The tits and tats of witnesses, this includes Hunter

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Muhammed]

You tell me: is it US foreign policy to use foreign aid as a bribe to force any foreign official to be removed? That's exactly what Biden did, and he even bragged about it. Who gives a fuck whether any other country supported reforms to get rid of the guy, that ain't the way we're supposed to be doing business. The world knows that Ukraine is and has been a corrupt country, Obama and Biden and the EU certainly knew it. There are legal ways to influence foreign gov'ts to fight their own corruption, but giving them 6 hours to fire somebody who is investigating your son's company is not one of them. Trump has an excuse: it's his job to find out if Americans are involved in corrupt activities abroad, and to discover if anyone has abused the power of their office in the United States gov't. Biden has no such excuse.

One thing you have to be aware of is that Joe Biden is not well. He has a medical history that includes two emergency vascular brain surgeries in his brain box. Even recently the entire world witnessed blood vessels in his head burst on live TV during some Democrat event.

We also witnessed Creepy Joe in the throes of confabulations. Where, as a defense mechanism, he confabulated several different war events into one, which is very typical of people stricken with vascular dementia. The Democrat media certainly tried to make it look funny, like a joke. Brain damage is not a joke!

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?

Because Hunter Biden knows nothing about Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to open a phony investigation. Hunter Biden broke no laws. Trump provided no evidence to open a investigation. The witnesses should be relevant.

Interesting...so it's OK to open an investigation into Carter Page...who broke no laws...but not to open one into Hunter Biden? What is your rationale for that, Bee? I continue to be amused by the Left's double standard when it comes to what's allowable NOW compared to what was commonplace three years ago!

If Trump would have opened an investigation into Biden using the FBI and DOJ am with the same process that was used with page then yes it would be legit. If Obama went to a foreign leader and leveraged US funds to get them to announce an investigation into Carter page then there would be issues.

Well they did worse.

They leveraged US funds to get the Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin fired, and replaced by some stooge, Yuri Lutsenko, that they already knew was a corrupt motherfuckering stooge, because he had already been to prison on corruption charges, did not ever practice law, did not have a law degree and never even went to law school. Yep, that was a huge scandal in Ukraine, to say the least.

And has now fled the country because of new corruption charges.


WTF????

I think the corrupt Democrats were believing their own propaganda that there would never be another Republican president, and thought they could get away with anything.

 

[Slade3200]

You tell me: is it US foreign policy to use foreign aid as a bribe to force any foreign official to be removed? That's exactly what Biden did, and he even bragged about it. Who gives a fuck whether any other country supported reforms to get rid of the guy, that ain't the way we're supposed to be doing business. The world knows that Ukraine is and has been a corrupt country, Obama and Biden and the EU certainly knew it. There are legal ways to influence foreign gov'ts to fight their own corruption, but giving them 6 hours to fire somebody who is investigating your son's company is not one of them. Trump has an excuse: it's his job to find out if Americans are involved in corrupt activities abroad, and to discover if anyone has abused the power of their office in the United States gov't. Biden has no such excuse.

One thing you have to be aware of is that Joe Biden is not well. He has a medical history that includes two emergency vascular brain surgeries in his brain box. Even recently the entire world witnessed blood vessels in his head burst on live TV during some Democrat event.

We also witnessed in the throes of confabulations. Where, as a defense mechanism, he confabulated several different war events into one. The Democrat media certainly tried to

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?

Because Hunter Biden knows nothing about Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to open a phony investigation. Hunter Biden broke no laws. Trump provided no evidence to open a investigation. The witnesses should be relevant.

Interesting...so it's OK to open an investigation into Carter Page...who broke no laws...but not to open one into Hunter Biden? What is your rationale for that, Bee? I continue to be amused by the Left's double standard when it comes to what's allowable NOW compared to what was commonplace three years ago!

If Trump would have opened an investigation into Biden using the FBI and DOJ am with the same process that was used with page then yes it would be legit. If Obama went to a foreign leader and leveraged US funds to get them to announce an investigation into Carter page then there would be issues.

Well they did worse.

They leveraged US funds to get the Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin fired, and replaced by some stooge, Yuri Lutsenko, that they already knew was a corrupt motherfuckering stooge, because he had already been to prison on corruption charges.


WTF????

I think the corrupt Democrats were believing their own propaganda that there would never be another Republican president, and thought they could get away with anything.

We’re you one of the many that said Hillary was sick as well? Painting a picture that she wouldn’t medically survive the presidency?

Don’t these tactics get old?

 

[progressive hunter]

but thats not what happened,,,stop lying,,,

And... care to explain that?

twisting the facts to match your narrative is lying,,,

how am I twisting facts?

also, can we stop with the games that take dozens of questions and vague answers to get the point out of you?. If you want to make a Point then make the point and explain yourself. My patience is thin with your tactics. Time to talk like grown ups.

if it wasnt for the fact we have gone over your deceptions and twisted facts many times I would agree with you,,,

And another vague response. I’m done with you for the day. Thanks for playing. Try again once you’ve grown up

nothing vague about it,,, but go ahead and run away again,,,

 

[JoeB131]

I understand that but Trump is being accused of digging for political dirt. He says he was rooting out corruption. That is a point of contention that Hunter falls right in the middle of.

No, not really. Rooting out corruption would have been directing investigators to investigate, not trying to shake down another government. Even if Hunter had done something, holding up aid to get at it was a crime.

 

[Slade3200]

I understand that but Trump is being accused of digging for political dirt. He says he was rooting out corruption. That is a point of contention that Hunter falls right in the middle of.

No, not really. Rooting out corruption would have been directing investigators to investigate, not trying to shake down another government. Even if Hunter had done something, holding up aid to get at it was a crime.

i agree and I’m not saying Trumps hands are clean... But a major point of Trumps impeachment is the digging for dirt for personal political gain. Doesn’t Trump have the right to defend that point and make a case that he was going after legit corruption?

 

[RealDave]

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?

Hunter took a job on a board.

Now what do you ask?

 

[RealDave]

I understand that but Trump is being accused of digging for political dirt. He says he was rooting out corruption. That is a point of contention that Hunter falls right in the middle of.

No, not really. Rooting out corruption would have been directing investigators to investigate, not trying to shake down another government. Even if Hunter had done something, holding up aid to get at it was a crime.

i agree and I’m not saying Trumps hands are clean... But a major point of Trumps impeachment is the digging for dirt for personal political gain. Doesn’t Trump have the right to defend that point and make a case that he was going after legit corruption?

How does an action taken years before by a man who is no longer in charge have anythiong to do with current corruption?

If Captain Bone Spurs really cared about corruption, he would have a more recent example or at least something active.

 

[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?

Hunter took a job on a board.

Now what do you ask?

The Reps would ask if his father had anything to do with him getting that job. Then they would ask if he leveraged his fathers position to advance the goals of that company and if his dad knew or participated. It would be a grilling about all the corruption accusations that Trump and the Reps have been laying out.

it would sew seeds that will then be used to label Biden as Crooked Joe and get crowds to chant “lock him up” during campaign rallies... We’ve all seen the playbook

 

[Slade3200]

I understand that but Trump is being accused of digging for political dirt. He says he was rooting out corruption. That is a point of contention that Hunter falls right in the middle of.

No, not really. Rooting out corruption would have been directing investigators to investigate, not trying to shake down another government. Even if Hunter had done something, holding up aid to get at it was a crime.

i agree and I’m not saying Trumps hands are clean... But a major point of Trumps impeachment is the digging for dirt for personal political gain. Doesn’t Trump have the right to defend that point and make a case that he was going after legit corruption?

How does an action taken years before by a man who is no longer in charge have anythiong to do with current corruption?

If Captain Bone Spurs really cared about corruption, he would have a more recent example or at least something active.

His counter would be that the video of Biden saying he held money to fire the persecutor who was “investigating” Hunters company recently came to his attention and with the new leader in Ukraine he wanted to be sure that he was strong in rooting out that kind of corruption

 

[JoeB131]

i agree and I’m not saying Trumps hands are clean... But a major point of Trumps impeachment is the digging for dirt for personal political gain. Doesn’t Trump have the right to defend that point and make a case that he was going after legit corruption?

No, it really doesn't. We don't let cops plant evidence because they know that guy is guilty.
We don't let prosecutors manufacture evidence because they don't have real evidence.

Regardless of whether or not Hunter did something wrong, Trump method for goign after it was a violation of the law, endangered national security and involved abuse of power.

 

[Slade3200]

i agree and I’m not saying Trumps hands are clean... But a major point of Trumps impeachment is the digging for dirt for personal political gain. Doesn’t Trump have the right to defend that point and make a case that he was going after legit corruption?

No, it really doesn't. We don't let cops plant evidence because they know that guy is guilty.
We don't let prosecutors manufacture evidence because they don't have real evidence.

Regardless of whether or not Hunter did something wrong, Trump method for goign after it was a violation of the law, endangered national security and involved abuse of power.

if Hunter and Joe were involved in corrupt activity then is the claim against trump that he was digging for personal political dirt still legit in your eyes?

 

[JoeB131]

if Hunter and Joe were involved in corrupt activity then is the claim against trump that he was digging for personal political dirt still legit in your eyes?

Nope, not even a little bit

If there WAS evidence of corruption, THEN you hand that over to the Department of Justice and start an investigation. It would immediately be rejected because what Biden did in the Ukraine was at the direction of Obama and was completely within Congressional Directives, but never mind. Let's say somehow, you can make the argument that a Vice-President carrying out the policy everyone kind of agreed on was illegitimate because Trump read some garbled nonsense in a right wing blog and didn't talk to his Diplomatic, Intelligence and Military professionals, who would have told him it was bunk.

This impeachment is ONLY about Trump's behavior, not Biden's.

 

[Olde Europe]

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?

Hunter took a job on a board.

Now what do you ask?

Nothing. Even if Joe helped Hunter to get that job, there would be nothing criminal about it. There is, however, no evidence for any of that. Even if Hunter phoned home to ask Joe for help to get Slotkin fired, it wouldn't be criminal. Sleazy, yes, but not criminal. Regardless, everyone with some decency wanted Slotkin fired exactly for not doing his job, that is, not prosecuting the oligarchs' corruption. And that's before asking questions as to why his deputies - diamond prosecutors - had millions in cash and diamonds at home, which they couldn't explain based on their salaries.

What they would do, of course, is modeled on the Clinton impeachment: Hunter's personal life (cocaine, whores, alcohol) provides a real bonanza for that, and the real target would be Joe. Anyone playing with a full deck should be aware of that, and pretend-innocent questions as to why Hunter should not be called as a witness - when he has nothing to say on Trump's extortion and abuse of power - should judge themselves. Rather, those asking these questions are doing Trump's bidding by raising the ridiculous notion that bringing the power of the state to bear on political opponents (without evidence, without following proper procedures, in secret) would be part of an anti-corruption campaign. That's knee-slapping funny and saddening in about equal measure.

 

[colfax_m]

i agree and I’m not saying Trumps hands are clean... But a major point of Trumps impeachment is the digging for dirt for personal political gain. Doesn’t Trump have the right to defend that point and make a case that he was going after legit corruption?

No, it really doesn't. We don't let cops plant evidence because they know that guy is guilty.
We don't let prosecutors manufacture evidence because they don't have real evidence.

Regardless of whether or not Hunter did something wrong, Trump method for goign after it was a violation of the law, endangered national security and involved abuse of power.

if Hunter and Joe were involved in corrupt activity then is the claim against trump that he was digging for personal political dirt still legit in your eyes?

How could evidence justify actions taken before that evidence is know?

 

[Slade3200]

if Hunter and Joe were involved in corrupt activity then is the claim against trump that he was digging for personal political dirt still legit in your eyes?

Nope, not even a little bit

If there WAS evidence of corruption, THEN you hand that over to the Department of Justice and start an investigation. It would immediately be rejected because what Biden did in the Ukraine was at the direction of Obama and was completely within Congressional Directives, but never mind. Let's say somehow, you can make the argument that a Vice-President carrying out the policy everyone kind of agreed on was illegitimate because Trump read some garbled nonsense in a right wing blog and didn't talk to his Diplomatic, Intelligence and Military professionals, who would have told him it was bunk.

This impeachment is ONLY about Trump's behavior, not Biden's.

Well done... nicely presented argument

 

[Slade3200]

if Hunter and Joe were involved in corrupt activity then is the claim against trump that he was digging for personal political dirt still legit in your eyes?

Nope, not even a little bit

If there WAS evidence of corruption, THEN you hand that over to the Department of Justice and start an investigation. It would immediately be rejected because what Biden did in the Ukraine was at the direction of Obama and was completely within Congressional Directives, but never mind. Let's say somehow, you can make the argument that a Vice-President carrying out the policy everyone kind of agreed on was illegitimate because Trump read some garbled nonsense in a right wing blog and didn't talk to his Diplomatic, Intelligence and Military professionals, who would have told him it was bunk.

This impeachment is ONLY about Trump's behavior, not Biden's.

Well done... nicely presented argument

i don’t think we know what evidence Trump had to justify the ask... I do think he gets a chance to present it and make his case... though personally I don’t think he will, he seems more comfortable making accusations in the press rather than legal arguments under oath.

 

[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.

 

[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?