House GOP Release List of Witnesses For Impeachment Hearings

originally posted by: carewemust
Congressman: "Mr TheWistleBlower, when is the first time you met with Adam Schiff or his staff?"

Mr President when did you decide that using the power of the presidency for personal gain was a good idea?

When you cant dispute the facts then turn on the informant. Except that the complaint and the summation of the call and the testimony so far all seem to be confirming each other. That it was pay to play.
Give me what I want or you wont get what you want including a visit to the white house or that much needed aid to keep russia away from your borders.
Make those public announcements or else...
That is what every witness has said the understood meaning of these "negotiations" was. To a letter they all say that was the implied message.

Queen takes Rook.

There are two outcomes here:

• Shiff allows the called witnesses to testify and they blow holes in the entire investigation nonsense, or
  
  
• Shiff can refuse to call the witnesses and place the entire investigation further under public suspicion. In this case, the calls for the witnesses are on the record anyway, and they certainly will be called during the trial (should the impeachment not be thrown out as biases and unsubstantiated).

Personally, I am looking forward to the trial. It will, if t happens, be overseen by Chief Justice Roberts, who may not be a steady conservative voice but is certainly a stickler for law. Guiliani will likely represent Trump, and that guy is a legal shark with an axe to grind now. Shiff will be called to testimony and he will have no choice but to comply because the trial will be happening at his request; he could easily be held in Contempt of Congress himself should he even try to refuse, and after the threats he has made to do just that to Trump and members of the administration, I don't think the Republicans in the Senate will have second thoughts about doing it to him.

I'm looking forward to watching Guiliani tear him a new one. Shiff has several 'tells' when he is covering something up that I have noticed.

The Bidens will also certainly be called. Can anyone imagine poor ol' Joe stammering away on a witness stand while Guilianio fires off accusatory questions? Should be entertaining at least.

Yeah, Queen takes Rook... check.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: BrennanHuff22

Looks like the Republicans are wanting to turn the impeachment hearings into an investigation into Hunter Biden.

You cant do one without the other.

If trump's defense is he was looking into corruption then proving g that corruption is paramount.

Dems need to think long and hard a bu out going down this road in light if what we already know.

LOL they had to try this desperation weak sauce hail mary pass attempt, they are running out of time for their original day one mandate to impeach Trump. It just goes to show the Democrats can't get anything done LOL it is only the worst president in the history of the world, right? But when you have failed so many times even the most loyal can stop believing

I actually would want to have clarification on the Republicans choices for these witnesses. I do not see what many of these have to do with Trump quid pro quo investigation inquiry.

It does seem like a sarcastic joke that they want to mock the Dems with 'anything that might stick and be discovered' philosophy but personally, without a sincere inquiry it seems a bit mocking to America.

What testimony could most have these folks have regarding first hand knowledge that Trump demanded and forced Ukraine to do his bidding solely for personal political reasoning or not?
Hunter Biden certainly would not have any knowledge on what President Trump said nor Zelensky.

Why wasn't Rudy listed? He seemed to be the main go to person pointed to throughout all of the previous testimonies?

Edit add: Just read Redneck's post above...guess I should have waited on my post. Makes a little more sense. Thank you, Redneck.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

They can try...
Or they can do their duty and focus on the issue before them.

I kind of hope they do cover it so that when everyone hears for themselves that its a fake story they can let it go and get back on track.

a reply to: Fallingdown

He wouldn't ignore it if he was subpoenaed.
There's the difference right there.
Like the ones who are defying the president who told them not to testify.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Edumakated

If trump's defense is he was looking into corruption then proving g that corruption is paramount.

Trump isn't being impeached because of his, so far, unfounded conspiracy theories. He's being impeached for trying to force a foreign government into legitimizing his conspiracy theory, to help him in this 2020 reelection bid.

Neither Trump or his administration leaked the investigation. The democrats did that all on their own interfering with their own primary.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Fallingdown

He wouldn't ignore it if he was subpoenaed.
There's the difference right there.
Like the ones who are defying the president who told them not to testify.

Well I’ve got a little evidence to base my position on .

