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.
