Courting Disaster? The Democrats Are Demanding Witnesses With One Notable Exception

Below is my column in the Washington Post (slightly expanded) on the upcoming fight over witnesses, including the unresolved question of Hunter Biden. The problem facing Democrats is that Hunter Biden is a clearly material witness to the defense on why there was a hold on military aid to Ukraine. The plain fact is that, from the perspective of the defense, the worst Hunter looks, the better the hold looks.

Here is the column:

The Democratic leaders may soon learn the wisdom of Oscar Wilde’s warning that “when the gods wish to punish us they answer our prayers.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has so far delayed the submission of the impeachment of President Trump to the Senate to force a trial with witnesses. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has declared any trial of Trump without witnesses to be nothing less than the “most unfair impeachment trial in modern history.” Leaders of both parties know that impeachment often boils down to one unpredictable element: witnesses.

For those who have the votes, witnesses are an unnecessary risk. For those who don’t, they are an absolute necessity. On Friday, Schumer insisted that “there is only one precedent that matters here: that never, never in the history of our country, has there been an impeachment trial of the president where the Senate was denied the ability to hear from witnesses.”

Put another way, Schumer does not have the votes and thus needs the witnesses. Schumer now wants to hear from the witnesses who never testified before the House, which rushed through an impeachment without seeking to compel testimony from key officials. One of those, former national security adviser John Bolton, said Monday he would testify before the Senate if subpoenaed.

In the Clinton impeachment trial 21 years ago, Schumer and the Democrats opposed hearing from witnesses. In that impeachment chapter, the Democrats had the votes. Lacking the votes this time, the unpredictability of witnesses now appeals to Schumer and his party. But only up to a point. Schumer has opposed the suggested Republican witnesses as a mere “distraction.” One witness in particular could prove not just a distraction but a disaster: Hunter Biden.

In a conventional trial, Biden would be a relevant defense witness. Biden’s testimony would have bearing on a key question in an abuse-of-power trial. Trump insists that he raised the issue of Hunter Biden’s relationship with a Ukrainian energy firm to the Ukrainian president as part of an overall concern he had about ongoing corruption in that country. If that contract with the son of a former vice president could be shown to be a corrupt scheme to advance the interests of a foreign company or country, it might be Trump’s best defense.

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, courts will often review possible testimony under the standard of whether “it has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”  Even before the adoption of the Bill of Rights, Congress enacted a statute reaffirming the right of the “defense to make any proof that he can produce by lawful witnesses” in cases of treason and capitol cases.  This right to present a defense has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court including in the 1967 opinion in Washington v. Texas, where the Court ruled that “the right to offer the testimony of witnesses and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present the defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts  . . . Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense.”

Trump’s position is that he did not arbitrarily ask a country to investigate a possible political rival. Had Trump called for an investigation into Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) husband, for example, without a scintilla of proof of corruption, it would be entirely indefensible. However, the Biden contract was so openly corrupt it would have made Jack Abramoff blush. Even in the United States, lobbyists and companies will often give family members undeserved lucrative jobs and contracts to curry favor with powerful politicians. Overseas, it is standard operating procedure. Oleksandr Onyshchenko, a businessman and former member of the Ukrainian parliament, said Biden was made a director “to protect (the company)” from investigation by U.S. and Ukrainian officials. Even Hunter Biden admitted that the position was given to him because of his father. Hunter Biden was paid at least $50,000 a month and possibly more.

Biden stepped down from the Burisma board only when his father announced his candidacy in April 2019. Ukraine assured Trump that it was cracking down on corruption when, just a few months earlier, Biden had been receiving monthly retainers from Burisma.

If the Biden contract was an ongoing corrupt effort to secure influence and money from the United States, Trump’s reference to it in a discussion of corruption has a possible public purpose. While one can certainly conclude that self-dealing by the president is a plausible explanation, there is no question that the testimony of Biden would be relevant.

Schumer knows that neither Biden nor his contract will show well under the glare of a public impeachment trial. In addition to his glaring lack of relevant experience, the younger Biden has a checkered history – from drug addiction to being thrown out of the Naval Reserve – that would have led most companies to avoid him. The trial might also force the public to consider Joe Biden’s failure to ask about his son’s dubious foreign dealings. Joe Biden himself seems delusional in claiming, “No one has said my son did anything wrong.”

For the Democrats, witnesses are a dangerous game. The worse that Hunter Biden looks, the better Trump looks in raising the contract. That is the problem with asking for witnesses in a Senate trial. They can take you to places you might prefer not to go.

Jonathan Turley is the chair of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel in an impeachment trial before the Senate in defense of Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr.

135 thoughts on “Courting Disaster? The Democrats Are Demanding Witnesses With One Notable Exception”

  1. It would be fun to bring in Fiona Hill. First read her comments to the committee about how delaying military aid damaged national security. Then read the article she wrote during the Obama administration saying that it would be extremely dangerous to arm the Ukrainians. Then ask her to explain what changed?

    1. It would be fun to bring in Fiona Hill. First read her comments to the committee about how delaying military aid damaged national security. Then read the article she wrote during the Obama administration saying that it would be extremely dangerous to arm the Ukrainians. Then ask her to explain what changed?
      Oh things change, I have more information … blah, blah, blah! Liars gonna lie!

  2. nor should any of the 46 States, 4 commonwealths and 1 District allow them to register to vote in federal level elections. or as delegates to the the federal congregation. aka Congress or the two pure Federal offices President and Vice President.

  3. Socialists aka many other names which brings up the idea of Joe of Many Colors are famous for getting things wrong. Here’s a nother

    Obama thought there were 56 states. Most ridiculed him saying 50 but the true number is 46. So here’s the quote and the source.

    “Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts are all officially commonwealths. This grants them no special constitutional powers. They chose this word to describe themselves at the end of the War of Independence. It made clear they were no longer royal colonies answering to the king, but states governed by the “common consent of the people.”

    Mitchinson, John. The Book of General Ignorance (p. 95). Crown/Archetype. Kindle Edition.

    But they didn’t end the War of Independence as small ‘s’ states. Along with 12 others they became Nation-States. At that point there were no States of the United States until a Two Year effort produced The Constitution of The United States producing a Constitutional Republic.

    While much of their earlier efforts were patterned after the Greek Democratic ‘ ‘demos’ meaning whole citizen living within a particular city-state and ‘kratos’ meaning power or rule.’ Thus a ‘whole citizen had the vote. But not partial or non citizens or those who had rejected the Constitutional Republic system.

    Which brings us to ‘living constitution.’ Our Constitutional Republic ‘written agreement coupled with res publica meaning of, by, and for the whole citizens’ had that feature from it’s beginning. One way was to enlarge the definition of ‘whole citizen’ such as indentured, slaves and eventually women, or by age. The other was by the Amendment System. the 9th Circuit Court for example does not have that power.

    To end this Our Constitutional Republic derived from thirteen Nation States who each used parts of the Greeks demos kratos and eventually starting with Wyoming added women.granting the power of the vote. And later the living Constitution included all whole citizen women as a legal amendment.

    But it has never been a Democracy. which would have automatically included the fate of all such efforts as mobocracies. Enter Comrades Pelosi, Ocasio, Warren, Biden and Schumer.

    In fact there is no right to whole citizenship to those who have take allegiance to another system and that is clearly stated for those in public office civil or military by spoken and written oath.

    Which means Comrade Pelosi and company are not whole citizens having openly rejected that status and The Squat even more so not citizens along with others.The end result is they are illegally seated and subject to rejection and ejection.

    How to do that.

    Read the oath of office of our Military.

  4. I’m at a loss as to why all these Ukranian officials who supposedly were denied visas to come here to alert Congress as to what was going on by the allegedly corrupt ambassador aren’t on anyone’s witness list. If all of that was true, then anything they had to say would be devastating.

  5. 1. How is asking for an investigation of a person who has created suspicion a crime?
    2. An investigation discovers one of two things, guilt or innocence.
    3. Who would have known what the Ukrainians were doing without Schiff bringing it out?
    4. Who knows what the Ukrainians are doing now, about anything?
    5. Who cares, other than dems hoping they can find something to spin?
    6. Is there an up side for Biden coming from exposure by Schiff?
    7. If there is no up side for Biden, then it’s a down side. Politics is a zero sum game.
    8. When the Dems have a brokered convention, we’ll find out who benefits from the play.

  6. It appears the other choices have nothing to do with the charges. Anything to muddy the waters against the citizens. An example might be. Yes he’s charged with jaywalking but he was here in Chicago when a murder took place so we brought in all of those witnesses.

  7. I agree that Hunter Biden would be a disaster for the Dems as a trial defense witness. He could end up refusing to answer the Chief Justice’s questions.
    He could open up a can of worms involving John Kerry’s nephew, and leading to State Dept. scandals undiscovered from the Obama years..

  8. Another key witness is the whistleblower [name redacted]. He knows a lot about this too.

    In related news, Biden’s campaign slogan is “evolving.” Old: No Mallarkey. New: Transparency is an important value. Except when it’s not.

    The new slogan narrowly edged out alternatives including “Biden 2020: Dawn of the Next Scandal Free Administration,” “#BelieveWomen,” and “Orange Man Bad” in focus group testing over at CNN, WaPo, and NYT.

  9. Would a reasonable person believe that Joe Biden’s actions warrant an investigation? Yes.

    The entire impeachment was a claim that Trump engaged in an unethical quid pro quo in order to get dirt on his political opponent.

    Transcripts show there was no quid pro quo. Testimony showed that Ukraine was unaware of any quid pro quo. There cannot be a one sided quid pro quo, by definition.

    So, there was no quid pro quo, and a legitimate reason to investigate Joe Biden.

    The gall of this hypocrisy is appalling, given that Democrats had no problem, whatsoever, investigating Trump, and anyone connected with Trump, and this impeachment is STILL investigating Trump.

    These people need to stop acting like a mob with pitchforks, and legislate. They have jobs to do. They should stop abusing their authority for political gain in 2020.

    1. OK, what are JOE Biden’s actions that warrant an investigation, and why wait 3 years and only after Biden is beating Trump in the polls to show concern?

      No, Karen, we haven’t seen the transcript. The memo of the call shows there was quid pro quo, but as has been explained to you several times, proving a quid pro quo is not necessary for there to be a violation of the law. Mere solicitation is enough, and we have that. Sondland’s testimony shows there was QPQ. The aid was withheld for 84 days, and doing so benefitted Russia.

      You wanna talk about abuse of authority–how about ordering the assassination of Soleimani as a diversionary tactic to turn public discourse away from Trump’s crimes and impending impeachment, and the lying about an IMMINENT threat that didn’t exist? The death count due to this egregious abuse of power is: 176 on the Ukrainian airliner and 50 mourners at Soleimani’s funeral.

      BTW: 56% of the American people do not support the order to assassinate Soleimani.

      1. BTW: 56% of the American people do not support the order to assassinate Soleimani.

        BTW: Only 39% can name all 3 branches of government. Not quite the gene pool for gathering insightful opinions.

        1. OLLY – I don’t think it is a problem with the gene pool, rather Common Core and poor teaching.

          1. Paul,
            While we can debate the root cause, it’s abundantly clear that it has been detrimental to the founder’s principle of self-government.

            1. Olly, one of the reasons for federalism is that people lose interest in things that do not involve them. Government has grown too big and distant from the people for them to pay attention. Government is doing so many things that it is unfair to assume a poor gene pool. Women and men go to work, shop, do other things including comming home to the kids. They see headlines so the next day when a push question is asked they are repeating the headline they saw that was inaccurate since the MSM doesn’t provide the news. The MSM mostly provides distorted left wing opinion disguised as news.

              Ask the question of the same people in a better fashion: President Trump had evidence that a Benghazi type attack could be prevented by killing the leading terrorist who has been responsible for many similar attacks and that the embassy in Bagdad was just threatened by a mob. Do you think the President correct for killing Soleimani and foiling the attack? The response would be solidly in Trumps favor.

              If one added the fact that Democrats didn’t believe Trump then some might change their mind.

              Then if one added that the Democrats had been caught lying over and over again during the Russia hoax and elsewhere they would change their mind back.

              It is not the gene pool but the school systems that have purposely been destroyed by leftists so that the education of our young is failing our nation.

              1. It is not the gene pool but the school systems that have purposely been destroyed by leftists so that the education of our young is failing our nation.

                Of course it’s not the gene pool. That was a response to Natacha that apparently snagged both you and Paul.

                The real root cause(s) are:
                – civics ignorance
                – voter apathy
                – loss of self-reliance

                For self-government to work, all 3 must must be reversed.

                1. “That was a response to Natacha that apparently snagged both you and Paul.”

                  Olly, I wouldn’t know. I seldom even glance at Natacha’s postings. I would rather sit in class and hear chalk squeeking.

      2. First of all, there was no investigation of Joe Biden, nor was there a requested investigation of Joe Biden. For you to not know this speaks to your overall ignorance, or to your overall dishonesty in trying to say that there was an investigation of Joe Biden. Pick your poison.

        Second, The transcripts are there for you to read. All the witnesses called in the house said there was no quid pro quo, despite what CNN told you. Even the transcript of the call showed no quid pro quo. He simply asked for the investigation… he didn’t promise anything in return. Perhaps you should actually read it.

        And do you really think Trump cares about polls? He had a 97% chance of LOSING in the 2016 general election. How could almost every poll have gotten it so blatantly wrong?

        The easiest answer is that the media (and the pollsters) was lying to our faces regarding the results of their polls. Why would they do that? Maybe in an effort to keep Trump supporters from voting because it appeared to be a lost cause?

        So go ahead… continue being a pathetic sheep and keep spouting crap about how Trump or Biden is/was polling. It didn’t matter to Trump in 2016. It doesn’t matter to Trump today how Joe Biden is polling. The polls, by and large, are garbage and Trump knows this. To think his actions are or were prompted by polling data is a logical failure of astronomical scale. Independent thought would be a good place for you to start.

  10. Yeah, Hunter Biden Looks Bad

    But Why Can’t John Bolton Testify?

    During his interview with Laura Ingraham this past Friday, Donald Trump vowed that he would use Executive Privilege to block impeachment testimony from former National Security Adviser John Bolton.

    In coverage concerning this development, I read that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told Trump that however bad Hunter Biden might look, a trial with ‘no witnesses’ was the only way to guarantee Trump’s survival. In other words, John Bolton’s testimony could negate whatever benefit Trump might get from Hunter Biden’s appearance.

    Therefore I am surprised Professor Turley is not addressing Bolton’s status in this column. It appears that Turley wrote this column ‘before’ Trump’s interview with Ingraham and just decided to use it anyway without any updates.

        1. Nothing Bolton could say would indicate that Trump committed an impeachable offense.

          We are dealing on the perifery and Trump acted perfectly everywhere. At the core it couldn’t even be considered a quid pro quo and Trump had the legal right to hold the money. If Congress disagreed they could take him to court or do other things within their powers. That is why they used impeachment (a heinous crime against America because of its misuse). Again the Democrats refused to use the courts to force witnesses to testify while at the same time prevent Republican witnesses from appearing and Republican questions from being answered.

          Stalin would be proud at Peter’s steadfastness and if this was his country eventually Peter would find himself dead or in Siberia.

    1. So, Democraps can call “Executive Privilege” (Remember Obama shielding Holder from Contempt of Congress for his hand in the murder of US Agent Brian Terry?) but President Trump can’t?

      BTW, do you still wear your pink vag!na hat while you scream at the sky ?

      1. Executive Privilege applies only to deliberative actions of a President, not to criminal offenses. Stop calling that thing “President”. That word does not apply to someone who cheated his way into our White House, who brags about assaulting women, who abuses migrants, including caging children, who constantly lies, who orders the assassination of foreign military leaders and then lies about the reason, and who tries to leverage military aid to an ally for political reasons. What other WH occupant ever engendered massive nationwide protests, or solicited the assistance of a foreign government, who bankrupted several businesses, or praised White Supremacists? You think protesting such conduct is amusing?

        1. “You think protesting such conduct is amusing?”.
          Yes; it is when you’re doing the “protesting”, Natacha. 😄😂🤣

    2. “Mitch McConnell told Trump that however bad Hunter Biden might look, a trial with ‘no witnesses’ was the only way to guarantee Trump’s survival.”

      Sounds like Peter is again twisting the news. You can’t help it can you Peter?

      What McConnell did say is that the President is not going to be removed from office and that is the reality. The Democrats of the House could have called for witnesses and the President could have legally protected the excutive branch from Democrat shenanigans. Courts decide that type of issue but Democrats only trust in the American Judicial process when they get the answer they want. They didn’t get the answer they desired when Trump legally won the Presidency so they have been causing harm to the nation making all sorts of erroneous claims. When they falsified the Russia story Trump permitted everyone to testify. No President has been that transparent. All this shows is how much of an ideologue Peter Shill is and how willing he is to twist the news and disadvantage American citizens.

  11. The House had the ability to call any witnesses they wanted. The House does not control the Senate. For Pelosi to try to force the Senate to do anything, including call witnesses she abstained from, is an abuse of power.

    I believe that the House didn’t bother with these witnesses for a very particular reason. They had no case, which was obvious from the evidence. The entire case hinged on a whistleblower who misrepresented a phone call he never even heard. The FBI, in another act of misconduct, changed its whistleblowing rules and then backdated them expressly to allow this person to get whistleblower protection.

    So, it has no case. But the House wants opposition research at taxpayer expense, and to weaken Trump for 2020. If this had anything to do with justice, then the House would have withdrawn and apologized after the facts proved the phone call had been misrepresented. But this isn’t about truth or justice. It’s about either getting Trump out of office, or keeping him from getting reelected. They put up Socialist candidates that would destroy our economy and impoverish many people. Obviously, they are not that popular with the American people. (Although, to be fair, it is entirely possible with the state of our public education system that there are enough naive voters to usher in America’s destruction.) The US is experiencing prosperity. Black people are getting off welfare. Democrats can’t have that. They can’t run on the economy. Can’t run on jobs. Can’t run on anything other than an anti-Trump platform. They want his tax returns so they can go after him for taking every legal deduction possible. He’s a business man, so the enemy. They are not entitled to his tax returns, so they are abusing their authority to try to get it. Note that they are not requiring tax returns for their own members, who determine funding and have conflicts of interest. Again, because this is not about fairness or justice. It’s political warfare. They don’t care about us, the people of the United States. They care about political power.

    The House didn’t call witnesses so that it can later claim the Senate did not run a fair trial. I am surprised that voters wouldn’t look at that excuse, and answer, why didn’t you guys call these witnesses, then, if they were so crucial? The excuse that time was of the essence and it was an “ongoing crime” obviously won’t hold water any more, because Pelosi refuses to send the impeachment to the Senate. Time is of the essence, my foot.

    This is dirty political warfare by the entrenched establishment. They are working hard to take away the prosperity we are experiencing. Even the NYT ran a story, “Face it, you probably got a tax break.” ( Democrats will reverse this. They will go after businesses until the jobs dry up. Until more go back overseas. Until more plants close. They will burgeon the Welfare rolls. They will make labor so expensive that entry level jobs dry up, as well as the opportunity to change their socioeconomic status. They won’t stop until there are two classes, the peasantry whom the elites dictate how and where to live, and what they can say, and the wealthy government ruling class. That’s always how it goes with Socialists.

    Note the abusive foundation of California’s Road Diets. We won’t take rapid transit, because it doesn’t work in sprawl. They want people to live in cities, and nowhere else. Since we won’t use rapid transit, Democrat politicians tried to force us. They targeted the most congested streets, and then they squeezed them even more. They took away lanes to stand as empty, unused bike lanes in places where no one bikes 40 miles to work. In some cases, they had the gall to install concrete boundaries to take away lanes for gridlocked drivers to stare at in rage. This slowed down emergency responders, who also can’t get through the increased gridlock. It kept people away from their homes and families for hours longer every week. It drove furious drivers racing through residential neighborhoods, where kids play, to try to find a way around this unmoving gridlock. In short, Democratic politicians punished Californians to try to force them to do what they wanted, take mass transit. This is what the Left does. It seeks a powerful government at the expense of the people. The government doesn’t serve the people, who have strong individual rights. No. The government becomes powerful, and dictates to the people, who lose their rights. The government tells a baker he has to bake a cake celebrating the mental illness of gender dysphoria. The government forces people out of there cars. CARB rendered obsolete expensive heavy vehicles prior to 2010, hitting small businesses hard. Because they don’t care about business owners. The list goes on.

