Nadler: Hunter Biden Must Not Be Called

hunter-bidenI have been writing on the obvious relevance of Hunter Biden  as a defense witness and the equally obvious hypocrisy of some Democrats in demanding their own witnesses while refusing to consider key White House witnesses.  Now. House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., has suggested that, if a trade is needed to secure House witnesses, the managers will not agree to any witnesses if Hunter Biden is part of the deal.   If true, is the House prepared to give up on proving its case to protect the Bidens from the ignoble moment of answering questions about the Ukraine contract?  That is a considerable price to pay to protect Joe Biden.  It is also another reason why the decision to rush the impeachment vote was such a historic blunder by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. If they had waited a couple months as I called for in my testimony, they could have called these witnesses and not handed over control to the Senate. Instead, they impeached by Christmas and then waited a month.

Nadler insisted on Face the Nation that all “relevant witnesses must be heard” — meaning their witnesses.  Yet, if allowing witnesses meant Hunter Biden being called, he suggested that they would reject any deal — and any witnesses.   He dismissed any negotiation as a cover up:  “Any Republican senator who says there should be no witnesses, or even that witnesses should be negotiated, is part of the cover-up.”

As I previously noted, 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.”

Of course, if Biden is called, the House managers would be allowed to cross examine as well as argue their claim of a cover up.

Nadler suggested that Chief Justice John Roberts should make the decision on relevance.  He may want to be careful on such an option.  Roberts might  rule that Biden is a relevant defense witness or, alternatively, he could reaffirm that this is a matter properly left to the Senate on who should be called.

453 thoughts on “Nadler: Hunter Biden Must Not Be Called”

  1. Nadler and Schiff everywhere the truth isn’t. An interesting blurb on Schiff.
    —————–
    ” Schiff chose to deflect and make up more lies about President Trump. Here are a few of the biggest ones:
    Schiff claims that President Trump endorsed the theory that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election. FACT: President Trump has publicly said, very clearly, that he accepts the conclusion of the intelligence community that Russia interfered in 2016.

    Schiff says that President Trump withheld an Oval Office meeting from President Zelenskyy. FACT: President Trump invited President Zelenskyy to the White House—with no preconditions—on THREE occasions: April 21, May 29, and July 25. They met at the first opportunity, at the UN General Assembly.

    Schiff once again brought up claims of a “quid pro quo.” FACT: Notice what’s not in Democrats’ articles of impeachment? Allegations or accusations of a quid pro quo. They couldn’t include that claim—because no such arrangement existed.

    BONUS: Schiff completely misrepresented what Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said about foreign policy, Chris Wallace says.
    For years, Schiff lied about the Russia hoax, claiming there was evidence of collusion only to be proven wrong by the Mueller Report. This time, House Democrats learned their lesson: Why risk letting the facts get in the way? Impeach first, investigate later—or beg the Senate to do it for them.

  2. The Democrats care not a whit about Hunter or Joe Biden. The Democrats cringe in horror, however, about questioning that leads from the Ukraine to the Obama White House.

  3. Pardon me for illuminating the obvious. The Biden’s testimony couldn’t be more relevant to the President’s defense since it speaks directly to the matter of corruption in Ukraine. In putting America first Trump had long publicly championed the idea of withholding taxpayer funds to corrupt governments. Zelensky’s government was new and Trump needed assurance that this new president did indeed represent a departure from past Ukraine corruption. That is after all ultimately the President’s responsibility. Hunter’s employment at Burisma along with his enormous financial windfall there is nonsensical until one takes into account his father’s position of influence. The fact that Joe Biden happens to be running for President is inconsequential, serendipitous if you will. This comes down to the President’s state of mind. Did he seek an investigation in order to benefit himself and his 2020 re-election bid, one that he was and is extremely confident he would win or was he driven to getting to the bottom of the corrupt foreign/domestic meddling in the 2016 election while the presumption that Hunter Biden happened to be a centerpiece in that corruption is no fault of the President. This is an unknown, but knowing Trump’s all American agenda I have no problem giving him the benefit of any doubt. For me, there is no doubt. Trump is an outlier and a political outsider who was elected by a fed up electorate to do the job he is doing better than anybody ever expected. The Democrats loathe him for that and even a lot of Republican lawmakers required a lot of time to warm up to all of his successes. President Trump is indeed an existential threat, but only to the Democratic Party itself, not that they need any help in that regard.

