It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: carewemust
But in this case, Diane Feinstein told blackmail-eligible Lisa Murkowski to vote "NO" on witnesses. Feinstein wants to keep investigators far away from herself, and other California lawmakers....like Schiff.
What people do not want to think about is there was witnesses in all this, there was actually 18. The House decided to not push for the witnesses in the impeachment that all of a sudden they wanted in the senate, why not? They didn't even try going after Giuliani who was not protected in anyway, why not? They tried to use the court in the Senate, and the court basically said it was too late for them for that direction since they already impeached the President. They could not put forth even a laughable case that in two hours the defense basically obliterated. We need to remember there was a number of Republicans that were on the fence and they saw no reason to drag out this carp another minute long than is possible in the end.
Remember this wasn't a court of law...It was a court of Congress, so very different, and the only "law" there was the chief justice that wanted no part of it in anyway.
The House knew they could not get 67 votes no matter what, and so they did not really want witnesses either and now they can say it was all a sham. Just more of the same political narrative that they been preaching for three years.
originally posted by: Admitted
The blame is going to the House of Representatives (the people who represent U.S. citizens) for not subpoening these witnesses. Which could take months to years.