Democrats unwilling to negotiate on Hunter Biden

[Darth Omar]

The execrable hack, Jabba the Nadler, says Hunter Biden is off the table.

Sounds like an impasse on witnesses then. How is the senate trial supposed to be ‘fair’ if Republicans can’t call their own witnesses? Why are Democrats so defensive when it comes to Hunter Biden since they’ve insisted there’s no there, there?

If removing Trump is necessary ‘to save the republic’ lol, and the Biden’s are clean, why would they care if Hunter testifies?

Doesn’t add up. Maybe someone can explain it.

[tsuke]

lol. Hunter Biden is the hill they are dying on. I love it.

[dukkha]

call the WB too -and Schiff

[Micawber]

Would Albert Einstein put up with submission of national enquirer snippets at his thesis review on special relativity?

We are trying present a serious impeachment case and you criminals want to troll the proceedings and make it a farce, and everyone knows why.

You knowingly elected an incompetent criminal gameshow clown, you fucking idiots.

[katzgar]

The execrable hack, Jabba the Nadler, says Hunter Biden is off the table.

Sounds like an impasse on witnesses then. How is the senate trial supposed to be ‘fair’ if Republicans can’t call their own witnesses? Why are Democrats so defensive when it comes to Hunter Biden since they’ve insisted there’s no there, there?

If removing Trump is necessary ‘to save the republic’ lol, and the Biden’s are clean, why would they care if Hunter testifies?

Doesn’t add up. Maybe someone can explain it.

probably dont want to negotiate a nothing

[countryboy]

The execrable hack, Jabba the Nadler, says Hunter Biden is off the table.

Sounds like an impasse on witnesses then. How is the senate trial supposed to be ‘fair’ if Republicans can’t call their own witnesses? Why are Democrats so defensive when it comes to Hunter Biden since they’ve insisted there’s no there, there?

If removing Trump is necessary ‘to save the republic’ lol, and the Biden’s are clean, why would they care if Hunter testifies?

Doesn’t add up. Maybe someone can explain it.

When Democrats say "fair trial", what they really mean is, "do as we say, and like it". Coincidentally, that is their definition of "bipartisan", as well.

[Darth Omar]

call the WB too -and Schiff

Yup, all or none.

From the integrity of the impeachment process standpoint, there should be no witnesses. Or new witnesses, anyway. If the Senate wants to hear the ambassador’s opinions/impressions/hearsay, that’s fine.

When the House passed the articles, the Senate assumes the House has all they need and are ready for trial. THATS THE WHOLE POINT IN PASSING THEM! Lol

So The Turtle needs to say, fine, no Hunter/WB/Schiff then no Bolton. Let’s have the trial.

Then get this charade in the rear view mirror ASAP and move the frick on.

[Earl]

https://bongino.com/this-says-it-all...hment-hearing/

This Says it All: Watch Chairman Nadler Fall ASLEEP During ...
https://bongino.com/
Dec 5, 2019 - House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) was so riveted by his party's pathetic attempt to impeach President Trump, he nodded off.

El Sapo doesn't run the show.

The Republican senate does.

[domer76]

The execrable hack, Jabba the Nadler, says Hunter Biden is off the table.

Sounds like an impasse on witnesses then. How is the senate trial supposed to be ‘fair’ if Republicans can’t call their own witnesses? Why are Democrats so defensive when it comes to Hunter Biden since they’ve insisted there’s no there, there?

If removing Trump is necessary ‘to save the republic’ lol, and the Biden’s are clean, why would they care if Hunter testifies?

Doesn’t add up. Maybe someone can explain it.

He’s not relevant to Trump’s impeachment.

End of story.

[domer76]

lol. Hunter Biden is the hill they are dying on. I love it.

Looks like the reverse is true. Terminal diversionary tactics.

Pathetic

[domer76]

Yup, all or none.

From the integrity of the impeachment process standpoint, there should be no witnesses. Or new witnesses, anyway. If the Senate wants to hear the ambassador’s opinions/impressions/hearsay, that’s fine.

When the House passed the articles, the Senate assumes the House has all they need and are ready for trial. THATS THE WHOLE POINT IN PASSING THEM! Lol

So The Turtle needs to say, fine, no Hunter/WB/Schiff then no Bolton. Let’s have the trial.

Then get this charade in the rear view mirror ASAP and move the frick on.

Bullshit. The House made it clear there was plenty of other evidence not yet discovered or made public. We have found that to be true.

[Micawber]

Show me the authentic written communication, or phone call transcript of J Biden demanding some company employ his kid, or some bribe or anything or STFU.
You've got NOTHING, and that's why Biden isn't going to jail and why Trump was impeached.

We have the goods, you got dick. So clam up, stupid traitors.

[Micawber]

"Then get this charade in the rear view mirror ASAP and move the frick on."


That's exactly what you, your criminal and all his accomplice senators and congressmen in retard red states want, we know.

Too bad, this subject is going to rain on the public consciousness every day until election. You are wicked, horrible humans and we
will keep the country righteous.

We cheated, it's no big deal, we'd just like to forget about it now. Fuck that.

[Darth Omar]

He’s not relevant to Trump’s impeachment.

End of story.

If Hunter isn’t relevant why do Democrats care if he testifies or not?

They should be saying something like ‘fine, whatever, we need to hear Bolton’. The fact is Hunter IS not only relevant to Trump’s defense [because if Hunter turns out dirty, that kind of matters] but Democrats are taking a risk in putting him under oath in front of the Senate.

Democrats either know something about the cozy little Ukraine arrangement—or they’re afraid of *what they don’t know* about it. IOW, they don’t believe their own ‘Hunter is clean’ narrative. Or they don’t trust it enough to put him on the stand.

It’s that simple.

[domer76]

If Hunter isn’t relevant why do Democrats care if he testifies or not?

They should be saying something like ‘fine, whatever, we need to hear Bolton’. The fact is Hunter IS not only relevant to Trump’s defense [because if Hunter turns out dirty, that kind of matters] but Democrats are taking a risk in putting him under oath in front of the Senate.

Democrats either know something about the cozy little Ukraine arrangement—or they’re afraid of *what they don’t know* about it. IOW, they don’t believe their own ‘Hunter is clean’ narrative. Or they don’t trust it enough to put him on the stand.

It’s that simple.

Bolton and other administration officials ARE relevant. Why is Trump so desperate to block every one of them?

Trumptards only want to create a situation that diverts from the real truth and actions of Trump. Biden being dirty or not is irrelevant to Trump’s abuse of power and obstruction.