(01-29-2020, 11:54 AM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(01-29-2020, 09:51 AM)Gabe Wrote: 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.

For your embedded comments:

1. The point is you claimed that the White House prevented them from testifying. They chose not to testify (rightly IMO based on Flynn and Libby). Don't blame the White House. If the White House offered legal support if it went to court that makes sense because the whole impeachment was a sham and a waste of time. Even if Trump did everything he's accused of (and the phone transcripts and Zelensky statements say otherwise) it's not grounds for impeachment, except in the Mikesez world where spitting on the sidewalk is ground for impeachment.

2. "New information"? Wow, just like what happened to Kavanaugh. My point stands.

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.

1. You're absolutely correct. My assertion should have stated that they were "directed" not to testify. Kavanaugh aside, Trump stated he'd be happy to have those previously-directed witnesses testify in the senate. If OM says it, then why not? It's a pub majority with a conservative judge overseeing things. Of course, this was pre-stroke (my logical guess), so his thought processes may have become impaired changed. 

2. My point about new information - It's my position that a smoking gun should be fully vetted before it's assumed to be a false positive. That point doesn't really fit with either democratic or republican perspectives, depending on who's gun it is. Take, for example, this situation: Dems have been accused of rushing an impeachment through the house. Now Pubs are accused of rushing the process in the Senate. I'd wager Trump wanted it to be over & done with before his SOTU address, but that aint happening. 

3. I wouldn't call it a red herring as much as a slight overstatement of why he was impeached. Lying under oath about what happened with ML and others and corrupt handling of federal witnesses. 

4. I'd go so far as to say the political environment has moved on from any sense of decorum, no matter what color lenses you've got on. That's a bipartisan effort.

---