  4. Hunter Biden’s testimony would be relevant to the issue of corruption in Ukraine.

    I am guessing that the Democratic impeachment team in the House didn’t know of Hunter’s alleged corruption in the Ukraine when they raised the hypothesis that the President was corrupt in his diplomacy with the Ukrainian President.

    And now that they are stuck with “Ukraine Country”, all they can do is “insist” it is bad procedure for the President’s lawyers or GOP senators to call Hunter as a witness.

    (If I’ve missed some facts here its because I haven’t been watching these unprecedented proceedings.)

    According to William Blackstone in his commentaries on English law, “crimes and misdemeanors” refers to actual crimes.

    I would guess that committing perjury in order to impeach a president is an aggravated crime. And would those complicit in that perjury be conspirators?
    Would they all then comprise a RICO criminal enterprise posing as representatives?

    If the facts fit, then what? Who in the world would believe that members of Congress are part of a criminal conspiracy to overthrow a legally elected president?

    In the very least, that is so embarrassing.
    At the most it is a direct, unashamed attack on the U.S. Constitution and the Republic itself.

  5. This impeachment process has been ludicrous. Apparently, due process is reserved for the Democrats. The same folks who hid behind closed doors are now raising the roof for “fair treatment.” It would seem that by repeating the same lie again and again they feel that it becomes the truth. So far, it’s a disgusting display if bad behavior on a world stage. At what point does this actually cross into the area if treason. Boy, talk about “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Democrats are the ones who meddled in the 2016 election process. They’re using oke and mirrors to try to throw the blame anywhere else. When do the Republicans go on the offensive and prosecute these bad player

  6. https://www.wsj.com/articles/calling-all-trial-witnesses-11579652544

    Calling All Trial Witnesses: We doubt Democrats want to hear from Hunter and Joe Biden.

    The Editorial Board
    Jan. 21, 2020 7:22 pm ET

    The Senate impeachment trial began Tuesday with political theater over rules. Senate Republicans prefer an expeditious trial while Democrats who rushed to impeach in the House are suddenly demanding witnesses and crying “coverup.” So let’s break down what’s really going on in the fight over witnesses.

    By our deadline, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell looked set to keep his caucus together for his organizing resolution. His framework provides Democratic House impeachment managers 24 hours over three working days to make their case, followed by the same for a White House defense. Bill Clinton’s trial also provided each side 24 hours, though neither ended up using even half.

    But Democrats are demanding that the Senate also call former National Security Adviser John Bolton ; acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney ; Mulvaney adviser Robert Blair ; and White House budget official Michael Duffey.

    This is more than a little disingenuous. House Democrats could have gone to court to challenge President Trump’s assertion of executive privilege over testimony, and the House did sue initially to compel former Bolton deputy Charles Kupperman. But House Democrats abandoned their demands when litigation didn’t fit their rushed political timeline. They declared instead that the existing evidence more than justified impeachment. Yet now their “overwhelming” evidence has become a GOP “coverup.”

    We wouldn’t mind hearing from Mr. Bolton. But even if he does appear as a witness, he’d have to abide by Mr. Trump’s claims of executive privilege. A President doesn’t give up that privilege in an impeachment trial. The difference with Mr. Clinton’s trial is that Mr. Clinton litigated his privilege claims against independent counsel Kenneth Starr before impeachment. Yet Democrats still opposed most witnesses, including Monica Lewinsky.

    Maybe Democrats hope witnesses will turn up something more damaging on Mr. Trump, but our guess is that the real game is political and geared to taking back the Senate. Democrats figure Republicans will vote down witnesses, and they can run from here to November claiming the trial was “rigged” and hid the truth.

    We think Republicans are justified in voting to convict or acquit based on the current evidence without witnesses. But if they want to rebut the coverup claims, then call the Democrats’ bluff. Give them witnesses, but insist on calling those the President’s team would also like to call such as Hunter and Joe Biden.

