The Democrats witness dilemma

[Minister of Truth]

trump could NOT hold up aid to Ukraine- period.

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.

[Minister of Truth]

Bullshit. He was still blackmailing Zelensky.

Goddammit, at least use the correct term, which is extortion!

[domer76]

The word you're looking for is extortion, but, the correct words are due and process.

The terms are "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress", which has nothing to do with the Bidens.

[floridafan]

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.

Do you know what the Impound Control Act is? If you don't ask your handlers to look it up for you.

[domer76]

A justifiable investigation isn’t blackmail.

I misused the term. It was extortion and abuse of power. Toss in obstruction of Congress. The Bidens and their testimony are irrelevant. You're desperately grasping at straws.

[domer76]

Goddammit, at least use the correct term, which is extortion!

Glad you admit it was extortion and abuse of power.

[Darth Omar]

The terms are "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress", which has nothing to do with the Bidens.

Dude, congress and the president ‘obstructing’ one another is daily business in DC lol.

[Darth Omar]

I misused the term. It was extortion and abuse of power. Toss in obstruction of Congress. The Bidens and their testimony are irrelevant. You're desperately grasping at straws.

IF Trump was extorting Zelensky and if Hunter Biden is dirty, it’s a pox on both houses, and that adds up to acquittal.

AND it opens up a whole ‘nother can of worms on what was going on in Ukraine under Obama.

Senate Democrats are taking a risk if they vote for witnesses.

[Nordberg]

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.

Not how it works. The prosecutor calls his witnesses as well as the defendant. However, the defendant usually has witnesses that pertain to his case. The rightys want to call the Bidens. They have zero to do with the case. If the Reds want Biden, who is running against Trump, it would be fair to call Trump too. Trump did this to get a political advantage over Joe. Calling just him might do that. In the interest of fair play, Trump would have to testify too.
you are not interested in fair play at all.

[Nordberg]

IF Trump was extorting Zelensky and if Hunter Biden is dirty, it’s a pox on both houses, and that adds up to acquittal.

AND it opens up a whole ‘nother can of worms on what was going on in Ukraine under Obama.

Senate Democrats are taking a risk if they vote for witnesses.

No, if Trump was extorting, it is just a guilty case and he loses. Parnas just said Joe was acting to get rid of a corrupt prosecutor. That is what Joe and everyone else said, except the conspiracy nuts.

[Darth Omar]

Not how it works. The prosecutor calls his witnesses as well as the defendant. However, the defendant usually has witnesses that pertain to his case. The rightys want to call the Bidens. They have zero to do with the case. If the Reds want Biden, who is running against Trump, it would be fair to call Trump too. Trump did this to get a political advantage over Joe. Calling just him might do that. In the interest of fair play, Trump would have to testify too.
you are not interested in fair play at all.

Well, it’s the Senate’s turn to decide what is fair lol.

Just for giggles, should Trump be allowed to call any witnesses to his defense?

[Darth Omar]

No, if Trump was extorting, it is just a guilty case and he loses. Parnas just said Joe was acting to get rid of a corrupt prosecutor. That is what Joe and everyone else said, except the conspiracy nuts.

Is Zelensky a conspiracy nut?

Is he facing legal troubles like Parnas is—and liable to say *anything* to alleviate them?

[Flash]

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.

How is Hunter Biden relevant to anything regardless of how dirty he might be?

[Darth Omar]

How is Hunter Biden relevant to anything regardless of how dirty he might be?

Trump asked for an investigation of him.

It doesn’t matter if it turns out one was warranted??

[Minister of Truth]

The terms are "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress", which has nothing to do with the Bidens.

Biden committed the first. The second is not a crime.