Which Witnesses are Needed for a “Fair” Trial – Some Suggestions

RUSO, ND – As you may have heard, United States House Of Representatives Impeachment Managers are prosecuting their “inquiry” before the Senate in an attempt to remove President Trump from office.

Democrats and Republicans are fighting over whether witnesses will be allowed to testify and, if so, who should take the stand.  

Here are my thoughts on who should, and who shouldn’t, testify.

Witnesses Who Should Testify:

1.  Stormy Daniels – Porn Star, Topless Dancer, Political Pundit and Consultant on How to Choose the Right Attorney. Daniels will be able to provide crucial background (and some frontground) on the President. But more important than her testimony will be her appearance. She will probably be wearing low cut décolletage during the proceedings. As the hearings will be televised, Exxxtasy TV will surely provide some excellent close-ups.

2.  Hillary Clinton – Former politician, Renaissance woman, and failed successful presidential candidate. This witness will be able to testify about what a loser President Trump is because she is an expert on beating him. She also knows a thing or two about impeachment.

3.  Boris Badenov and Natasha – Although neither Russian nor Ukrainian, these witnesses both worked for an eastern European intelligence Bureau (Pottslyvania, which is located near present day Russia and Ukraine) and can testify on all aspects of Ukrainian and Russian spying and politics. 

4.  Marie Yovanovitch (a/k/a “Masha”, I’m not kidding!) – Former loyal and patriotic U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine. Masha has a reputation for honesty and is highly credible, even though:

  • She testified to the Intel Committee on October 11, 2019 that “the notion that I created or disseminated a ‘do not prosecute’ list is completely false”, even though Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko has said, “At the first meeting with the U.S. Ambassador (i.e. Masha), (she) gave me a list of people we should not prosecute”; and,
  • In Masha’s 10/14/2019 testimony to the committee, she denied that she responded to an August 14 E-mail from House staffer Laura Carey. et, the day after she received the E-mail, Masha did, in fact, respond, saying “I would love to reconnect and look forward to chatting with you. I have let EUR know that you are interested in talking and they will be in touch with you shortly.”

While the above “discrepancies” look bad, they can easily be explained away. After all, is handing someone a list you created “creating” or “disseminating” the list?  Not in this case, like Hillary, she lacked intent. And how could Masha have known that Ms. Carey was a Democrat staffer?  Just because Masha received and sent her E-mails? No one reads the signature information on E-mails anymore!

Masha clearly hates the Resident, but I’m sure she can remain candid and truthful.

5.  Philip Reeker – Acting Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. Anyone with this name and title has to testify.  It will be a blast.

6.  Snidely Whiplash – This witness is a long time criminal and can provide expert testimony on all aspects of criminality and criminal activity (in Canada as well as in the U.S.), including the President’s. 

Witnesses Who Should Not Testify:

1.  Hunter Biden – Son of former Vice-President Joe Biden, failed sailor, illegal drug user, failed husband, successful lobbyist (while his father was Vice-President), failed lobbyist (at all other times), successful businessman (also while his father was Vice-President), and failed businessman (at all other times).

Even though this witness was a board member of Burisma Holdings, Ltd., one of the largest energy companies in Ukraine, took numerous trips (on Air Force II) to Ukraine (at public expense), was paid $50,000 per month by Burisma, had contacts with all Ukrainian officials, and was the object of the proposed investigation that started this whole kerfuffle, he “knows nothing” about energy, the Ukraine, business or anything else and could provide no probative testimony.  He also did nothing (wrong)!

2.  Joe Biden – Former Vice-President of the Unites States. Like Hunter Biden, this witness “knows nothing2” and “did nothing3”. Ever.

3.  Adam Schiff – U.S. Congressman (D), Intelligence (yeah really!) Committee Chairman, Impeachment Manager, Vegan, and failed screenwriter. This witness is innocent of all wrongdoing and has no knowledge that can be of assistance to the committee.  He did not meet with any whistleblower (Neither whistleblower #1 nor whistleblower #2) prior to the filing of the whistleblower complaint; he did not help any whistleblower (neither the aforementioned #1 nor #2) frame his complaint; he did not falsely state that he had “concrete” evidence of the President’s commission of collusion before the Mueller Report was issued; he did not falsely accuse the President of crimes of obstruction while chairing his committee; and he did not falsely state that the President demanded a Quid Pro Quo eight times during his call with the Ukrainian President. In fact, Shifty Congressman Schiff has never lied about anything.  Besides, as an Impeachment Manager, he will be able to enter lies facts into the record without being subject to pesky cross-examination.

4.  Nellie Ohr – Contractor for Fusion, GPS, the originator of the entire Ukrainian quid pro quo, collusion and obstruction farce. She shouldn’t testify because, uhh, well, she’s a woman, what do they know?

5.  Peter Strzok – While this former United States FBI agent had a hand (and at least one other body part) in this entire affair, as an FBI agent, he is above the law!

6.  Lisa Page – Also a former FBI agent. This witness is also above the law and as a woman, doesn’t know anything. Although, as Mr. Strzok’s long term mistress, she could provide some background and frontground on Mr. Strzok as well as additional testimony about affairs of State (and/or FBI).


There is really no such thing as a Congressional inquiry (Actually, there is, but it is something completely different – the ability of a citizen to obtain the assistance of his representative in a matter against the government).  The term, as being used in the current impeachment arena seems to mean “just enough investigation so that a Democrat representative can tell his/her Trump hating constituents that he/she is really trying to nail the President, while, at the same time, allowing the same representative to tell his/her Trump loving constituents that he/she is not necessarily in favor of impeachment, he/she is just ‘searching for the truth’”. (As all good politicians should, of course.)   
During Boris and Natasha’s careers, the Pottsylvanian and Soviet intelligence bureaus worked very closely together. Ukraine was also part of the Soviet Union at that time. Therefore, both Boris and Natasha can testify as experts on both Russian and Ukrainian intelligence collection practices.
Per Sergeant Shultz
Per Hunter and Joe Biden
Which, contrary to all press reports, is still not a crime

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.