Giuliani, not Bolton, needs to be called

[Hoosier8]

The only witness who needs to be called is Rudy.

He is the key.

As far as I know no one denies that Rudy drove the campaign to extort an announcement of an investigation. Sondland and Parnas took their marching orders from him. They are the ones who expressed to Ukraine specific QPQs. They have admitted that they did so with the intent to solicit the mere 'appearance' of an investigation. This means their intent was to smear, not investigate the President's political rival.

If their goal was to root out corruption, then that might be more acceptable. But that is not what they expressed. Their actions were undeniably subversive of the legitimacy of our elections. They did so by enlisted the resources of our country.

Their actions are traced back to Rudy. Rudy's orchestration of all that is unacceptable and probably illegal behavior. And were it traced back to any elected official, it would be impeachable.

The only question is: who was Rudy working for?

Bolton isn't enough.
We need Rudy on the stand.

Rudy wants to testify. He has the documents and testimony on the dems corruption in Ukraine. The dems want to subpoena Bolton because they did not do their job in the House.

[MisterVeritis]

Rudy wants to testify. He has the documents and testimony on the dems corruption in Ukraine. The dems want to subpoena Bolton because they did not do their job in the House.

No one should testify.

[Hoosier8]

No one should testify.

This was such a 'slam dunk' that the dem clown show now wants the Senate to do the House's job.

[stjames1_53]

The Senate is supposed to try the case the House sent them.

and if they have more evidence or more charges, they need to pull back those articles and re-file them, not try to run a fast one through a system they have no control over.

[MisterVeritis]

and if they have more evidence or more charges, they need to pull back those articles and re-file them, not try to run a fast one through a system they have no control over.

No. The Senate must try the case as presented.

[Peter1469]

I am surprised that someone in your profession doesn't know what a trial is.

This is not a trial in the sense of a judicial proceeding under criminal or civil law.

[countryboy]

The only witness who needs to be called is Rudy.

He is the key.

As far as I know no one denies that Rudy drove the campaign to extort an announcement of an investigation. Sondland and Parnas took their marching orders from him. They are the ones who expressed to Ukraine specific QPQs. They have admitted that they did so with the intent to solicit the mere 'appearance' of an investigation. This means their intent was to smear, not investigate the President's political rival.

If their goal was to root out corruption, then that might be more acceptable. But that is not what they expressed. Their actions were undeniably subversive of the legitimacy of our elections. They did so by enlisted the resources of our country.

Their actions are traced back to Rudy. Rudy's orchestration of all that is unacceptable and probably illegal behavior. And were it traced back to any elected official, it would be impeachable.

The only question is: who was Rudy working for?

Bolton isn't enough.
We need Rudy on the stand.

That's not what the Senate trial is for. The house has already voted on, and passed their articles of impeachment with the information they supposedly needed. They don't get to add more information afterwards. if they didn't have enough evidence, they should have never voted on the articles of impeachment. Furthermore, the Senate controls what happens in the Senate trial. Hence the term, Senate trial.

[TheLiquidGuy]

This is not a trial in the sense of a judicial proceeding under criminal or civil law.

This thing is sold as a 'trial' to the public
it is called a trial
It will be decided by "jurors"
Headlines after this 'thing' is over will read "TRUMP ACQUITTED" "NOT GUILTY" "TRUMP INNOCENT" etc...


Just because you and I know it is a farce doesn't mean there aren't millions of people out there that do not.

If it's not really a "trial" it should not pretend to be one because that will mislead voters.
But it is being sold to low information voters as a trial, and it will be when its over. They will make their voting decision in part on that.
If they don't change the name to something else they ought to be forced to adhere to the conventions of trials. Not to do so is deception.


This must be a trial in every sense, until they stop calling it that.

[TheLiquidGuy]

That's not what the Senate trial is for. The house has already voted on, and passed their articles of impeachment with the information they supposedly needed. They don't get to add more information afterwards. if they didn't have enough evidence, they should have never voted on the articles of impeachment. Furthermore, the Senate controls what happens in the Senate trial. Hence the term, Senate trial.

I am not gonna argue if witnesses should be allowed in a trial. As long as they call it a trial, they should have witnesses. 69% of americans agree with me on that . Just 26% disagree (poll). The argument I am making is simply that GIULIANI must be called.

Bolton is probably useless as a witness.

Giuliani can give us the goods. Unless he gets called, there will always be questions of thoroughness .

[TheLiquidGuy]

No. The Senate must try the case as presented.

because you are afraid of the whole truth.