What's The Point Of Hunter Testifying?

[Eagle-Keeper]

@Scratch

The Biden quid pro quo was a U.S policy matter, and EuropeAn matter. Trumps deal was for personnel gain…but you know thaT.

Has that been proven or can it be proven?

[thinkingman]

@ImRightYoureWrong

@thinkingman

there was no pressure on ukraine to do anything to get the aid

And how can Hunter Biden prove that?

who said he would?

you flail. from one narrative to the next

[thinkingman]

@Scratch

The GAO said he improperly held it.

they say lots of things

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@thinkingman

who said he would?

you flail. from one narrative to the next

The whole point of the thread is what purpose hunter bidens testimony serves to the defense

[thinkingman]

@ImRightYoureWrong

@thinkingman

who said he would?

you flail. from one narrative to the next

The whole point of the thread is what purpose hunter bidens testimony serves to the defense

that doesnt mean theres a relevant answer to your question.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@thinkingman

that doesnt mean theres a relevant answer to your question.

The purpose of a witness’s testimony isn’t relevant to a trial?

[Scratch]

So basically, anything or any report that puts Trump in a bad light is not to be believed. Or they have questionable motives…gotcha.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

If Trump didn’t push the investigations on Ukraine, if there was a legitimate national security basis, then it mustn’t have been that important.

If he did, then he’s lying.

[CanadianJudo]

@DougBH

Trump is being accused of trying to dig up dirt on Biden and wanting Burisma investigated for personal political gain.
If there is a legitimate reason to believe that there was corruption involved and that Hunter was involved, then that would help legitimize the investigation. The basis for investigating the Trump campaign by the FBI was reasonable accusations. If reasonable accusations were good enough there they might be good enough to legitimize an investigation involving Burisma.
Personally, I think that could backfire unless Trump’s attorneys know not only what they are going to ask but what the answers will be.

There is no legitimate reason to believe there was corruption according to the Ukrainian government.

[DougBH]

@ImRightYoureWrong

@DougBH

He did not deny that he wanted Burisma investigated. Don’t you think it would help his case if he could provide a legitimate reason for thinking it should be investigated?

Why would you argue it should be investigated if you are defending the charge that you used military aid to put pressure on Ukraine to announce that investigation? How does that help you in any way?

The allegation is repeatedly made that he did all this for political advantage. The stronger the case that there was something to investigate, the easier to say he wanted an investigation because there was a legitimate purpose for an investigation, not for campaign purposes.
What if it proven that he did order the hold on funds to get an investigation…if there was a legitimate reason for an investigation? That would certainly not be worth an impeachment.

[thinkingman]

@ImRightYoureWrong

@thinkingman

that doesnt mean theres a relevant answer to your question.

The purpose of a witness’s testimony isn’t relevant to a trial?

i didnt say that

[CanadianJudo]

@DougBH

@ImRightYoureWrong

@DougBH

He did not deny that he wanted Burisma investigated. Don’t you think it would help his case if he could provide a legitimate reason for thinking it should be investigated?

Why would you argue it should be investigated if you are defending the charge that you used military aid to put pressure on Ukraine to announce that investigation? How does that help you in any way?

The allegation is repeatedly made that he did all this for political advantage. The stronger the case that there was something to investigate, the easier to say he wanted an investigation because there was a legitimate purpose for an investigation, not for campaign purposes.
What if it proven that he did order the hold on funds to get an investigation…if there was a legitimate reason for an investigation? That would certainly not be worth an impeachment.

Its already been proven by the Ukrainian government that there was no warrant for an investigation, so is the Ukrainian government lying?

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@DougBH

The allegation is repeatedly made that he did all this for political advantage. The stronger the case that there was something to investigate, the easier to say he wanted an investigation because there was a legitimate purpose for an investigation, not for campaign purposes.
What if it proven that he did order the hold on funds to get an investigation…if there was a legitimate reason for an investigation? That would certainly not be worth an impeachment.

But Trump claims there wasn’t pressure or a push. So it mustn’t have been that important.

And I’m already seeing the basis for “ok maybe I did hold up aid for a biden investigation but it wasn’t for political purposes!”

[thinkingman]

@Scratch

So basically, anything or any report that puts Trump in a bad light is not to be believed. Or they have questionable motives…gotcha.

so basically you couldnt effectively argue your position without realizing it is purely opinion

[DougBH]

@CanadianJudo

There is no legitimate reason to believe there was corruption according to the Ukrainian government.

If you accept what the Ukrainian government says at face value, then you accept Zelensky’s statement that he did not feel that any pressure was put on him.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@thinkingman

i didnt say that

You said my question about the defense’s purpose of Biden as a witness was irrelevant. How does Biden provide a defense to the charges?

[CanadianJudo]

@DougBH

@CanadianJudo

There is no legitimate reason to believe there was corruption according to the Ukrainian government.

If you accept what the Ukrainian government says at face value, then you accept Zelensky’s statement that he did not feel that any pressure was put on him.

again it doesn’t matter if Zelensky feel there was pressure on him, according to the U.S government the President broke the law and illegal denied Congressional funding.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@CanadianJudo

again it doesn’t matter if Zelensky feel there was pressure on him, according to the U.S government the President broke the law and illegal denied Congressional funding.

Right. Did the aid get withheld on a condition.

[thinkingman]

@ImRightYoureWrong

@thinkingman

i didnt say that

You said my question about the defense’s purpose of Biden as a witness was irrelevant. How does Biden provide a defense to the charges?

no i didnt. lol

take a breath

[Scratch]

The GAO report/finding is opinion?