The tits and tats of witnesses, this includes Hunter

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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?

Bring them all on, including Trump. He is the one at the "heart" of it all.

Another fucking libtard who never read the Constitution before wiping his ass with it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

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

Would it? How does that prove he wasn’t politically motivated?

I said it justifies his actions.

It doesn’t. Let’s say a cop doesn’t like someone and he pulls him over for no reason. The cop finds a bag of pot in the back seat. Does that bag of pot justify the cop’s actions?

If the cop pulled them over because someone told him that he was dealing drugs out of his car, the search would be justified and the person would go to jail in most locations, or just get a ticket in NY

 

[colfax_m]

Don't forget that will be determined by a simple majority vote. I think they won't get it if they play too dirty.

If you think the four Republican senators needed to make that majority vote are going to only go along with the Democratic witnesses and not the Republican witnesses then I don’t think you are working with a full deck

I think they'll go along with witnesses who are material to the case against the president. The Bidens aren't on trial. The president is.

because of the bidens alleged actions.

you really need to take things as a whole, not just the pieces that make you giggle.

That is simply the president's excuse. His narrative. There is no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing by the Bidens. It's only relevant to his imagination.

Having the Bidens testify is like having Obama testify about his birth certificate.

there is also no evidence that trump said "look into it" for political gain vs. finding out *IF* there was any wrongdoing.

it's quite telling that you are adamant that the bidens did NOTHING wrong despite all the regional corruption but trump is dead set guilty for saying "look into it".

you're pissed cause it gets in the way of you validating your hate once again. all there is to it.

grow up.

He had his private attorney doing the looking. His private attorney. That means it was a private matter.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

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

Would it? How does that prove he wasn’t politically motivated?

I said it justifies his actions.

It doesn’t. Let’s say a cop doesn’t like someone and he pulls him over for no reason. The cop finds a bag of pot in the back seat. Does that bag of pot justify the cop’s actions?

If the cop pulled them over because someone told him that he was dealing drugs out of his car, the search would be justified and the person would go to jail in most locations, or just get a ticket in NY

Only if the source of the information is credible, correct? I mean, you can’t go violating people’s rights based on unsubstantiated information.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

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

Would it? How does that prove he wasn’t politically motivated?

I said it justifies his actions.

It doesn’t. Let’s say a cop doesn’t like someone and he pulls him over for no reason. The cop finds a bag of pot in the back seat. Does that bag of pot justify the cop’s actions?

I hate to point out the obvious here, Colfax but aren't you liberals the cop in your little car stop scenario? You're looking for anything you can in Trump's "back seat" and your searches are based on lies and innuendoes!

 

[Oldstyle]

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

Would it? How does that prove he wasn’t politically motivated?

I said it justifies his actions.

It doesn’t. Let’s say a cop doesn’t like someone and he pulls him over for no reason. The cop finds a bag of pot in the back seat. Does that bag of pot justify the cop’s actions?

If the cop pulled them over because someone told him that he was dealing drugs out of his car, the search would be justified and the person would go to jail in most locations, or just get a ticket in NY

Only if the source of the information is credible, correct? I mean, you can’t go violating people’s rights based on unsubstantiated information.

You mean like you folks did with the entire "Russian Collusion" thing? Wow...talk about clueless!

 

[colfax_m]

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.

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

Would it? How does that prove he wasn’t politically motivated?

I said it justifies his actions.

It doesn’t. Let’s say a cop doesn’t like someone and he pulls him over for no reason. The cop finds a bag of pot in the back seat. Does that bag of pot justify the cop’s actions?

I hate to point out the obvious here, Colfax but aren't you liberals the cop in your little car stop scenario? You're looking for anything you can in Trump's "back seat" and your searches are based on lies and innuendoes!

Incorrect. Trump is a public servant. He serves the people and that gives the people a right to know what he is doing on our behalf. It is our right as citizens.

 

[colfax_m]

Would it? How does that prove he wasn’t politically motivated?

I said it justifies his actions.

It doesn’t. Let’s say a cop doesn’t like someone and he pulls him over for no reason. The cop finds a bag of pot in the back seat. Does that bag of pot justify the cop’s actions?

If the cop pulled them over because someone told him that he was dealing drugs out of his car, the search would be justified and the person would go to jail in most locations, or just get a ticket in NY

Only if the source of the information is credible, correct? I mean, you can’t go violating people’s rights based on unsubstantiated information.

You mean like you folks did with the entire "Russian Collusion" thing? Wow...talk about clueless!

In part yes. We were given credible information that turned out to be correct which launched the investigation. We were also given non-credible information that should not have been used.

You’re doing the same thing you accused the FBI of doing. Aren’t you?

 

[Dragonlady]

"What was the President wanting investigated? Something involving Hunter Biden? What was happening that needed investigating?"

Hunter Biden needs to testify as his scandal is at the center of Schiff's manufactured coup....

...and Hunter's testimony / scandal leads to Joe Biden & his videotaped confession of extorting the Ukraine PM...

....and Ukraine leads to Schiff...and his Ukraine & Burisma payments...and the Whistle Blower...and his new employee, the IC IG...




.

The Biden's didn't try to extort the Ukrainians, Donald Trump did. The Bidens have no knowledge or evidence of this extortion attempt.

Even if the Biden's were guilty of all of the corruption Trump claims, Trump's "military aid for investigations" deal was illegal and improper. THE US PRESIDENT HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO WITHHOLD FOREIGN AID ONCE IT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY CONGRESS.

THE US PRESIDENT CANNOT ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE A US CITIZEN. THAT REQUEST NEEDS TO COME FROM THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT - THERE IS A PROCESS.

Last but not least, now that your GRU has hacked Burisma, have they planted false evidence to be "found" in such an investigation?

Is that why you're now promoting Biden's testimony? You Russians have shot yourselves in the foot with that hacking, Evgeny.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

"What was the President wanting investigated? Something involving Hunter Biden? What was happening that needed investigating?"

Hunter Biden needs to testify as his scandal is at the center of Schiff's manufactured coup....

...and Hunter's testimony / scandal leads to Joe Biden & his videotaped confession of extorting the Ukraine PM...

....and Ukraine leads to Schiff...and his Ukraine & Burisma payments...and the Whistle Blower...and his new employee, the IC IG...




.

The Biden's didn't try to extort the Ukrainians, Donald Trump did. The Bidens have no knowledge or evidence of this extortion attempt.

Even if the Biden's were guilty of all of the corruption Trump claims, Trump's "military aid for investigations" deal was illegal and improper. THE US PRESIDENT HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO WITHHOLD FOREIGN AID ONCE IT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY CONGRESS.

THE US PRESIDENT CANNOT ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE A US CITIZEN. THAT REQUEST NEEDS TO COME FROM THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT - THERE IS A PROCESS.

Last but not least, now that your GRU has hacked Burisma, have they planted false evidence to be "found" in such an investigation?

Is that why you're now promoting Biden's testimony? You Russians have shot yourselves in the foot with that hacking, Evgeny.

More lies just repeated often does not make any of your post true, dumbass!

 

[Olde Europe]

In a country under the law, investigations are being started based on preliminary evidence. Law enforcement then decides whether or not the evidence warrants an investigation or not. "Hunter earned an income in Ukraine" is not evidence.

If there were any evidence for corruption on Hunter's part, it would be in the hands of the FBI (would have been for years), and they might have asked their Ukrainian counterparts for assistance. Hunter and his business partners would have been questioned, documents requested and whatnot.

Nothing of that kind happened. The reason for that is, there is no evidence. No one of a sane mind thinks there is any evidence anywhere.

Whoever still thinks Trump's extortionist shakedown, the request for (the announcement of) an investigation in return for an official act (release the properly appropriated aid), was anything other than politically motivated is a habitually lying Trumpleton. There is no possible excuse for such weak-minded mendacity. There is no possible excuse for any Senator, having sworn impartiality, to go along with that scheme.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

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

Would it? How does that prove he wasn’t politically motivated?

I said it justifies his actions.

It doesn’t. Let’s say a cop doesn’t like someone and he pulls him over for no reason. The cop finds a bag of pot in the back seat. Does that bag of pot justify the cop’s actions?

If the cop pulled them over because someone told him that he was dealing drugs out of his car, the search would be justified and the person would go to jail in most locations, or just get a ticket in NY

If the cop pulled them over because someone told him that he was dealing drugs out of his car, the search would be justified and the person would go to jail in most locations, or just get a ticket in NY

Oh....you mean a whistleblower?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

In a country under the law, investigations are being started based on preliminary evidence. Law enforcement then decides whether or not the evidence warrants an investigation or not. "Hunter earned an income in Ukraine" is not evidence.

If there were any evidence for corruption on Hunter's part, it would be in the hands of the FBI (would have been for years), and they might have asked their Ukrainian counterparts for assistance. Hunter and his business partners would have been questioned, documents requested and whatnot.

Nothing of that kind happened. The reason for that is, there is no evidence. No one of a sane mind thinks there is any evidence anywhere.

Whoever still thinks Trump's extortionist shakedown, the request for (the announcement of) an investigation in return for an official act (release the properly appropriated aid), was anything other than politically motivated is a habitually lying Trumpleton. There is no possible excuse for such weak-minded mendacity. There is no possible excuse for any Senator, having sworn impartiality, to go along with that scheme.

Exactly.

Having the Bidens testify about Ukraine is like having Obama testify about his birth certificate.

 

[Olde Europe]

Having the Bidens testify about Ukraine is like having Obama testify about his birth certificate.

It's even worse, since to this very day no one is capable of naming Hunter's crime.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

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

Would it? How does that prove he wasn’t politically motivated?

I said it justifies his actions.

It doesn’t. Let’s say a cop doesn’t like someone and he pulls him over for no reason. The cop finds a bag of pot in the back seat. Does that bag of pot justify the cop’s actions?

I hate to point out the obvious here, Colfax but aren't you liberals the cop in your little car stop scenario? You're looking for anything you can in Trump's "back seat" and your searches are based on lies and innuendoes!

