Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Politics & Elections (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=34)
-   -   What would be the downside to Having Hunter Biden testify at the impeachment trial? (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=888909)

Chef Troy 01-23-2020 07:48 PM

What would be the downside to Having Hunter Biden testify at the impeachment trial?
 
I'm sure it would be unpleasant for Hunter himself to have to listen to the Republicans cast aspersions on his character and actions, but leave that aside for a moment.

If it means opening the door to letting Bolton et al. testify, why NOT let HB be deposed by the Senate? If, as seems to be the case, he didn't do anything illegal, what are the negatives to the prosecution's side to having him talk?

Chisquirrel 01-23-2020 07:51 PM

Because Bolton won't be allowed to testify, and even allowing the testimony appears to justify the abuses that led to impeachment.

BeepKillBeep 01-23-2020 07:55 PM

Also in the court of public opinion, it suggests the GOP might have a point, when in fact they do not. Getting additional witnesses is not going to help get Trump removed so better to make sure that the Republicans don't get to sell their lies.

Chef Troy 01-23-2020 08:00 PM

I feel like that would be offset by the ability to set the record straight on things like the things Burisma being investigated for dating to before he was even working there, and so on. Of course it would be necessary to have an ironclad agreement on witnesses for the other side - probably insist that Bolton go first, etc. By showing that there's no there there, wouldn't it undermine the bullshit argument that the aid was withheld because of concerns about Ukraine corruption? (never mind that the idea didn't seem to bother the president the prior year or the year before that when aid to Ukraine was authorized.)

Robot Arm 01-23-2020 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef Troy (Post 22097302)
If it means opening the door to letting Bolton et al. testify, why NOT let HB be deposed by the Senate?

All this talk of a deal makes it sound like the Republicans need permission from the Democrats on whether to call witnesses. They don't. If they want Bolton to testify, or not, all they have to do is vote for it.

It's often said that elections have consequence. The Republicans wanted a majority in the Senate. The consequence is that they can claim credit when the Senate does something right, or get the blame when it does something wrong. If they want to have a trial with no witnesses, and to assist Trump in sweeping this whole thing under the carpet, then I hope the whole country watches them do it. All this talk of a deal is just laying the groundwork for them to avoid accountability for their actions.

Chef Troy 01-23-2020 08:22 PM

It's not so much that they need the dems' permission if they wanted to do it, and more about what bait you could dangle that would make them agree to do it even though they'd rather not. Your point about them owning both praise and blame is well taken though.

Robot Arm 01-23-2020 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef Troy (Post 22097351)
It's not so much that they need the dems' permission if they wanted to do it, and more about what bait you could dangle that would make them agree to do it even though they'd rather not.

Bait to do what? If Republicans want to subpoena Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, and let John Bolton watch the whole thing on C-SPAN, they can. The Democrats have no leverage. They have nothing to give the Republicans in order to get Bolton's testimony in return.

All the talk of a deal that I've heard has come from Republicans. They picked an interesting time to try and look bi-partisan. The only reason I can see for them to do it is to share the blame if the whole trial is perceived to be a sham.

Smapti 01-23-2020 08:53 PM

It would serve no purpose other than to create a distraction. Hunter Biden has no relevant testimony to give as to the crimes Loser Donald committed.

AK84 01-23-2020 09:14 PM

Let’s say you wanted to attack Donald on his mostly disastrous business career.
And instead of bringing up Trump steaks, Trump airlines or anyone of a whole line of businesses, you bring up the Apprentice.
Biden the Younger is absolutely is corrupt as fuck. There are plenty of legit reasons to look into his dealings in The Ukraine. Trump wanted dirt, which was why he is under trial, but that should not hide the fact that there **was** dirt.

Smapti 01-23-2020 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK84 (Post 22097422)
Biden the Younger is absolutely is corrupt as fuck.

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.

AK84 01-23-2020 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smapti (Post 22097425)
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.

