The Democrats witness dilemma

[PostmodernProphet]

There’s a difference between “no evidence” and “admissible evidence”, idiot.

yes.....there is.....its "no evidence" and "inadmissible evidence" that are identical.........idiot.....

[USFREEDOM911]

Zelensky did not become President until May 25, 2019.

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Don't confuse them with FACTS.

[domer76]

yes.....there is.....its "no evidence" and "inadmissible evidence" that are identical.........idiot.....

Get your money back from that failed “law school”.

[Darth Omar]

Do you really think the president has been asking other leaders to investigate individuals?

If he was so concerned about corruption in Ukraine he should have asked for investigations into Gates and Manafort who were engaged in big-time crimes. And, this was done by the U.S.

I don't think Trump should be convicted for his activities, but I certainly don't believe his story that:

1. He was truly concerned about corruption without regard to Biden being a political opponent.
2. That he asked Ukraine to publicly announce the investigation because they don't always follow through on their promises.

I think the worst thing he did was set up the ambassador for false claims.

Well, there’s only one leaked conversation to go by so who knows what Trump has asked other leaders about corruption. We do know he doesn’t like wasting US tax dollars on foreign nations after getting the NATO members to pony-up. In that sense, it’s hardly outlandish that Trump would ‘pressure’ Zelensky on corruption.

Regarding number 1: why did it take so long for someone to be concerned about the obvious conflict of interest in the cozy Hunter Biden/Burisma arrangement? That never should have gone on and none of the anti-Trumpers can explain why it was allowed to go on.

Trump should ignore it because Biden was a possible political opponent lol? I don’t understand the objection.

Number 2: Trump asks for a public announcement of an investigation into the Biden’s. Political opportunism is hardly an impeachable offense.

Who handed Trump the opportunity on a Golden Platter? Ultimately, Obama. If Joe Biden wasn’t going to shut it down—Obama should have since he was president. As pointed out previously, none of this would have happened had someone stepped in and either prevented Hunter from accepting the ‘job’ with Burisma; or, if Hunter was going to take the job, Joe Biden should have recused from playing Obama’s Point Man on Ukraine.

Because that sure as hell at least *looks* corrupt.

But we’re all supposed to pretend none of that was a big deal but Trump should be impeached for asking Zelensky to investigate it.

If that looks like it makes zero sense—it’s because it doesn’t make any sense. Yet, here we are.

[Walt]

I remember with Limbaugh, his high price lawyers got the evidence of his other attempts to get drugs ruled inadmissible, because it would prejudice the jury. Then he claimed it had never happened, because it was ruled inadmissible.

It still happened. It is just the right wing judge who was hearing the case felt that having the jury find out what Limbaugh was doing would make them think he was guilty.

[Earl]

I remember with Limbaugh, his high price lawyers got the evidence of his other attempts to get drugs ruled inadmissible, because it would prejudice the jury. Then he claimed it had never happened, because it was ruled inadmissible.

It still happened. It is just the right wing judge who was hearing the case felt that having the jury find out what Limbaugh was doing would make them think he was guilty.

If you were in court, wouldn’t you want a high priced lawyer?

Do you know that today is Sat., Snowflake?

No school.

[Darth Omar]

Can the president order either Congress or the Justice Dept. to start an investigation?

The President can’t order congress to do anything but he’s certainly over the DOJ lol.

Why did Obama allow such a blatant conflict of interest to exist with Biden’s/Burisma in Ukraine? I don’t fault Obama for not investigating it but he’s certainly at fault for allowing it to go on.

And since he did allow it to go on, there’s no fault whatsoever in Trump asking Zelensky to investigate it—particularly, after Joe’s QPQ boasting that was captured on video.

[PostmodernProphet]

Get your money back from that failed “law school”.

even people who didn't go to law school should be smart enough to realize I'm right.........you I expect nothing from.......if evidence is inadmissible in court it is inadmissible for a reason........and if it is inadmissible for a reason it shouldn't be considered to be evidence of anything except perhaps the stupidity of those who credit it.......

[Walt]

The President can’t order congress to do anything but he’s certainly over the DOJ lol.

If trump had credible evidence of anything, he could certainly call the FBI. In fact, a call from the president would not need anywhere as much evidence as a call from anyone else.

The fact is trump had no evidence of anything wrong, and really had no interest in a real investigation. Why would he want foreigners to conduct the investigation anyway?

What trump was demanding was the Ukraine hold a press conference announcing the investigation. He had no interest in an actual investigation. It was the press conference he wanted.

Biden(the son) was brought into Burisma to clean it up to western standards. No one denies that there were crimes(by western standards) before Biden, but you cannot pin that on Biden. Burisma now passes western due diligence standards, which means it is crime free enough.

