• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans want Hunter Biden, Ukraine whistleblower as impeachment inquiry witnesses

Outlook said:
Let’s see if Schiffforbrains allows the republicans to call witnesses and which ones he will allow.
It would appear the two most important pieces of evidence is the whistle blower and the phone transcript.
Click to expand...

If he counts himself there are 3.
Nunes wants to call him.
What are the chances.
 
bubbabgone said:
In some states a GJ can call witnesses.

If you meant to suggest moderation, I have to disagree a bit about Buttigieg, not that I'd expect you to care if I disagree.
Given the nature of the field, he's decided to present himself as somewhat reasonable.
Granted he may not be as balls-out wacky as the Squad, but he's still not a moderate.
He's just trying to be this election's stealth Barack Obama.
A wise move.
Click to expand...

I agree that I am simplifying things a bit by grouping the DNC POTUS candidates into only two groups (lanes?) which I typically define as left and center. My point is that Biden, Buttigieg and (soon?) Bloomberg are front-runners competing for the "center" subset of demorat primary voters while Warren and Sanders are front-runners competing for the "left" subset of demorat primary voters. IMHO, those two subsets of demorat primary voters are approximately equal in membership numbers.

Once the general election rolls around, there is a much larger "center" subset of independent voters than there is in the "left" subset of independent voters. That means if the DNC POTUS nominee is from "left" group (lane?) then they stand a very good chance of seeing Trump get re-elected.
 
RAMOSS said:
Remember about the 'investigation' into Bernie Sanders wife' about in 2015-2016, and how the republicans said 'She's gonna get charged'. ?? Funny how nohting happened.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it’s funny how amnesia always seems to strike every time an investigation doesn’t pan out, but then they get all excited at the announcement of the next one. The current one has them all in a flutter, and when this one fails they’ll immediately be on to the next one. Gotta chase that dragon.
 
bubbabgone said:
If he counts himself there are 3.
Nunes wants to call him.
What are the chances.
Click to expand...

Nunes is a moron, suing a Twitter cow. The chances are zero because it's an idiotic request.
 
Rexedgar said:
Republicans want Hunter Biden, Ukraine whistleblower as impeachment inquiry witnesses




Republicans also plan to call the younger Biden's former long-time business partner, Devon Archer, who also sat on the board of Burisma. Republicans claim Archer can help the public to understand "the nature and extent of Ukraine's pervasive corruption information that bears directly on President Trump's longstanding and deeply-held skepticism of the country."
Fox News has also learned that Republicans plan to call the whistleblower—whose identity remains anonymous—to testify publicly as part of the inquiry. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said in September the whistleblower would appear before Congress "very soon," but in recent weeks has suggested that testimony is unnecessary.


This was always going to be a circus.
Click to expand...

Only because the Republicans want it that way—so they can hide the truth.
 
If you think about it; it really does not matter if the people named are not called by the House. They can always be subponaed by the Senate during the trial.

Also I don't think it will backfire on the Dems. Trump's base does not care anyway and I don't think it will result in additional voters for him either. JMHO
 
rocket88 said:
Call Hunter Biden then. That's fine. What he may or may not have done is not at issue in the impeachment. If he committed a crime, send him to prison.

The WB should remain anonymous for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

I think what Joe and Hunter Biden did in the Ukraine is very much at issue in the impeachment. It goes to why Trump allegedly asked for the QPQ in the first place.

If Joe's idiot son Hunter had never been employed at Burisma and Joe had not threatened to withhold $1B in aid until the prosecutor looking into it was fired, then Trump wouldn't have asked for an investigation and none of this would be a thing today.
 
They should ignore any subpoenas that they may receive. It's trending.
 
JasperL said:
Nunes is a moron, suing a Twitter cow. The chances are zero because it's an idiotic request.
Click to expand...

Schiff is, after all, a witness who lied about his involvement from the beginning.
 
eman623 said:
I think what Joe and Hunter Biden did in the Ukraine is very much at issue in the impeachment. It goes to why Trump allegedly asked for the QPQ in the first place.

If Joe's idiot son Hunter had never been employed at Burisma and Joe had not threatened to withhold $1B in aid until the prosecutor looking into it was fired, then Trump wouldn't have asked for an investigation and none of this would be a thing today.
Click to expand...

It's not about what Biden did or did not do. If Trump wanted an investigation, there are other, legal means to make it happen, such as through his own DOJ, and not by use of extortion. Do you understand that? What he did was extortion. Therefore, the ends do NOT justify the means. It's illegal and a crime. Case closed.
 
rocket88 said:
Call Hunter Biden then. That's fine. What he may or may not have done is not at issue in the impeachment. If he committed a crime, send him to prison.

