Why Is The GOP Senate So Afraid To Call Witnesses??

[Superbadbrutha]

Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses

Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....

"If the president said, I'll give you the money, but you've got to investigate Joe Biden, that'd be off the rails wrong" --- and thru the UNDER OATH TESTIMONIES of Trump's own officials, they proved that is exactly what happened....and what did Steve Doocy do?? Pretend that he never said what he said, why?? Because he and most other Trumpers are full of shit.....

View attachment 295699

And in the spirit of being full of shit, Mitch McConnell doesn't want to call any witnesses..even tho Trump wants to have a long drawn out trial with lots of witnesses, even tho Democrats wants to call witnesses who Trump claims will exonerate him -- it is the GOP who is refusing to call any witnesses, why??

"Chuck Schumer on Thursday tore into Mitch McConnell for “breaking precedent” in announcing he will be in lock step with Donald Trump’s legal team throughout an impeachment trial, accusing him of helping the president skirt accountability. “We ask: Is the president’s case so weak that none of the president’s men can defend him under oath?” Schumer said on the Senate floor, after McConnell dismissed the historic vote to impeach Trump as a “partisan crusade.” “If the House case is so weak, why is Leader McConnell so afraid of witnesses and documents?”

For months, all I have seen from you trumpers was "just wait until it gets to the Senate, then Trump can present his case" …"just wait until Trump presents his secret evidence that will totally own the Dems" --

Witnesses were called in the last impeachment trial, why not this one?? Why aren't you demanding that the GOP Senate Leader give Trump what he claims he wants?? Or is this tough talk about witnesses and evidence just shit he tells yall -- even tho both you and he knows all of yall are full of shit...

Because it will show the Republican Senate for the Trump Humpin, spineless, cowards they are. Because is Pompeo, Mulvaney and Bolton willing to lie under oath.

 

[Coyote]

Go figure. It's hugely confusing.

The Republicans whined that there was no "first hand" testimony.

So their solution? Refuse to allow first hand testimony to be given.

Why not?

Either they are afraid of what it might reveal or....

they are afraid of what it might reveal.

They didn't realize how badly the house would fail at proving their case. They don't need witnesses. The senate isn't just rehashing the house escapade. You people don't understand how this works. If they don't want to call witnesses they don't have to. Especially when they can easily see that they will just vote to dismiss this silly bunch of crap as soon as it hits the senate floor AND NANCY PELOSER KNOWS THIS.

The left was totally fine with a biased and unfair house impeachment hearing. But they are now crying like little babies now that they found out what's good for the goose will be good for the gander in the senate.

They complained there were no first hand accounts.

There are witnesses WITH first hand accounts.

Why won't they call them?



Are they afraid?

 

[blackhawk]

The Senate Republicans are not doing anything the Hosue Democrats didn't do the only thing that is different is how the partisans react to it.

 

[Coyote]

The Senate Republicans are not doing anything the Hosue Democrats didn't do the only thing that is different is how the partisans react to it.

The Republicans complained - their chief complaint - NO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.

The WH blocked testimony of those with first hand knowledge.

Now the Republicans have a chance to call them in.

But they won't.

Why?

 

[saveliberty]

They complained there were no first hand accounts.

There are witnesses WITH first hand accounts.

Why won't they call them?



Are they afraid?

They won't call them because the House has the responsibility to uncover the facts, not the Senate. It is not fear, but standing up for the Constitution's separation of powers. The Executive branch is not subject to this type of hearing as upheld by the Supreme Court during the Obama Administration. Do your homework Coyote.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Go figure. It's hugely confusing.

The Republicans whined that there was no "first hand" testimony.

So their solution? Refuse to allow first hand testimony to be given.

Why not?

Either they are afraid of what it might reveal or....

they are afraid of what it might reveal.

They didn't realize how badly the house would fail at proving their case. They don't need witnesses. The senate isn't just rehashing the house escapade. You people don't understand how this works. If they don't want to call witnesses they don't have to. Especially when they can easily see that they will just vote to dismiss this silly bunch of crap as soon as it hits the senate floor AND NANCY PELOSER KNOWS THIS.

The left was totally fine with a biased and unfair house impeachment hearing. But they are now crying like little babies now that they found out what's good for the goose will be good for the gander in the senate.

They complained there were no first hand accounts.

There are witnesses WITH first hand accounts.

Why won't they call them?



Are they afraid?

That was the houses job, not theirs. The interviewing and witnesses are over. Now its time for guilt or innocence.

 

[saveliberty]

The Senate Republicans are not doing anything the Hosue Democrats didn't do the only thing that is different is how the partisans react to it.

The Republicans complained - their chief complaint - NO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.

