The Democrats witness dilemma

D

Darth Omar

Russian asset
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.
 
Last edited:
It's a slam dunk acquittal if Jesus testified against Trump.

The Bidens, if called, will testify.

The trade off for Mitch is that he will have to call Bolton and Parnas and Pompeo and Nunes as well if he wants the Bidens.
 
jimmymccready said:
It's a slam dunk acquittal if Jesus testified against Trump.

The Bidens, if called, will testify.

The trade off for Mitch is that he will have to call Bolton and Parnas and Pompeo and Nunes as well if he wants the Bidens.
Click to expand...

If they voted on the articles as they stand, Trump walks.

Witnesses are a gambit for Democrats. You can admit or not.
 
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 trial is all about Donald Trump and no one else. You are trying so hard to muddy the waters, but it won't work.
 
floridafan said:
This trial is all about Donald Trump and no one else. You are trying so hard to muddy the waters, but it won't work.
Click to expand...

In a ‘fair’ trial the defense gets to call their own witnesses lol.

You want a fair trial, right? If Hunter turns out Ukraine-dirty, poof. It doesn’t matter what Bolton says, Trump was justified in withholding the aid—*assuming* he did. As president he was justified anyway, but you get the idea.
 
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...

Hunter Biden is not charged with anything nor is on trial. Nor is a witness to any abuse of power that Trump committed.

Moron.
 
Darth Omar said:
In a ‘fair’ trial the defense gets to call their own witnesses lol.

You want a fair trial, right? If Hunter turns out Ukraine-dirty, poof. It doesn’t matter what Bolton says, Trump was justified in withholding the aid—*assuming* he did. As president he was justified anyway, but you get the idea.
Click to expand...

Under no conditions was trump justified in with holding aid. Could it be just a coincidence that this aid was released immediately after the whistleblower came forward.
Please show us, my dear, where trump was justified in withholding aid payments approved by congress.
You did hear Mr. Parnas say that everything was about investigating Biden, no one cared about corruption.
 
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...
Parnov is singing like a canary. Know what he hasn't said anything about? Any corruption on the part of Biden.
 
Darth Omar said:
In a ‘fair’ trial the defense gets to call their own witnesses lol.

You want a fair trial, right? If Hunter turns out Ukraine-dirty, poof. It doesn’t matter what Bolton says, Trump was justified in withholding the aid—*assuming* he did. As president he was justified anyway, but you get the idea.
Click to expand...

There is no justification for blackmail.
 
Darth Omar said:
If they voted on the articles as they stand, Trump walks.

Witnesses are a gambit for Democrats. You can admit or not.
Click to expand...

Dems dont want bidens even though they will already have synced their stories.
Im loving Rand Paul breaking bad on gop threatening to side with dems. They KNOW he is serious.
Dont close the book on dismiss just yet.
 
floridafan said:
trump could NOT hold up aid to Ukraine- period.
Click to expand...

He sets the foreign policy agenda. One president can refuse to provide lethal aid to Ukraine, and another can reverse that policy, and also sell F-35s to Poland. The bottom line is, the entire foreign policy agenda is set by the Article II branch.
 
Bull Durham said:
He sets the foreign policy agenda. One president can refuse to provide lethal aid to Ukraine, and another can reverse that policy, and also sell F-35s to Poland. The bottom line is, the entire foreign policy agenda is set by the Article II branch.
Click to expand...

Do you know what the Impound Control Act is? If you don't ask your handlers to look it up for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top