The tits and tats of witnesses, this includes Hunter

[Mike473]

As much as the Dems would like to see it, this trial will not be one where the Democrats making the case get to decide what witnesses the Defense may call in its case. Or a situation where Pelosi and Chuck stack the deck with 4 witnesses to every 1 the defense gets.

If the Democrats want Bolton and others, they need to allow the President to make his case and call the witnesses he wants to call. Otherwise, it is game over. Even Romney and others can not go back to their home states after allowing only prosecution witnesses. That is a non starter.

 

[Mike473]

I am actually somewhat surprised the Democrats are willing to go to the mat for Hunter Biden. If what they say about Hunter Biden is true, they can trade testimony that will do nothing to help the Republicans in exchange for Bolton and maybe even a second witness. Seems like a great deal for the Dems in this case. If I were Hunter, and know and I am in the clear, I am giving the Dems the go ahead to make the deal. If Hunter is innocent, he could greatly help his Father in the election by making fools of the Trump legal team. Hunter is a lawyer, so he should do well on the stand.

It’s not going to the mat for Hunter Biden... it’s about not following the bread crumbs down the pathways of distractions and political demonization. That’s trumps game, we see it over and over again.

so what is it exactly that you want with Hunter? You think he committed crimes so you want him to testify... why, so he can incriminate himself? Is that how the party of law and order thinks our legal system is supposed to work?

No no, you want to turn the focus into Hunter and politicize the situation to attack Trumps political opponent. It is very obvious.

This is not a criminal trial. The situation for the Democrats is dire. They need 67 votes to remove and will be lucky to get to 50 votes at the present time. They need Bolton and others to make their case. Why not make a trade for Hunter? If not, let this thing go to a vote and put an end to it.

I disagree. The Dems feel like that have a strongly supported case... they want Bolton and others to further support their case.

our congress is too busy playing partisan politics to treat this process with the fairness and objectivity that it deserves.

I started this thread making the case for the tit for tat because that’s how i see these partisan games playing out. Doesn’t mean I agree with them... it’s actually pretty pathetic if you ask me.

Let me ask you something. What would your reasoning be for calling Hunter to testify? What was he a witness to?

It doesn't matter what you or I think the reasoning is for calling Hunter Biden. The Defense will present their reasoning at the trial. If the jury decides that Hunter Biden's testimony does not support the defense, then it wont put weight on it during deliberations. Or, they can go to court to try and stop Biden from testifying. Just as whether Bolton testifies will likely be decided at the Supreme Court, unless the Dems decide to make a deal.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

He is irrelevant. That said, i'd let him testify. Of course Moscow Mitch doesn't want any witnesses or documents to be seen by the Senate, and especially he does not want anything of the kind to be seen by the public. The truth exposed will not be to the benefit to the Defendant or his obsequious defenders such as Sen. Graham.

 

[Slade3200]

I am actually somewhat surprised the Democrats are willing to go to the mat for Hunter Biden. If what they say about Hunter Biden is true, they can trade testimony that will do nothing to help the Republicans in exchange for Bolton and maybe even a second witness. Seems like a great deal for the Dems in this case. If I were Hunter, and know and I am in the clear, I am giving the Dems the go ahead to make the deal. If Hunter is innocent, he could greatly help his Father in the election by making fools of the Trump legal team. Hunter is a lawyer, so he should do well on the stand.

It’s not going to the mat for Hunter Biden... it’s about not following the bread crumbs down the pathways of distractions and political demonization. That’s trumps game, we see it over and over again.

so what is it exactly that you want with Hunter? You think he committed crimes so you want him to testify... why, so he can incriminate himself? Is that how the party of law and order thinks our legal system is supposed to work?

No no, you want to turn the focus into Hunter and politicize the situation to attack Trumps political opponent. It is very obvious.

This is not a criminal trial. The situation for the Democrats is dire. They need 67 votes to remove and will be lucky to get to 50 votes at the present time. They need Bolton and others to make their case. Why not make a trade for Hunter? If not, let this thing go to a vote and put an end to it.

I disagree. The Dems feel like that have a strongly supported case... they want Bolton and others to further support their case.

our congress is too busy playing partisan politics to treat this process with the fairness and objectivity that it deserves.

