jm192
Footballguy
I’m assuming Hunter can plead the 5thCan he refuse to answer any questions unrelated to Trumps actions?
I’m assuming Hunter can plead the 5thCan he refuse to answer any questions unrelated to Trumps actions?
I apologize if this has already been asked (I'm kind of Hippling) but why is it important for you to hear from Hunter Biden in Trump's impeachment trial?Sure, but the House did not subpoena him. So in the words of that Olson fellow. Why would the Senate do the House's homework? But Any way, I'd like to hear from him, Hunter, the WB and anyone else that may shed light on the truth.
As for the procedure. It's my understanding that after the opening statements, The senate votes on witnesses. If they subpoena Bolton the WH can claim executive privilege to keep him from testifying. It's at that point as the third equal branch the SCOTUS would step in and decide. Am I wrong about that?
It does if you're trying to do literally anything to distract from the president's abuses of power.It seems like the questions to Hunter would be exploratory. That doesn't seem to make sense at a trial.
The narrative started as “this is not about the Bidens, but about tackling corruption in Ukraine”. It’s interesting that the entire narrative in Congress is now “this is all about investigating the Bidens”. Neither Hunter nor Joe Biden have any firsthand knowledge of WH communications,I know you think the public is stupid. I think the Dems fear is that Hunter says something that justifies trump's inquiry to the rest of America.
Out of all the possible corruption in all the world, he just so happened to want to know about this guy, who just so happened to be the son of his percieved chief political rival. When he's showed virutally no interest in any other corruption except perhaps the corruption he was doing himself? AND when they got busted they scattered like rats and covered everything up, because of the, you know, legitimate corruption investigation, that, you know, we have the FBI for.Classic dem logic: anyone who doesn’t share my view is stupid.
You ONLY want to hear about how Trump is bad. The defense is arguing Trump was right to investigate it. Hunter is relevant to that. The defense needs to be able to call witnesses to support their argument. Or no one does.
Why would you be opposed to Hunter? Because you think we’re wasting time with it? We’re wasting tons of time.
Dangerous propaganda. Nazi-like. Horrible for the country.Laura Ingraham is apparently threatening that any Republican who votes for witnesses will be public enemy #1 on her show, and she will use all her power to ruin them.
Obviously Laura is interested in the truth!!
My linkLaura Ingraham is apparently threatening that any Republican who votes for witnesses will be public enemy #1 on her show, and she will use all her power to ruin them.
Obviously Laura is interested in the truth!!
Sounds like they may have first hand knowledge of corruption in Ukraine.The narrative started as “this is not about the Bidens, but about tackling corruption in Ukraine”. It’s interesting that the entire narrative in Congress is now “this is all about investigating the Bidens”. Neither Hunter nor Joe Biden have any firsthand knowledge of WH communications,
If that's the info you want, Lev Parnas should probably be the witness.Sounds like they may have first hand knowledge of corruption in Ukraine.
The Democrats brought up the Bidens 400 times before the defense even started speaking. So that opened them up to replies in regards to the Bidens.The narrative started as “this is not about the Bidens, but about tackling corruption in Ukraine”. It’s interesting that the entire narrative in Congress is now “this is all about investigating the Bidens”. Neither Hunter nor Joe Biden have any firsthand knowledge of WH communications,
What would Republicans ask him that's central to the defense?It seems central to the defense.
Also, if he’s irrelevant, why did the House mention Joe and Hunter so many times?
Cool, then let him speak and let the GOP look silly.BS...the public is smart enough yo know Hunter isn't a witness to what happened.
If you need an impeachment trial to explore and find probable cause...your defense sucks.It seems central to the defense.
Also, if he’s irrelevant, why did the House mention Joe and Hunter so many times?
I don;t think what Hunter/Joe did was illegal but I think it shows signs of corruption. It's the corruption that Trump claims he wanted investigated.I apologize if this has already been asked (I'm kind of Hippling) but why is it important for you to hear from Hunter Biden in Trump's impeachment trial?
Again: for like the 18th time today: The defense asserts that Biden's were involved in corruption. If they were, then Trump is justified.What would Republicans ask him that's central to the defense?
Joe and Hunter are relevant in all this but I don't think as witnesses.
Absolutely agree. It should have been looked into in the House.If you need an impeachment trial to explore and find probable cause...your defense sucks.
(the you here is not you personally but the legal defense of Trump)
He wasn't concerned about that the previous years he was in office. If you look at the countries we are sending aid to, it’s basically a list of the most corrupt nations on earth. Let’s see the documents from the State Dept with details of the investigation conditions in order to get the aid released. Let’s see communications from the WH detailing concerns about corruption and justifying investigating the Bidens. All I’ve seen is communications through Rudy Giuliani and the goons surrounding him trying to dig up political dirt.Sounds like they may have first hand knowledge of corruption in Ukraine.
Can they call Putin too? He might know about corruption. Putin for Bolton...deal.I don;t think what Hunter/Joe did was illegal but I think it shows signs of corruption. It's the corruption that Trump claims he wanted investigated.
So what would they ask him? Just stuff like, "how did you get the job? Why were you paid what you got?"Again: for like the 18th time today: The defense asserts that Biden's were involved in corruption. If they were, then Trump is justified.
They look silly enough already . Its a poor look for them.Cool, then let him speak and let the GOP look silly.
Well why don't we sweep all the corruption under the rug since we've ignored it this long?He wasn't concerned about that the previous years he was in office. If you look at the countries we are sending aid to, it’s basically a list of the most corrupt nations on earth. Let’s see the documents from the State Dept with details of the investigation conditions in order to get the aid released. Let’s see communications from the WH detailing concerns about corruption and justifying investigating the Bidens. All I’ve seen is communications through Rudy Giuliani and the goons surrounding him trying to dig up political dirt.
And a scared look for the DemsThey look silly enough already . Its a poor look for them.
We know that Trump and Giuliani were looking into Ukrainian corruption before Joe announced he running for President.We don't need anything from the Bidens. We just need to know what Donald knew when he asked the Ukrainians to investigate. His staff should have all the data.
So a President can request investigations are launched into political opponents so long as the investigation turns up dirt?Again: for like the 18th time today: The defense asserts that Biden's were involved in corruption. If they were, then Trump is justified.
That seems encouraging. I don't think Lankford was even on the radar as someone that might call for witnesses.Republican senators state that they need to see more evidence before they vote on whether they need more evidence.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/28/politics/james-lankford-john-bolton-manuscript-cnntv/index.html
you get it spoon-fed to you enough, it eventually tastes good.What questions do you think should be asked of Hunter?
This is truly mind-boggling.
They're mulling over whether his book draft can sit in place of his testimony.That seems encouraging. I don't think Lankford was even on the radar as someone that might call for witnesses.
When did he off George Soros?Assume Hunter is the head of the Ukrainian mafia....so what?
Sharon Stone does a good interview.Republicans should also call to testify:
Cosmo Kramer, what he mean by "the Ukraine is weak"?
Brian Goldner--CEO of Hasbro, maker of Risk. What does he know?
Steve Buscemi for directing the Pine Barrens episode with the Ukranian
Yakov Smirnoff-He makes fun of Russia but how do we know he isn't really a corrupt secret agent working with Biden?
Mila Kunis-No explanation needed
And a former Vp is immune from penalties so long as he’s running for President?So a President can request investigations are launched into political opponents so long as the investigation turns up dirt?
That precedent seems like a sure fire way to ensure that any investigation of the sort turns up some kind of dirt, fabricated, embellished, or not.
What a terrible idea to allow this.
Can we assume that his dad dictated US policy to protect his son? Because THEN I would agree we don’t need to call him.Assume Hunter is the head of the Ukrainian mafia....so what?
"A spoonful of BS helps the propaganda go dowwwwwwwwn,you get it spoon-fed to you enough, it eventually tastes good.
Along party lines, 49 percent of respondents who identified as Republicans said that they thought there should be witness testimony while 95 percent of Democrats and 75 percent of independents said the same.New Quinniapac poll: 75% of the public in favor of witnesses.
Because they want to slander Trump's opponent.Why would you be opposed to Hunter? Because you think we’re wasting time with it? We’re wasting tons of time.
why would you assume that?Can we assume that his dad dictated US policy to protect his son? Because THEN I would agree we don’t need to call him.
Apparently he's only a target because he's running for president. Where was this investigation in 2016? 2017? 2015?And a former Vp is immune from penalties so long as he’s running for President?
So you oppose it because you want to protect Biden. Just say that.Because they want to slander Trump's opponent.
No. If the Justice Department believes they have just cause for an investigation into Joe Biden they should open one. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were both investigated by the FBI while they were running for President and I have no problem with either one. The Senate could initiate their own investigation if they want to. That's fine.And a former Vp is immune from penalties so long as he’s running for President?
Nobody can protect Biden. If they want to call him, they can call him.So you oppose it because you want to protect Biden. Just say that.
Maybe because its so awfully wrong and mendacious?So you oppose it because you want to protect Biden. Just say that.
No we can't.Can we assume that his dad dictated US policy to protect his son? Because THEN I would agree we don’t need to call him.