Trump “under fire” again? 
And what else is new?
And for ALL the Jewish and Islamic “experts” here:
If a Jew or a Muslim, were to eat - this plant based Pork substitute…then are they correctly following, Jewish and Islamic law? 
One day, we might wake up…and see the BBC, announcing news like this.
Netanyahu long rejected such “firing” on Suleimani, because it would facilitate more dangers for Israel.
Are you assuming that protecting our own troops by recent actions alienating the Iraqis, is actually keeping these Americans safer by enabling him to back out of Iraq and quitting our efforts there to prevent jihadism flourishing?
Bob,
You are either remarkably careless or an absolute dishonest person again for the umteenth time misquoting me or linking my response to a DIFFERENT statement made by you.
The response i made & that you used was for something else you said.
This was my response and it was about all witnesses and importantly referenced the fact the Dems could have compelled any of these so called witnesses to testify but for political reasons chose not to.
BTW Bolton was not on the call either so what is he a witness to, or shall we hear another opinion.
Why ask Trump for more than what Obama did not ask for? Makes no sense.
Also for the House, already to have voted for impeachment on the ‘evidence’ - now wants more evidence you really do have to ask - why?
But we know why - the next year will be even more fast and furious than the last 3 - up to and including an assassination attempt, probably to be blamed on the Right.
And more from the BBC.
I repeat, Obama did ‘worse’ and hardly a peep was made. Why??
OK Dems are unfair liars, now the GOP can do a real trial. Trump’s conservative GOP choice to run national security was in the middle of the events Trump’s been charged with, and now has said for the first time that he’d testify to the truth if requested. Do you think the GOP should critically examine any such first hand witnesses before rendering an exoneration verdict?
That not only dodges evaluating present challenges on the merits; it’s utterly false, at least as far as I and many liberals are concerned. I repeatedly castigated Obama’s drone strikes and the horrific toll on innocents that they took. I argued that they were doing more to empower that we’d be stuck in an endless conflict, than they were to ensure that the bad guys they killed would not be replaced.
And now, the super bowl And battle of the Dueling Billionaire candidates.
And this is just happening, folks.
Trump has stated several times he wants a trial with witnesses. So let the Democrats have John Bolton and, say, three more, for a total of four. And let the Republicans also have four.
Is Trump spying on US citizens with drones (Via BBC)?
And from France-24
That sounds reasonable. But my sense is that while Trump has often said he wants his side told, he typically backs away from allowing any relevant documents or testimony, and I think his defenders are scared to death about having him or any of his insiders testify, and will try hard to have no factual evidence presented, and then claim a fair trial exonerated him.
Exactly what makes anyone not on the call a firsthand witness? A witness to what? What are we talking about outside of the actual call?
Clearly whatever witnesses say the Dems and Media will spin it to sound ominous.
I’d like to know this as well.
In the testimony presented, the impeachment charges have little to do with the phone call, and we already have Trump’s transcript of that. Why would more of that be relevant?
The charges to be tried are that Trump sought to obstruct justice, and that he abused presidential power by instructing his reps to tell a foreign nation that they must help on going public about Joe Biden in order to get the release of vital military aid that Congress had authorized.
GOP defenders in the hearing repeatedly complained that those willing to testify only surmised second hand that this was in fact Trump’s explicit directive, and that none of the team who worked closest to the president and would know full well if this was the policy that Trump himself engineered had testified that it was. Though of course Trump insisted they all refuse to tell what they knew, and they all complied.
Now one of them has said he’ll take an oath to tell the truth on these central questions of fact if the Senate calls him. Do you favor letting those who would know exactly what actually happened testify?
Bob, it is patently obvious you want Trump to be impeached for abuse of his power.
Do you also believe that Joe Biden should be impeached for abuse of his vice-presidential power?