Overruled. Statement of what party believes a proposed deposition will show.

Little Nemo 01-23-2020 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robot Arm (Post 22097365)
Bait to do what? If Republicans want to subpoena Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, and let John Bolton watch the whole thing on C-SPAN, they can. The Democrats have no leverage. They have nothing to give the Republicans in order to get Bolton's testimony in return.

All the talk of a deal that I've heard has come from Republicans. They picked an interesting time to try and look bi-partisan. The only reason I can see for them to do it is to share the blame if the whole trial is perceived to be a sham.

If the Republicans call witnesses and then refuse to let the Democrats call witnesses as well, it'll be going too far.

There are really two trials going on here. One if Donald Trump's impeachment and he's going to be acquitted in that one. But the other trial is the court of public opinion. The Republicans can not afford to make it too obvious that they're knowingly covering up Trump's crimes. They have to maintain the illusion that they're conducting something close to a fair trial, even while they make sure it isn't actually a fair trial.

sweepkick 01-23-2020 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK84 (Post 22097422)
Biden the Younger is absolutely is corrupt as fuck.

Cite?

bobot 01-24-2020 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef Troy (Post 22097302)
I'm sure it would be unpleasant for Hunter himself to have to listen to the Republicans cast aspersions on his character and actions, but leave that aside for a moment.

If it means opening the door to letting Bolton et al. testify, why NOT let HB be deposed by the Senate? If, as seems to be the case, he didn't do anything illegal, what are the negatives to the prosecution's side to having him talk?

This trial is about Donald Trump's actions. No one named Biden made that phone call or withheld congressionally approved aid. This trial is about Donald Trump's actions...I repeat, this trial is about Donald Trump's actions.

Saintly Loser 01-24-2020 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef Troy (Post 22097302)
I'm sure it would be unpleasant for Hunter himself to have to listen to the Republicans cast aspersions on his character and actions, but leave that aside for a moment.

If it means opening the door to letting Bolton et al. testify, why NOT let HB be deposed by the Senate? If, as seems to be the case, he didn't do anything illegal, what are the negatives to the prosecution's side to having him talk?

Because nothing Hunter Biden did, or didn't do, in Ukraine or anywhere else, is relevant to this impeachment trial.

Hunter Biden could have been committing actual armed robberies in Kiev, and been caught on videotape. It doesn't matter.

President Trump is charged with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Hunter Biden's alleged corruption is irrelevant. To call him to testify before the Senate is to agree to the Republicans' bullshit defense, which is that the Biden family's corruption forced President Trump to demand an investigation by the Ukrainian government, and to help them achieve their objective (and the President's objective from the start), which is to put on a huge circus show to pre-emptively damage the President's (assumed) opponent in his upcoming reelection campaign.

Ravenman 01-24-2020 06:40 AM

Is Hunter Biden, in my opinion, a spoiled and troubled man who financially benefits from who his father is? Sure, I won’t argue with that.

But corrupt? As in, achieving gain through criminal behavior? I haven’t seen a single shred of evidence to make me think that there’s any truth there.

As it stands, calling Hunter Biden to testify seems more like McCarthyism, in which people are forced to prove their innocence when there are no credible allegations of what they did wrong, other than being the target of a opposing political party.

JRDelirious 01-24-2020 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saintly Loser (Post 22097731)
President Trump is charged with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Hunter Biden's alleged corruption is irrelevant. To call him to testify before the Senate is to agree to the Republicans' bullshit defense, which is that the Biden family's corruption forced President Trump to demand an investigation by the Ukrainian government, and to help them achieve their objective (and the President's objective from the start), which is to put on a huge circus show to pre-emptively damage the President's (assumed) opponent in his upcoming reelection campaign.

Yeah, this. Bringing up Hunter Biden is a way to sustain the argument that "abuse of power is not impeachable" because it's just the end justifying the means and hey, dirty pool is part of the job, everyone does it and we'd be fools not to do whatever it takes.

Translucent Daydream 01-24-2020 08:51 AM

There are a lot of people that suddenly have a huge boner to go after HB for some reason. It strikes me like going after what Nichole did to get killed instead of looking at OJ and what he did or didn’t do.

I could be wrong. Seems to me DT would have sent the DOJ after HB on day one if there was something going on in reality land.

UltraVires 01-24-2020 08:52 AM

I think his testimony is irrelevant. Whether you are on Trump's side (he had the right to investigate) or whether you are on the Dem side (this was just corruption and if he wanted an investigation he should have went through the proper channels) it matters not whether Hunter Biden is actually guilty or not.

If a cop gets a search warrant for my house because he suspects me of murder and there is an accusation that the cop acted with corrupt motives, the only relevant thing was what the cop knew at the time he got the warrant. Whether he was ultimately right or wrong about me being guilty of murder is not relevant.

Putting Hunter Biden on the stand would be a great political move by the GOP. At minimum he got a job that he is terribly unqualified for with his Dad's connections, and that puts the idea out there that everyone is using Ukraine as their own personal source of riches, so why are we so hard on Trump? Apparently HB recently got a stripper pregnant in Arkansas and gave up all custodial rights to the child. That will come out. A real piece of work. Most Americans would probably look at him and think Trump should have done more. (Even though that isn't legally correct).

Shodan 01-24-2020 09:01 AM

Trump is going to be acquitted, so the trial is about optics. "Corruption, bribery, and abuse of power should disqualify someone from being President" isn't a position the Dems can afford to have asked about Joe Biden. It necessitates too much uncomfortable flip-flopping, special pleading, attempts to change the subject and/or avoid the question, and other tactics that don't necessarily work with people other than the Democratic base.

The impeachment process and trial are entirely partisan. Bringing up that Biden (and Obama) did the same sorts of things without a whisper of protest from those who are now suffering from a fit of the vapors makes that more obvious even than it is already.

Regards,
Shodan

iiandyiiii 01-24-2020 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 22097915)
Bringing up that Biden (and Obama) did the same sorts of things without a whisper of protest from those who are now suffering from a fit of the vapors makes that more obvious even than it is already.

Bringing up fabrications and lies almost certainly would disturb and upset Democrats. Because there's zero evidence that either Biden or Obama attempted to pressure foreign governments to announce investigations into US citizen political opponents for their own personal political gain.

It's amazing to me that the GOP position, even on this board, is swinging towards "yes he did it and it was glorious!". I really thought that most of you would be opposed to such clear and obvious corruption as this.

QuickSilver 01-24-2020 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 22097897)
At minimum he got a job that he is terribly unqualified for with his Dad's connections, and that puts the idea out there that everyone is using Ukraine as their own personal source of riches, so why are we so hard on Trump?

Given the above, it seems to me that HB stands a far better shot at the POTUS job than his dad.

Ravenman 01-24-2020 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 22097915)
Trump is going to be acquitted, so the trial is about optics. "Corruption, bribery, and abuse of power should disqualify someone from being President" isn't a position the Dems can afford to have asked about Joe Biden. It necessitates too much uncomfortable flip-flopping, special pleading, attempts to change the subject and/or avoid the question, and other tactics that don't necessarily work with people other than the Democratic base.

The impeachment process and trial are entirely partisan. Bringing up that Biden (and Obama) did the same sorts of things without a whisper of protest from those who are now suffering from a fit of the vapors makes that more obvious even than it is already.

Yup. Every word of this is false, except the part where you acknowledge that Republicans are defending Trump because he is a Republican.

I’d be flabbergasted if you even attempt to back up any of these other allegations, except that Trump has Republicans by the balls and they would eat dog food if instructed to.

UltraVires 01-24-2020 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 22097919)
Because there's zero evidence that either Biden or Obama attempted to pressure foreign governments to announce investigations into US citizen political opponents for their own personal political gain.

This is exactly the "special pleading" that Shodan is referring to. You define the evil as something so narrow that only one person in the world, if he is guilty, could have possibly done it and then exclaim how uniquely awful such a thing is because only one person has done it. It's an informal logical fallacy.

Left wing justices on the Supreme Court have perfected this to an art form when they announce "general principles" as a reason for their holdings.

iiandyiiii 01-24-2020 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 22097935)
This is exactly the "special pleading" that Shodan is referring to. You define the evil as something so narrow that only one person in the world, if he is guilty, could have possibly done it and then exclaim how uniquely awful such a thing is because only one person has done it. It's an informal logical fallacy.

There's nothing even close to comparable. The GOP had the House for many years under Obama, and they never found anything close to Obama or Biden using their official powers for personal gain.

Obama didn't do anything like this. Neither did Biden. Nothing has been put forward that comes close. And it's not credible that the House GOP and Senate didn't try their hardest to find such a thing (which is absolutely fine and appropriate for the opposition to search for).

Quote:

Left wing justices on the Supreme Court have perfected this to an art form when they announce "general principles" as a reason for their holdings.
This is a cite-free garbage post. Might as well say "liberals are poopy-heads".

Euphonious Polemic 01-24-2020 09:27 AM

The logic seems to be:

"Obama wore a tan suit once, so that excuses Trump from doing any criminal act"

QuickSilver 01-24-2020 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 22097935)
Left wing justices on the Supreme Court have perfected this to an art form when they announce "general principles" as a reason for their holdings.

Right wing justices on the Supreme Court have perfected this to an art form when they announce "originalist principles" as a reason for their holdings.


Hey... I like this game. Let's do another!

Ravenman 01-24-2020 09:30 AM

“There really isn’t any big difference between Trump Tower Moscow and that White House vegetable garden. Both sides do it!”

UltraVires 01-24-2020 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 22097936)
There's nothing even close to comparable. The GOP had the House for many years under Obama, and they never found anything close to Obama or Biden using their official powers for personal gain.

Obama didn't do anything like this. Neither did Biden. Nothing has been put forward that comes close. And it's not credible that the House GOP and Senate didn't try their hardest to find such a thing (which is absolutely fine and appropriate for the opposition to search for).

Biden's kid who is a complete fuckup: no training or education in the energy field, has a crack cocaine issue, gets strippers pregnant and abandons his child. Are you suggesting that if his name was Hunter Ultravires he would have gotten that job? So there is at least smoke there....and it's from a foreign power like Ukraine who depends on us for military aid. And getting your kid a job cannot be more personal. It has not even a fig leaf cover like Trump suggesting he was ferreting out corruption. This is a straight up personal political favor, after Biden had threatened to previously withhold aid.

Now, I don't think Biden is corrupt. I'm just saying that this is par for the course. Perhaps it shouldn't be. But everyone not named Trump gets away with these sorts of things all the time and throughout history....that is unless you define the evil in such a specific way that only Trump is guilty of it.

Fiddle Peghead 01-24-2020 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 22097897)
I think his testimony is irrelevant. Whether you are on Trump's side (he had the right to investigate) or whether you are on the Dem side (this was just corruption and if he wanted an investigation he should have went through the proper channels) it matters not whether Hunter Biden is actually guilty or not.

This phrasing is unfair to Biden. To say it doesn't matter if he is guilty or not is to suggest there may be something he is guilty of, when no evidence of any crime has ever been shown.

Quote:

Putting Hunter Biden on the stand would be a great political move by the GOP. At minimum he got a job that he is terribly unqualified for with his Dad's connections, and that puts the idea out there that everyone is using Ukraine as their own personal source of riches, so why are we so hard on Trump? Apparently HB recently got a stripper pregnant in Arkansas and gave up all custodial rights to the child. That will come out. A real piece of work. Most Americans would probably look at him and think Trump should have done more. (Even though that isn't legally correct).
It could also be a disaster. Since the Republicans have long suggested that Biden is indeed guilty of something, they would have to pursue that line of questioning when he is on the stand, otherwise they look foolish. But having no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, what the hell are they going to ask him about? As for what you suggest, surely they would try to make the point that Biden got the job because of his Daddy, etc, but I don't think the American public is dumb enough not to know this kind of thing goes on all the time in politics, and in the end it's not that big of a deal, especially given that the Republicans haven't got shit on him otherwise.

As to the the stripper story, bringing that up in the context of Biden's known issues with drugs and alcohol, this could look like gratuitous piling on, and make the Republicans look desperate. I don't think that would be a good move at all.

Chronos 01-24-2020 09:46 AM

Hunter Biden shouldn't testify because anything he could say would be completely irrelevant to the questions at hand. The only reason to call him to testify would be to distract attention away from real questions.

If he actually did something wrong, then put him on trial for it, and call him to testify at that trial.

Little Nemo 01-24-2020 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 22097915)
Trump is going to be acquitted, so the trial is about optics.

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 22097915)
"Corruption, bribery, and abuse of power should disqualify someone from being President" isn't a position the Dems can afford to have asked about Joe Biden.

I strongly disagree. The reality is the Democrats could easily afford to have Joe Biden or Hunter Biden testify. (Yes, I noted how you switched from Hunter Biden to Joe Biden. Which demonstrates what this is really about.)

Republican calls to investigate Biden are no different than their calls to lock up Hillary. They're just empty noise. The Republicans have nothing to back it up. The Republicans can't to go to trial because at a trial, they'd be forced to show their hand and everyone would see they've been bluffing.

There's no evidence against Hunter Biden. There's no evidence against Joe Biden. There's no evidence against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. The Republicans are lying and lying and lying and lying. And they're going to keep on lying. Because there's no penalty for lying as long as they never have to enter a courtroom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 22097915)
The impeachment process and trial are entirely partisan. Bringing up that Biden (and Obama) did the same sorts of things without a whisper of protest from those who are now suffering from a fit of the vapors makes that more obvious even than it is already.

There's a massive difference between the Democratic accusations against Trump and the Republican accusations against everyone else. The Democrats can back it up. They've got evidence that proves Trump is guilty. The Democrats are not bluffing like the Republicans are. The Democrats are not lying like the Republicans are.

So this is a battle between the Republican's ability to tell lies and the Democrats' ability to tell the truth. Normally such a battle would favor the Republicans because they are really good at lying. But there's the Trump factor; Trump is the exception to the Republican norm because while he lies all the time he's really bad at it. Trump is the Republicans' weakpoint. If the Democrats can maneuver Trump into a position where he has to speak under oath, he's finished. He'll fall and he'll take a lot of other Republicans down with him.

And the other Republicans know this. Which is why they're trying to take Donald Trump out of his own impeachment trial by throwing other names into it.

Nars Glinley 01-24-2020 09:49 AM

Does Roberts have any say so in the subpoenas? If the Republicans vote to subpoena HB, can Roberts just say "No. His knowledge is not material to the matter at hand."?

Ravenman 01-24-2020 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 22097962)
And getting your kid a job cannot be more personal.

What the fuck are you talking about? What, did you get this from some new documents that Rudy bought from the GRU or something?

UltraVires 01-24-2020 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 22097994)
Agreed.



I strongly disagree. The reality is the Democrats could easily afford to have Joe Biden or Hunter Biden testify. (Yes, I noted how you switched from Hunter Biden to Joe Biden. Which demonstrates what this is really about.)

Republican calls to investigate Biden are no different than their calls to lock up Hillary. They're just empty noise. The Republicans have nothing to back it up. The Republicans can't to go to trial because at a trial, they'd be forced to show their hand and everyone would see they've been bluffing.

There's no evidence against Hunter Biden. There's no evidence against Joe Biden. There's no evidence against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. The Republicans are lying and lying and lying and lying. And they're going to keep on lying. Because there's no penalty for lying as long as they never have to enter a courtroom.



