As expected the president has declined participation in the Democratic Inquisition in which testimony from key witnesses are banned from testifying such as Hunter Biden, Alexandra Chalupa and the whistleblower.
Then he had to take in consideration the leaking that would occur just like it did from Schiff’s committee.
There just isn’t any upside to participating in the Democrat’s lame impeachment farces. In the Intel committee, Adam Schiff is hiding testimony that favors President Trump.
At the same time, Nadler has instructed Republicans to send him a list of the witnesses they want to call.
I think they need to make a request to question Adam Schiff on his contacts with the alleged whistleblower.
In March, Nadler sent out requests to 81 companies and individual demanding documents he could use to manufacture more crimes that Trump never committed.
Those requests have not been successful for a very good reason.
Any company that willingly gives out information on it’s clients won’t be in business long. Clients have the reasonable right to expect their business dealings to be kept private unless laws are broken.
In March, the House Judiciary chairman sent requests to 81 groups, people and organizations, searching for constitutional abuses and corruption by Trump.
The New York representative said in March the requests for documents are to “begin investigations, to present the case to the American people about obstruction of justice, about corruption and abuse of power.”
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans do not appear to be concerned about House Democrats’ ongoing efforts to impeach Trump, with many saying even if the House were to move forward with impeachment there is no way the Senate would vote to impeach the president.
The Daily Caller spoke with over 10 GOP senators in mid-October, who all shared their views about House Democrats’ efforts to impeach the president.
Not one senator was concerned about the impeachment process, saying they are most concerned about Democrats’ ongoing attempts to impeach Trump based on no hard evidence.