First impeachment trial that didn’t have witnesses. It was pretty much a given that republicans would use their majority to shield Trump’s corruption so no surprise that they didn’t want Bolton or others to testify. What an obvious sham. And you might not want to think about it but all that evidence and testimony will continue to come out. The sham trial may be ending soon but you would be very naive to think it’s far from over.
Now who's lying, M E M?
In the Clinton impeaachment, the Republican-majority House conducted impeachment hearings for
a year and certainly had testimony from a number of witnesses. When it was handed over to the Senate, there were no further witnesses. Just like Senate hearings for Trump impeachment. The simple fact is, the Democrats were in such a rush to impeach Trump, for P.R./lying narrative reasons, that House Democrats
didn't do their job!
A review:
Richard Nixon impeachment: A special investigation found Nixon guilty of ACTUAL CRIMES.
Bill Clinton impeachment: A special investigation found Clinton guilty of ACTUAL CRIMES.
Donald Trump: A special investigation found Trump guilty of NO CRIMES,
NONE!
And that is where it should have ended. But for pure slanderous narrative reasons, Democrats pushed impeachment without evidence. And Democrats, just because they have a majority and could do it, corruptly rubber-stamped an impeachment in the House. And then Pelosi self-consciously clung to the vote and wouldn't give it to the Senate,
KNOWING they hadn't made a case for impeachment. And even the "articles of impeachment" were bogus charges, not actual crimes.
If the Republican Senate majority agreed to see another hundred witnesses, or even a thousand witnesses, Democrats would still say the Republicans are corrupt and hiding the truth. No matter what the evidence.