The WB should remain anonymous for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

Hunter Biden is irrelevant and this is just a distraction. This is a testament to the fact that the Republicans can not defend the president on the merits, they have to obfuscate. The Republicans should be calling other witnesses from the WH staff, state department, OMB, NSA or the military that can actually speak to the issue hand.
 
Rexedgar said:
Republicans want Hunter Biden, Ukraine whistleblower as impeachment inquiry witnesses




Republicans also plan to call the younger Biden's former long-time business partner, Devon Archer, who also sat on the board of Burisma. Republicans claim Archer can help the public to understand "the nature and extent of Ukraine's pervasive corruption information that bears directly on President Trump's longstanding and deeply-held skepticism of the country."
Fox News has also learned that Republicans plan to call the whistleblower—whose identity remains anonymous—to testify publicly as part of the inquiry. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said in September the whistleblower would appear before Congress "very soon," but in recent weeks has suggested that testimony is unnecessary.


This was always going to be a circus.
Click to expand...

Republicans do not want to investigate this so they are just going to call people they want to scream at and throw their poo even if those people have nothing to do with the topic.
 
Last edited:
Barnacle said:
If POS Schiff says NO to letting anyone on that list (below) testify, ...

Hunter Biden
Devon Archer
Alexandra Chalupa
Nellie Ohr
Tim Morrison
Kurt Volker
Whistle Leaker
David Hale

... does that mean we can now say "obstruction of justice" by the dems?!? :lol:
Click to expand...
How would any of them change the facts about the call?
 
eman623 said:
I think what Joe and Hunter Biden did in the Ukraine is very much at issue in the impeachment. It goes to why Trump allegedly asked for the QPQ in the first place.

If Joe's idiot son Hunter had never been employed at Burisma and Joe had not threatened to withhold $1B in aid until the prosecutor looking into it was fired, then Trump wouldn't have asked for an investigation and none of this would be a thing today.
Click to expand...
What aid did Biden hold up?
 
eman623 said:
I think what Joe and Hunter Biden did in the Ukraine is very much at issue in the impeachment. It goes to why Trump allegedly asked for the QPQ in the first place.

If Joe's idiot son Hunter had never been employed at Burisma and Joe had not threatened to withhold $1B in aid until the prosecutor looking into it was fired, then Trump wouldn't have asked for an investigation and none of this would be a thing today.
Click to expand...

Trump shouldn't have been the one pushing for an investigation even if there were evidence the Bidens did something wrong.

To further complicate things, for Trump, it's quite obvious now, that Trump, Rudy, Shokin, Fitrash, Parnas, and Fruman are all lying about the predicate for investigating Biden. None of them actually believe there is any evidence Biden or his son did anything wrong. In fact, they resorted to faking evidence to justify an investigation into Biden.

To Win Giuliani’s Help, Oligarch’s Allies Pursued Biden Dirt

And, the fact that Hunter Biden had a position in Burisma and the fact that Joe Biden requested that Shokin be fired just isn't good enough of a reason to justify an investigation into the Bidens. The push to combat corruption in Ukraine had multi-national and bipartisan support, and Biden himself was pursuing the objectives of his superior, Obama.

--

The main problem here is that Trump supporters do not think Democrats are equal participants in the same system. Investigations are only acceptable if its a Trump supporter doing the investigation. Only Trump supporters act in good faith, and all Democrats and Trump critics are presumed to be lying until proven otherwise. In this environment, they've adopted an ends-justify-the-means mentality and have accepted that manufacturing evidence is acceptable so long as it means beating the Democrats. Trump supporters have become political extremists, and violence will follow.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Impeaching Bill Clinton “backfired” on Republicans by having them take over both chambers of Congress and the White House in 2000. They also suffered the ignominious defeat of being able to appoint right wing ideologues to the Supreme Court, resulting in such decisions as Citizens United and Shelby, both of which contributed to Trump’s electoral victory.

With any luck, impeaching Trump will “backfire” on Democrats even half as much as impeaching Clinton “backfired” on Republicans.
Click to expand...

R's lost seats in the House in 98 and 2000.
I think Pelosi knows losing seats in 2020 would not be good for the Ds.

So, she will be cautious on be sure the public is supporting impeachment. IMO.
 
eman623 said:
I think what Joe and Hunter Biden did in the Ukraine is very much at issue in the impeachment. It goes to why Trump allegedly asked for the QPQ in the first place.

If Joe's idiot son Hunter had never been employed at Burisma and Joe had not threatened to withhold $1B in aid until the prosecutor looking into it was fired, then Trump wouldn't have asked for an investigation and none of this would be a thing today.
Click to expand...

