(01-28-2020, 09:00 AM)Gabe Wrote:

(01-27-2020, 08:07 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: Not all of them, but you didn't ask that.

Some have grudges against Trump, so it's possible that they'd lie to spite him. I'd expect at least one of those you listed to lie, after all they're politicians and deep staters.

But even if the odds are only 10%, the risk of a lie is real. The Dems have lost the chance to call belated witnesses by their belated lies in the Kavanaugh hearing.

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.

I'm sorry.  Ignorance I'd the reason people are inclined to hear more testimony.  About what exactly?  We know the aid was paused.  U wanna call it an abuse of the ICA fine.  Take the vote.  

We know the president asked zellensky about Joe Biden firing a prosecutor.  We have Biden bragging about it on tape.  We have records of meetings vp Biden had with Devon archer, the calls he made to former president of the Ukraine etc.  We also have the court documents Shokin filed on 2-2-16 securing the assets of Hunter Bidens employer.  

The president contends that meets the probable cause standard.  If you dont that's fine.  Take the vote.  

If this were a criminal as l proceeding, the minute the state department IG volunteered Giuliani's dossier this would have been thrown out.  It is incumbent on the dems to prove that the president acted with corrupt intent.  Documentary evidence that demonstrates a reasonable person would investigate is EXCULPATORY.  

Please, for every witness you want to compel to testify, please illustrate how their testimony can change any of the documentary evidence I just cited.

---