(01-28-2020, 06:07 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 09:00 AM)Gabe Wrote: I'm interested, mainly, in hearing the testimony of those who were blocked by the WH from speaking - and I'd also like to hear what the Bidens, Pelosis, Clintons, etc. of the world have to say under oath. Those were who I was referring to in my question to you regarding who the democrats want to subpoena are the ones who have yet to testify but were told not to - even though supposedly what they have to say would otherwise exonerate the president. To me, this all looks, smells and feels like a smoking gun - blocking testimony and withholding documentation does nothing more than fan the flames of the general public's suspicion. The president has every right to invoke Executive Privilege with regard to just about everyone save for Bolton - since he talked about his conversations with him on Twitter. I'm just saying it's not a good look, in the eyes of the general public (not just those with OMB syndrome)

Going from your perspective, why have anyone testify under oath if there's a 10% chance they're not truthful? Are you also saying that you'd be in favor of witness testimony if the Kavanaugh situation never occurred? 

The attempts to restrain documentation, to restrain witnesses from testifying under oath, and then complain that there's no new info as some kind of flaw with the prosecution, are (in my opinion) at the heart of why calls for witness testimony have increased in volume (quantity) and volume (dB) - as well as why several GOP senators are breaking with the partisan narrative (i.e. Collins, Romney, etc.) and tanking poll numbers. My gut feeling is that the results of this trial won't matter nearly as much to GOP senators' futures as what they say/do during the process.

Nobody was "blocked by the WH from speaking." Whether or not Trump advised, or even demanded, that they not give testimony, they could have always ignored him and testified. You and I both know that wasn't going to happen. Sondland's testimony was a bit of a surprise, but I'd be willing to bet that's solely because of the texts that were released and what he had previously held back during SCIF interviews. 

Given the government screwing of Flynn and Libby, anyone who testifies before a hostile questioner without a judge requiring it is a fool. If the testimony was so important then Schiff could have taken the matter to court. I've read that WH legal counsel was fighting against this...but I can't confirm one way or the other. Instead the House voted that the evidence they collected without those witnesses was sufficient to impeach. If it was sufficient, why ask for more witnesses in the Senate? Clearly because they want to create a circus similar to what the did with Kavanaugh. Or because new information comes to light and this is a two-part process.... 

and....Trump stated to the press that he'd happily "allow" the sought-after witness testimony when it turned to the Senate, which he and others deemed to be more "fair" - which I can only interpret that to mean, more in his corner (a la GOP majority) or witnesses that have first-hand insight getting a fair shake in a trial. and...GOP reps like Graham absolutely wanted witness testimony during Clinton's impeachment, but have flipped that script now. It's okay to have witnesses in the Senate and no evidence of crimes when it impacts a Dem president who got some oral satisfaction and withheld information from congress, but not now?  

You still didn't answer my question: You eloquently note that Dems screwed the pooch on the potential of requesting any witness testimony after the Kavanaugh situation. If that didn't happen, are you honestly telling me that you'd be fine with allowing witnesses now? I'm panning through your approach here and it seems like that's the logical deduction, but forgive me if I'm skeptical.

---