• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lev Parnas and mybe Bolton, would it really make a difference?

Fletch said:
Total bull****
Click to expand...

YOu must only watch Fox News and listen to Rush, because it is well know that McConnell stated he would be coordinating with the WHite House. I know, Trump told you not believe what you see or hear but only to listen to and believe him and you do.
 
Fletch said:
Roberts doesnt set the rules, a majority vote does. It is not up to him whether or not witnesses are called. And why isnt Parnas testifying before a House committee right now? What he says to Maddow is irrelevant. Put him under oath.
Click to expand...
Yes - but during the trial the Senators' questions & motions will be put before Roberts, and he will rule on them. To over-rule Roberts, McConnel and the GOP Sens must jump in and hold a vote to specifically over-rule him in a specific matter. I think that is fraught with political hazard, therefore my comment.
 
Chomsky said:
Yes - but during the trial the Senators' questions & motions will be put before Roberts, and he will rule on them. To over-rule Roberts, McConnel and the GOP Sens must jump in and hold a vote to specifically over-rule him in a specific matter. I think that is fraught with political hazard, therefore my comment.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, but I would be surprised if there is a vote to overrule him on anything. I suspect nothing he rules on will be that controversial
 
independentusa said:
Lev Parnas on Maddow show has the White House out there saying it ain't so, but if Bolton testifies it might be hard for the Trump and the GOP to say it wasn't bribery on top of the fact that the government is now saying that by withholdng the money that the White House violated the law. I guess my real question is would even this make a difference to GOP Senators or the Trump faithful?
Click to expand...
So, I'm hearing if the Dems manage to get witnesses and documents into the proceeding the GOP will call the whistle blower the ICIG, Schiff and/or his staff, ask for the unredacted transcripts of Schiff's Star Chamber hearings, and probably a lot more.
 
independentusa said:
Lev Parnas on Maddow show has the White House out there saying it ain't so, but if Bolton testifies it might be hard for the Trump and the GOP to say it wasn't bribery on top of the fact that the government is now saying that by withholdng the money that the White House violated the law. I guess my real question is would even this make a difference to GOP Senators or the Trump faithful?
Click to expand...

Everything is now about public opinion.

The GOP senators want to make this all go away as fast as possible, but their constituents changing their mind is what they really will care about ultimately.

More info should change minds, but Trump supporters, as we see here, are pretty impervious to facts.

Chances are, the GOP senators are going to accept historical embarrassment to trade for one more term. Most clearly have shown they have no principals.
 
Fletch said:
I agree with that, but I would be surprised if there is a vote to overrule him on anything. I suspect nothing he rules on will be that controversial
Click to expand...
That fair enough. We don't know what he'll rule on. If he follows similar to a real court, I suspect there will be some rulings that will freak the GOP Senators out. But as we know, this is not a "real" trial. So as you said, he may do little. In fact, I believe there's some precedence for that. Though I'd also argue this is not Bill Clinton's impeachment, either.
 
Fletch said:
Then the House should have called them.
Click to expand...

All the house had to do was establish enough evidence for the articles of impeachment,

Moreover, Parnas was called but, at the time, he was complying with Trump's demand that his peeps do not testify.

All the rest announced that they would not comply with a congressional subpoena, so your point is moot.


the house's effort was not the trial, you seem to be confused on that point.


There is no rule or law that says if the house didn't call someone, they shouldn't be called in the trial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom