Nadler's salient point.

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘"We have a corrupt Republican majority in the Senate, which will not consider impeachment no matter what the evidence and no matter what the facts," Nadler said.’

Correct.

A blind partisan Republican majority in the Senate, which will not consider removing from office a corrupt Republican president no matter what the evidence and no matter what the facts.

 

[Maxdeath]

Repubs simply did not want to hear what Bolton had to say because they did not want to take the risk his testimony would make the vote they wanted to make untenable.

Damn I guess you have missed the fact that Bolton was considered anathema by the democrats? They hated him. Anyone could have heard his testimony the problem was the democrats did not do it properly. So had they really wanted to hear it all they had to do was go through the proper procedures.
But now everyone wants to hang their hat on Boltons book. He has already been called out by a number of people in the fact his book does not agree with what actually happened. One was the South Korean president.
But I can see your wanting to believe that things must be the warped way democrats paint them.

 

[Arresmillao]

"We have a corrupt Republican majority in the Senate, which will not consider impeachment no matter what the evidence and no matter what the facts," Nadler said.

Rep. Nadler: Senate Republicans are corrupt

“We have a corrupt Republican majority in the Senate, which will not consider impeachment no matter what the evidence and no matter what the facts.”

www.politico.com

Faced with the most consequential decision a senator placed in the role of being a juror in an impeachment trial can make, whether to impeach a prez, Repub senators decided not to hear pertinent evidence. Evidence being offered by John Bolton. Someone who could provide first hand knowledge of events surrounding Trump's extortion of Ukraine.

Let's put aside your opinion about the strength of the House manager's case. Or whether you think the actions of the prez warranted removal. Just focus on the collective judgement by Repub senators to deny themselves the opportunity to hear all the facts of the case. It would be tantamount to a jury refusing to consider testimony from the prosecution's star witness.

How was that act not corrupt in its intent?

We are just 4 months away from getting rid of tramp and his crime family, the justice will take care of them....

 

[whitehall]

Democrats are starting to sound like old Joe McCarthy. Everyone is corrupt because Biden doesn't have a chance at winning the election. Will they call it Nadlerism?

 

[Sunsettommy]

John Bolton is a Warmongering NeoCon, all of a sudden you think he is going to tell you the truth when you said he was nothing but a liar when he dragged US into 2 wars under Bush? Fuck, you guys are idiots...

Bolton's warmongering has no bearing on his credibility as a witness in the impeachment trial. I don't recall any Repub senator saying, "I refuse to call Bolton as a witness because he advocated for the invasion of Iraq."
The fact is, Bolton's observations of Trump in his book are absolutely consistent with what we know about the Divider-in-Chief. So...........your attempt to impugn Bolton as a witness is a failure in its execution and transparent in its motivation. Anything else?

You are indeed an idiot, Bolton originally stated that there were no quid pro quid in the first place back in late August when he was still NSA, but after he was fired, he quickly change tune, but resisted being involved through his lawyer.