Reply #24: He had every opportunity to answer

[Still Sensible]

but was disingenuous in his argument that the Senate didn't let him call witnesses. The truth is, he didn't need to call any witnesses he just needed to testify and refute the charges: He had the opportunity to "testify" in his own defense but that would subject him to questions he cannot plausibly answer. Had he testified, the senators could have cross examined.

If he could have plausibly answered the key questions, he would have spent his media tour explaining each of those taped statements in context so everybody would understand why he is not guilty of the charges. He would have testified and welcomed the Senate's questions so he could refute these scurrilous charges. Instead, he used his incredible media tour to lambaste the process and showed up to make his unchallengeable statement.

He could have explained how the fact that he was demanding money or an ambassadorship before selecting a senate replacement has been misinterpreted?

He could have explained how his actions to try and "deallocate" funds for a hospital because he hadn't yet received a promised influx of cash could be explained. Or put that part of the tape in a context that isn't reprehensible.

He didn't need any other witnesses to stand up like a man and answer those questions.

He had the opportunity to "testify" in his own defense but that would subject him to questions he cannot plausibly answer. Had he testified, the senators could have cross examined.

If he could have plausibly answered the key questions, he would have spent his media tour explaining each of those taped statements in context so everybody would understand why he is not guilty of the charges. He would have testified and welcomed the Senate's questions so he could refute these scurrilous charges. Instead, he used his incredible media tour to lambaste the process and showed up to make his unchallengeable statement.

He could have explained how the fact that he was demanding money or an ambassadorship before selecting a senate replacement has been misinterpreted?

He could have explained how his actions to try and "deallocate" funds for a hospital because he hadn't yet received a promised influx of cash could be explained. Or put that part of the tape in a context that isn't reprehensible.

He didn't need any other witnesses to stand up like a man and answer those questions.