Obama administration raised possible problems with Biden, Burisma situation. Star witness lied.

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Back to RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA now?
Or something new?

 

[Augustine_]

Back to RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA now?
Or something new?

Good grief, gramps. SMH

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Back to RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA now?
Or something new?

Good grief, gramps. SMH

Bad guesses?

We moving into wardrobe violations now?

 

[bluzman61]

Back to RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA now?
Or something new?

Good grief, gramps. SMH

Bad guesses?

We moving into wardrobe violations now?

Pay NO attention to St. Augie, he appears to be stuck in the Middle Ages. There's never been ANY sign of intelligence in any of his/her/its? posts.

 

[cnm]

How many 'star witnesses' do the Democrats have?

 

[iceberg]

How many 'star witnesses' do the Democrats have?

how many do they need?

 

[cnm]

It's more a matter of how many Individual1's supporters need. It seems nearly every witness gets labelled a 'star' as they give their testimony.

 

[cnm]

Impeachment Star Witness Has Longtime Relationship with Burisma-Backed Think Tank

 

[cnm]

Lying Schiff's Star Witness Alexander Vindman Tied to ...

Another Democratic Star Witness Admits Trump Committed No Crime

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

It's more a matter of how many Individual1's supporters need. It seems nearly every witness gets labelled a 'star' as they give their testimony.

Why focus on the label the media chose and not the fact that they lied?

 

[Zorro!]

Back to RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA now?
Or something new?

So, even the Obama was concerned about it, but for Trump to be concerned about it is an impeachable offense?

They deny Trump the right to present a defense, then complain that he has produced no evidence.

Imagine you get indicted in a swindle. The prosecutors represent that they can prove you and your alleged co-conspirators planned to fleece a major financial institution. You counter that you weren’t fleecing anyone. Sure, you were asking for millions in loans, but the collateral you were prepared to post was real, and so were the businesses in which you were planning to invest the loan proceeds. The capital injection, you thought, would spur the commerce that would enable you to pay off the loan.

When you get to court, though, you are horrified to learn that the judge is excluding your defense. The prosecutors peremptorily assert that it’s all a big lie. The judge doesn’t want to hear your constitutional claims about the rights to present a defense and call witnesses; your motion to subpoena evidence is denied.

Then, at the trial, not only do the prosecutors establish that you planned to take millions from the bank; they tell the jury there was not a shred of evidence that you had any legitimate collateral or business investment prospects. The whole thing, they insist, was a scam. That is, they stop you from presenting your defense, and then they argue that you should be convicted because you have no defense.

It sounds like something out of Kafka. It would never be tolerated in the U.S. judicial system: no competent judge would bar an accused from attempting to prove his defense; and if one did, any conviction would be reversed on appeal. It would not matter whether the prosecutor’s proof was convincing; having one’s day in court means having an opportunity to present any exculpatory evidence.

Yet what I’ve just described is essentially what House Democrats have done to President Trump in the Senate impeachment trial on the matter of the Bidens and Burisma.

Trump Impeachment Trial: Democrats’ Burisma Bait and Switch | National Review