I started this thread making the case for the tit for tat because that’s how i see these partisan games playing out. Doesn’t mean I agree with them... it’s actually pretty pathetic if you ask me.

Let me ask you something. What would your reasoning be for calling Hunter to testify? What was he a witness to?

It doesn't matter what you or I think the reasoning is for calling Hunter Biden. The Defense will present their reasoning at the trial. If the jury decides that Hunter Biden's testimony does not support the defense, then it wont put weight on it during deliberations. Or, they can go to court to try and stop Biden from testifying. Just as whether Bolton testifies will likely be decided at the Supreme Court, unless the Dems decide to make a deal.

Of course it matters... if the state is going to pull somebody out of their life to throw them in to the political circus or put them under oath to testify in a trial then that witness needs to be relevant and approved by a judge or jury. Want to try and answer the question? What would the purpose of calling Hunter be? What did he witness in relation to this trial?

 

[Mike473]

I am actually somewhat surprised the Democrats are willing to go to the mat for Hunter Biden. If what they say about Hunter Biden is true, they can trade testimony that will do nothing to help the Republicans in exchange for Bolton and maybe even a second witness. Seems like a great deal for the Dems in this case. If I were Hunter, and know and I am in the clear, I am giving the Dems the go ahead to make the deal. If Hunter is innocent, he could greatly help his Father in the election by making fools of the Trump legal team. Hunter is a lawyer, so he should do well on the stand.

It’s not going to the mat for Hunter Biden... it’s about not following the bread crumbs down the pathways of distractions and political demonization. That’s trumps game, we see it over and over again.

so what is it exactly that you want with Hunter? You think he committed crimes so you want him to testify... why, so he can incriminate himself? Is that how the party of law and order thinks our legal system is supposed to work?

No no, you want to turn the focus into Hunter and politicize the situation to attack Trumps political opponent. It is very obvious.

This is not a criminal trial. The situation for the Democrats is dire. They need 67 votes to remove and will be lucky to get to 50 votes at the present time. They need Bolton and others to make their case. Why not make a trade for Hunter? If not, let this thing go to a vote and put an end to it.

I disagree. The Dems feel like that have a strongly supported case... they want Bolton and others to further support their case.

our congress is too busy playing partisan politics to treat this process with the fairness and objectivity that it deserves.

I started this thread making the case for the tit for tat because that’s how i see these partisan games playing out. Doesn’t mean I agree with them... it’s actually pretty pathetic if you ask me.

Let me ask you something. What would your reasoning be for calling Hunter to testify? What was he a witness to?

It doesn't matter what you or I think the reasoning is for calling Hunter Biden. The Defense will present their reasoning at the trial. If the jury decides that Hunter Biden's testimony does not support the defense, then it wont put weight on it during deliberations. Or, they can go to court to try and stop Biden from testifying. Just as whether Bolton testifies will likely be decided at the Supreme Court, unless the Dems decide to make a deal.

Of course it matters... if the state is going to pull somebody out of their life to throw them in to the political circus or put them under oath to testify in a trial then that witness needs to be relevant and approved by a judge or jury. Want to try and answer the question? What would the purpose of calling Hunter be? What did he witness in relation to this trial?

I don't know what information the defense team is looking at right now. We will find out. We know Hunter is a dead beat loser and was collecting a lot of cash over there. Only time will tell if it was it was tied to corruption. I have no issue with going through the courts on these witnesses. But, it wont be Pelosi that decides.

 

[Rye Catcher]

As much as the Dems would like to see it, this trial will not be one where the Democrats making the case get to decide what witnesses the Defense may call in its case. Or a situation where Pelosi and Chuck stack the deck with 4 witnesses to every 1 the defense gets.

If the Democrats want Bolton and others, they need to allow the President to make his case and call the witnesses he wants to call. Otherwise, it is game over. Even Romney and others can not go back to their home states after allowing only prosecution witnesses. That is a non starter.

I presume the Chief Justice will review the subpoenas and rule on their relevance. I'm for as many witnesses and document to be presented, both exculpatory and incriminating. Moscow Mitch is seeking to make the trial a soviet style Kangaroo Court, no witnesses, no documents, no evidence: Does anyone wonder why?

 

[Slade3200]

It’s not going to the mat for Hunter Biden... it’s about not following the bread crumbs down the pathways of distractions and political demonization. That’s trumps game, we see it over and over again.

so what is it exactly that you want with Hunter? You think he committed crimes so you want him to testify... why, so he can incriminate himself? Is that how the party of law and order thinks our legal system is supposed to work?

No no, you want to turn the focus into Hunter and politicize the situation to attack Trumps political opponent. It is very obvious.

This is not a criminal trial. The situation for the Democrats is dire. They need 67 votes to remove and will be lucky to get to 50 votes at the present time. They need Bolton and others to make their case. Why not make a trade for Hunter? If not, let this thing go to a vote and put an end to it.

I disagree. The Dems feel like that have a strongly supported case... they want Bolton and others to further support their case.

our congress is too busy playing partisan politics to treat this process with the fairness and objectivity that it deserves.

I started this thread making the case for the tit for tat because that’s how i see these partisan games playing out. Doesn’t mean I agree with them... it’s actually pretty pathetic if you ask me.

Let me ask you something. What would your reasoning be for calling Hunter to testify? What was he a witness to?

It doesn't matter what you or I think the reasoning is for calling Hunter Biden. The Defense will present their reasoning at the trial. If the jury decides that Hunter Biden's testimony does not support the defense, then it wont put weight on it during deliberations. Or, they can go to court to try and stop Biden from testifying. Just as whether Bolton testifies will likely be decided at the Supreme Court, unless the Dems decide to make a deal.

Of course it matters... if the state is going to pull somebody out of their life to throw them in to the political circus or put them under oath to testify in a trial then that witness needs to be relevant and approved by a judge or jury. Want to try and answer the question? What would the purpose of calling Hunter be? What did he witness in relation to this trial?

I don't know what information the defense team is looking at right now. We will find out. We know Hunter is a dead beat loser and was collecting a lot of cash over there. Only time will tell if it was it was tied to corruption. I have no issue with going through the courts on these witnesses. But, it wont be Pelosi that decides.

Is name calling really all you have? Can’t you formulate a basic rational for why you want him to be called as a witness? Besides the obvious political reasoning of course.

 

[Mike473]

This is not a criminal trial. The situation for the Democrats is dire. They need 67 votes to remove and will be lucky to get to 50 votes at the present time. They need Bolton and others to make their case. Why not make a trade for Hunter? If not, let this thing go to a vote and put an end to it.

I disagree. The Dems feel like that have a strongly supported case... they want Bolton and others to further support their case.

our congress is too busy playing partisan politics to treat this process with the fairness and objectivity that it deserves.

I started this thread making the case for the tit for tat because that’s how i see these partisan games playing out. Doesn’t mean I agree with them... it’s actually pretty pathetic if you ask me.

Let me ask you something. What would your reasoning be for calling Hunter to testify? What was he a witness to?

It doesn't matter what you or I think the reasoning is for calling Hunter Biden. The Defense will present their reasoning at the trial. If the jury decides that Hunter Biden's testimony does not support the defense, then it wont put weight on it during deliberations. Or, they can go to court to try and stop Biden from testifying. Just as whether Bolton testifies will likely be decided at the Supreme Court, unless the Dems decide to make a deal.

Of course it matters... if the state is going to pull somebody out of their life to throw them in to the political circus or put them under oath to testify in a trial then that witness needs to be relevant and approved by a judge or jury. Want to try and answer the question? What would the purpose of calling Hunter be? What did he witness in relation to this trial?

I don't know what information the defense team is looking at right now. We will find out. We know Hunter is a dead beat loser and was collecting a lot of cash over there. Only time will tell if it was it was tied to corruption. I have no issue with going through the courts on these witnesses. But, it wont be Pelosi that decides.

Is name calling really all you have? Can’t you formulate a basic rational for why you want him to be called as a witness? Besides the obvious political reasoning of course.

I dont think you would disagree with Hunter being a dead beat loser.

 

[Slade3200]

I disagree. The Dems feel like that have a strongly supported case... they want Bolton and others to further support their case.

our congress is too busy playing partisan politics to treat this process with the fairness and objectivity that it deserves.

I started this thread making the case for the tit for tat because that’s how i see these partisan games playing out. Doesn’t mean I agree with them... it’s actually pretty pathetic if you ask me.

Let me ask you something. What would your reasoning be for calling Hunter to testify? What was he a witness to?

It doesn't matter what you or I think the reasoning is for calling Hunter Biden. The Defense will present their reasoning at the trial. If the jury decides that Hunter Biden's testimony does not support the defense, then it wont put weight on it during deliberations. Or, they can go to court to try and stop Biden from testifying. Just as whether Bolton testifies will likely be decided at the Supreme Court, unless the Dems decide to make a deal.

Of course it matters... if the state is going to pull somebody out of their life to throw them in to the political circus or put them under oath to testify in a trial then that witness needs to be relevant and approved by a judge or jury. Want to try and answer the question? What would the purpose of calling Hunter be? What did he witness in relation to this trial?

I don't know what information the defense team is looking at right now. We will find out. We know Hunter is a dead beat loser and was collecting a lot of cash over there. Only time will tell if it was it was tied to corruption. I have no issue with going through the courts on these witnesses. But, it wont be Pelosi that decides.

Is name calling really all you have? Can’t you formulate a basic rational for why you want him to be called as a witness? Besides the obvious political reasoning of course.

I dont think you would disagree with Hunter being a dead beat loser.

I dont pretend to know somebody based on partisan political smear reporting. Is the smearing all you’re interested in? Why are you avoiding my questions about the testifying?

 

[Mike473]

It doesn't matter what you or I think the reasoning is for calling Hunter Biden. The Defense will present their reasoning at the trial. If the jury decides that Hunter Biden's testimony does not support the defense, then it wont put weight on it during deliberations. Or, they can go to court to try and stop Biden from testifying. Just as whether Bolton testifies will likely be decided at the Supreme Court, unless the Dems decide to make a deal.

Of course it matters... if the state is going to pull somebody out of their life to throw them in to the political circus or put them under oath to testify in a trial then that witness needs to be relevant and approved by a judge or jury. Want to try and answer the question? What would the purpose of calling Hunter be? What did he witness in relation to this trial?

I don't know what information the defense team is looking at right now. We will find out. We know Hunter is a dead beat loser and was collecting a lot of cash over there. Only time will tell if it was it was tied to corruption. I have no issue with going through the courts on these witnesses. But, it wont be Pelosi that decides.

Is name calling really all you have? Can’t you formulate a basic rational for why you want him to be called as a witness? Besides the obvious political reasoning of course.

I dont think you would disagree with Hunter being a dead beat loser.

I dont pretend to know somebody based on partisan political smear reporting. Is the smearing all you’re interested in? Why are you avoiding my questions about the testifying?

First on Hunter Biden. He is a 50 year old man that has made millions of dollars in his life. He is politically connected and lives a very wealthy lifestyle. Yet, he abandoned an infant child with no support. An infant that is the grand child of a former Vice President of the United States. That is a dead beat loser. A man of his means takes care of his children. That goes for anyone. You, me or anyone else.

As for a rationale for my wanting Hunter to testify. I don't want any witnesses in this case. I believe it should be decided solely on the evidence provided by the House. There is no need for additional information. And, if Schiff thought there was, he should have obtained it prior to sending the Articles to the Senate. It is what it is. So, I don't believe Hunter or Bolton should be testifying. But, if they have witnesses, then the President's witness list should be considered and litigated if needed.

 

[Slade3200]

Of course it matters... if the state is going to pull somebody out of their life to throw them in to the political circus or put them under oath to testify in a trial then that witness needs to be relevant and approved by a judge or jury. Want to try and answer the question? What would the purpose of calling Hunter be? What did he witness in relation to this trial?

I don't know what information the defense team is looking at right now. We will find out. We know Hunter is a dead beat loser and was collecting a lot of cash over there. Only time will tell if it was it was tied to corruption. I have no issue with going through the courts on these witnesses. But, it wont be Pelosi that decides.

Is name calling really all you have? Can’t you formulate a basic rational for why you want him to be called as a witness? Besides the obvious political reasoning of course.

I dont think you would disagree with Hunter being a dead beat loser.

I dont pretend to know somebody based on partisan political smear reporting. Is the smearing all you’re interested in? Why are you avoiding my questions about the testifying?

First on Hunter Biden. He is a 50 year old man that has made millions of dollars in his life. He is politically connected and lives a very wealthy lifestyle. Yet, he abandoned an infant child with no support. An infant that is the grand child of a former Vice President of the United States. That is a dead beat loser. A man of his means takes care of his children. That goes for anyone. You, me or anyone else.

As for a rationale for my wanting Hunter to testify. I don't want any witnesses in this case. I believe it should be decided solely on the evidence provided by the House. There is no need for additional information. And, if Schiff thought there was, he should have obtained it prior to sending the Articles to the Senate. It is what it is. So, I don't believe Hunter or Bolton should be testifying. But, if they have witnesses, then the President's witness list should be considered and litigated if needed.

i dont know the details of what happened with hunter and his kid nor am Ingoing to presume to. If you have some credible insight about that and think he is scum then that’s fine, I don’t see how that is at all relevant to what’s going on here. Bringing that up sounds like a petty diversion.

It sounds like you don’t want witnesses and want to just stick with what the house did because you already have your mind made up about Trump and the impeachment movement. That’s fine but then why are we debating? If you were objective and open to uncovering the truth of the matter than I believe you’d want witnesses and documents. If Trump is clean then the witnesses and documents should vindicate him. Wanting to shut it all down just makes you sound threatened and it makes Trump look guilty.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Huh?

Biden has nothing to do with Trump's actions. There is nothing Biden could say that would shed any light on what Trump is accused of doing.

Trump is accused of abusing power by asking Ukraine to investigate Biden for political purposes. If Biden was in fact doing something illegal then it is not political purposes anymore but becomes a matter of law enforcement. That make Hunter very relevant to the Reps and be sure it will be the case they will push.

Because he did not go through the Justice Department to open an investigation or request one on the Ukraine end.

Also what was said over the phone in the transcript make it clear the main investigation was into the server and Biden name came up later but with other documents it shows this was to get dirt on Biden for the 2020 election.

If Hunter Biden is called as a witness and it is proven that some sort of corruption was involved does it still excuse Trump for not going through the Justice Department with a request to the Ukraine to open some sort of investigation?

 

[Slade3200]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Huh?

Biden has nothing to do with Trump's actions. There is nothing Biden could say that would shed any light on what Trump is accused of doing.

Trump is accused of abusing power by asking Ukraine to investigate Biden for political purposes. If Biden was in fact doing something illegal then it is not political purposes anymore but becomes a matter of law enforcement. That make Hunter very relevant to the Reps and be sure it will be the case they will push.

Because he did not go through the Justice Department to open an investigation or request one on the Ukraine end.

Also what was said over the phone in the transcript make it clear the main investigation was into the server and Biden name came up later but with other documents it shows this was to get dirt on Biden for the 2020 election.

If Hunter Biden is called as a witness and it is proven that some sort of corruption was involved does it still excuse Trump for not going through the Justice Department with a request to the Ukraine to open some sort of investigation?

no I don’t think it would excuse any procedural errors made by Trump... it would simply counter the accusation that the ask was for personal/political purposes

 

[JoeB131]

This is not a criminal trial. The situation for the Democrats is dire. They need 67 votes to remove and will be lucky to get to 50 votes at the present time. They need Bolton and others to make their case. Why not make a trade for Hunter? If not, let this thing go to a vote and put an end to it.

Hunter doesn't have any evidence, Bolton does.

 

[Mike473]

This is not a criminal trial. The situation for the Democrats is dire. They need 67 votes to remove and will be lucky to get to 50 votes at the present time. They need Bolton and others to make their case. Why not make a trade for Hunter? If not, let this thing go to a vote and put an end to it.

Hunter doesn't have any evidence, Bolton does.

Well, if we all know who does and does not have evidence and what that evidence will reveal, then we can move on to the vote right now.

 

[Mike473]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Huh?

Biden has nothing to do with Trump's actions. There is nothing Biden could say that would shed any light on what Trump is accused of doing.

Trump is accused of abusing power by asking Ukraine to investigate Biden for political purposes. If Biden was in fact doing something illegal then it is not political purposes anymore but becomes a matter of law enforcement. That make Hunter very relevant to the Reps and be sure it will be the case they will push.

Because he did not go through the Justice Department to open an investigation or request one on the Ukraine end.

Also what was said over the phone in the transcript make it clear the main investigation was into the server and Biden name came up later but with other documents it shows this was to get dirt on Biden for the 2020 election.

If Hunter Biden is called as a witness and it is proven that some sort of corruption was involved does it still excuse Trump for not going through the Justice Department with a request to the Ukraine to open some sort of investigation?

This will end in a very similar way to "Mueller Time". As soon as the Senate acquits, we will never hear about this again.

 

[Slade3200]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Huh?

Biden has nothing to do with Trump's actions. There is nothing Biden could say that would shed any light on what Trump is accused of doing.

Trump is accused of abusing power by asking Ukraine to investigate Biden for political purposes. If Biden was in fact doing something illegal then it is not political purposes anymore but becomes a matter of law enforcement. That make Hunter very relevant to the Reps and be sure it will be the case they will push.

Because he did not go through the Justice Department to open an investigation or request one on the Ukraine end.

Also what was said over the phone in the transcript make it clear the main investigation was into the server and Biden name came up later but with other documents it shows this was to get dirt on Biden for the 2020 election.

If Hunter Biden is called as a witness and it is proven that some sort of corruption was involved does it still excuse Trump for not going through the Justice Department with a request to the Ukraine to open some sort of investigation?

This will end in a very similar way to "Mueller Time". As soon as the Senate acquits, we will never hear about this again.

I’m sure we will never hear the word impeachment used after the senate acquits. Great prediction!

 

[JoeB131]

Well, if we all know who does and does not have evidence and what that evidence will reveal, then we can move on to the vote right now.

Why are you guys so terrified of relavent witnesses.

We know Hunter Biden wasn't in the room when Trump was breaking the law.

Let's talk to the people who were.

 

[Olde Europe]

Why are you guys so terrified of relavent witnesses.

We know Hunter Biden wasn't in the room when Trump was breaking the law.

Let's talk to the people who were.

They aren't really terrified of relevant witnesses. The reason for that is that neither Bolton, nor Mulvaney, nor Pompeo, nor anyone else will ever say anything of any value for the prosecution. They will all claim, if they show up at all, executive privilege, and even if the Senate were interested, they would have to spend years litigating every question up and down the judicial system. That wouldn't look all that good, and that's why they'll rather avoid having witnesses show up.

What the Congressional Republicans are interested in is the same they've done since 2009, and before during the 1990s: Using the power of their office, and the prosecutorial power in particular, for personal, political gain. "Benghazi!!! Benghazi!!! Benghazi!!!" ring a bell? Eight investigations yielding nothing other than smearing a political opponent? If that sounds familiar, Trump learned how to take that kind of ploy abroad.

 

[kwc57]

If the corruption was true, it woulf justify trumps actions.

The President is not an all powerful King and doesn't have the power to declare a US Citizens guilty or not.

Seriously? You watched that sham of a shit show Mueller investigation and House Impeachment and think people in power can't declare a US citizen guilty? The whole damn thing started with an unsubstantiated dossier paid for by the DNC and their presidential candidate.

Not sure what you're whining about cupcake, Mueller was appointed by Republicans. Trumpybear was impeached for attempting to coerce a foreign government into publicly announcing an investigations into his Democrat opponent as well as the Russian theory that it was The Ukraine, not Russia, who interfered in our 2016 election.

I don't believe any amount of witness testimony will change enough Trumpublican votes to convict the POS however. They could all come out and admit they did it for old Trumpybear and the TOP, and the Senate would still embrace the corruption that The Dirty Don and his Cronies represents.

The fact that you can overlook the corruption involved in the spying of a candidate and the resulting coup attempt tells me your faux concerns are to be taken with a grain of salt. You don't give a shit about corruption. If you did, you'd be calling for the heads of Comey, Brennan, Clapper and the multitude of underlings who built a false case on false evidence and tied up American government for three years. Putin was highly successful, but it wasn't thru Trump. It eas thru those trying to remove him. Pull your pinhead out of your ass and take a breath.

You guys are too funny with your deflection attempts and insults. Justified FBI investigations are now some kind of spooky spying and winning the majority in the House for the 2019 -2020 session is a Coup. Weaponizing foreign aid against half the country is corruption that can not stand in our two party Republic. Placing the Executive above the law should not stand either.

Justified FBI investigation? Seriously? The one built off of the dossier and not disclosing info to the FISA court that would have stopped it in its tracks? Is that the justification you're talking about? And you call me delusional? You're a moron.