This process still gives Democrats final say over witnesses. A GOP source told Fox News this week that it's unlikely Democrats would go along with the efforts to call Schiff -- who is essentially leading the impeachment probe.

Schiff

Do you have any evidence that he will testify besides whataboutism concerning other subpoenas ?

a reply to: Jason79

LOL

Rudy Giuliani leaked the investigation.

a reply to: CynConcepts

I actually would want to have clarification on the Republicans choices for these witnesses. I do not see what many of these have to do with Trump quid pro quo investigation inquiry.

I don't have any inside information or anything like that, but after keeping an eye on the allegations I have my opinions on why:

• Devin Archer sat on the board of Burisma, which is at the center of the investigation concern. Donald trump, as president of the United States of America, has an absolute duty to investigate any reasonable suspicions of illegal activity that come to his attention and the right to consult with foreign countries to further their investigations into Americans who are believed to have violated Federal law. As a sitting member of Burisma, Archer can shed light onto whether or not the investigation into Burisma was legitimate and whether or not it was thwarted by Joe Biden's admitted quid pro quo as has been questioned.
  
  
• Hunter Biden was also sitting on the board of Burisma during the period in question and is the person Trump is suspected of targeting to 'get to' Joe Biden.
  
  
• Alexandra Chalupa served as liaison to Ukraine during the time period Trump claims to have wanted investigated, and the time frame during which Biden's quid pro quo took place.
  
  
• David Hale is a high-ranking diplomat serving under Donald Trump. His undersecretary, George Kent, has made allegations against Trump that Hale is on record as trying to assuage.
  
  
• Tim Morrison has previously given testimony that in part countered testimony by other officials in the State department. He may also have information pertaining to why the previous Ukraine Ambassador was dismissed, which was discussed in the phone call with Zelensky.
  
  
• Nellie Ohr was at the heart of the Steel Dossier affair, acting as a conduit to get information from the dossier to her husband Bruce Ohr, who was a high-ranking official in the FBI.
  
  
• Kurt Volker has in-depth knowledge of the reasoning behind Trump's actions as well as the exact situation concerning Ukraine at the time.
  
  
• Whistleblower - obvious.

This is how the legal system is supposed to work: both sides get to make their case.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you for expressing your opinion on the reasoning of this list. Volker and the WB seem to be legitimate requests for this inquiry.

The rest should be involved in another investigation altogether though. Perhaps, the investigation that Trump reasoned Barr with the DOJ should be apart of? This inquiry investigation is not the time nor place.

Don't get me wrong, I think this inquiry is baseless and a waste of time and tax payer monies. It is basically just the DNC using tax payer funds to propagandize their bid for the 2020 election. The DNC is limited in donations and funding so they are using this to do what normally they would do in advertisements.

Sigh. Sadly, the Republicans seem to be joining the circus but instead of seeing exciting exhibits...there are way too many clowns. It is becoming a total flop.

a reply to: CynConcepts

The investigation, and the impeachment at this time, come down to a single question: did Donald Trump use his office and relationship with Zelensky to attempt to interfere with the upcoming 2020 election? As President, Trump has every right and even a duty to investigate corruption and that includes coordination with foreign peers. So the question then becomes whether or not there was cause for Trump to suspect interference with the 2016 election, and was the request aimed at that end? If so, Trump is innocent of the charges; if not, he is guilty.

So it matters greatly whether there was evidence and legitimate suspicion to push for an investigation into Burisma.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TomLawless
The interesting one to me is Devin Archer.

They're covering all the bases. Too bad Schiff won't let them be questioned.

Devin Archer was arrested in 2016. I guess he's not in jail....imagine that. Guess some strings got pulled or something.

Seven Defendants Charged In Manhattan Federal Court With Defrauding A Native American Tribe And Investors Of Over $60 Million

www.justice.gov...

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said: “As alleged, the defendants induced an Oglala Sioux Native American tribal entity to issue bonds through lies about how the bond proceeds would be invested. Instead of investing the proceeds in a way that would provide capital for development and help cover the interest payments, the defendants allegedly pocketed most of it to pay for their own personal expenses, homes, cars, travel, and jewelry. The defendants’ alleged fraud did not stop with the tribe. The defendants also allegedly duped unwitting investors into buying the bonds by hiding material facts about them, including their lack of liquidity. The defendants’ alleged fraud has left devastation in its wake: a tribe with tens of millions in bond obligations it cannot pay, and investors out tens of millions, left holding bonds they did not want.”

.....oh, but there's more!

It'll all be brought to a quick close within 3 weeks to let stuff simmer over the Christmas break. Then back at it in Feb.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It would seem they intend to prove the justification for POTUS requesting imvestigative assistance from Ukraine.

a reply to: TheRedneck

fun fact Roberts had his own "kavanaugh moment" w biden www.washingtonpost.com... but i dont think it will get to that point


qz.com...

There’s been some discussion that Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell would move to dismiss a Trump impeachment with no trial. It’s happened before, back in 1797 after the first impeachment proceedings in the House. Representatives impeached Senator William Blount and presented the Senate with articles of impeachment to try but the senators expelled Blount from his post the next day. Thus, the senator shirked trial by arguing it couldn’t proceed as he was no longer in office, and that there was no need for removal. The impeachment resolution was dismissed, and this has since been seen as support for the claim that senators can move to dismiss impeachment before trial. As Duke Law School professor and former acting solicitor general Walter Dellinger told Slate, a motion to dismiss could be made, and if carried by a majority vote, end the matter in the Senate. Still, the chief justice would call the question. “[W]ith the chief justice in the chair, I am not at all confident that the majority leader of the Senate can successfully make this go away without having at least an initial vote,” Dellinger said.

i think it goes one of two ways if the house impeaches the senate eitehr votes to dismiss the charges quickly ,or McConnell drags his feat and draws it out to make the 5 dems running for office that are senators have to be present and make campaigning much more complex for them (they would have to be present each day but Sunday for an impeachment trial how ever long it lasted)

but as always a good analysis of the matter at hand redneck

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Amazing how Karma comes back around sometimes...

As for McConnell, I don;t think he is underestimating this impeachment at all. Every statement I have heard him made indicates to me that he is taking it quite seriously, and that could be a very good thing for Trump. If anyone tries to turn the trial itself into a circus, Roberts will slap them down quick. He has a short fuse when it comes to playing politics.

I have a feeling that Biden will be the true loser. He's already slipped in the polls, and it appears to be affecting him mentally as well. Couple that with his required presence at the trial during the campaign, and that just handed the nomination to Warren. Trump won't be removed, as the legal hill to climb in order to show beyond a reasonable doubt that that he intended to skew the election instead of uncover bona fide corruption. Biden, on the other hand, has a fine line to walk... prove that Donald Trump is guilty without implicating himself and his son for future prosecution or perjuring himself before the opposing party.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: CynConcepts

What testimony could most have these folks have regarding first hand knowledge that Trump demanded and forced Ukraine to do his bidding solely for personal political reasoning or not?
Hunter Biden certainly would not have any knowledge on what President Trump said nor Zelensky.

The whole case revolves around the idea that Trump's actions where taken solely for personal gain. As you pointed out.

There is no question of whether Trump took the actions; they are documented in the transcript he handed over himself. If it was just a simple matter of prooving that he took the actions; the investigation would have been over a month ago, the same week it started.

Most of America would agree that its the executive branch's mandate to spend foreign aid wisely and to seek out and end corruption. It is the President's job to exert influence on foreign leaders like those in the Ukraine; just as the Obama administration did in the first act of this political play we are watching.

Again at issue is whether the President took such actions to further personal gain or because he was doing the people's business.

The power of witnesses testimony so far is that supposed experts in foreign relations are stating that the Presidents actions only have value if they were meant for personal gain; because the witnesses believe the actions have no value in foreign relations.

However if Hunter Biden is truly guilty of corruption than their testimony is effectively rebutted. There was value in Trumps actions in the field of foreign relations; rooting out corruption is his job.

I hope the House passes the Articles of Impeachment. I really and truly do.

Then it goes to the Senate where the Democrats will not be able to block witnesses and the whole crap show will blow up like a overused porta-potty.


Must buy more popcorn.

a reply to: TheRedneck

That's if we even get there after the IG Report drops in another week or two.