(01-29-2020, 01:52 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(01-29-2020, 11:54 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: Whether or not Trump would "allow" the witness testimony in the Senate is immaterial. That's up to the Senate to decide. During the Clinton hearings we didn't have a Senate with a history of the Kavanaugh debacle. That changed everything. Also, the Clinton impeachment was not about Monica giving Bill a Mugabe, so that part of your comment is at best a red herring.

If the Kavanaugh hearings were above board then there would be no reason to oppose witness testimony, as my previous response implies. But the Kavanaugh debacle did happen. The political Left has moved on from any semblance of decorum, willing to create lie after lie in order to save screw the country, and because of that it would be foolish for the Pub majority to allow witnesses in the Senate trial. Of course enough of them are clueless or gutless so they probably will.

The Kavanaugh hearings were a debacle, and it was 100% the Democrats' fault.
They brought in a witness with vague memories of having a bad time with Kavanaugh when they were teenagers.  These allegations were not relevant to the question of if Kavanaugh the adult was the right person to be a judge.
They were allowed to call whatever witness they wanted, and they called an irrelevant witness. 
I don't think the Democrats should be allowed to call any irrelevant witness here, or ever again. 
But is John Bolton an irrelevant witness?
What about Mulvaney?