    When the hard Left gets power, they make the government strong, and weaken individual rights. The government will never be like a benevolent parent. No one will care about your success more than you will.

    Do not give them more power.

    1. Correction to your opening statement – House DEMOCRATS could call any witness they wanted. House Republicans were blocked from calling any witness.

    2. Karen, here’s a good example of what I was referring to. Your comment here is just a meandering, epic-length What About with no central point, beginning, middle or end. No one with a life is going to read all this.

  12. I’ll trade a Hunter Biden for a John Bolton. Democrats sure know how to screw everything up.

  13. Never before in the history of the
    State has such a farce been allowed to continue.
    Closed Door policy still dominates the Dem’s insanity.

  14. On Friday, Schumer insisted that “there is only one precedent that matters here: that never, never in the history of our country, has there been an impeachment trial of the president where the Senate was denied the ability to hear from witnesses.”
    Put another way, Schumer does not have the votes and thus needs the witnesses.
    We need a do-over, damnit!
    ~Chuck Schumer

    Best two outta three?
    ~Chuck Schumer

    Wanna buy a bridge?
    ~Chuck Schumer

  15. What evidence does Hunter Biden have regarding Trumps abuse of power or his extortion of a foreign power. The only reason for this discussion is to say Biden is corrupt so you can’t impeach a corrupt Trump. It’s a distraction and no more. If Trump is so innocent why is he barring witnesses from testifying?

    1. JH:

      “What evidence does Hunter Biden have regarding Trumps abuse of power or his extortion of a foreign power. ”
      Here Mr. Justice, I’ll cite it for you:

      “The problem facing Democrats is that Hunter Biden is a clearly material witness to the defense on why there was a hold on military aid to Ukraine. The plain fact is that, from the perspective of the defense, the worst Hunter looks, the better the hold looks.”

      Put another way: “it ain’t bad if you’re doing it to catch up to the bad guy.” (Just back from Texas. Folks talk that way down there. Love me some Texans!)

      1. Really? That’s a quote from the article. Was Hunter on the phone call? Was he involved in handing out military aid in the Trump administration? What position in the Trump administration did he hold? There isn’t a factual basis that he has any information on the inner workings of the Trump administration on the issues raised by the articles of impeachment. As far as I know in the context of the impeachment the alleged bad guy is Trump. Based on your logic, I’m sure the Republican Senate will force the president to allow all of his people to testify in the impeachment trial. Isn’t that the way to get the “bad” guy or exonerate the “innocent”.

        Hunter Biden a distraction and you know it.

        1. Holmes, the accusation is Trump held aid. He is supposed to watch out for our tax dollars and it looked like Hunter and possibly Creepy Joe had their hands in the till. That alone makes Trump’s actions legal and something that needed to be done.

        2. The alleged crime is that employing Hunter Biden at multiples of his worth was a bribe for Joe Biden to make the prosecutor go away.

          What was Burisma paying for? Hunter Biden had been discharged from the Navy one month after receiving his commission for cocaine use. He’d been caught roaming homeless encampments getting drug deals. What was Burisma buying at $83,000 a month? One thing. Joe Biden bragged on camera that he, not Obama, set Ukrainian policy. Burisma operated in energy exploration and development in Ukraine.

          After the prosecutor was fired, Burisma had this meeting with Ukrainian officials, in which it apologized for the false statements made by Americans in regard to the prosecutor.

          Given this information, what reason can there be not to investigate Joe Biden?

        3. It is the law, that foreign aid is not to be given to states that are corrupt. DJT in looking at Biden corruption had every right to hold up money. Just because previous administrations (and agencies) were lax on that requirement doesn’t make it wrong for the current administration to uphold it.

    2. Justice Holmes

      Those who aren’t guilty want witnesses to support their innocence. Is that why Drumpf doesn’t want Bolton. Rudolph, Mulvaney et al. to testify?

      1. Bill:

        Democrats are abusing their authority to try to get dirt on Trump…the very accusation they made against Trump getting dirt on Biden. Investigating Biden was perfectly legitimate.

        Democrats have demanded that if Trump calls witnesses, he must forego executive privilege. Then they will go on a mission to dig up any dirt possible. But Democrats do not want to lose executive privilege if one of their own is in power, hence why Obama routinely used executive privilege to stymie investigations.