[Earl]

Burisma Holdings Limited is based in the Ukraine...the investigation should have been done in the country of origin.

[Darth Omar]

If trump had credible evidence of anything, he could certainly call the FBI. In fact, a call from the president would not need anywhere as much evidence as a call from anyone else.

The fact is trump had no evidence of anything wrong, and really had no interest in a real investigation. Why would he want foreigners to conduct the investigation anyway?

What trump was demanding was the Ukraine hold a press conference announcing the investigation. He had no interest in an actual investigation. It was the press conference he wanted.

Biden(the son) was brought into Burisma to clean it up to western standards. No one denies that there were crimes(by western standards) before Biden, but you cannot pin that on Biden. Burisma now passes western due diligence standards, which means it is crime free enough.

The Ukrainians are better equipped to investigate corruption in their own country than we are. A seemingly obvious point.

Burisma was under investigation. Then the investigation was suspended for reasons that aren’t exactly crystal clear. Then Burisma was never investigated again, while Hunter was being paid $50k/month to sit on the board. If that doesn’t constitute probable cause for an investigation—it’s certainly sniffing around the edges.

And we all know how low a bar probable cause is after the Russian Hoax investigation.

At any rate, Democrats can fully expect many ‘inconvenient’ questions to be asked of Hunter Biden if the Senate votes to have witnesses. Hunter is a recovering drug addict that got booted from the Navy and managed to get a stripper pregnant. Under normal circumstances, the prosecution wouldn’t want him anywhere near the witness stand.

I guess we’ll see how daring Senate Democrats are.

[ThatOwlWoman]

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.

You are quite deep into the far RW fantasy world, aren't you?

Personally I don't care if they call either Biden. They have nothing to offer on the charges that TRE45ON abused his authority as IMPOTUS by withholding Ukraine's aid in order to receive political favors. You only want them to obfuscate things. Fine, have them.

As for the WB, figure out a way that his identity can be protected and call him/her, too. Everything his report alleged has been verified by the House witnesses and will be re-verified when they testify in the Senate trial. The so-called link to Schiff is tenuous at best. Wouldn't you prefer the speculation that Schiff is somehow dirty over the truth that he is not?

[Darth Omar]

You are quite deep into the far RW fantasy world, aren't you?

Personally I don't care if they call either Biden. They have nothing to offer on the charges that TRE45ON abused his authority as IMPOTUS by withholding Ukraine's aid in order to receive political favors. You only want them to obfuscate things. Fine, have them.

As for the WB, figure out a way that his identity can be protected and call him/her, too. Everything his report alleged has been verified by the House witnesses and will be re-verified when they testify in the Senate trial. The so-called link to Schiff is tenuous at best. Wouldn't you prefer the speculation that Schiff is somehow dirty over the truth that he is not?

This isn’t going to be the tightly controlled House investigation, all over again, so there’s no point in deluding yourself with the notion Hunter Biden has nothing to offer in Trump’s defense. If the Biden’s are dirty—or even if they come out looking more suspiciously dirty than they already do, then Trump will be justified in asking [and even pressuring] Zelensky for an investigation. That Trump would benefit politically is irrelevant. IOW, game over.

A Senate trial, with witnesses, will be an opportunity to dump the whole can of worms on the table to see what crawls out.

[ThatOwlWoman]

A Senate trial, with witnesses, will be an opportunity to dump the whole can of worms on the table to see what crawls out.

I agree. Let's do it. The decades and millions of dollars spent investigating the Clintons for naught weren't enough for you guys. You can't win fair and square so this is how you "win"... so just do it. There is no actual dirt on the Bidens. I look forward to this being proven in court. All you have is innuendo and faux Fox reporting in a last desperate attempt to save your filthy corrupt IMPOTUS. And this is why McConnell et al do NOT want ANY witnesses. They've got no defense.

[Darth Omar]

I agree. Let's do it. The decades and millions of dollars spent investigating the Clintons for naught weren't enough for you guys. You can't win fair and square so this is how you "win"... so just do it. There is no actual dirt on the Bidens. I look forward to this being proven in court. All you have is innuendo and faux Fox reporting in a last desperate attempt to save your filthy corrupt IMPOTUS. And this is why McConnell et al do NOT want ANY witnesses. They've got no defense.

You’re guessing/hoping the Biden’s aren’t dirty lol.

At worst, Trump is guilty of a lame attempt at pressuring Zelensky to announce an investigation into a matter that is *worthy of an investigation*. The investigation never happened, the Ukrainians got their money and lethal weapons and etc.

Many reasonable people would say ‘no harm, no foul’ or call it a Silly Burger.

At worst, Hunter Biden was involved in a Ukrainian protection racket, which raises the question of whether Obama was aware of it.

Let’s dump all the worms on the table.