The WH blocked testimony of those with first hand knowledge.

Now the Republicans have a chance to call them in.

But they won't.

Why?

It is not necessary. As in all real trials there is a presumption of innocence. The House did not bring forth any evidence of guilt.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

They complained there were no first hand accounts.

There are witnesses WITH first hand accounts.

Why won't they call them?



Are they afraid?

They won't call them because the House has the responsibility to uncover the facts, not the Senate. It is not fear, but standing up for the Constitution's separation of powers. The Executive branch is not subject to this type of hearing as upheld by the Supreme Court during the Obama Administration. Do your homework Coyote.

Trump stopped them from coming in, why?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The articles of impeachment that passed are so weak and didn't rise to the level the libs had hoped.....again.

When you are done self soothing, go ahead and look at the impeachment poll numbers for nixon and Clinton. Compare them to Trump's. Big difference.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

trump does not need to call witnesses

But he would, if they would exonerate him.

Which they won't, so he wont.

This isn't rocket surgery, professor.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

The articles of impeachment that passed are so weak and didn't rise to the level the libs had hoped.....again.

When you are done self soothing, go ahead and look at the impeachment poll numbers for nixon and Clinton. Compare them to Trump's. Big difference.

Already compared them. Republicans in the Nixon case didn't put Nixon above the Constitution.

 

[blackhawk]

The Senate Republicans are not doing anything the Hosue Democrats didn't do the only thing that is different is how the partisans react to it.

The Republicans complained - their chief complaint - NO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.

The WH blocked testimony of those with first hand knowledge.

Now the Republicans have a chance to call them in.

But they won't.

Why?

There is a legal way to get that the House Democrats could have gone to the courts make their case and the judge rules if the WH has grounds to block these people from testifying. The Democrats instead chose to push ahead with impeachment and not go that route the reason why is simple this is and always has been about politics nothing more.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

The Senate Republicans are not doing anything the Hosue Democrats didn't do the only thing that is different is how the partisans react to it.

The Republicans complained - their chief complaint - NO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.

The WH blocked testimony of those with first hand knowledge.

Now the Republicans have a chance to call them in.

But they won't.

Why?

There is a legal way to get that the House Democrats could have gone to the courts make their case and the judge rules if the WH has grounds to block these people from testifying. The Democrats instead chose to push ahead with impeachment and not go that route the reason why is simple this is and always has been about politics nothing more.

Save that bullshit, had they gone to court it would have been drug out and you know that the flunkies Trump has put on the court would have covered his ass.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is a legal way to get that the House Democrats could have gone to the courts make their case and the judge rules if the WH has grounds to block these people from testifying.

Which, they opted not to do for reasons of time, and because such a lawsuit was already filed and would be decided. Guess what? The judge ruled that they have to comply.

 

[saveliberty]

They complained there were no first hand accounts.

There are witnesses WITH first hand accounts.

Why won't they call them?



Are they afraid?

They won't call them because the House has the responsibility to uncover the facts, not the Senate. It is not fear, but standing up for the Constitution's separation of powers. The Executive branch is not subject to this type of hearing as upheld by the Supreme Court during the Obama Administration. Do your homework Coyote.

Trump stopped them from coming in, why?

Separation of powers. Presidents typically protect the office from Congressional over reach.

 

[saveliberty]

There is a legal way to get that the House Democrats could have gone to the courts make their case and the judge rules if the WH has grounds to block these people from testifying.

Which, they opted not to do for reasons of time, and because such a lawsuit was already filed and would be decided. Guess what? The judge ruled that they have to comply.

A federal judge, except the Supreme Court says different in an Obama era ruling.

 

[Meister]

The articles of impeachment that passed are so weak and didn't rise to the level the libs had hoped.....again.

When you are done self soothing, go ahead and look at the impeachment poll numbers for nixon and Clinton. Compare them to Trump's. Big difference.

Poll numbers? That is your reference point for justice? What a buffoon.
Clinton did break the law, and Nixon did break the law. The dems had to make up shit for Trump to break the law.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is a legal way to get that the House Democrats could have gone to the courts make their case and the judge rules if the WH has grounds to block these people from testifying.

Which, they opted not to do for reasons of time, and because such a lawsuit was already filed and would be decided. Guess what? The judge ruled that they have to comply.

A federal judge, except the Supreme Court says different in an Obama era ruling.

The supreme court ruled on executive privilege and congressional demands for information? When? I don't think they have.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Poll numbers? That is your reference point for justice?

No genius, it was my reference point for public opinion, which you brought up.

 

[MarathonMike]

The Constitution clearly states "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments".

There's that pesky Constitution again getting in the Democrats way with the Electoral College and Impeachment rules and stuff.