Posted on 01/23/2020 6:46:04 AM PST by rxsid
bookmark
Personally and I know I don’t count but I would like to see a subpoena issued for the “whistleblower” and everything put on hold - shut it all down - until he shows up as a witness for the defense! Why wouldn’t that have been done anyway? I might even settle for one of the defense attorneys SPEAKING HIS NAME in the trial!!! THAT might shut it all down!
Gads - we have to have some fun with this. Anyone watching what’s going on has to be nuts. I follow everything every day every year but this is more than I can take. It would be like watching the same movie 12 hours straight...and starting over on the same movie the next day.
I don't necessarily agree with this.
From the standpoint of political optics, it makes a lot more sense to launch an attack as a "counter-offensive." That's because ordinary people are generally sympathetic to someone who beats the sh!t out of someone while fighting back.
Notice how quickly public sentiment turned in favor of people like Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh once they came out swinging against vicious, slanderous allegations against them.
In Trump's case, the public reaction is likely to be much stronger because the stakes are so much higher and people can easily put themselves in a situation where they're facing LEGAL trouble over outrageous and unjust allegations.
There are also those of us who are stuck at work and cannot play videos because of the sound issue, but can read.
That was my main audience, but I'm happy you were able to take advantage as well.
There's only one small problem with that: Who is the "whistleblower?"
Before you say "Eric Ciaramella," remember that in a legal proceeding, there is a huge danger in making assumptions about facts that are not established in the record of the proceedings at hand. And to the best of my knowledge, this so-called "whistleblower" has not been publicly identified anywhere except in media accounts -- many of them from half-baked conservative news websites that peddle fake news as badly as CNN does.
Before calling the "whistleblower," the defense team must first establish who exactly he is. That means they must first get their hands on all the records related to this person and his dealings with Schiff's staff. Personally, I suspect that either their is NO whistleblower, or there may be at least a half-dozen people who provided information to Schiff's staff in a way that they might be considered "whistleblowers" of one kind or another.
Couple this with Laura Ingraham’s report last night, and there is no way this story has been “debunked” and “discredited.” According to Ingraham, who has supporting documents, in 2016 there were White House meetings with Ukrainian representatives over concerns that Hunter Biden’s role with Burisma was an obstacle to US-Ukrainian relations, and that prosecutors were looking into the matter. These meetings were arranged by the man believed to be the whistleblower.
The New York Times was investigating this in early 2019, but spiked the story days after Biden announced his candidacy. The story was being pursued by Vogel, the same person who had written the 2017 Politico story about Ukrainian support of the Hillary campaign.
This is worth repeating and if true it is a real bombshell!
I think it’s reasonable and rational to question if the Biden’s vested personal interest in Burisma (and perhaps other Ukrainian firms - or Government) continued well beyond the infamous 2016 abuse of power by Joe Biden.
And if so, President Trump represented a threat to the ongoing personal enrichment or a threat of prosecution to Biden and possibly others. This manufactured claim of abuse of power by our President would seem an easy tactic. It’s also consistent with the Left’s overuse of Projection.
Present that video as evidence. Show it 3-4 times and explain why it is relevant. Subpoena Joe and Hunter immediately thereafter.
BFL...
p
Or they could simply interview people behind the scenes having knowledge of events, including Ciaramella, such that whatever he says to investigators is under oath.
Not singling him out, but including him.
Call all the witnesses and their spouses.
Put everyone under oath. Where is the harm?
Start here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSIC3vRKX9M#t=31m20s
End here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSIC3vRKX9M#t=42m35s
This Ukraine crap started much earlier and Team Obama knew about it. Even little Eric Citronella was a player at the outset. Look at the White House Visitor Logs.
I have thought that for a long time. People can relate to the false accusations that Trump has been facing.
__________
We'll see.
>> The media has no interest
And not to forget, the MSM is largely Comcast/NBC, Disney/ABC, and now ATT/CNN
Everyone accused has the right to face their accuser. We need a show of hands in the Senate - who is willing to go on trial without knowing who their accuser is?? Too simplistic? Probably!
Bring on the accuser! Why should it be any more difficult than that? Tell those self important House Managers to bring him in or there will not be any further proceedings! That’s how this started and that’s where it needs to end!
“”Look at the White House Visitor Logs.””
I thought he worked at the WH - why would he need to sign in? Do all employees sign in?
Yup.
And they flip out when they’re challenged.
“ Now I’m beginning to think Trump’s team should plow full throttle ahead and subpoena the hell out of everyone and blow this crap show wide open while the MSM has it all over the tv.”
I agree - even if it doesn’t blow anything wide open, it will call the Democrats’ bluff and force them into the embarrassing and incriminating position of backpedaling.
Remember, they said they had a whistleblower - but it was all bluff. When the White House called their bluff and demanded to hear from the whistleblower, what happened? Where is that whistleblower?
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.