McConnell tells GOP senators that there aren't enough votes to block impeachment witnesses

[sober_teacher]

‘Called’ implies by subpoena. Rather he was deliberately invited by the House. They should have called him and forced it to the Judiciary to resolve. While not likely, SCOTUS may have declined the case letting the subpoena stand. I would have enjoyed having SCOTUS clarify the validity of the initial subpoenas and Executive Privilege, if claimed. My gut says the House would have won on the latter.

I think they absolutely would have won. I can't figure out how the WH could make an executive privilege claim stand after they already released the call summary, Trump has tweeted endlessly over it, Mulvaney spoke to the press about it, etc. The call itself is hardly private anymore. Bolton testifying would simply be having someone who was in the room for the call provide more context.

 

[Tom Paris]

yep. And the republicans can call Obama, Comey, Schiff etc....the scope of this one can be pretty expansive. It’s just a dirt throwing exercise. Most people are not paying close attention. A good chunk of the country thinks trump is already not the president because he was “impeached.”

Oh...are you one of those who want to impeach Obama? LOL. You REALLY think there's anything there on him? Compare his administration - arrests, indictments, firings, drama - with Trump's and ask yourself if you have any common sense or logic.

 

[Joes Place]

Why didn't the house call these witnesses?

 

[Banditking]

Oh...are you one of those who want to impeach Obama? LOL. You REALLY think there's anything there on him? Compare his administration - arrests, indictments, firings, drama - with Trump's and ask yourself if you have any common sense or logic.

Definitely think there is. Not sure what the democrats’ legal blitz strategy on everything trump has to do with that.

Remember Bill Clinton. There was nothing on him but an affair. But, in the context of that, he committed perjury and was disbarred. Not many people can hold up to an audit of their entire life.

 

[Tom Paris]

Definitely think there is. Not sure what the democrats’ legal blitz strategy on everything trump has to do with that.

Why didn't the Republicans, with full Congressional control, take down Obama if he was so corrupt? They would have loved to. They didn't because there was nothing there. Again, compare his administration and Trump's. Not even in the same solar system for corruption.

Hell, I would have given you Hillary but she's been investigated repeatedly and come up with nothing. So again, use logic and common sense.

 

[Joes Place]

Why didn't the Republicans, with full Congressional control, take down Obama if he was so corrupt? They would have loved to. They didn't because there was nothing there. Again, compare his administration and Trump's. Not even in the same solar system for corruption.

Hell, I would have given you Hillary but she's been investigated repeatedly and come up with nothing. So again, use logic and common sense.

Clinton Foundation: 0 Indictments; still operating

Trump Foundation: Closed; Fined; Family barred from serving on any charity for a decade.

 

[Joes Place]

 

[tarheelbybirth]

‘Called’ implies by subpoena. Rather he was deliberately invited by the House. They should have called him and forced it to the Judiciary to resolve. While not likely, SCOTUS may have declined the case letting the subpoena stand. I would have enjoyed having SCOTUS clarify the validity of the initial subpoenas and Executive Privilege, if claimed. My gut says the House would have won on the latter.

Like they won with Don McGahn?

 

[Hawkeye_311]

View embedded media

Every impeachment trial before this one in the Senate's 231 year history had actual impeccable crimes presented to them.

 

[Joes Place]

Every impeachment trial before this one in the Senate's 231 year history had actual impeccable crimes presented to them.

Nope. Nor are "crimes" as defined in federal code a requirement.

 

[gohawks50]