Posted on 01/14/2020 6:09:37 AM PST by billorites
With a Senate impeachment trial likely just days away, President Trump and Democrats are locked in a cycle of mutual trolling over whether the trial should include testimony from witnesses.
Democrats are pressing Republicans to accept witnesses. They've made public a list of four, led by former national security adviser John Bolton. Some Republicans are countering that the Senate should summon Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, whose suspicious paychecks from a corrupt Ukrainian company were part of the beginning of the Trump-Ukraine affair.
On Sunday morning, after Pelosi appeared on ABC to announce that "this president is impeached for life" — no trolling there, none at all — the president responded that she, too, should have to testify before the trial.
Beyond the substantial question of whether witnesses would add much to the public's knowledge of the matter, Democrats see the issue as a tool to embarrass Republican lawmakers and perhaps damage their chances of reelection in November. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has pledged to force GOP senators to vote on each witness.
Many Republicans are "very, very worried about going home and saying they're not for witnesses and documents," Schumer said last week. "We are telling our Republican colleagues: You can run, but you can't hide."
That led some in the GOP to suggest Schumer dial it back. "I'm a bit baffled why Democrats are so enthusiastic about forcing witness votes to embarrass GOP senators," former top McConnell aide Josh Holmes tweeted Monday. "That seems like a terrific way to end up with Hunter Biden in the chair."
Indeed, a case can be made that Biden's testimony would be valuable. "In a conventional trial, Biden would be a relevant defense witness," law professor Jonathan Turley wrote recently. The president's motive is part of the Ukraine matter. If Biden's story, and the public knows almost nothing about it, raises reasonable concerns about corruption in Ukraine, then the president's defenders could argue that Trump's view had a real basis.
It is not at all clear that 51 Republican senators, much less any Democrats, would agree to call Biden, but there is no doubt he will be part of the argument.
One key figure in the Ukraine affair, however, appears to have faded from view, even as impeachment reaches a climax. The whistleblower who started the whole investigation remains anonymous. The details of the whistleblower's actions by which the whistleblower brought the Ukraine matter to the attention of the intelligence community to House Democrats, and ultimately to the world, remain unclear.
Democrats, who once hoped to feature public testimony by the whistleblower, argue that the account is no longer needed given the other evidence which they say proves Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden and the 2016 election. The whistleblower would have nothing to add, Democrats say, and could suffer recriminations and possibly physical danger if the whistleblower's identity were known.
On the other hand, is the Senate really going to try the president and take a vote on his removal on the basis of an investigation with such murky origins?
It's not an academic question. The whistleblower, in the Aug. 12 complaint, created a template that Democrats used throughout the House Ukraine investigation. "I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election," the whistleblower wrote. "Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid."
Repeat that a million times, and you have the Democratic impeachment investigation. Has any single person been more influential in crafting the case against the president? Are senators expected to pass judgment on that case without knowing how it began?
And what about the whistleblower's motives? Last August, the Intelligence Community inspector general, Michael Atkinson, said the whistleblower showed "some indicia of an arguable political bias ... in favor of a rival political candidate." In October, Atkinson told the House Intelligence Committee that the whistleblower had a "professional relationship" with one of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, according to three knowledgeable sources.
Are senators supposed to vote without knowing anything about that?
Yes, say Democrats. During the House investigation, Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff strictly forbade any talk that might suggest the whistleblower's identity. When National Security Council official Alexander Vindman testified, Democrats jumped in to bar questions on who Vindman talked to about the Trump-Zelensky call. They were worried it might reveal the whistleblower.
In the past, some influential Republicans rejected that view altogether. "I consider any impeachment in the House that doesn't allow us to know who the whistleblower is to be invalid," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham said in October. "It's impossible to bring this case forward in my view without us knowing who the whistleblower is and having a chance to cross-examine them about any biases they may have. So, if they don't call the whistleblower in the House, this thing is dead on arrival in the Senate."
They didn't call the whistleblower in the House. And look for Democrats to do everything they can to block calling the whistleblower to testify in the Senate.
Is that only because Democrats are concerned about the whistleblower's well-being? Or is there some other reason Democrats do not want the world to know about the origins of the case they propose to use to remove the president from office?
Senators, and the rest of the country, have a right to know the answer.
Democrats are more threatened by their whistleblower than the Republicans.
We shouldn’t be playing their game. Nix this quick in the Senate.
