Rand Paul Might Force Vote To Bring Hunter Biden In As Impeachment Witness

[NightHawkeye]

From the "It's not over until the fat lady sings", files: Rand Paul Might Force Vote To Bring Hunter Biden In As Impeachment Witness

“I believe very strongly the president should be able to call his own witnesses,” Paul told reporters on Thursday, Politico reported. “The rules that are put forward will be amendable, so yes I will consider strongly that the president should get his full due process, which to me means bringing in his own witnesses.”​

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

I say a trade can be arranged. Hunter Biden can be made to take the stand as long as Donald Trump is also made to take the stand.

 

[BryanJohnMaloney]

And when the questioning becomes irrelevant to the impeachment, then the prosecutor can object, then that puts the president pro tem of the Senate in a very difficult spot. "Somebody ELSE who was never President might or might not have done something bad" defense is probably going to just look ridiculous.

But if Trump wants to be a moron, he's free to be a moron.

It's like this: Dingleberry Brain gets put on trial for embezzlement. Then Dingleberry Brain's attorney calls Snozzberry Face to the stand and starts questioning Snozzberry Face about business dealings that had nothing at all to do with Dingleberry Brain's possible embezzlement but would be very embarassing to Snozzberry Face's daddy. Any prosecutor would object, and any judge who doesn't halt the question would look like an idiot.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I say a trade can be arranged. Hunter Biden can be made to take the stand as long as Donald Trump is also made to take the stand.

Donald Trump will be made to take the stand no matter who else does. The trial will be against him.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Donald Trump will be made to take the stand no matter who else does. The trial will be against him.

I don't think that's how it works.

The defendant doesn't have to testify. The onus is entirely on the prosecution, without any help from the accused, to make the case.

 

[Hank77]

And when the questioning becomes irrelevant to the impeachment, then the prosecutor can object, then that puts the president pro tem of the Senate in a very difficult spot. "Somebody ELSE who was never President might or might not have done something bad" defense is probably going to just look ridiculous.

But if Trump wants to be a moron, he's free to be a moron.

It's like this: Dingleberry Brain gets put on trial for embezzlement. Then Dingleberry Brain's attorney calls Snozzberry Face to the stand and starts questioning Snozzberry Face about business dealings that had nothing at all to do with Dingleberry Brain's possible embezzlement but would be very embarassing to Snozzberry Face's daddy. Any prosecutor would object, and any judge who doesn't halt the question would look like an idiot.

What they want to prove is that Trump had a good reason to want Joe and Hunter to be investigated and didn't have anything to do with Joe being a political rival. So if they can make Hunter look corrupt and criminal that's their honey pot.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I don't think that's how it works.

The defendant doesn't have to testify. The onus is entirely on the prosecution, without any help from the accused, to make the case.

Did Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton testify?

 

[Hank77]

Did Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton testify?

Bill Clinton did and committed perjury. "I didn't have relations with that woman."

 

[essentialsaltes]

okay

 

[NightHawkeye]

Did Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton testify?

They accused certainly can testify. It's often to their advantage to do so ... but not always, as evidenced by Bill Clinton's testimony to Ken Starr.

 

[GodLovesCats]

What they want to prove is that Trump had a good reason to want Joe and Hunter to be investigated and didn't have anything to do with Joe being a political rival. So if they can make Hunter look corrupt and criminal that's their honey pot.

No, they need to prove neither Donald Trump's inent or actions were illegal according to the Constitution. Was his motive for political purposes? Did he intentionally cause a national security threat?

 

[hedrick]

What they want to prove is that Trump had a good reason to want Joe and Hunter to be investigated and didn't have anything to do with Joe being a political rival. So if they can make Hunter look corrupt and criminal that's their honey pot.

The issue isn't whether Trump had reason to suspect Biden, but whether he had reason to suspect *only* Biden. If he had demanded better investigations of corruption, we wouldn't be having these hearings. It was demanding an announcement about Biden that's suspicious. He also seemed to be focused on announcement more than investigation. It's pretty clear tat this was a political attack, not a demand for clean government.

 

[Hank77]

The issue isn't whether Trump had reason to suspect Biden, but whether he had reason to suspect *only* Biden. If he had demanded better investigations of corruption, we wouldn't be having these hearings. It was demanding an announcement about Biden that's suspicious. He also seemed to be focused on announcement more than investigation. It's pretty clear tat this was a political attack, not a demand for clean government.

I completely agree but that doesn't change what the Republicans are trying to do, basically muddy the waters.

 

[hedrick]

I completely agree but that doesn't change what the Republicans are trying to do, basically muddy the waters.

It doesn’t matter. House leadership won’t allow it. The people who will believe their claim of unfairness already ignore the evidence.

 

[Hank77]

It doesn’t matter. House leadership won’t allow it. The people who will believe their claim of unfairness already ignore the evidence.

Rand isn't talking about calling Hunter in the impeachment inquiry, he's talking about in the Senate trial where he, as a Senator, will be able to call for a vote and the Reps. have the majority.

 

[SimplyMe]

And when the questioning becomes irrelevant to the impeachment, then the prosecutor can object, then that puts the president pro tem of the Senate in a very difficult spot. "Somebody ELSE who was never President might or might not have done something bad" defense is probably going to just look ridiculous.

But if Trump wants to be a moron, he's free to be a moron.

It's like this: Dingleberry Brain gets put on trial for embezzlement. Then Dingleberry Brain's attorney calls Snozzberry Face to the stand and starts questioning Snozzberry Face about business dealings that had nothing at all to do with Dingleberry Brain's possible embezzlement but would be very embarassing to Snozzberry Face's daddy. Any prosecutor would object, and any judge who doesn't halt the question would look like an idiot.

It isn't up to the President Pro Tem; ultimately it will depend on Justice Roberts -- as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he presides over the impeachment query.

Though I started thinking today -- perhaps the Democrats should call the Republicans bluff and call the Whistleblower. I see one of two things happening -- as a member of White House staff, the Whistleblower has been ordered not to testify -- so he can refuse based on Trump's claim of "executive privilege."

So does Trump allow the Whistleblower to testify? If he does, then it makes the idea of a blanket "executive privilege ban" is a lie, something to avoid cooperating. If Trump doesn't, it isn't the Democrats blocking the Whistleblower from testifying.

 

[GodLovesCats]

The whistleblower is obligated to testify if he got a subpoena. Donald Trump has no right to block anyone from testifying; he told people to break the law by doing so because they were subpoenaed. So the fact a few White House employees were ordered to ignore their subpeonas alone proves Trump is guilty.

 

[cow451]

Did Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton testify?

Johnson.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Gosh, how did I mess that up? I knew it was Johnson.

 

[cow451]

Gosh, how did I mess that up? I knew it was Johnson.

I believe they were both from Tennessee.