        Imagine this, for a moment. You’ve been wrongfully accused of a crime. The facts disprove this allegation. But they want to get you on the stand, as well as everyone ever associated with you, and grill them for hours, trying to find something, anything, to pin on you.

        That’s not justice. That’s a banana republic. You don’t cooperate with people abusing their power to engage in a coup. You fight.

    3. Injustice Holmes:

      This entire farce started because a whistleblower claimed that Trump engaged in an improper quid pro quo with Ukraine to investigate his political rival. This hinges on Joe Biden being an innocent, wrongfully accused man. Otherwise, it would be an abuse of power to investigate him. It also requires there to be a requirement of the investigation for Ukraine to receive aid. (Kind of like there was a requirement for Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma in order to receive aid.)

      The Democrat witnesses already verified that Joe Biden behaved improperly. That, alone, makes investigating him perfectly valid. If they start calling the witnesses tied to Burisma, it will further show that Democrats abused their authority in order to protect their candidate from an investigation.

      How does this kind of logic work, exactly? It’s proper to investigate Donald Trump’s alleged ties with Russia, but improper to investigate Joe Biden who bragged, on camera, about an improper quid pro quo?

      Graham has made the point that an impeachment is not the venue to investigate Joe Biden. I agree. However, if needed, witnesses can be called that will at least show that it was valid and ethical to investigate.

    4. JH

      I’m sure you understand quite well. But for others, like mespo said, if in fact there was high level corruption in the Ukraine, than it all looks pretty swell for trump

      and at the very least the ukrainians were paying a connected american with zero experience big bucks for nothing

      Dems got the tiger by the tail on this it seems

  16. Trump wants the Bidens, the whistleblower. Schift, Pelosi and probably Al Green.

    1. PCS, 14 children?

      That’s what I’m talkin’ about – making Americans! Since the 19th Dumbmendment, the American fertility rate has sunk to the point of a “death spiral.” The population is being imported and in 100 years, there won’t be an American left in America. More Americans die than are born. America needs to repatriate its economy and treasure, employ men at salaries sufficient to well-support their families and free American women to make the population; to have babies…lots of babies, sufficient to defend and grow the nation.


  17. If Burisma and Biden had been investigated and cleared, we’d have already seen the evidence to prove it. Certainly the House would have called Biden as a witness. That being said, it would be bad precedent for the Senate to do what the House declined to do.

  18. One question Mr. Hunter. Do you shoot for trophy’s or so that you can cook the deer and eat it?
    We don’t like no trophy hunters running round here big ears.

  19. The Democrats should quit while they are behind and drop the impeachment articles.
    Hunter Biden’s testimony at a Senate impeachment trial would destroy Joe Biden’s presidential candidacy and any hope of the Democrats winning the White House in 2020.

    1. Really, you know all that. Even if you do what does that have to do with what Trump and his cronies did? What does that have to do with impeachment. Nothing. It’s all about distraction.

      I didn’t know Biden was being impeached? O yea Republicans want to use the impeachment trial against one of the president’s political opponents. Isn’t that what the president wanted to do when he threatened the president of the Ukraine? Seems like the Republicans are Fully paid up members of the “If it’s Trump, anything goes club”.

      1. You can call it a distraction all you like. Doesn’t matter if it is or isn’t.

        What matters is following the rule of law. The lower house of congress bungled the impeachment. The upper house is under no obligation to have witnesses. Each house conducts it’s own event.

        If you allow an unfair impeachment to be used as a basis for Senate trial with witnesses and further investigation you’ve used the same technique as fake FISA documents based on a fake Steel Dossier based on false testimony.

        Doesn’t work that way, baby.

      2. The only folks using this impeachment against their presidential rival are the democrats. If you can’t see that, you’re willfully blind. There was no investigation of Joe Biden. There was a request for an investigation of corruption with no promise of anything in return.

    1. “All the stuff about Hunter Biden and Ukraine has been debunked. MSN says so.”
      They’ve got that booming voice from Mt. Sinai quality to them, don’t they? :

      “And Number 11, Thou shalt not bear any witness — at all — against any of the tribe of Biden.”

Comments are closed.