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

Dems don’t dare because Giuliani has the goods.

 

What? Suborning perjury doesn't mean calling a witness you think is a liar. It means procuring or attempting to procure false testimony. I am sure the Democrats can cross examine Giuliani if he testifies to something they know to be false AND can prove it.

 

Lol.. I guess we might see what Rudy has if he shows up to Lindsey's committee..

That should be a shitshow of biblical proportions...

 

Sure would for the dems.

 

The phone call is done.. now we need to get deeper inside this cancerous White House..

 

No quid pro quo so keep up the witch hunt?

 

Shokin is famously corrupt - he was fired because he FAILED to investigate, let alone prosecute anyone.

He sabotaged a UK case against Burisma-owner Zlochevsky by telling the court he was not suspected of any crime, enabling Zlochevsky to get back $23 million in frozen assets.

The affidavit he wrote, that Giuliani is fond of waving about, was written to help a Ukrainian oligarch, Dmytro Firtash, evade extradition to the US for bribery and extortion. It is riddled with anti-Biden falsehoods to lend credence to Firtash's claim of political persecution by the U.S., and because he has an axe to grind.

I guess he can explain all that on the stand.

Of course he'd need to get a a visa first. It was denied last time because of his "corrupt activities" and straight-out lying in his application.

 

Funny how Yovanovitch was surprised the Burisma investigation was shelved after Bidens quid pro quo. Funny how Latvia warned Ukraine about apparent money laundering including Bidens son in 2016. Funny how those involved overseas channel about 1/2 of foreign funding to democrat NGO’s the biggest one by Soros the turns around and funds democrat campaigns.

Of course don’t investigate any of it because a democrat said it is a conspiracy theory.

 

Funny how you completely ignore unpleasant facts about Shokin.

Yovanovitch was talking about Lutsenko, not Shokin.

And yes, the rest of it is conspiracy theory. Jon Solomon's "investigations" only ring true with those who haven't done their research. You, for instance, have obviously not taken the time (little as it would take) to do your own research into Shokin.

 

Yovanovitch was talking about the Burisma investigation that was shelved. You evidently did not watch her testimony.

Some think that Biden would get Shokin fired because he was NOT investigating the company his son worked for. Defies logic.

 

Yes I did, and she was talking about Lutsenko.

Once you understand that Shokin was - and still is - corrupt, it doesn't defy logic at all.

That's why Biden - along with the EU, IMF, EDRB, and everyone else giving aid to Ukraine - wanted him fired. Because he was not investigating corruption. Ukraine risked losing all its aid, from everyone.

 

I doubt that these four witnesses will get you in. Anyway, five bucks said they don't testify and so we'll never know.

 

Shokin is just as CORRUPT as your IMPOTUS and he won't testify because he can't without perjuring himself.

 

The Dems WANT Giuliani to testify because he will PROVE that your IMPOTUS is GUILTY beyond any doubt whatsoever.

 

Yup, the goods that prove that your IMPOTUS is GUILTY.

 

LOL, sure.

 

They got nothing else. The one smart thing that ever came out of Al Greens mouth "if we don't impeach this president, I'm afraid he will get reelected". This sham is nothing but 2020 election interference by the Dems. They can never win on policies or results, that's why they always resort to interference, lying or cheating.

 

That is my understanding too. I do think it reasonable to argue there is no Impeachment if the House does not get this to the Senate timely.

 

If the Acting COS and the former NSA dont get you into Trumps thinking, there's no such thing......

Oh....

No bet however.. the fix seems to be in...

 

Yes, the dem fix was in since 2016.

 

The sons of Kerry, Pelosi, Biden, and Romney are all profiting off of Ukraine and you wonder why they are anti Trump.

 

But those guys aren't going to trash Trump. And you know that if they spoke the unadulterated truth as they know it, it would be something like "Yeah he drives me nuts because we never know what he's going to say or do. He doesn't read or listen to us and when he does he does the exact opposite of what we recommend. And then the next day he does the opposite."

No one is going to change their position on "abuse of power" over that.

 

First off, you need to head to my thread where Bolton basically trashes Trump over his failed NK policy..

Let's play a hypothetical.

John Bolton is called as a witness and he says, with no ambiguity, that Trump told him he was withholding the military aid until Zelensky started investigations.

Anybody changing their position? I just want to know the bar...

 

Desperate attempts at diversion and vilification of family members aside, the pursuit of truth is a valid endeavor, clearly anathema to the cult of Trumpery.

Conspiracy crackpots can spew endless vilifications with no concern for evidence or prosecutorial validation whatever.

Question:

Is releasing all pertinent documents, while allowing insiders in the know such as Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Perry, McGahn, Giuliani, Parnas, Fruman, and Fake Don himself to testify under oath and respond to the questions of both Republican and Democratic senators and their designated attorneys more conducive to the revelation of truth than their all clamming up and/or being gagged?​

Clearly, the suppression of truth, even more than lashing out inanely to divert attention, is the imperative for diehard Trumpers who are convinced the truth would not set their messiah free.

It's a transparent strategy: Amidst the cry baby "Everybody's being so mean to me!" pissy tweets and Jonestown-style pep rallies, savage all reasonable methods to ascertain the truth.

 

Failed NK policy?? That's impeachable?

You're assuming a lot about Bolton, not only as to what he would say, but also that it constitutes bribery. Bolton would also have to say there was something unambiguously corrupt in the request, like "The president told me he knew damn well there was nothing the slightest bit peculiar about Barisma paying Biden's kid all that money for his pretty face, but that an investigation would sink JJe Biden's chances in 2020." You might as well hypothesize that Trump is holding some underage Salvadoran girls in the basement of the White House for his person gratification. It's just silly.

A quick note on bribery, if you want to go down that rabbit hole, that literally everyone is missing except me and Alan Dershowitz:

When you give a cop a $50 bill not to write that speeding ticket, it's bribery because it's your money AND (more important) cops are prohibited by law from taking bribes. It violates theaw as well as their contract of employment. Ukrainian authorities are not to my knowledge barred by law from investigating corruption in Ukrainian companies.