Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat
its not my rule. If you are on trial for committing a crime, lets say, stealing a camo jacket from Walmart that you plan to use when spying on the scientology headquarters. You don't have the right to call Tom Cruise to testify in the case because you think Scientology is up to something shady. Tom Cruise may be up to something shady, but it has nothing to do with your theft of the Jacket, so its not relevant to YOUR case and has no bearing on your guilt or innocence.
What relevance does ANYTHING Hunter Biden has ever done have to do with whether the presidents actions are legal? Unless he was in contact with Trump and witnessed any of Trumps actions here, he's no more relevant a witness than you or me.
Also, I agree, the whistleblower SHOULD be called to testify as they, unlike Hunter Biden, clearly have relevance to the case.
|
The question about Hunter Biden is relevant because the house managers claim that there was 0 justification for a request to investigate, which goes to motive.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk