Should Sen McConnell Call Witnesses? If So, Who And Why?

Seems like the trial is a done deal. If so, who should Trump/The Republicans call and why? It's my understanding that they'll only the power to call witnesses.

No personal attacks, please.

no.. it would just continue the back-and-forth Bullshit. we already know each side views the same "evidence" completely different. McConnell would be just one more Monkey with a gavel. just wrap it up quick, get the party-line vote done, and move the Fuck on.

McConnell was very politically tight lipped about the subject oninterview last nite.

Repeatedly deferred to "the President's lawyers" on how to handle the scope of the Senate trial, witnesses, and evidence.

Sounds like he does not ant to have an expanded trial looking at the bidens and H... crimes.

just get it over with and back to business.

Once Trump is acquitted in the senate - I think the DPST's will go right back to searching for "new evidence" for a second impeachment - it is their only narrative - and they cannot give it up.

Be prepared for new Impeachment investigations continued to Nov 2020, and with a Trump victory - continued in to all of 2020-2024.

Yes. He's working very closely with the Whitehouse counsel. He should call McGahn to prove Abuse of Power. No need of witnesses to prove Obstruction of Congress.

Seems like the trial is a done deal. If so, who should Trump/The Republicans call and why? It's my understanding that they'll only the power to call witnesses.

No personal attacks, please. Originally Posted by gnadfly

There will be no conviction of Trump so does it really matter?

Trump wants a full blown trial. McConnell in all likelihood does not.

"A quick end to the trial is something the majority leader has signaled to his members he supports as the best path forward. He's also expressed that to Trump himself in phone calls, according to people familiar with the discussions.

"My hope is that it will be a shorter process rather than a lengthy process," McConnell said in an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity on Thursday night. McConnell made clear, however, that those decisions would be made "in total coordination with the White House counsel."

"There will be no difference between the President's position and our position in how to handle this," McConnell told Hannity.
But rank-and-file Republicans have largely shifted away from Trump's proposal of witnesses -- ranging from Hunter Biden and the whistleblower to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff -- toward the idea of a swift end to the trial after the initial presentations, concerned about the fallout of witnesses, the recourse Democrats may deploy with their own witnesses and the amount of time the whole proceeding would take."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/12/polit...use/index.html

9500- No need of witnesses to prove Obstruction of Congress.



No need of witnesses, evidence, non-partisan rules of procedure /Law.

Trump's crime was wining the Nov 2016 election.

The house has engaged in partisan persecution of the POTUS - and set a terrible precedent for the Rule of Constitution and Law.

The house DPST evidence/proof of "crimes" - rump breathes in the Oval Office.

This persecution may well come back to bite the DPST's come 2020 elections.



Thanks for making the DPST stand on rules of law and evidence clear - 9500!
9500 may now post pics of dead fashionistas and comics, as relevant to the issues.

Yes. He's working very closely with the Whitehouse counsel. He should call McGahn to prove Abuse of Power. No need of witnesses to prove Obstruction of Congress. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

First, why would McGahn show up unless the SC says he must and what could he possible say other than "yeah, Trump held of funds until Zelensky promised to investigate the Bidens" which the Republicans and apprently a mority of Independents don't give a shit if that is 100% accurate.


I believe that is exactly what Trump wanted whether or not he said "exactly" that in the phone call or in conversations with Sondland and company. I don't care. I do not think it rises to the level of an impeachable offense of abuse of power because I believe the President and the President alone can do exactly what he is accused of doing without violating the law or his oath of office.


Mark Levin went on one of his rants on Hannity the other night and rightly suggested that literally every President, including Lincoln, Wilson and FDR ( and many more ) abused their power whether it was for "personal gain" or not which is subjective at best.



So no quid pro quo because Biden did exactly that and it would make Democrats look like the hypocrites they are. No bribery because, well, there was no bribery and again JOE BIDEN!


So now we will have the first impeachment in history that will not include a statutory criminal act that existed with Nixon and Clinton.


Democrats stepped in a big pile of shit and they know it but can't back down now. I the words of Don Jr. "I love it".


I personally would love to see both Bidens called and the WB and Schiff but I can see the value in letting the Democrats call anybody they want to spout the same bullshit they have been spouting and then McConnell say, "let's vote" and get it done with nothing more from Republicans like a defense lawyer resting their case without calling anybody because the plaintiff did not make their case and everybody knows it.

McConnell said yesterday that he will follow the WH Counsels requests concerning a trail and witnesses.

The Democrats are going to shit their pants when testimony in the Senate Trial proves that Adam Schiff not only knows the Whistle Blower but in fact might be the Whistle Blower.

First, why would McGahn show up unless the SC says he must and what could he possible say other than "yeah, Trump held of funds until Zelensky promised to investigate the Bidens" which the Republicans and apprently a mority of Independents don't give a shit if that is 100% accurate.


I believe that is exactly what Trump wanted whether or not he said "exactly" that in the phone call or in conversations with Sondland and company. I don't care. I do not think it rises to the level of an impeachable offense of abuse of power because I believe the President and the President alone can do exactly what he is accused of doing without violating the law or his oath of office.


Mark Levin went on one of his rants on Hannity the other night and rightly suggested that literally every President, including Lincoln, Wilson and FDR ( and many more ) abused their power whether it was for "personal gain" or not which is subjective at best.



So no quid pro quo because Biden did exactly that and it would make Democrats look like the hypocrites they are. No bribery because, well, there was no bribery and again JOE BIDEN!

It was an international effort to root out corruption in Ukraine for the greater good of many nations. It wasn't a personal favor. But who cares about the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth.

You're losing my support. And I love your handle name.




So now we will have the first impeachment in history that will not include a statutory criminal act that existed with Nixon and Clinton.


Democrats stepped in a big pile of shit and they know it but can't back down now. I the words of Don Jr. "I love it".


I personally would love to see both Bidens called and the WB and Schiff but I can see the value in letting the Democrats call anybody they want to spout the same bullshit they have been spouting and then McConnell say, "let's vote" and get it done with nothing more from Republicans like a defense lawyer resting their case without calling anybody because the plaintiff did not make their case and everybody knows it. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

McGahn would testify to Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress. Hannity! REALLY! You're better served not making it known you watch that shit. At least Ranky only goes off like them on that channel. He has the sense to keep the fact that he parrots them to himself.

I would love to see the POTUS try to put words together against Kamala Harris. The Attorney General struggled with the word "suggest". Imagine that dumbass looking over at his attorney after every simple question.

It's all moot. The Senate will move quick to dismiss. Nobody knows anything until the rules are agreed to. Even then, it will be speculation as to how it will play out.

McGahn would testify to Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress. Hannity! REALLY! You're better served not making it known you watch that shit. At least Ranky only goes off like them on that channel. He has the sense to keep the fact that he parrots them to himself.

I would love to see the POTUS try to put words together against Kamala Harris. The Attorney General struggled with the word "suggest". Imagine that dumbass looking over at his attorney after every simple question.

It's all moot. The Senate will move quick to dismiss. Nobody knows anything until the rules are agreed to. Even then, it will be speculation as to how it will play out.
Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

First mistake is laboring under the impression I give a shit what anybody thinks about what I watch. We all ready know what Trump said and we know that Democrats think it was an abuse of power and that Trump obstructed Congress. You haven't been paying attention I and millions of people DON'T CARE! I, they do not believe it was an abuse of power and since Obama and Holder obstructed Congress and Democrats didn't give a shit, why should I give a shit that Trump exercised his Executive Privilege yet to be ruled on by the SC? Every President has "abused the power of the office", that was the point. From Lincoln to FDR to JFK, all abused the power of the Presidency. It's a bullshit charge and the majority of Americans know it.

eccieuser9500

You're losing my support.

Tell me it ain't so. What oh what shall I ever do. That was Scarlett, Rhett said "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn".


And I love your handle name.


Thank you. Not just a handle, it's how I have lived my life.

Mark Levin went on one of his rants on Hannity the other night and rightly suggested that literally every President, including Lincoln, Wilson and FDR ( and many more ) abused their power whether it was for "personal gain" or not which is subjective at best.

So no quid pro quo because Biden did exactly that and it would make Democrats look like the hypocrites they are. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Biden never was President.. did you forget?

also, Trump disagrees with your conclusion on no quid pro quo.. he said today there was none, because he told the Ukraine President that himself, in those words.

never mind that Trump said it AFTER hearing the police sirens in the distance.. he knew he was under investigation.. he thinks we don't understand that, LOL.. why the fuck else would he even use that language?

Thank you. Not just a handle, it's how I have lived my life. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

LIVED!? So it wasn't forever? My my, I might not let you live that down. Care to correct the record? I hope it doesn't take you as many times as Sondland did.

LIVED!? So it wasn't forever? My my, I might not let you live that down. Care to correct the record? I hope it doesn't take you as many times as Sondland did.
Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

"Have lived and will continue to live to my last breathe" which at 72 ain't that far off.

Most communist terrorists should be called. HilLIARy, pedoBill, pedoBiden, Hunter pedoBiden, Lyin' Schiff, Chinese agents Schumer, ChiNancy, traitor Comey, Lisa Page the spy hoe, etc. to start with.