Nice try. The bolded is false. If you want to subpoena someone, call Shokin and have him produce the notes from the investigation that he was not-doing through all of 2015.
 
bluesmoke said:
Clinton impeachment proceedings began Oct 8 1998. The mid-term election of Nov 3 1998 kept the Republican majority in both the House and Senate. The 2000 Presidential election ushered-in G W Bush, a Republican, and kept Rep majority in the House though the Senate ended up 50-50 with VP Gore the tie-breaker. I wouldn't call that "backfire." How did the impeachment of Clinton backfire on the Reps? The only indicator was that Clinton’s popularity went up and barely taking the Senate by the Dems wasn't anything unusual, looking at the odds. But that caused no unusual political damage. That insecure, dumb ass Gore didn’t want to associate with Clinton because he wanted to untie the apron strings and thus, w/o a highly motivated campaign by Clinton for Gore…
Click to expand...

Difference being R's had control in both houses and lost seats. Not enough to win majority.
The D's have no majority in Senate and would likely lose more seats if this goes badly. Something I am sure they don't want to do.
 
bubbabgone said:
Schiff is, after all, a witness who lied about his involvement from the beginning.
Click to expand...

He didn't lie about his own involvement. But facts don't matter to you, so don't worry about getting them even half correct.

The WB did go to staff to request guidance about how to file a complaint intended for Schiff's committee. Sounds sort of usual, and it's in fact legal for the HPSCI staff to provide that guidance or to accept IC WB complaints directly.
 
JasperL said:
Yes, I hope it backfires in much the same way as it did with the Republicans. Bush II won the next election, and the GOP controlled both the House and the Senate for almost all the period from impeachment vote thru 2007! That would be terrible if Democrats did the equivalent!!!
Click to expand...

D's don't have majority in Senate. Losing more seats won't help them in the least. Will it.
The Rs lost seats in both houses. Do you think that is what D's want?
 
dairyair said:
R's lost seats in the House in 98 and 2000.
I think Pelosi knows losing seats in 2020 would not be good for the Ds.

So, she will be cautious on be sure the public is supporting impeachment. IMO.
Click to expand...

Setting aside the fact that you seem unable to comprehend the extraordinary degree to which the GOP took over the entirety of the Federal government after Clinton left office, do you see Democrats having a difficult time winning elections?

Bevin ran on impeachment, believing it would turn out his base. How did that work out for him? How did impeachment work out for Republicans in Virginia?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I agree that I am simplifying things a bit by grouping the DNC POTUS candidates into only two groups (lanes?) which I typically define as left and center. My point is that Biden, Buttigieg and (soon?) Bloomberg are front-runners competing for the "center" subset of demorat primary voters while Warren and Sanders are front-runners competing for the "left" subset of demorat primary voters. IMHO, those two subsets of demorat primary voters are approximately equal in membership numbers.

Once the general election rolls around, there is a much larger "center" subset of independent voters than there is in the "left" subset of independent voters. That means if the DNC POTUS nominee is from "left" group (lane?) then they stand a very good chance of seeing Trump get re-elected.
Click to expand...

If someone from the D group can prove to the voters they will unite the country and not be a partisan hack, IMO, that will win the middle. What that would do to the base, not sure. But I am sure the D base will vote anyone not name tRUMP.
 
dairyair said:
Difference being R's had control in both houses and lost seats. Not enough to win majority.
The D's have no majority in Senate and would likely lose more seats if this goes badly. Something I am sure they don't want to do.
Click to expand...

Right, but what you're kind of ignoring is the scorched earth policy of the GOP with regard to Clinton started basically the minute he got inaugurated and it worked beautifully. Impeachment was just the final act of that long play. You could argue THAT was a stop too far, but the damage was minimal if any, as Gore ran away from the damaged Clinton in a lot of ways, and lost. The GOP took the same path with Obama and it also worked pretty well by all accounts.

The point is there is just no evidence that the tactics hurt the GOP. The electoral results from Gingrich forward have been pretty good for the GOP. Obama, for example, was inevitable post-crash. But he had a majority in Congress for only two years.
 
dairyair said:
If someone from the D group can prove to the voters they will unite the country and not be a partisan hack, IMO, that will win the middle. What that would do to the base, not sure. But I am sure the D base will vote anyone not name tRUMP.
Click to expand...

Yep, but that means Warren is likely to win the DNC primary.
 
eman623 said:
I think what Joe and Hunter Biden did in the Ukraine is very much at issue in the impeachment. It goes to why Trump allegedly asked for the QPQ in the first place.

If Joe's idiot son Hunter had never been employed at Burisma and Joe had not threatened to withhold $1B in aid until the prosecutor looking into it was fired, then Trump wouldn't have asked for an investigation and none of this would be a thing today.
Click to expand...

Not really sure of your point. If tRUMP never was elected, this wouldn't be a thing today either.

But tRUMP was withholding funds already granted by congress to Ukraine until they did him a personal favor. Not a favor to the USA gov't.
It's why Guliani was involved and not an official US representative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom