House Republicans add Hunter Biden, whistleblower to impeachment hearing witness wishlist

House Republicans plan to call former Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter and the Ukraine whistleblower, among other witnesses, to testify as the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into President Trump shifts to a new, public phase.

"Americans see through this sham impeachment process, despite the Democrats' efforts to retroactively legitimize it last week," Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the House Intelligence Committee's top Republican, wrote in a letter to the panel's Democratic chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), on Saturday.

He continued: "To provide transparency to your otherwise opaque and unfair process, and after consultation with [House Oversight Committee] Ranking Member Jim Jordan and [House Foreign Affairs Committee] Ranking Member Michael McCaul, the American people deserve to hear from the following witnesses in an open setting.”

In requesting testimony from the whistleblower whose complaint sparked the impeachment inquiry, Nunes said “Trump should be afforded an opportunity to confront his accusers,” especially with what he claimed were “discrepancies” between the whistleblower's complaint and witnesses’ closed-door testimony.

“It is imperative that the American people hear definitively how the whistleblower developed his or her information, and who else the whistleblower may have fed the information he or she gathered and how that treatment of classified information may have led to the false narrative being perpetrated by the Democrats during this process,” Nunes wrote.

It doesn't matter why Biden demanded that the prosecutor investigating Burisma be fired. Unless the prosecutor was actually charged and convicted of some offense by Ukrainian official under a legal process and still kept in office Biden's act is a payoff under the law. It violates the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. As to having Hunter testify:

The other thing, There's a lot talk about Biden's son,. that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you ·can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.

Biden's son Hunter needs to testify on the facts in this central statement. If Hunter refutes the fact that Burisma was under investigation by Shokin then that would be very damaging to the President. If he corroborates the facts in the call then the President is doing his job to get the AG to look into potential US crimes. It's not "dirt" if its a real crime.

Sen. Rand Paul: "You've heard of the Constitution, right? The Constitution has the Sixth Amendment."
Paul went on to explain that the Sixth Amendment included the right of the accused to confront any accusers, suggesting that allowing the whistleblower to remain anonymous would then be a de facto denial of Trump’s Sixth Amendment rights.
Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham also argued that the whistleblower was not guaranteed anonymity, telling reporters, “The whistleblower statute was never meant to give you anonymity. It was meant to allow you to come forward without being fired.”
Read the entire article at The Daily Caller: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10d52uEgxg165jHE0KBwLsRJg9jn5Icdj4d078u2S1eA/edit
Sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

“Shiff is a former US attorney-prosecutor.. if he would pull this crap with the President of the USA, think what this low life POS has done to poor ordinary citizens, just to get he convection rate up.
If I were a lawyer for one of Shiffs former “defendants” I appeal that conviction, based on his modus operandi.”

The Development of the Exclusionary Rule

For the more than 100 years after its ratification, the Fourth Amendment was of little value to criminal defendants because evidence seized by law enforcement in violation of the warrant or reasonableness requirements was still admissible during the defendant’s prosecution.

The U.S. Supreme Court dramatically changed Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in 1914, however, when it handed down its decision in Weeks v. United States. This case involved the appeal of a defendant who had been convicted based on evidence that had been seized by a federal agent without a warrant or other constitutional justification. In reversing the conviction, the Supreme Court effectively created the exclusionary rule. Then, in 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court made the exclusionary rule applicable to the states with its decision in Mapp v. Ohio.

Why Do We Have the Exclusionary Rule?

Designed to deter police misconduct, the exclusionary rule enables courts to exclude incriminating evidence from being introduced at trial upon proof that the evidence was procured in violation of a constitutional provision. The rule allows defendants to challenge the admissibility of evidence by bringing a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence. If the court allows the evidence to be introduced at trial and the jury votes to convict, the defendant can challenge the propriety of the trial court’s decision denying the motion to suppress on appeal.

If the defendant succeeds on appeal, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that double jeopardy principles do not bar retrial of the defendant because the trial court’s error wasn’t addressing the question of guilt or innocence. Nonetheless, obtaining a conviction in the second trial would be significantly more difficult if the evidence suppressed by the exclusionary rule is important to the prosecution.

Companion to the Exclusionary Rule: Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

A legal concept that’s related to the exclusionary rule is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. Under this doctrine, a court may exclude from trial not only evidence that itself was seized in violation of the U.S. Constitution, but also any other evidence that is derived from an illegal search.

For example, suppose a defendant is arrested for kidnapping and later confesses to the crime. If a court subsequently declares that the arrest was unconstitutional, the confession will also be deemed tainted and ruled inadmissible at any prosecution of the defendant on the kidnapping charge.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/the-fourth-amendment-and-the-exclusionary-rule.html

Reportedly, the House dims are pushing for an impeachment vote before the end of the year.

It has been a foregone conclusion since the 2018 election that the House will vote to impeach President Trump in a party line vote so they can go back to their far left-wing base and proclaim that they have done everything that they promised to do when they were elected. There is nothing that they can do about the evil Republicans controlling the Senate who won’t vote to convict, so the dim base needs to get out there and vote out the Republican Senators and put the dims in control of both houses of Congress.

The flaw in their plan is that as soon as they vote to impeach, the House dims lose all control over the narrative. Impeachment then moves to the Senate and the House becomes essentially irrelevant in the proceeding.

There is absolutely no reason that the Senate should move directly to a trial. What the Senate should do is conduct full and complete discovery first, including subpoenas for the testimony by the Bidens, Schiff, Schiff’s staff, the so-called whistleblower, and every other current and former deep state minion involve in planning and executing the coup attempt.

To be completely “fair” the Senate should adopt the same rules that were adopted by the House. This means that the Republican Senate majority would have complete control over which witnesses are called to testify, whether their testimony will be public or privare, what documents to subpoena, and what transcripts are released. The dimocrat minority would only be allowed to call witnesses approved in advance by the Republicans and would only be permitted to as witnesses questions that the Republicans allow.

After going over the news coverage for most of the primary season, the Senate could then move on to a trial, at which President Trump would be totally exonerated of all charges in a party line vote, just in time for the conventions.

The only question (and it is a big one) is whether McConnell has the balls to play hardball with the dimocrats and whether enough Senate RINOs will go along. Hopefully they will understand that it is their only chance to get reelected and to hold on to control of the Senate and to maybe retake the House.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.