Republicans want Hunter Biden, Ukraine whistleblower as impeachment inquiry witnesses

[JasperL]

Trump should never have mentioned Biden, true.
But he didn't pull his name out of a hat.
Nor did he create the video, or state falsely that an inexperienced Hunter Biden was appointed to the board of directors.
Nor did he make up a claim that Ukraine has a history of being rather corrupt.

Which is true-- the funds were dispersed. No strings attached.

 

[JasperL]

well, that's why there are investigations.
Thats what we heard for the last few years so.

But MOM! He might have done it TOO!!

 

[Athanasius68]

News flash: it wasn't illegal (such as a bank robbery) for a foreign company to hire Hunter Biden, for whatever their motive.

Nobody said it was-- though one would suppose it would be illegal for H. Biden to take a bribe.
The issue is whether the Obama Admin had the ability to pressure Ukraine in decisions relating to that country's involvement of events which let the Obama Admin to think the Trump campaign conspired with Russia.

 

[Athanasius68]

but mom! He might have done it too!!

One is proposing to impeach a president for thinking about doing something which another president actually did.
Not only that, when that president actually did that (investigate a political opponent who was running for president), nobody (except perhaps for those crazy Trump types) was arguing about the great dangers to the country Mr. Obama was creating in doing so.

 

[Athanasius68]

No goal post have been moved.

 

[bubbabgone]

I asked for the evidence not an article.

It's in the article.

 

[OscarLevant]

If POS Schiff says NO to letting anyone on that list (below) testify, ...

Hunter Biden
Devon Archer
Alexandra Chalupa
Nellie Ohr
Tim Morrison
Kurt Volker
Whistle Leaker
David Hale

... does that mean we can now say "obstruction of justice" by the dems?!? :lol:

You have made a claim, so please provide a link to back it up. Otherwise, your claim is dismissed

Thank you.

 

[OscarLevant]

Let’s see if Schiffforbrains allows the republicans to call witnesses and which ones he will allow.
It would appear the two most important pieces of evidence is the whistle blower and the phone transcript.

No, the WB is just a tipster, similar to how law enforcement agencies have anonymous tip lines, and they are anonymous for a reason, to encourage tips.

It's not that they believe all the tips, they don't, but they are just starting points. If a tip is confirmed, it's the law that accuses ( the DA ) NOT the tipster.
See, the tipster is not the victim, and since the accused has a right to face the accuser, given that the tipster is not the accuser, the accused has no right to face the tipster. The tipster is the information provider, the accuser/victim in this instance is the United States, and so the accuser is it's representative in law, the District Attorney ( or State's Attorney in some states ).

If someone is going around lighting fires in forests, and someone leaves a tip that leads to the arsonist's arrest, the arsonist has no right to face the tipster, the tipster is not the victim, the United States is the victim, and the one accusing the arsonist of a crime is the united states via the DA.

Capiche?

The WB policy is more elaborate, but the principle is the same.


Given that the salient points in the WB memo have been confirmed by aids in the state department, bringing the WB into the hearings is, redundant, unnecessary, and Could lead to crazies harming him, and that kind of intimidation is what the President wants, in order to discourage more whistleblowing in the future.

No can do, sorry.

 

[MTAtech]

Nobody said it was-- though one would suppose it would be illegal for H. Biden to take a bribe.
The issue is whether the Obama Admin had the ability to pressure Ukraine in decisions relating to that country's involvement of events which let the Obama Admin to think the Trump campaign conspired with Russia.

The issue is not Obama. The issue is Trump attempting to extort a foreign power with taxpayer funds, for personal benefit.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Why All of Trump's Defenses Against Impeachment Are Doomed to Fail

 

[Barnacle]

You have made a claim, so please provide a link to back it up. Otherwise, your claim is dismissed
Thank you.

What claim did I make?

 

[prometeus]

It's in the article.

An article is not evidence.

 

[bubbabgone]

An article is not evidence.

The article gave you the evidence but there's a trick to it ... you have to read it and activate links ... it's not difficult but I know you can do it if you try ... even children have learned to do it.

 

[prometeus]

The article gave you the evidence but there's a trick to it ... you have to read it and activate links ... it's not difficult but I know you can do it if you try ... even children have learned to do it.

No, the articel is not evidence nor does it have any. If you have any post it.

 

[OscarLevant]

What claim did I make?

f POS Schiff says NO to letting anyone on that list (below) testify, ...

Hunter Biden
Devon Archer
Alexandra Chalupa
Nellie Ohr
Tim Morrison
Kurt Volker
Whistle Leaker
David Hale

You claim that Schiff is saying NO to everyone on that list.

that is a claim. Prove it.

First off, Morrison and Volker are scheduled to appear in the open hearings.

So, that is why I wanted to see proof that Schiff is saying NO to 'everyone' on that list.

We do know that Hunter and the WB are not going to appear, for good reason.

So, if you don't mind,

PROVE YOUR CLAiM

 

[Barnacle]

You claim that Schiff is saying NO to everyone on that list.
that is a claim. Prove it.
First off, Morrison and Volker are scheduled to appear in the open hearings.
So, that is why I wanted to see proof that Schiff is saying NO to 'everyone' on that list.
We do know that Hunter and the WB are not going to appear, for good reason.
So, if you don't mind,
PROVE YOUR CLAiM

By golly, your English must be worse than mine if you "mistake" the little word "if" for having made a claim ...

"If POS Schiff says NO to letting anyone on that list (below) testify, ..."


You realize that you do sound hilarious, don't you? :lol:

 

[Hatuey]

No that isn't the core problem here.


Are you familiar with the name Beria?


Beria was the infamous sidekick of Stalin, who said, “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”

For the past three years the Democrats have been operating under the same mindset when it comes to Trump, his family, his cabinet, business associates etc.etc. etc.

With the help of the MSM, a third arm of the Democratic party has been "in search of a crime" to impeach Trump minutes after he won the election.

The whole basis for this impeachment clown show stinks to high heaven starting with the "whistleblower". Ukraine was involved in interfering with our 2016 elections to benefit Hillary Clinton. It is being revealed now that it wasn't just the Ukraine government that was corrupt but those in the Obama administration's Ukraine policies were also corrupt.

Lt. Col. Vindman, "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella, former Ukraine ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch and former VP Biden were all engaged in those policies.

John Durham is investigating Ukraine's interference in our 2016 election. We know from news reports Durham's team has already taken depositions from Ukrainians who say they have proof of Americans in Ukraine breaking U.S. laws.

When all is revealed, it will take decades for the Democratic party, our intel agencies that were politicized under the Obama administration, the damage done to the FISC, our Justice department, to restore any credibility.

... you saying the crimes for which Trump's lawyer, campaign advisers, national security advisers and coffee boys have gone to jails and prisons over aren't real?

Or are you saying they were prosecuted without reason?

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[Outlook]

No, the WB is just a tipster, similar to how law enforcement agencies have anonymous tip lines, and they are anonymous for a reason, to encourage tips.

It's not that they believe all the tips, they don't, but they are just starting points. If a tip is confirmed, it's the law that accuses ( the DA ) NOT the tipster.
See, the tipster is not the victim, and since the accused has a right to face the accuser, given that the tipster is not the accuser, the accused has no right to face the tipster. The tipster is the information provider, the accuser/victim in this instance is the United States, and so the accuser is it's representative in law, the District Attorney ( or State's Attorney in some states ).

If someone is going around lighting fires in forests, and someone leaves a tip that leads to the arsonist's arrest, the arsonist has no right to face the tipster, the tipster is not the victim, the United States is the victim, and the one accusing the arsonist of a crime is the united states via the DA.

Capiche?

The WB policy is more elaborate, but the principle is the same.


Given that the salient points in the WB memo have been confirmed by aids in the state department, bringing the WB into the hearings is, redundant, unnecessary, and Could lead to crazies harming him, and that kind of intimidation is what the President wants, in order to discourage more whistleblowing in the future.

No can do, sorry.

LOL
Is this the new talking point from CNN? The guy is no longer a whistle blower but a tipster.
Well if he is no longer a whistle blower why doesn’t the media give his name?
Whatever you want to call him, he is a material witness since the House is allowing hearsay testimony.

Using your example, if authorities know the tipster that reported someone setting fires and the tipster was the only witness, I’m sure the prosecutor will convince the tipster to testify. Otherwise no evidence, no conviction.

I have been involved in my share of trials. I have never seen a trial were the prosecutor or plaintiff (civil case) was allowed to call any witness he wanted but the defense was not allowed to call any witnesses.

 

[roguenuke]

that's where the corruption was so that was one of the the subjects discussed. Biden doesn't have immunity because he's the opposition.

Then investigate it, if there is real, tangible evidence (not assumptions based on CT correlations) through official channels, without involving federal aid or even a meeting contingent on getting that open investigation.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

LOL
Is this the new talking point from CNN? The guy is no longer a whistle blower but a tipster.
Well if he is no longer a whistle blower why doesn’t the media give his name?
Whatever you want to call him, he is a material witness since the House is allowing hearsay testimony.

Using your example, if authorities know the tipster that reported someone setting fires and the tipster was the only witness, I’m sure the prosecutor will convince the tipster to testify. Otherwise no evidence, no conviction.

I have been involved in my share of trials. I have never seen a trial were the prosecutor or plaintiff (civil case) was allowed to call any witness he wanted but the defense was not allowed to call any witnesses.

In this case, he isnt the only witness nor the primary evidence in the case. So he does not need to testify. Everything significant he reported on with his WB complaint has been or can be verified by someone else. If anyone should be forced to testify it is Trump staffers whom we know were on the calls and/or involved in the situation.

I don't see Republicans demanding Guiliani testify. What are you afraid of him saying/revealing?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

One is proposing to impeach a president for thinking about doing something which another president actually did.
Not only that, when that president actually did that (investigate a political opponent who was running for president), nobody (except perhaps for those crazy Trump types) was arguing about the great dangers to the country Mr. Obama was creating in doing so.

Prove that Obama investigated Trump using his personal lawyer or other contacts as a contact, through back channels.

A President can investigate anyone, with evidence of wrongdoing and through official channels, but they can't leverage aid on such an investigation going on, especially in a foreign country.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Outlook]

G

In this case, he isnt the only witness nor the primary evidence in the case. So he does not need to testify. Everything significant he reported on with his WB complaint has been or can be verified by someone else. If anyone should be forced to testify it is Trump staffers whom we know were on the calls and/or involved in the situation.

I don't see Republicans demanding Guiliani testify. What are you afraid of him saying/revealing?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Wrong again. The WB complaint was not verified by other witnesses. Tell me which witness said Trump ask Ukraine 8 times to investigate Biden?
All of the known witnesses heard the conversation second, third or fourth hand.
All the known witnesses are speculating or presuming the intent of the conversation between Trump and Ukraine.
The key witness, the president of Ukraine confirmed the legitimacy of the phone call.

Is it really true, Trump gave Ukraine arms to shore up their defenses against Russia while Obama gave blankets?
You have to wonder who is the Russian agent.

 

[bubbabgone]

Then investigate it, if there is real, tangible evidence (not assumptions based on CT correlations) through official channels, without involving federal aid or even a meeting contingent on getting that open investigation.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Any other restrictions?
Didn't Kent admit there were serious problems with Burisma that they pressed Ukraine to investigate?
It was dropped when Hunter joined the board.
I believe the timing supports that.
It would be a different set of events than Joe's bold bribery admission on video.

You really don't want to know anything about it do you.

 

[roguenuke]

Any other restrictions?
Didn't Kent admit there were serious problems with Burisma that they pressed Ukraine to investigate?
It was dropped when Hunter joined the board.
I believe the timing supports that.
It would be a different set of events than Joe's bold bribery admission on video.

You really don't want to know anything about it do you.

Do you understand there is a difference between investigating Burisma, the company (and even its owner) and Hunter Biden? If during that investigation (which should and is being done by Ukraine), the Ukraine finds evidence that Hunter Biden broke any laws, then by all means, then investigate Hunter Biden. But it shouldn't be anyone looking for evidence that Hunter Biden broke unspecified laws, either in the US or Ukraine.

AMD no the evidence does not support that the investigation was dropped when Biden joined the board. And if it did show that, that would make Joe Bidens actions of getting Shokin fired less likely to actually help Burisma, unrelated to what Trump and Guiliani are trying to claim, which is that Joe Biden only got Shokin fired for investigating Hunter Biden, to end any sort of investigation into Hunter.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

G

Wrong again. The WB complaint was not verified by other witnesses. Tell me which witness said Trump ask Ukraine 8 times to investigate Biden?
All of the known witnesses heard the conversation second, third or fourth hand.
All the known witnesses are speculating or presuming the intent of the conversation between Trump and Ukraine.
The key witness, the president of Ukraine confirmed the legitimacy of the phone call.

Is it really true, Trump gave Ukraine arms to shore up their defenses against Russia while Obama gave blankets?
You have to wonder who is the Russian agent.

It has been confirmed to the best of the ability so far, so why not allow others actually on the call to testify if they supposedly are going to counter what has been testified to, counter the WBs claims? It is Trump who is preventing that testimony.

And no it is not true what you claim about aid when it comes to Obama and Trump.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk