Rand Paul Says He’ll Force Vote on Hunter Biden Testimony If GOP Supports Impeachment Witnesses

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In a trial both sides should be able to call witnesses. If witnesses such as the Bidens aren't witnesses Trump should be calling for to begin with, which witnesses should he be calling for? Should he be calling for some of the same witnesses the Dems are calling for, but using them as part of his defense?
Any witnesses that the House calls, he will be able to examine them as well, just as the House will be able to question his witnesses.
I have no idea who he should call because I don't know who can support his case.
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,967
5,730
✟247,356.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If Trump can't call the Bidens, Adam Schiff, and the whistleblower half of the citizens of the US will claim it wasn't a fair trial.

President Trump stood on the lawn and told the people of the US that he absolutely didn't know Parnas and Fruman and didn't know what they did. But low and behold he really did know who they were and what they did.
Well, half of USA still believes that Trump didn't know Parnas. Their supporting evidence is that Trump said so, and as far as half of USA goes, Trump has never ever told a lie (as president)

<slow southern drawlllllllll>
Trump is the MOST transparent president USA has ever had (Trump said so and thus it must be true)
Trump has helped out the investigators more so than any previous president (Trump and Barr said so)
Any other "facts" presented can't be trusted. It is the Dems and the Deep State that are trying to fool the people and the biased MSM which are all never Trumpers and have an agenda to undo the last election. It's a coordinated coup.
There really is no need for witness or even for a trail, its just a farce.
The Dems failed with the Russian thing and this is just more of the same.
</slow southern drawlllllllll>
<sparkly smile><wide vacant eyes>scans around for other Trumpers to cheer and applaud</wide vacant eyes>
 
  • Haha
Reactions: KCfromNC
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,967
5,730
✟247,356.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
In a trial both sides should be able to call witnesses. If witnesses such as the Bidens aren't witnesses Trump should be calling for to begin with, which witnesses should he be calling for?
Anyone that has exculpatory evidence and knowledge.
Rudy could testify that Trump never asked him to put the white house meeting and aid as being contingent on an announcement of an investigation into Bidens and Burisma.
Rudy could testify that Sondland was lying when he said that Rudy told him they needed the investigation.
Rudy could explain why, when he was helping Sondland and Taylor with drafting the Ukraine Presidents statement, why he added mention of investigations into Burisma. Rudy could tell us it was all his idea and Trump never had anything to do with it.

Mulvani could testify that when he said "Of course it is contingent on the investigation, we do this all the time, Get over it" That he was lying to the media and USA public and wasn't under oath at the time and so what. He could Testify that Trump never stated that he wanted anything for the aid.

If it is true, and if these people have exculpatory evidence, they could testify and Trump and his supporters would be very happy.
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,967
5,730
✟247,356.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Let's consider the issue of the FISA warrant against Carter Page.
The Judge demands the investigators to bring in evidence as to why Carter Page should be surveiled. The obligation is upon the investigators to provide their evidence. They don't demand Carter Page come in and testify under oath to the Judge whether he is guilty of anything.

You have to have sufficient evidence of wrong doing first, before you can force the defendant to have to defend themselves.
If you really want the Bidens investigated, and if there really is evidence of wrong doing, then wouldn't that be sufficient to open a case for a specific investigation into them? But this isn't part of the impeachment. It would be a seperate case. You don't have to drag this into the impeachment in order to investigate the Bidens. Trump is best buddies with Barr. Surely Barr can open an investigation via the Justice Department into the Bidens, if there is sufficient evidence.

This is the thing.
I'd like Trump supporters who think Biden should testify, to explain why Biden should testify in the impeachment trial, when for the investigate the investigators, they didn't get Carter Page to testify.
Instead the investigators of the investigators took time back to the point where the FISA warrant was presented to the Judge, and they looked at only the evidence known at that point in time.
What evidence was known AT THAT TIME in order to justify the FISA warrant.

And yet these people don't seem to be interested in what evidence Trump had at the time of the phone conversation in order to demand an investigation into the Bidens, instead these people are demanding the Bidens be interrogated in order to determine their guilt. This is a very, very different approach to what happened with the investigate the investigators.

Please explain why.
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
This is the thing.
I'd like Trump supporters who think Biden should testify, to explain why Biden should testify in the impeachment trial ...
It's not really our job to explain why.

If Trump's legal team sees an advantage, and according to the president they do, then why would you deprive them of that? You don't want a fair trial?
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,967
5,730
✟247,356.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It's not really our job to explain why.

If Trump's legal team sees an advantage, and according to the president they do, then why would you deprive them of that? You don't want a fair trial?
Lawyers try all sorts of tactics, that's why ordinarily you have Judges to keep them inline.

