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

[NightHawkeye]

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!"
​

 

[DavidPT]

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!"
​

The Democrats are saying, without witnesses it will be a sham trial. And let's say there ends up being witnesses, but only the ones the Democrats want, and none that the President wants. One is then to believe that this does not equal a sham trial?

 

[Hank77]

I've been thinking about this and I do think they should call Hunter Biden if they want to, Joe Biden, and Adam Schiff too if they want to.
Let's get it all out in the open. Both sides call everyone the want to.

 

[stevil]

I've been thinking about this and I do think they should call Hunter Biden if they want to, Joe Biden, and Adam Schiff too if they want to.
Let's get it all out in the open. Both sides call everyone the want to.

Even if it is unrelated to the articles of impeachment?

Can they call Manaford and get him up on the stand, in public to explain why he was sharing polling data with the Russians?
Can they call Meghan Markle up on the stand, in public and under oath to find out exactly what is going on at Buckingham palace?

Surely, in order to stop the trial becoming a total farce, they need some sort of filter in order to keep the trial on target. Isn't that why it is presided by a chief justice?

 

[stevil]

The Democrats are saying, without witnesses it will be a sham trial. And let's say there ends up being witnesses, but only the ones the Democrats want, and none that the President wants. One is then to believe that this does not equal a sham trial?

Well, if Trump only wants people that are unrelated to the trial then that is his problem. If his unrelated witnesses are rejected that doesn't make the trial a farce, it just makes his requests out to be embarrassing.
Surely he can think of some related defence witnesses?
How about Guiliani or Pompeo or Barr or Mulvaney, surely their testimonies would count as defence testimony rather than prosecution testimony? If he was innocent then their testimony would definitely be exculpatory ("Mr. President, that means you have anything that shows your innocence — then he should make that known, and that's part of the inquiry").

 

[Albion]

Even if it is unrelated to the articles of impeachment?

But it's not. The Biden hijinks in Ukraine are central to the articles that the House voted.

 

[DavidPT]

Well, if Trump only wants people that are unrelated to the trial then that is his problem. If his unrelated witnesses are rejected that doesn't make the trial a farce, it just makes his requests out to be embarrassing.
Surely he can think of some related defence witnesses?
How about Guiliani or Pompeo or Barr or Mulvaney, surely their testimonies would count as defence testimony rather than prosecution testimony? If he was innocent then their testimony would definitely be exculpatory ("Mr. President, that means you have anything that shows your innocence — then he should make that known, and that's part of the inquiry").

How can the ones Trump want not be related to the trial?

 

[stevil]

How can the ones Trump want not be related to the trial?

Easily. For example, if he wants Britney Spears to appear as a witness. Perhaps he likes her singing and her brand but is worried about her new look. Maybe he wants to ask her under oath why she has come out with this new look.

Well this would obviously be not related at all to the impeachment charges laid against him, and if he requested Britney to be a witness this request should be challenged and thrown out.

 

[stevil]

But it's not. The Biden hijinks in Ukraine are central to the articles that the House voted.

No not at all.

Joe and Hunter Biden had nothing to do with the holding up of aid and had nothing to do with the request for an investigation being a pre-requisite for the release of aid.
Neither of them were in communication with Trump or Guiliani, neither of them had anything to do with USA/Ukraine policy during the Trump administration.

 

[DavidPT]

Easily. For example, if he wants Britney Spears to appear as a witness. Perhaps he likes her singing and her brand but is worried about her new look. Maybe he wants to ask her under oath why she has come out with this new look.

Well this would obviously be not related at all to the impeachment charges laid against him, and if he requested Britney to be a witness this request should be challenged and thrown out.

If it was something like that, then yes I would agree with you. But it's not something like that. By Trump mentioning the Bidens is what got him in this mess to begin with. So we need to know whether or not Trump had good reason for wanting the Bidens investigated. How are we going to know that for certain unless the Bidens testify under oath at this trial?

 

[stevil]

If it was something like that, then yes I would agree with you.

OK, cool, we agree that there should be some sort of criteria to assess whether the witness is relevant and appropriate and whether the questions are relevant and appropriate.

But it's not something like that. By Trump mentioning the Bidens is what got him in this mess to begin with. So we need to know whether or not Trump had good reason for wanting the Bidens investigated.

Perhaps.

But the only way to know whether Trump had good reason, would be to ask Trump to present his evidence of wrong doing by the Bidens.

In reality, if Trump had evidence of wrong doing by the Bidens with regards to Ukraine law then Trump ought to have had his Justice department hand that evidence over to Ukraine, rather than simply demanding a public announcement of an investigation.

How are we going to know that for certain unless the Bidens testify under oath at this trial?

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.

