dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

An impeachment question for any lawfags"

As it seems that @POTUS has, among other defenses to the "abuse of power/office" Charge 1, the defense that:

"My phone call and general concern over Ukraine stemmed from being briefed about a much larger pattern of corruption involving past U.S. funding to Ukraine which was fraudulently diverted away from the intended programs by and to bad acting third parties. In fact, this sadly appears to be the case for other funding appropriated by Congress to countries other than Ukraine, as well.

"Accordingly, I directed that past U.S. funding to Ukraine be thoroughly investigated for corruption and diversion and I directed Rudy Guiliani and others to proceed to Ukraine and get to the bottom of the issue as it is an important part of U.S. Policy under my dole direction and discretion that any future funding (tax payer $$$) under my watch will not be wasted.

"To that end Rudy and the other investigators uncovered an extensive pattern of such waste under the Obama administration. Among this waste and fraudulent activity was a particularly disturbing incident involving Joe Biden, his son Hunter, and a clear videotape of Joe Biden admitting the threat or bribery of releasing appropriated funds conditional upon the Ukrainian President firing the then current prosecutor who was investigating Hunter Biden and the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. This was a prime example of what I wanted to eliminate from U.S. foreign policy.

"So my intent was not to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden which is the crux of Charge 1. My intent was to investigate corruption in Ukraine existed per se and if it existed, make sure that it never happens again.

"Accordingly, for me to adequately mount a defense against Charge 1, it is imperative that the Senate hear firsthand from witnesses: 1) who briefed me on the overall pattern of corruption 2) to testify about the steps I ordered taken, and 3) witnesses from the former administration who knew firsthand about the corruption, including President Obama's "point man" on Ukraine along with his son. Joe Biden knew most about Ukraine corruption as part of his duty and also appears, by chance, to haven personally taken part in the corruption, along with his son Hunter. In addition, it appears that the former U.S. ambo to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, was also directly involved with this corruption. Accordingly, she must also be added to my witness list.

"In addition, Adam Schiff, his staff members who met with any of the alleged whistleblowers, along with the whistleblowers themselves, must be called as my witnesses to show the fraudulent nature of this entire [sham] impeachment proceeding,"

So my point is, who can the Senate possibly preclude from the trial the very witnesses which @POTUS and his Team deem indispensable to his defense, ESPECIALLY since he was denied any semblance of due process in the House??

It was the headlines this morning which fired me up. Like, "The Senate Might Agree to Trump Calling X as a Witness". I mean, like What the Fug?? First, the Senate backtracked on a possible outright dismissal of the impeachment case which would have happened in any normal criminal case in the Land. Now, they are hinting that they may not allow @POTUS' team to call the witnesses which they deem necessary for a proper defense?? How can McConnell possibly get away with fucking over @POTUS like this??

I just don't get it and hope some anon can explain how this all fits into the Plan.