>>7954632 PB
>Bondi said something to the effect of, "We don't want to be bringing this (meaning Biden corruption) up."
>Why? I think that needs some explaining.
>There might be a reasonable explanation for why she said it, and I'm open minded. But I'd sure like to hear one.
Consider that would immediately produce the need to have witnesses which has multiple draw backs.
First, it will extend the time frame for this sham to be finished,
Second, while the Senate is involved with this sham, it can conduct no other business.
Third, it buys moar time for the dems to continue making up moar crap to drag the sham all the way toward the Election.
Fourth, realize how this sham will set a never ending precedent for future impeachments. There is a reason the House is supposed to do all the leg work on the front side. The Senate (by design) takes over AFTER that has been done. The House can accomplish their portion in Committee(s) while thy continue to conduct the other business of the people. The Senate can NOT. While the impeachment is ongoing, they are functionally shut down!
This bunch of BS the House Dems have pulled would little allow them to shut down the Senate.
That is why the framers laid it out the way they did. I can hardly believe this has not been brought up and make mainstream. The plan surely must dis-allow for such a precedent going forward, but I'm not seeing it yet.
The white hats have already proved their case so no need to drag it out. Biden will be just as guilty when this sham is done. Wrapping this up will allow everything else to stop being on hold and allow the other fun to begin.