Is Mitch playing Opossum?

[ThatOwlWoman]

The GOP senators are awakening to their between a desperate hard place and a rock.

They sure are. Repeated polling shows that the public by a large majority wants to hear from witnesses. Even among (R) voters!

"A large majority of voters say the Senate should allow witnesses to testify during President Trump's impeachment trial, according to a poll from Quinnipiac University.

"Of those surveyed, 75 percent said they think that witnesses should be allowed to testify in the trial. Along party lines, 49 percent of respondents who identified as Republicans said that they thought there should be witness testimony while 95 percent of Democrats and 75 percent of independents said the same." ( https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...5-percent-poll )

[canceled.2021.2]

What if Bolton says “yeah Trump told me that but he had good reason to think that the Biden’s should be investigated as their actions looked corrupt”

[ThatOwlWoman]

Well, the ‘voting for no witnesses is a coverup’ can be played by either side lol.

How do Democrats plan to argue *against* having Hunter and etc, without looking they have something to hide? Especially, when it’s clear they are either hiding something or are afraid Hunter will say something to blow the lid off their sham impeachment.

And even a squishy weasel like Romney can only go so far in playing along with the Democrats, so how does he plan to justify a vote against Hunter?

The polls support hearing from witnesses. Does that mean the polls just support hearing from Bolton? I doubt it severely.

You seem to assume that (D)s don't want Biden's son subpoenaed. Personally I don't care. It will just make the (R)s look just like what they are -- desperate conspiracy-theory-believing jackboots willing to do *anything* to keep their Mango Messiah in power.

[PostmodernProphet]

The GOP senators are awakening to their between a desperate hard place and a rock.

I will admit that demmycrats are as dumb as a rock......

[PostmodernProphet]

No, still brilliant to make it this close.

dragging things out does not equal making it close.......

[Earl]

Bolton is in the “selling book” mode.

Put him under oath, if he is even called.

Surely there were others in the meeting.

The Trump lawyers have presented a compelling case that there is no compelling case for impeachment, no matter what Bolton says.

The outcome is not in doubt.

Anyone on the planet thinks there are 20 Republicans who will vote for impeachment?

Failure ...again for the Democrats.

[Frank Apisa]

If you mean is Moscow lying, I would think so. He will not permit a vote on witnesses if he will lose.

My feelings, too. If he truly does not have the votes, he will not allow the vote.

My guess is it may be iffy, right now...but my further guess is that he will get the caucus back in line. They CANNOT allow witnesses.

(The Democrats should be wary of witnesses also. Ya never know how that will turn out. But if I had a vote, I'd be voting FOR witnesses, no matter what.)

[Darth Omar]

You seem to assume that (D)s don't want Biden's son subpoenaed. Personally I don't care. It will just make the (R)s look just like what they are -- desperate conspiracy-theory-believing jackboots willing to do *anything* to keep their Mango Messiah in power.

Well, you’re personal opinion is irrelevant lol.

This is up to Senate Democrats and House managers.

[Getin the ring]

I want Hunter and Joe and Schiiff along with the whistleblower on the stand, I don't care what Bolton has to say, we have already heard what Bolton is going to say, like 50 times, let him repeat it again

[Earl]

Current events suggest that the Democrats want old Uncle Joe Biden as their candidate.

If Hunter is called, under oath, there is major damage potential to Joe.

What to do, what to do.

It appears the the truth is a lonely rider.

[ThatOwlWoman]

Well, you’re personal opinion is irrelevant lol.

This is up to Senate Democrats and House managers.

Of course it's not up to me. I'm just letting you know how most of us on the left feel about calling non-material witnesses. Do it! It couldn't be any worse than the defense team's conspiracy theory malarkey we've already seen. Call him. It'll just make your guys look like the desperate straw-grabbers that they are.

There's no good way out of this for the (R)s where they get to keep the Toddler-in-chief. If they vote to acquit w/o witnesses they look like they are disregarding the rule of law and our Constitution. If they call witnesses (esp. Bolton) and then vote to acquit anyways, ditto. If they do the right thing and vote to remove TRE45ON then they have the wrath of you Trumpanzees to deal with. About the best they can do at this point is to put up a motion to censure but not remove.

[Getin the ring]

I just like that Trump is about to win this, another, battle and the nut**bags are still in the process of accepting it.
acceptance is the first stage of healing

[Earl]

The Mujer de Buho appears to have forgotten this:

Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz on Monday said that former national security adviser John Bolton’s reported account of President Trump tying Ukraine military aid to investigations into Democrats would not constitute an impeachable offense.

“If any president had done what The [New York] Times reported about the content of the Bolton manuscript, that would not constitute an impeachable offense,” Dershowitz said during lengthy remarks from the Senate floor Monday night.

“Let me repeat: Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense. That is clear from the history. That is clear from the language of the Constitution,” he continued.


"You cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using words like 'quid pro quo' and 'personal benefit,'" Dershowitz added.

The remarks represented the Trump legal team’s first explicit response to the explosive report that Trump told Bolton last August he wanted to continue to withhold military assistance to Ukraine until the country helped with investigations, including into former Vice President Joe Biden. Trump has denied telling Bolton that the military aid was tied to investigations into Democrats.”
thehill.con


The rock and a hard place is sitting on the Democrats now.

[Earl]

The superb Trump defense team has made a compelling case that neither of the two Articles rise to the level of an impeachable offense, even if proven, which has not happened yet.

[Darth Omar]

Of course it's not up to me. I'm just letting you know how most of us on the left feel about calling non-material witnesses. Do it! It couldn't be any worse than the defense team's conspiracy theory malarkey we've already seen. Call him. It'll just make your guys look like the desperate straw-grabbers that they are.

There's no good way out of this for the (R)s where they get to keep the Toddler-in-chief. If they vote to acquit w/o witnesses they look like they are disregarding the rule of law and our Constitution. If they call witnesses (esp. Bolton) and then vote to acquit anyways, ditto. If they do the right thing and vote to remove TRE45ON then they have the wrath of you Trumpanzees to deal with. About the best they can do at this point is to put up a motion to censure but not remove.

Well, don’t be surprised/angry if Democrats [not you and your rabid buddies] try to finagle a way out of hearing witnesses lol.

Putting Hunter and co, under oath is a risky proposition. Made more so, by the fact nobody but John Bolton knows *exactly* what John Bolton is going to say or if it will be live up to the NYT hype. How many times has the NYT whiffed now? Too many times to count.

The witness swap isn’t exactly a no brainer for Democrats.