(01-21-2020, 01:34 PM)Gabe Wrote:

(01-21-2020, 10:07 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: True, but if you don't win reelection as a Senator, there is no place for you at that trough.

Do you think that's at the crux of McConnell's proposed resolution? 

I'm curious as to why there seems to be any opposition to witness testimony in the Senate trial.

In simple terms this is the way that I look at it.

The Senate is not investigating anything.  They are more-or-less the "jury" in the whole process based on the articles presented to them by The House.

The whole basis to begin the process in The House was supposedly "bribery" proven by a "whistle-blower" regarding a phone call.  Neither the Republican side nor the White House Administration was given a fair opportunity to call witnesses up to and including the "whistle-blower".  Much of the testimony in The House process was pretty much hearsay and second hand information.  "Abuse of Power" and "Obstruction of Congress" are not High Crimes or Misdemeanors.  The Articles are basically all the democrats had.

It's pretty clear that this is nothing more than a partisan ploy to try to take down Trump and at the same time let the DNC give their chosen one (Biden) the ability to campaign so close to the Iowa Caucus so that many of his challengers would be held up in The Senate proceedings (hence the delay by Pelosi in handing the articles to The Senate).

The Senate's job at this point is to make a determination based on the articles presented to them with the evidence (or lack thereof) that The House had for voting on and passing the articles.

The bottom line is, it's all "politics" in Washington the swamp.

As I said, this is pretty much the way that I view it in very simple terms.  I do think that there are many that see it the same way.

---