Why was John Bolton not allowed to testify at Trump's political trial hearings?

The job of the Chamber is to find evidence and call witnesses (do the investigation / trial part. It is called "discovery"). If they feel there is sufficient evidence to justify the Senate making a decision in this regard, then the House votes to "dismiss", which is the equivalent of a man accused of a crime (not convicted though).

The job of the Senate is to make an official decision on whether the President (Trump) is innocent or guilty, BASED ONLY ON THE TEST AND FACTS OF THE PRESENTED HOUSE. (This is equivalent to a judge ruling that a man is "not guilty" or "guilty").

The Senate does NOT call new witnesses, or interview new people, or examine new facts that were not mentioned above. That is not something they NEVER do. It is not in the description of your work. The government is set up for the Chamber to do that, during the political trial investigation. The job of the Senate is to weigh only the EXISTING evidence and issue an official ruling as to whether guilty or not.

The House Democrats screwed up because they filed the impeachment charges even before they presented their case.

I am not saying that Trump would have been guilty or innocent if the House Democrats had properly presented their case. I guess he would still be innocent, because he was not charged with any official crime to begin with. However, one thing is for sure … the House Democrats really ruined it! They ruined any possibility that Trump was convicted and convicted, and was removed from office. The House Democrats were greedy and impatient, and failed.

So don't get mad at Trump for this. Do not say it is "corruption." Let's be honest, 90% of swamp corruption in Washington favors Democrats right now. This was simply that the Democrats were not complying with the rules, and bit them in the a * ss.

Why does Trump not only publish the full transcript of the call and make people who can prove his innocence testify on his behalf?

As someone who is conservative … but not a full-fledged "Trumpster," I think I will comment completely on this.

As president, I call him as I see him, not blinded by hatred or partisanship.

He made some "good calls" along with some bad ones.

The Ukrainian phone call was definitely bad, but on a scale of one to ten on the scale of importance, I put it around four.

No investigation into Biden was carried out (nor, as far as I know, it is an upcoming one) a "clear" case of bribery or reasonable extortion cannot be made, and … if it were really about biting Biden in the elections of 2020 … And what?

Yes, he technically violated a dark law (curiously one that Bill Clinton also violated, which you and the press successfully covered and ignored). I just see it as a "dirty campaign," something you should understand well, having Hillary on your team.

Then, THE FUNDS … the funds to Ukraine (which I personally don't think we should give them) were released long before there was a public uproar over the case … and someone really had to review and look for the fact that they keep the Funds was also technically illegal.

Bill Clinton was also in a hurry to do something "technically illegal", and when the dust cleared (despite the accusations … MANY accusations of new irregularities) there was still POTUS.

My question for you is this:

Why do you expect a different result in this case?

I think it's possible … REMOTELY possible, that you can get your wish … but the likely outcome is not just Clinton's, I think it's PROBABLY PROBABLE that, despite his shortcomings, Trump will be re-elected.

So … unlike the others, I will not tell you that you did nothing wrong … but I will say that no more than what you did wrong, it is really hypocritical to expect a different outcome than the Senate of the Democratic majority provided when Clinton He was charged.

Bring us something worthwhile, or leave the man alone and let him do his job.

Don't you want it for four more years?

Penalty fee. Direct someone who is not so far away as to hope to be voted on by someone who is NOT a Democrat.

Hell … I'm to the right of the center and I voted for Obama … so * it's * possible when a candidate who understands that most of the United States doesn't want the "Liberal Agenda of Textbooks" is running.

If Trump is innocent, why won't Bill Barr or Mike Pompeo testify for him?

It's tempting to hold that against Trump. Believe me, I'm inclined that way too. But we have to resist temptation. There are legitimate reasons for executive privilege not to have the President's advisors called to testify in a situation like this. It could cool the sincerity of future helpers willing to give advice if they think their words will be hung up for the public to see.

Haha liberals. Hunter Biden and Joe Biden are going to have to testify and their SHAM will be EXPOSED! Sad?

Although I am certainly not crazy about Hunter Biden's involvement with the Ukrainian company, Vice President Biden is a man of absolute integrity who has dedicated his life to public service and his country, which I can assure you, senators like Moscow Mitch, Lindsey. Graham and others who really chose the country before the party in the United States before Trump can, and would have to attest / confirm under oath. In addition, Hunter Biden is known to be smarter than Hell, and that he could / could make mincemeat with Trumpian flatterers trying to sell Trump's alternative events in Ukraine that range from receiving funds from the US government. UU. for its own personal / political benefit to its 2016 alternative conspiracy theory involving Ukraine. I am sure that this last Trumpite will not believe it, but he was sold hook, line and plumb, granted willingly, in a Bait & Switch of global intelligence by GBU and then directly in a G20 meeting for – you guessed – – Putin He not only believed Putin's word about that of the 17 US Intelligence Services. UU. About Russia's interference, but he also believed some story of Kompramant about Ukraine that interferes to defeat him. That is why and how his narcissism is a danger to our country. What some of your former top assistants are confirming by sharing the concerns they had for a long time about their continued denial of the reality presented by our US intelligence services. UU. With the simultaneous insistence of his alternative conspiracy in Ukraine, even telling them "Putin told me".

Eventually, we will return to a single reality and truth, but hopefully, soon.

[ Politics ] Open question: When does Trump testify?

[Politics] Open question: When does Trump testify?

[ Politics ] Open question: So now the Democrats & # 039; the case is so weak that we have to hear lies Schiff testify about things he knows nothing about.

What a waste of taxpayer money. Dems obstructing our government again.

If Marie Yovanovitch does not know of any bribery or crime committed by President Trump, why was she called to testify?


1] You can still be charged for things that are not crimes. I am not sure why conservatives continue to ignore this.

2] they are building a case in which Trump was executing a "shadow policy", possibly for his own personal benefit, out of sight of what are supposed to be co-equal branches of government. His claim is that she refused to accept it, and as a result it was eliminated and stained. She can certainly testify to that.

Do you think Trump will ever testify under oath as Hillary Clinton did?

Never. Trump's allies know that if Trump is ever interviewed for anything; his ego and possible dementia will dig him into a hole so deep that not even Matt Gaetz can get Trump out of it even to the whitest of white supremacy supporters.

Sources]: But, we can still dream, right? LOL …

[ Politics ] Open question: Does William Barr refuse to testify before Congress to avoid falling further into the trap of perjury?

[ Politics ] Open question: Does William Barr refuse to testify before Congress to avoid falling further into the trap of perjury? .