So many traitors...so little time. It would be a great day for Free America if these traitors were brought to Justice.
Why would Senators be afraid to go home and face voters who overwhelmingly think the impeachment is a joke?
They’re Republicans. Hiding under their desks is what they do.
If they propose to actually have a “Real” Trial, NO witnesses will be Necessary because EVERYTHING they put Forth Should immediately be Dismissed as Hearsay, then we can get to Holding the Managers in Contempt of Congress.
And as with the (Russian bs) investigation, the only product are records & evidence of crimes committed by a hierarchical list of democrats.
As witness fight rages, whistleblower fades away>>>>>>>>
If he or she happens to have a Scottish name like MacWhistle, he or she would be a Thistleblower.
And easily subpoenaed.
Its a thorny issue.
Eventually the “prick” will spend time in jail.
THINK ABOUT IT.
They are trying to impeach a president on information provided by an individual whose NAME IS UNKNOWN.
The Dems live in an alternate reality. They want us to go there.
We will not. Our Republic thrives on factual truth, And the alternate reality the Dems attempt to create on Impeachment is a measure of the overall sordid Utopian reality to which they aspire. It is strictly imaginary.
This will be the destruction of the Dem party, unless there is a purge of these idiots like Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, and Schumer.
The only reason they are timing the impeachment to occur during the Iowa caucuses, is to keep Bernie Sanders in Washington instead of on the campaign trail in Iowa. Pelosi wants to screw leftists Bernie, Warren so the party establishment will secure either Biden or Bloomberg in nomination. The knives are about to come out between the Dem establishment and the Left in the Dem party. The Donald will exploit that to know end, adding fuel to the fire. Very good!
Guess what.
Pelosi likely just lost the votes of these Dem Senators on the impeachment trial. They will continue on their campaign work and refuse to attend the Pelosi Senate show trial, one based on false premises.
“Dismissed as Hearsay”
You have displayed logic, the law, and common sense which means you are a white-privileged racist pig and deserve a stern rebuke from Schumer.
Rhetorical...
Don't fall for it. It's a trap by the left abetted by the RINO Never Trumpers. No whistleblower, no Bidens (yes, both), no Schiff testimony renders any trial worthless. Little steps by the left. Next step, they want to get it to an actual trial they can manipulate and when done, they will find a way to get the votes.
No, I don't trust the left or the Senate Republicans (Graham included). They all have skeletons and sOmebody, sOmewhere, knows the closets in which they are kept.
Evidence? Did the Chief House Moron actually get elected nitwits to vote to impeach a president w/ no evidence?
Even nicer to know that the stupid Dems actually handed Donald the perch, rent-free, from which to bludgeon them.
Even nicer to know that the stupid Dems actually handed Donald the perch, rent-free, from which to bludgeon them.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So far the Donald has been passive. He’s letting the Dems swing in the wind while trying to hold themselves up on the very self created rope that is hanging them.
Absolutely masterful.
And the Dems keep calling President Trump stupid?
Listen to the creak of those ropes as the Dems desperately try to pull themselves up that rope to keep from hanging.
Political Armageddon is about to descend on the Dems and their ravings, clearly they exist in an ideologically created alternate reality. Its actually mass Psychosis.
When the President moves from passive to active in this contest for “reality,” there will be exploding heads and suicides, not to mention mass resignations.
======================================
Does the Senate have all the official govt documents, cables, memos showing Obama's State Dept’s dealings with Burisma reps in 2015 and 2016?
At that time, Ukrainian authorities escalated their investigation of Burisma Holdings in Feb 2016 by raiding the home of the company’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky.
<><> Burisma’s American reps were now frantically pressing the Obama State Dept to end corruption allegations against them,
<><> Burisma’s American reps were now geting their money's worth---pressing the State Dept for help invoking Hunter Biden’s name.
<><> What did Obama's State Dept officials do after being pressured by Burisma?
<><>Did the US embassy in Kiev assist Burisma’s efforts to settle the corruption case against it?
<><> Who else in the Obama government was being kept appraised?
Donald knows......in politics, as in life.......timing is everything.
It’s an interesting article, but it fails to include another point. Schiff is refusing to release the entire testimony of Inspector General Michael Atkinson. He should also be included on the witness list, as long with his entire earlier testimony.
Oooooooo.....sounds good.....cackle.
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.