The impeachment process is political rather than legal and hence it is important for the people to understand what is going on and to make their own judgements.
It's a difficult ask, because "the people" aren't generally lawyers and judges, they aren't really qualified to fully understand what a "just" trial would look like.
So here we are. "The people" discussing amongst ourselves what "just" means.
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is the thing.
I'd like Trump supporters who think Biden should testify, to explain why Biden should testify in the impeachment trial, when for the investigate the investigators, they didn't get Carter Page to testify.
Instead the investigators of the investigators took time back to the point where the FISA warrant was presented to the Judge, and they looked at only the evidence known at that point in time.
What evidence was known AT THAT TIME in order to justify the FISA warrant.

And yet these people don't seem to be interested in what evidence Trump had at the time of the phone conversation in order to demand an investigation into the Bidens, instead these people are demanding the Bidens be interrogated in order to determine their guilt. This is a very, very different approach to what happened with the investigate the investigators.

Please explain why.

I realize many of you are not fans of Nunes, yet I feel he has pretty good arguments in favor of why the Bidens need to be called to testify, as can be seen in the following video. Plus calling Schiff to testify as well.


 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
It's not really our job to explain why.

If Trump's legal team sees an advantage, and according to the president they do, then why would you deprive them of that? You don't want a fair trial?
But aren't you curious? On the surface there seems little connection with Hunter Biden.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Anyone that has exculpatory evidence and knowledge.
Rudy could testify that Trump never asked him to put the white house meeting and aid as being contingent on an announcement of an investigation into Bidens and Burisma.
Rudy could testify that Sondland was lying when he said that Rudy told him they needed the investigation.
Rudy could explain why, when he was helping Sondland and Taylor with drafting the Ukraine Presidents statement, why he added mention of investigations into Burisma. Rudy could tell us it was all his idea and Trump never had anything to do with it.

Mulvani could testify that when he said "Of course it is contingent on the investigation, we do this all the time, Get over it" That he was lying to the media and USA public and wasn't under oath at the time and so what. He could Testify that Trump never stated that he wanted anything for the aid.

If it is true, and if these people have exculpatory evidence, they could testify and Trump and his supporters would be very happy.
I don't think either of them would be willing to lie under oath.
There are documents, text messages, notes, and a letter written by Giuliani himself that show his involvement and that Trump was aware of what he is was doing unless he says he was lying to the Ukraine in the letter.

It would be very, very stupid for Mulvaney to lie under oath but who knows he might do it.
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,967
5,730
✟247,356.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I don't think either of them would be willing to lie under oath.
There are documents, text messages, notes, and a letter written by Giuliani himself that show his involvement and that Trump was aware of what he is was doing unless he says he was lying to the Ukraine in the letter.

It would be very, very stupid for Mulvaney to lie under oath but who knows he might do it.
Yes, it's one thing to be political and stay on the party line in order to please your voters or to improve your career advancement opportunities.
It is another thing entirely to place your future freedom on the line to make your "untouchable" boss happy.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I realize many of you are not fans of Nunes, yet I feel he has pretty good arguments in favor of why the Bidens need to be called to testify, as can be seen in the following video. Plus calling Schiff to testify as well.


Laura, "look at this, this is nothing, we don't even know when it was written."[paraphrased]
Well, it had to have been written before Parnas was arrested and the documents and his phone confiscated by the court in NYC. He had to ask them to share them on thumb drives with the Impeachment Committee.
She's not a stupid woman, I'd love to hear what she's saying off-camera about them. What she says Trump sending Dowd to represent Parnas and his buddy. Two guys, he said he didn't know and didn't know what they do.
Nunes talks a lot about other things he sees that are/were wrong but says very little about the Bidens, or maybe I missed something?
 
Upvote 0

The_Barmecide

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2019
497
571
48
Idaho
✟14,814.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
From the "Fair is fair" files: Rand Paul Says He’ll Force Vote on Hunter Biden Testimony If GOP Supports Impeachment Witnesses

“My colleagues can’t have it both ways. Calling for some, while blocking others,” Paul said on Twitter.

"If we are going to give a platform to witnesses the Dems demand, I look forward to forcing votes to call Hunter Biden and many more!"
:oldthumbsup:

I thought Rand was smarter than that. This is like a trial for a bankrobber who wants to drag the president of the bank in to see if he was taking kickbacks for something. How will Hunter Biden's testimony change the fact that Trump was using his office for personal gain?

