Posted on 01/26/2020 10:56:42 AM PST by NoLibZone
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) revealed Saturday he has drafted motions to subpoena former Vice President Joe Biden, his youngest son Hunter Biden, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), and the so-called “whistleblower.”
Hawley will attempt to force a vote on the subpoenas if the Senate approves additional witnesses and documents as part of the upper chamber’s trial.
The Missouri Republican’s pledge mirrors one made by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who earlier this month threatened to force a vote on subpoenaing Hunter Biden and the so-called “whistleblower” if Republicans grant the Democrats’ demand for more witnesses.
Hawley’s motion is likely to be opposed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who has come out against subpoenaing Hunter Biden over concerns that the move will extend the trial longer. He said:
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Forcing Biden to answer the questions of a competent interrogator under oath would END HIS CAREER right there. It would simultaneously destroy the Trump impeachment farce.
Charles Schumer and others who want to get rid of Joe Biden before he is the Dem’s 2020 nominee, will connive to have him subpoenaed. Those who prefer him to get the Dem’s nomination, and those who fear exposure of the origin’s of the Dems’ impeachment plot, will connive to prevent testimony. D’s and R’s both know that Biden can collapse quicker than Hillary at a 9-11 commemoration. I’m not sure the R’s even need to call Biden as a witness to destroy him now, except to get public attention. Blow him up now, or wait until he further messes up the Dems’ nomination process?
the Senate knows that allowing witnesses likely extends this marathon circus indefinitely ... i doubt if ANY Senator from either party wants to halt all Senate business, all personal business, and all campaign business for months ... certainly the leaders of the GOP Senate have repeatedly stressed that they want to end this chrade ASAP ... Hawley’s move is simply a ploy to dampen any enthusiasm the Dems might have for witnesses ... several other GOP Senators have also publicly stressed the unappetizing prospect the Dems can expect from the GOP side should witnesses be called ...
Yes, the Trump accusers should be brought to testify. But, not in the impeachment. Let that be done, and the Senate get back to, as in the words of a famous philosopher once said, “Get back to doing the work for the American People”.
Bring Hunter to testify in a new Senate sub-committee hearing for the purpose. That should be sufficient, and would let the country get going again. Along with Eric Carmel-ia. And perhaps other cabal gang members.
There CANNOT be one impeachment witness... it’s like Lays potato chips - you can’t have just one. Hunter will lead to Bolton will lead to Eric will lead to Blond-hairy-leg-groper will lead to ...
Hey, what’s the big deal about the identity of “the whistleblower”??? Is this person sacrosanct or something?????
Biden would survive interrogation under oath. He’d be like Mister Magoo in his answers.
He’s an analyst about all he knows about hiding is getting behind his desk.
He'll never prove you wrong, because you are right. When mcpain died, linda lost the backrub and butt pal, and he has been the queen of the mouth.
All verbal promises, no blow jobs.
I love your idea.......
Accurate summary. 👍
End this farce by Wednesday.
At some point Trump needs to go on the offense. He’s been playing defense since elected despite all the illegal cards rigged against him. Horray for Hawley
It takes some CRIMINALS to raze a republic. 535+++...666+++
Is this your 1st clue? No, “No Controlling Legal Authority”- Al Gore was, and it’s been downhill ever since.
It was at the end of my sister’s street in Hacienda Heights, California.
https://prospect.org/features/al-gore-temple-doom/
NO JUSTICE, NO REPUBLIC.
Has anyone checked Fort Marcy Park?
There are not going to be any witnesses.
Your premise too get it over and get back to the business of governing sounds great, except for the fact that if that happens the house will just start new impeachment hearings. This has to be stopped here with a outright defense that exposes the total corruption of the DIMS and their media allies. You want witness’s lets give them witness’s, all witness’s, let this trial last until election day.
What if the person was just legally depositing a check and taking some cash when the citizen and the manager showed the police a cherry-picked clip from their security camera showing the man with money at the teller counter, but they hid the deposit slip in a room in the basement?
What if the manager had another teller tell the police, "I saw him hand a note to the teller and take money from him, and I just assumed he was robbing him." What if another customer in the bank said he told the police the man was robbing the bank because that's what the other teller told him?
-PJ
I don’t think so the rats are not stupid enough to try it again this cycle. If they did they would lose the house bank it. If Trump gets his second term buckle up because l bet that Rat mole Wray will be out and it’s going to get good
No witnesses. This has gone on long enough. It’s a fake impeachment.
—
I used to want witnesses.
Now I agree with this.
“.. Does the bank robber, caught in the act by the police have the right to cross examine the upstanding citizen who called the cops? Of course not!’...”
Of course he DOES! The accused ALWAYS has the right to face his accuser.
Please don’t misunderstand my post. This was the argument put forth by someone in the local paper. I certainly don’t agree with his too cute by half characterization of what the dems are trying to pull. The reality is that the dems have talked of impeachment since before the Inauguration.
I don’t know whether or not someone who calls in a report of a crime in progress has to testify or not.
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.