The Defense Rests: GOP Leaders Reportedly Considering Not Calling a Single Witness

Feel free to explain.

 

As a "Witness", Biden, Schiff, Etc...AIN'T Happenin'...

And Everybody KNOWS That...

 

Er...

It's what I think?

It seems like a reasonable bargain, to me.

I think that it would also result in increased pressure to have the hoaxblower appear.

Feel free to explain what you think.

 

That post you responded to is absolute BS (made up from whole cloth).

No such "Rule" exists.

 

I dont see how any of those examples are a violation of the decorum of the house.

1) Congressmen routinely paraphrase during questioning. 2) Closed door interviews often take place during sensitive investigations; and 3) He had no personal contact, but feel free to get a house ethics investigation involved if you'd like.

 

I did.

Mulvaney and Bolton have relevant first hand information about the relevant subject of the impeachment trial: The conduct of the President. Hunter Biden does not. Thus, it is much more likely you would see 3 GOP senators agree that Mulvaney or Bolton should testify when compared to the likelihood of preventing 3 GOP defectors from a vote to make Hunter testify.

 

Ya know TC.....if I thought you would take any notice and change your mind, I'd do your homework for you. It is not good that you say there is nothing and then say you can't recall what Hill and Holmes swore to.

 

Esperance, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but that doubt will vanish if you do not substantiate that claim.

 

I'd love to see Mulvaney give evidence. He stuffed himself (and Trump) with that videoed presser where he said that businessmen do not write out cheques with zero expectation of a return on investment.

 

In the context of the OP Link...

Think of how Utterly DELUSIONAL That Trump Has Gotten:

Last Thursday, President Trump tweeted that the former vice president and his son would both be among those who would testify in a Senate impeachment trial. "We will have Schiff, the Bidens, Pelosi and many more testify, and will reveal, for the first time, how corrupt our system really is,"

^Talk about "Coffee Cloud Dreams", Trump belongs in a Mental Hospital.:smh:

 

I Have NEVER Heard of Such a Thing.

And, I will be Supremely SURPRISED if he can back up that assertion.

You know Why?

Because if that was REALLY the case, places like Faux News would've been hammering that "talking point" for weeks.

 

You can't support that.

Hunter is the foundation of your argument.

Thus...

If Hunter is proven to be the basis of a corrupt influence peddling scheme, it goes to the core of establishing the legitimacy of seeking an investigation. If a legitimate reason for an investigation is established, that crushes any fake, "personal benefit" argument.

 

But he's not an investigator or a police officer. He acted as judge/jury during the House Inquiry. That's grossly improper and not at all how it would be conducted in an actual court of law.

Nor would I call that parody "paraphrasing". It's called lying. And I do think he should have been subject to a house ethics investigation. Especially with the Nunes phone call thing released.

The dude finds new ways of being an ethical scumbag, and it makes the complaints about Trump seem trifle.

 

It looks, to me, like you're ssying that you have nothing.

Make your claim - prove your claim.

Don't throw stuff out there, then demand that I chase geese.

 

An interesting "Legal Theory" that Ultimately FAILS.

 

EXCEPT, it ISN'T a "Court of Law"

"Opinions" can differ.

 

No. It doesn't.

 

Nah TC.....I did not 'throw stuff out there." That was you with your claims of lack of evidence. When I pointed out just two Witnesses who gave damning testimony, I asked if you can recall what they gave evidence about. Your response was that you did not.

I have plenty, no 'nothing,' and it has all been hashed and rehashed here. The point I am making is that you make a claim about lack of evidence and then....in a bizarre moment, admit you can't recall evidence given.

 

I recall a ton of lack of evidence.

Feel free to supply any actual evidence.

I have no idea what you are referring to.

So far, you are unreasonably imposing upon my attention.

 

Sorry, Your Eminence.

 

Now that that's settled, maybe you would deign to tell me what you've been referring to.

 

If Schiff were a Republican, you'd be upset as all hell.

 

Sorry, chase your own geese.

Signed,

Your Majesty.

 

Meaning you think it’s smart politically, it’s not going to change your opinion, right?
I’ll be shocked if we see any of the big players show up or get the docs.

 

But, he ISN'T.

I would probably be "upset as hell" if Jared Kushner became the New Imam at the Mosque.

^But, he ISN'T.

Funny how that works.