    Democrats say this is irrelevant to Mr. Trump’s behavior, but it is directly relevant to their charge that Mr. Trump acted with a “corrupt motive” when he asked for an investigation of Hunter Biden’s Ukraine activities. The White House says Mr. Trump was legitimately worried about corruption, including whether Ukraine turned a blind eye to natural gas company Burisma, which had Hunter Biden on its board.

    If the Senate calls more witnesses, let’s hear both sides of this dispute. Hunter Biden can explain what he told his father about his business in Ukraine, and Joe Biden can explain the ethical wisdom of firing a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma. There’s also former Obama energy czar Amos Hochstein, who raised concerns with Joe Biden and his aides about Hunter’s Ukrainian ties. And let’s hear from Chris Heinz, former secretary of state John Kerry’s stepson, who broke business ties with Hunter because his Burisma work was “unacceptable.”

    This would be a spectacle, and our guess is that Democrats really don’t want to hear more witnesses. They merely want to pretend they do, get Republicans to vote against witnesses, and use that as an issue in November. Perhaps Republicans should call them on it.

  7. Biden is at the center of reason for inquiry by Trump. If Biden and son had not worked together to instigate and then squash investigation of corrupt business quid pro quo. There would have been no reason to discuss with ukraine.
    Joe and Hunter did this to themselves through greed. The whole democratic electric is now trying to cover it up by all means possible.
    Once Senate finishes, there will be no place for the rest of Obama people to hide.
    Obama must have know about Joe and Hillary and what there were up to. The question is, what did they have over Obama for him to turn a blind eye?
    Maybe Birth?

  8. Why Dems worry about protecting Biden is unfathomable. He is a useless, senile clown, with absolutely zero chance of winning in the general election. Send the old fart back to the Home, and let’s move past this impeachment sham.

    1. Why Dems worry about protecting Biden is unfathomable. He is a useless, senile clown,
      _________________________________________________
      The Dems are helping trump get reelected.
      _____________________________________________
      with absolutely zero chance of winning in the general election.
      ________________________________________________
      See. You answered your own question.

    2. If Biden should get elected, which he won’t, he’ll be easily manipulated. I say let him run, he’ll be the easiest

      one to beat.

        1. Mr. Shulte,
          Somewhere in this? thread you asked if Biden was lying about his “6 hour story” in getting Shokin fired.
          This will be spinned as just more “malarkey” from Biden, not lying. Incidently, there were problems with Shokin’s successor, questions about how serious he was in fighting corruption.
          Re Shokin, most articles state that he was not investigating Burisma when he was pushed out. Shokin said that he was investigating them, and some articles have said that Shokin was in fact doing that.
          So while there is generally a consensus among the media that Shokin was giving Burisma a pass, there is some doubt about whether the consensus is correct.

  9. It’s a trap! Hunter Biden is a Dem, which means he will lie. Whatever he says will be designed to hurt the best President we have had in the last hundred years, so leave him up to a grand jury.

    1. Do .Nadler, Schiff and Schumer really believe the stuff that they are dishing out? It seems like they DON’T KNOW of the kangaroo court that Adam Schiff presided over.

  10. Why aren’t ALL the seditious conspirators like Nadler,Schff,Pelosi et all in prison awaiting trial with no bail?

    And, why hasn’t someone gotten a clear shot at these criminals?

  11. Nadler is such a corrupt little commie midget. All these Democrat scum should be flushed down the toilet like the turds they are.

    1. This is a disgrace !! Can’t believe these Dems are getting away with all these lies. one day they will meet the LORD and I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes. God has sent us a good president to help our country and we need to be praying for him. God Bless America and Donald Trump.

      1. Dems present and verify facts. Defense have not disproven one item presented by the Dems….they just call it a lie and do not show how they reached that conclusion. The defense team do not seem very prepared. I don’t know how you can ask for prayers for Trump….he is a foul mouthed, cheating learning disabled child choking on dirty Rubles. He surrendered his soul long ago. The only prayers he needs are petitions for mercy.

Leave a Reply