Martha McSally Refuses to Answer Fox News Question After Attacking CNN Reporter For Same Question

Technically witnesses were never called for the Clinton impeachment. People were asked video tape tape interviewed and the tape was submitted as testimony evidence. No follow up questions. The Senate at the time was a little skittish about having Monica talk about giving blowjobs while Bill the serial assaulter was talking to world leaders and what Bill was useing to moisten his cigars (vagina). This did not happen in real time so no follow up questions were not practical. And interestingly Democrat senators tabled whether are not witnesses would be called until after the evidence was reviewed,

 

....oh well since you say so.

 

They did go to the courts. The Don McGahn lawsuit is the most advanced and thus the most persuasive legal ruling on this theory that Trump can declare all of these witnesses absolutely immune from Congressional Subpoenas.

 

My understanding is that three witnesses delivered video depositions. And since none of those delivered such to the House, they were technically new evidence presented during the Senate Trial.

 

As the left keeps saying impeachment/removal is a POLITICAL process, not criminal. There are no "prosecutors" there are Democrats chosen as managers. Every president in history has withheld from congress for multiple reasons. In this case trump did so because the dems were railroading him in a biased impeachment stunt that they have admitted was their goal since he was elected.

Why should trump just play along? There is zero reason for him. If the Democrats want the witnesses to testify they can do what every congress has done in the past, take it to court.

 

Trade you Schiff for Nunes and the whistleblower for Rudy.
Let's make a deal.

 

Yep since it's all essentially done anyways.

This thing you have about "reasonable impression" is something you simply made up.

The fact is that there is not one document or witness that can say for certain what Trumps motives were.

However, as we can see from your post, you've convicted him anyways even without proof.

 

He admits that was his reason for doing it.

 

McSally is just trying to get noticed.
Mark Kelly is killing her.

 

There is no bombshell to add anything to.

I do see a lot of people hopping on that hate train against Trump however.

 

Instead of reading a Business Insider article about the Ingraham interview with McSally, why not watch the actual interview. The further you get away from the actual news source, the more a story gets spun away from fact toward opinion.

It was a very amicable exchange. As far as McSally not wanting to say "yes or no" to witnesses definitively at this point, she said she'd wait until after Phase I was finished and the Senate votes yes/no on witnesses. Nothing wrong with that. Senators swore an oath of impartiality. None of them should be making a public decision about witnesses right now, even if they 98% know what they plan to do after Phase I. All kinds of things could happen after the Impeachment Managers and Trump's defense team make their arguments.

McSally interview starts around 3:15 mark...

 

Avoiding articles of impeachment for Obstruction of Congress.

And every previous administration permitted witnesses and documents and then they fought over executive privilege or attorney client privilege. Trump decided to block them from appearing completely under the theory that he can make them absolutely immune.

 

CNN should bring back Jimmy Acosta. He would get the job done ✔

 

Our precious speaker admitted that allegations are more important than evidence and facts. Seriously what more is there to say.

Obama stole my home. There!!!! Allegation cited. No evidence or proof needed according to Democrats. Obama is guilty because I made up ****, exactly what Democrats have been doing since 2016.

 

~ Me too ! I demand reparations ...

 

Obama stole my affordable health care and my house! We want reparations! We want reparations! We want reparations!

 

Allow me to make one thing clear at the outset - this is a Constitutional trial, not a political one. It is a trial defined by the Constitution and defined as a Congressional duty. The argument that every Congress in the past has gone to the courts for relief is specious. Going to court would stretch out the process for years, something Trump would gladly approve. This would not serve the Republic or the People.

There are no prosecutors because this is not a criminal trial. If Trump is convicted and removed from office, criminal prosecutions will inevitably follow. Even if Trump is pardoned, as Nixon was, the criminal prosecution trail for Trump is broad and many. The State of New York has multiple cases against Trump. This is why Trump MUST win acquittal or face total destruction.

 

It built its case, that’s why he’s impeached. Now the senate needs to do its job.
I agree that the senate vote for conviction should be secret.

 

We all know Trump will be acquitted. We've known the end of this story from the beginning.

 

Prosecution proved no violations. Merely hearsay. If they had, impeachment would have been bi partisan as in the other two impeachments.

 

We're going to find out how this all turns out very soon. Question: If it doesn't turn out the way you like, do you continue resistance?......or will you work to make America better within our system laying future impeachments and coup attempts aside/?

 

Let's just hear the two sides and vote! That's the deal we need! Get on with the business of improving our Nation like President Trump has been doing! Deal?

 

Change your mind?

yabberefugee said: ↑
The House only had witnesses they thought were favorable to them but none could identify a crime. I think Schiff and the whistle blower should be called and probed as to how they 1st cooked up this scheme.

 

You presented a trade deal and all I did was counter. Personally I don't think more witnesses are necessary. Perhaps there is a chance however, that if certain witnesses are pushed to be called, some of the fringe "haters" can be convinced this was a setup from the beginning. We already know this. Just like the Kavenaugh hearings, the accusations keep changing.

I do believe we need to make America "moral" again, but none on the Democrat debate stage could begin to do that. Trump is not my Pastor but he is moving the country to have a moral respect for life and faith.

 

Not the conviction vote, all of the other votes prior to that. If the conviction vote were secret and the President was convicted and removed from office we'd have a riot. I hate that, don't endorse that and wouldn't want that to happen. But you know and I know there are those who are pro-Trump who also have violent histories.