partisan hack speaker of the House" and "partisan hack impeachment vote". It is only reasonable that Mitch McConnell will hear again the accusations by these "partisan hacks" put it to a vote, then exonerate the first President since WWII to put America first. (one exception, of course, being Ronald Reagan)

 

I know I know. You don't give a **** about the country's laws so long as your idol is kept safe. I got it the first time. No need to repeat it.

 

McConnell has already expressed he's not going to see the evidence. And the question is why do you think that is? Why do you refuse to answer the question?

 

Note to the old Ford,
Nobody's going to testify.

 

I have no idea what you're saying. but here you go.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politics/mcconnell-impartial-juror-impeachment/index.html
https://www.nationalreview.com/news...-white-house-during-senate-impeachment-trial/
https://theweek.com/speedreads/8840...ty-theres-no-chance-trump-removed-from-office
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/us/politics/impeachment-trial-witnesses.html
https://nypost.com/2019/12/28/trump...-reportedly-unites-behind-a-no-witness-trial/

Now.... Answer the question!

Actually, you are one I don't expect an answer from no matter what. So never mind.

 

That's good to hear. So then, why is he doing it?

I said all those who have answered

Of course, the majority has simply not responded. But it would surprise me one bit that the majority... or even all of them... believe it. Why else would they refuse to respond?

There most definitely is a reason. And that's his claim that he wouldn't be impartial. Do you believe that there is "rationle" for him publicly stating that he would not be an impartial juror?

Anyway, the question is there, on the OP. And you also refuse to answer. This is what I mean. Those who have answered (including Trump loyalists) have acknowledged (in as many words or similar) that McConnell is a partisan hack who puts partisan interests before patriotism, and that he wants to protect Trump. So that the reason he won't subpoena the evidence is that it would prove that Trump is guilty.

It could not be any clearer. And if even Trump loyalists admit this, even if only some (while the rest won't provide an alternative), what do you think independents... or even Republicans who are not Trump loyalists (but are patriots) will think?

 

You mean like Trump's own appointees? Some of which are still, to this day, serving at the pleasure of the President?

It doesn't matter, because neither that nor anything on your post has anything to do with the question. You had already answered the question. You are now on record.

 

Oh look, in your very first link it says that McConnell is quite willing to hear the Managers from the HoR and their evidence. And in the second part he does not know how things will play out. If it will be agreed to call forth witnesses or to simply vote. Depends on what the majority decides...not McConnell. No where in your article does it state that he refuses hear them.

Since your own link disproved your own statement guess I won't have to read through the rest.

And I have ALREADY answered your question. Refer to my sig.

 

What the f... hell? The Managers are not witnesses! They're not under oath. They're...

Look... forget it. This is obviously waaay over your ... uh..... not for you.

 

Mr. McConnell thinks it is politically advantageous to not call witnesses, duh.

 

Ding ding ding ding ding.... Good answer!

Among Trump supporters, the score is now

McConnell places political partisanship above country.............. 6
Other explanations......................................................................0

 

Republicans think having Republicans in charge is good for the country. Duh.

I think having Trump in charge is much better for the country than any Democrat contender.

 

Yeah, they're not witnesses. Duh. But that is a part of "hearing the evidence" right? And the rest of what I said had to do with the witnesses. Like I said, its up to the majority of the Senate on if witnesses are heard...not McConnell. No where have you shown that McConnell said that he "won't" hear witnesses, as per your claim.

 

Trump denied first hand witness testifying in the house investigation.........

 

Which the HoR could have subpoenaed and taken to court to get their subpoena enforced. They didn't. Why not?

 

This post is a FINE example of how you Trump haters ignore anything that doesn't suit your narrative and only accept that which does suit your narrative. Good job of proving your own partisanship is higher than that of your feelings about the country.

 

Hmm...how many times did we hear on this forum, from Dems, and from the Media during the HoR hearings that impeachment was a political process? Does anyone seriously not expect a political process to not be based on what is "politically advantageous"? Especially when the Dems made it quite clear during the HoR "hearings" that this was a purely partisan impeachment?

 

I have answered your question numerous times. You just don't like what I have to say, and that's your problem, not mine. McConnell will without a doubt see the evidence that the house gathered from the inquiry (which we all have already seen). Then he will decide to proceed in whatever manner he feels necessary, just as the House did when they had their shot. That is the way this works.

 

You ask why not call witnesses, and subpoena documents. Another poster asked if these witnesses and documents were necessary, then why not subpoena them during the Inquiry phase. These questions are the different sides to the same coin. The answer is simple. It begins with you misunderstandings expressed in the second paragraph of your post. The time to interview witnesses and take depositions is during the Inquiry phase. If the DNC truely believed that these witnesses and documents were necessary to prove whether President Trump is guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors, then the time to subpoena them was during the inquiry.

In case your wondering, I have already dismantled the Adam Schiff arguement. He stated that they did not fight the Presidential assertion of Executive Privilege during the Inquiry phase is because there was too much risk. The only risk would have been that if the courts had sided with President Trump, the whole thing would have been over before it began. As long as they can hold the vestige of additional witness and documents can the whole thing keep going. The fact is they do not have enough evidence to sustain the charges. The fact that they want to call more witnesses proves that point. But if they can get the Republican held Senate to not call witnesses, they can claim coverup. Should I say claim a Conspiracy to protect the President? They way they have played this out, the GOP is sort of boxed in. If they pursue witnesses, it would mean a court battle that would last beyond the elections and pit some of the GOP against the President. If they hold the trial without witnesses, then the DNC can yell conspiracy. Either way forward has great risk, but I think the GOP is doing what is best.

They have forced Pelosi's hand. She will forward, with all pomp and ceremony, the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There will be an abbreviated trial, and a vote that will not convict the President. The DNC will use it as a rallying cry, and so will the GOP. The only question that will remain is the same one that existed before the whole Impeachment BS started. Whose media will hold the greatest sway over the population. The fact that the voters have not rushed to the DNC banner during this process is showing the DNC miscalculation. Unless the final vote is greater then 50% of the Senate, the whole political process will fail. Why? Because the weakness of the evidence can not be dismissed.

It is sad that the evidentiary threshold necessary to Impeach a President is lower then those necessary to convict someone for shoplifting a pack of gum!!!!!