Even if Hunter is the most corrupt Biden in history, what does it have to do with the PRESENT charges against Trump?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: whatbogsends
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yes, it's one thing to be political and stay on the party line in order to please your voters or to improve your career advancement opportunities.
It is another thing entirely to place your future freedom on the line to make your "untouchable" boss happy.
They should also provide all the documents that they refused to turn over to the impeachment committee. But we know that they aren't going to do that.
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Laura, "look at this, this is nothing, we don't even know when it was written."[paraphrased]
Well, it had to have been written before Parnas was arrested and the documents and his phone confiscated by the court in NYC. He had to ask them to share them on thumb drives with the Impeachment Committee.
She's not a stupid woman, I'd love to hear what she's saying off-camera about them. What she says Trump sending Dowd to represent Parnas and his buddy. Two guys, he said he didn't know and didn't know what they do.
Nunes talks a lot about other things he sees that are/were wrong but says very little about the Bidens, or maybe I missed something?


You're right, he didn't have that much to say about the Bidens in that particular video, though he did make mention of them. I don't know why I used that particular video to try and make my point? Who knows? But what about his point in regards to Schiff then? If I had my way, it would be Schiff who I would really like to see testify under oath. That dude clearly lied on numerous occasions in the past. Let's see if he wants to still stick with those same stories under oath. But if you disagree he has lied numerous times in the past, in regards to during the House hearings, well let's put him under oath then in order to determine whether or not you are correct to disagree.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I thought Rand was smarter than that. This is like a trial for a bankrobber who wants to drag the president of the bank in to see if he was taking kickbacks for something. How will Hunter Biden's testimony change the fact that Trump was using his office for personal gain?

Even if Hunter is the most corrupt Biden in history, what does it have to do with the PRESENT charges against Trump?
In the past, Trump and his people have said that Trump was concerned about all corruption in the Ukraine and that Biden and Crowdstrike were just a part of that. By that reasoning, he wasn't after Biden because he'd likely be running against him.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You're right, he didn't have that much to say about the Bidens in that particular video, though he did make mention of them. I don't know why I used that particular video to try and make my point? Who knows? But what about his point in regards to Schiff then? If I had my way, it would be Schiff who I would really like to see testify under oath. That dude clearly lied on numerous occasions in the past. Let's see if he wants to still stick with those same stories under oath. But if you disagree he has lied numerous times in the past, in regards to during the House hearings, well let's put him under oath then in order to determine whether or not you are correct to disagree.
What did he lie about in the hearings?
 
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,601
2,106
Texas
✟196,410.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What did he lie about in the hearings?

For one, didn't he lie about not knowing who the whistleblower is? That's what several House Republicans accused him of a few times, if I recall correctly. Let's see if he is willing to stick to that same same story under oath. All it takes is just one lie under oath in order to commit perjury, where I'm thinking lying to Congress under oath is a crime that can be punishable by prison time. Except in some cases I guess. Apparently Clinton lied under oath a number of times during his trial, yet nothing ever became of it. So maybe having Schiff testify under oath isn't that good of an idea after all, because even if he did caught lying under oath, nothing would probably ever become of it.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
For one, didn't he lie about not knowing who the whistleblower is? That's what several House Republicans accused him of a few times, if I recall correctly. Let's see if he is willing to stick to that same same story under oath. All it takes is just one lie under oath in order to commit perjury, where I'm thinking lying to Congress under oath is a crime that can be punishable by prison time. Except in some cases I guess. Apparently Clinton lied under oath a number of times during his trial, yet nothing ever became of it. So maybe having Schiff testify under oath isn't that good of an idea after all, because even if he did caught lying under oath, nothing would probably ever become of it.
I heard that during the hearings. He said he didn't know who the whistleblower was. They didn't offer any evidence that he did, so who knows. He may know now though.
The whistleblower contacted one of his staff and they told him/her to go to the IGCC ?, I can't remember the acronym right now, that is the story I heard.
What other lies are they saying he has told?
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
For one, didn't he lie about not knowing who the whistleblower is? That's what several House Republicans accused him of a few times, if I recall correctly. Let's see if he is willing to stick to that same same story under oath. All it takes is just one lie under oath in order to commit perjury, where I'm thinking lying to Congress under oath is a crime that can be punishable by prison time. Except in some cases I guess. Apparently Clinton lied under oath a number of times during his trial, yet nothing ever became of it. So maybe having Schiff testify under oath isn't that good of an idea after all, because even if he did caught lying under oath, nothing would probably ever become of it.
Why didn't Trump have the DOJ work with the Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden while Hunter was still working there?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,037
13,063
✟1,077,154.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Hunter Biden has absolutely nothing to do with the offenses Trump has been accused of. No matter what Trump's motive may have been, an offense/crime is an offense/crime.

I understand that Trump does not accept the many times the Burisma situation has been investigated--clearing the names of both Bidens each time.

Since insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results, it would be prudent of Trump to give this misconception up.

If Hunter Biden testifies and says: 1) he knows nothing about the offenses enumerated in the impeachment articles and 2) he and his father have been investigated and cleared of any potential guilt several times over then what he will be proving is that perhaps the 25th amendment should be invoked.
 
Upvote 0