Well that’s not true... the search is based on a call transcript and a ton of witness testimony

 

[iceberg]

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

Would it? How does that prove he wasn’t politically motivated?

I said it justifies his actions.

It doesn’t. Let’s say a cop doesn’t like someone and he pulls him over for no reason. The cop finds a bag of pot in the back seat. Does that bag of pot justify the cop’s actions?

I hate to point out the obvious here, Colfax but aren't you liberals the cop in your little car stop scenario? You're looking for anything you can in Trump's "back seat" and your searches are based on lies and innuendoes!

Well that’s not true... the search is based on a call transcript and a ton of witness testimony

yet all of this "testimony" are people who are speculating at what trump meant on that call. there is zero proof of their speculation and we as a society can't just say "well that makes sense" cause by now you think we'd have learned to wait for the entire story. but we spend well over a decade looking at 13 seconds of video and making brash decisions on what was happening.

i fall back to CNN and the WE NEED OUR WEAVES interview. CNN showed enough of the interview to make it look like a young lady was telling people to stop the violence even though her brother was just shot and killed. what CNN killed was the rest of the video where she did the whole "take that shit to the white neighborhoods and tear it up" mantra and then went on a WTF "we need our weaves" as if they were justified in stealing hair-improvements.

if you want to say speculation is now valid proof, is that really a world you want to live in?

 

[Oldstyle]

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

Would it? How does that prove he wasn’t politically motivated?

I said it justifies his actions.

It doesn’t. Let’s say a cop doesn’t like someone and he pulls him over for no reason. The cop finds a bag of pot in the back seat. Does that bag of pot justify the cop’s actions?

I hate to point out the obvious here, Colfax but aren't you liberals the cop in your little car stop scenario? You're looking for anything you can in Trump's "back seat" and your searches are based on lies and innuendoes!

Incorrect. Trump is a public servant. He serves the people and that gives the people a right to know what he is doing on our behalf. It is our right as citizens.

Trump may be a public servant but that doesn't give you the right to violate his rights as an American citizen or the rights of the people who work for him! What people like Clapper, Brennan, Page and Strozk have done has ZERO to do with informing the people...it was a deliberate attempt at misleading the people!

 

[Oldstyle]

I said it justifies his actions.

It doesn’t. Let’s say a cop doesn’t like someone and he pulls him over for no reason. The cop finds a bag of pot in the back seat. Does that bag of pot justify the cop’s actions?

If the cop pulled them over because someone told him that he was dealing drugs out of his car, the search would be justified and the person would go to jail in most locations, or just get a ticket in NY

Only if the source of the information is credible, correct? I mean, you can’t go violating people’s rights based on unsubstantiated information.

You mean like you folks did with the entire "Russian Collusion" thing? Wow...talk about clueless!

In part yes. We were given credible information that turned out to be correct which launched the investigation. We were also given non-credible information that should not have been used.

You’re doing the same thing you accused the FBI of doing. Aren’t you?

You were fed made up information paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC! That is what launched the investigation! What credible information are you referring to?

 

[colfax_m]

Would it? How does that prove he wasn’t politically motivated?

I said it justifies his actions.

It doesn’t. Let’s say a cop doesn’t like someone and he pulls him over for no reason. The cop finds a bag of pot in the back seat. Does that bag of pot justify the cop’s actions?

I hate to point out the obvious here, Colfax but aren't you liberals the cop in your little car stop scenario? You're looking for anything you can in Trump's "back seat" and your searches are based on lies and innuendoes!

Incorrect. Trump is a public servant. He serves the people and that gives the people a right to know what he is doing on our behalf. It is our right as citizens.

Trump may be a public servant but that doesn't give you the right to violate his rights as an American citizen or the rights of the people who work for him! What people like Clapper, Brennan, Page and Strozk have done has ZERO to do with informing the people...it was a deliberate attempt at misleading the people!

This is a conversation about the impeachment trial. Don't get distracted, this has nothing to with Clapper, Brennan, Page, Strzok or any other boogey men. We are asking about their official duties as government officials. We have a right to know what they're doing in that capacity.

What rights are being violated?

 

[colfax_m]

It doesn’t. Let’s say a cop doesn’t like someone and he pulls him over for no reason. The cop finds a bag of pot in the back seat. Does that bag of pot justify the cop’s actions?

If the cop pulled them over because someone told him that he was dealing drugs out of his car, the search would be justified and the person would go to jail in most locations, or just get a ticket in NY

Only if the source of the information is credible, correct? I mean, you can’t go violating people’s rights based on unsubstantiated information.

You mean like you folks did with the entire "Russian Collusion" thing? Wow...talk about clueless!

In part yes. We were given credible information that turned out to be correct which launched the investigation. We were also given non-credible information that should not have been used.

You’re doing the same thing you accused the FBI of doing. Aren’t you?

You were fed made up information paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC! That is what launched the investigation! What credible information are you referring to?

The information that launched the investigation came from the Australian diplomatic staff. You probably should know this by now.