 

[Allandavid]

But it's not something like that. By Trump mentioning the Bidens is what got him in this mess to begin with.

No, that’s not true. He created the mess by soliciting a foreign government to assist his personal political goals. He deepened the mess by illegally withholding aid.

So we need to know whether or not Trump had good reason for wanting the Bidens investigated.

Nope. That’s an irrelevant red herring. If he genuinely wanted them investigated, there are procedures that need to be followed. He illegally took his own actions.

How are we going to know that for certain unless the Bidens testify under oath at this trial?

The only thing that needs to be made ‘certain’ is that Trump acted illegally...

 

[Kentonio]

If it was something like that, then yes I would agree with you. But it's not something like that. By Trump mentioning the Bidens is what got him in this mess to begin with. So we need to know whether or not Trump had good reason for wanting the Bidens investigated. How are we going to know that for certain unless the Bidens testify under oath at this trial?

Because it doesn’t matter what the Bidens did or didn’t do. Trump had legal avenues available to ask for an investigation into the Bidens if he chose. He didn’t chose to do so. Instead he tried to use the power of the United States to pressure a foreign power into merely publicly announcing an investigation into his rival in the run-up to the next election.

It’s important to remember here that there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens. All there is are rumors and people saying ‘well it MUST be corrupt because it looks bad!’. Yet the president’s own justice department apparently have nothing warranting an actual investigation, instead the Republicans just want a trial by press, and to use it to excuse the president’s own wrongdoings that have been thoroughly investigated and found to be genuine.

 

[KCfromNC]

If it was something like that, then yes I would agree with you. But it's not something like that. By Trump mentioning the Bidens is what got him in this mess to begin with.

Donald is free to testify to this fact at the Senate trial if he so chooses. But the Bidens have zero first-hand information on his decisions, and as we've heard from Fox News and other GOP-friendly sources, that means their testimony would be hearsay and therefore inadmissible.

 

[Albion]

No not at all.

Joe and Hunter Biden had nothing to do with the holding up of aid and had nothing to do with the request for an investigation being a pre-requisite for the release of aid.

Amazing.

 

[Hank77]

Surely, in order to stop the trial becoming a total farce, they need some sort of filter in order to keep the trial on target. Isn't that why it is presided by a chief justice?

No, the chief justice has no say over the rules or who is called as witnesses, that's completely up to the Senate.

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. The House wants Giuliani, Bolton, etc. so there is going to have to be a comprise in order for the people of the US to be confident that it was a fair trial and that is the most important thing that needs to come out of all this.

If I were in the House I'd seriously be considering calling L. Parnas after seeing the documents that came out yesterday.

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.

On October 2, 2019, Jay Sekulow, personal counsel to the President, informed President Trump’s former attorney John Dowd that he had discussed with President Trump “the issue
of representation” and that President Trump “consents to allowing your representation of Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman.” This email was sent three days after the Committee sent Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman a request to voluntarily produce records and testify before the investigating Committees.

On October 3, the day after Mr. Sekulow’s letter was sent to Mr. Dowd, Mr. Dowd wrote to the Committee to clarify that he represented Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman, advising that,
“Mssrs. Parnas and Fruman assisted Mr. Giuliani in connection with his representation of President Trump.”

One week later, Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman were arrested. Mr. Parnas changed counsel thereafter and, on October 30, 2019, informed the Committee that he wanted to comply with its request and subpoena.

READ: Documents from Giuliani associate Lev Parnas released by House impeachment investigators - CNNPolitics

 

[Hank77]

If it was something like that, then yes I would agree with you. But it's not something like that. By Trump mentioning the Bidens is what got him in this mess to begin with. So we need to know whether or not Trump had good reason for wanting the Bidens investigated. How are we going to know that for certain unless the Bidens testify under oath at this trial?

In a trial, each side presents the evidence that they have. What you are suggesting is that Trump has no evidence so he needs to go on an evidence fishing trip by trying to get a witness to testify against themself. It can be done but that's a pretty dangerous thing to do when you don't know the answers yourself.

 

[Hank77]

Because it doesn’t matter what the Bidens did or didn’t do. Trump had legal avenues available to ask for an investigation into the Bidens if he chose. He didn’t chose to do so. Instead he tried to use the power of the United States to pressure a foreign power into merely publicly announcing an investigation into his rival in the run-up to the next election.

Deja Vu

 

[DavidPT]

In a trial, each side presents the evidence that they have. What you are suggesting is that Trump has no evidence so he needs to go on an evidence fishing trip by trying to get a witness to testify against themself. It can be done but that's a pretty dangerous thing to do when you don't know the answers yourself.

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?

 

[Nithavela]

I hope they don't call me as a witness.