The Democrats witness dilemma

Darth Omar said:
It’s clear that Democrats need witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial since it’s a slam dunk acquittal based on the articles Nancy solemnly/gleefully sent over to the Senate.

Which begs the question if they should have been sent to begin with—but Democrats wanted their Trump impeachment*, so yeah.

At any rate, that means the defense gets to call Hunter Biden, and others, since Democrats insist on the trial being ‘fair’. Do Democrats risk playing ‘dog catches car’ by putting Hunter Biden under oath? What confidence do they have that Hunter is clean besides reassuring themselves, back and forth, that Hunter is clean? The fact is, Hunter Biden is a Black Box—no one knows what’s inside it until it’s opened. And we all know his past is ‘checkered’, to be diplomatic about it.

Or how about the WB? For months, Democrats and their media minions have been lying about the WB protection law which *doesn’t* guarantee anonymity. If Democrats want Bolton to appear—so will the WB. Then we’ll get to find out if there was anything resembling a set-up going on between the WB and Adam Schiff.

Shifty may be a House manager but he’s also *a material witness* to how this whole thing started. Do Democrats really want a known liar under oath in a Senate trial? This won’t be the basement of the House where Democrats can tightly control everything.

This can get ugly, quick. But I fully expect Democrats to keep the pedal to the metal.
Click to expand...


Darth,

The Senate trial will not involve any witnesses being called, there's no percentage in it. Rather there will be a vote on the Articles of Impeachment and the Republican majority in the Senate will vote to acquit Trump. The whole Senate trial should all be over in a couple of weeks.

Dachshund
 
Darth Omar said:
It’s clear that Democrats need witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial since it’s a slam dunk acquittal based on the articles Nancy solemnly/gleefully sent over to the Senate.

Which begs the question if they should have been sent to begin with—but Democrats wanted their Trump impeachment*, so yeah.

At any rate, that means the defense gets to call Hunter Biden, and others, since Democrats insist on the trial being ‘fair’. Do Democrats risk playing ‘dog catches car’ by putting Hunter Biden under oath? What confidence do they have that Hunter is clean besides reassuring themselves, back and forth, that Hunter is clean? The fact is, Hunter Biden is a Black Box—no one knows what’s inside it until it’s opened. And we all know his past is ‘checkered’, to be diplomatic about it.

Or how about the WB? For months, Democrats and their media minions have been lying about the WB protection law which *doesn’t* guarantee anonymity. If Democrats want Bolton to appear—so will the WB. Then we’ll get to find out if there was anything resembling a set-up going on between the WB and Adam Schiff.

Shifty may be a House manager but he’s also *a material witness* to how this whole thing started. Do Democrats really want a known liar under oath in a Senate trial? This won’t be the basement of the House where Democrats can tightly control everything.

This can get ugly, quick. But I fully expect Democrats to keep the pedal to the metal.
Click to expand...

This is all well and good but never underestimate the ability of the GOP party of failure to fuck this up.

The democrat party will rely on the likes of Murcuntsky, Collins and Pierre Delecto

All of them should be purged. I would rather see Collins lose her seat to a democrat than have that cunt in the Senate
 
domer76 said:
Hunter Biden is not charged with anything nor is on trial. Nor is a witness to any abuse of power that Trump committed.

Moron.
Click to expand...

Hunter doesn’t have to be charged. All Trump has to do is prove that there was enough to show he was worthy of investigation

There is enough in the public record to show there was more than a whiff of corruption

But then if Hunter is innocent he would have no fear of testifying right?
 
domer76 said:
I misused the term. It was extortion and abuse of power. Toss in obstruction of Congress. The Bidens and their testimony are irrelevant. You're desperately grasping at straws.
....
Glad you admit it was extortion and abuse of power.
Click to expand...

the word was there, the proof wasn't......that's why extortion wasn't in the articles of impeachment.......as to desperately grasping at straws, please see the articles of impeachment.....
 
domer76 said:
I misused the term. It was extortion and abuse of power. Toss in obstruction of Congress. The Bidens and their testimony are irrelevant. You're desperately grasping at straws.
Click to expand...

Of course they are relevant. They are the predicate

The democrat party claim was that aid was held up to harm Trumps political opponent. That would be Biden according to the democrat party
 
Darth Omar said:
Dude, congress and the president ‘obstructing’ one another is daily business in DC lol.
Click to expand...

According to the JPP democrat party members the President has to do all that the Congress wants whenever it wants

Trump should use the FBI to investigate Congress the way Congress investigates him. You know for oversight
 
domer76 said:
Biden is not a witness to any of Trump’s transgressions.
Click to expand...
to be fair, so far no one has been a witness to any actual Trump transgressions......
and yet, what happened in the Ukraine is certainly relevant to whether an American president should be asking the Ukranian government, newly elected on a campaign against corruption, to investigate what happened in the Ukraine........and Hunter Biden was involved in what happened in the Ukraine.......Joe was involved in what happened when he bragged about getting the prosecutor fired.......
 
dukkha said:
Dems took the initiative with impeachment -the 'nuclear option' / press is Pravda for their efforts.

But at some point I have to believe the electorate acts as a rational actor as well - and is not going to throw out Trump for a Dem clueless weasel POTUS
Click to expand...

Anyone who pays sufficient attention to this can see what’s going on.

They can see the ‘solemn’ Pelosi barely able to contain her glee as she signed the articles. They impeached Trump because they despise him.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
really?.........aren't there several possible scenarios where withholding would be proper or even unavoidably necessary?......as far as the whistler is concerned, besides his name, all we know is that he didn't actually hear the conversation he whistled about and that his report was drafted in cooperation with Schiff's staff......
Click to expand...

You are a pathetic liar as usual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top