There's a massive difference between the Democratic accusations against Trump and the Republican accusations against everyone else. The Democrats can back it up. They've got evidence that proves Trump is guilty. The Democrats are not bluffing like the Republicans are. The Democrats are not lying like the Republicans are.

So this is a battle between the Republican's ability to tell lies and the Democrats' ability to tell the truth. Normally such a battle would favor the Republicans because they are really good at lying. But there's the Trump factor; Trump is the exception to the Republican norm because while he lies all the time he's really bad at it. Trump is the Republicans' weakpoint. If the Democrats can maneuver Trump into a position where he has to speak under oath, he's finished. He'll fall and he'll take a lot of other Republicans down with him.

And the other Republicans know this. Which is why they're trying to take Donald Trump out of his own impeachment trial by throwing other names into it.

1) Which is it? Do you have "evidence that proves Trump is guilty" or do you need more witnesses in order to prove the case? You side keeps saying both things. They both cannot be true.

2) There is as much evidence of criminality against Joe Biden as there is against Donald Trump. All you have is smoke and inferences. But as you see things through the tinted glasses, the inferences against Joe are small, petty, and really meaningless, but as you hate Trump and have always hated him with a passion, then every inference goes against him and it is perfectly clear that he did what you suspect.

We did this in the other thread with the "very fine people" on both sides comment. It is clear from the text that he didn't say what your side said he did. It's right there. When pressed on it, well, you just know what he meant even if he didn't say it and expressly denied that was his intention, because Trump is just evil and you can feel it. That's what Trump has put up with this entire time, and if this principle was applied generally, then every president gets impeached and removed.

UltraVires 01-24-2020 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nars Glinley (Post 22097995)
Does Roberts have any say so in the subpoenas? If the Republicans vote to subpoena HB, can Roberts just say "No. His knowledge is not material to the matter at hand."?

No. 51 Senators make the rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 22098002)
What the fuck are you talking about? What, did you get this from some new documents that Rudy bought from the GRU or something?

You think Hunter Biden got the job on merit? That he interviewed with all of the other qualified candidates and came out on top?

Ravenman 01-24-2020 09:59 AM

You said that Joe Biden got him the job with Burisma. Are you now backing away from that?

ETA: do you think George W Bush got into Harvard on his merits?

QuickSilver 01-24-2020 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 22097962)
Now, I don't think Biden is corrupt. I'm just saying that this is par for the course. Perhaps it shouldn't be. But everyone not named Trump gets away with these sorts of things all the time and throughout history....that is unless you define the evil in such a specific way that only Trump is guilty of it.

Trump is being accused of extorting a foreign government for personal gain. Not of hiring his own family to serve in his own administration. So Trump is getting away with everything that Biden has gotten away with.

UltraVires 01-24-2020 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 22098020)
You said that Joe Biden got him the job with Burisma. Are you now backing away from that?

ETA: do you think George W Bush got into Harvard on his merits?

Yes Joe got him the job, the same way G.W. Bush got into Harvard because of his dad. But if we get all Trumpy about it then we have to say that these fathers (along with all other powerful fathers throughout history) committed bribery or extortion or abused their power and charge them under the federal bribery statute.

You don't believe that Ukraine thought that there might be something in the pipeline for that job for Hunter? And we aren't talking about box seats to the Yankees game; we are talking $50k/month. They didn't pay to have someone in Joe's ear?

Fiddle Peghead 01-24-2020 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 22097915)
The impeachment process and trial are entirely partisan. Bringing up that Biden (and Obama) did the same sorts of things without a whisper of protest from those who are now suffering from a fit of the vapors makes that more obvious even than it is already.

Regards,
Shodan

While there are no doubt healthy doses of partisanship on both sides, surely you aren't suggesting they exist in equal amounts, right? On one side, you have a simple and irrefutably correct argument that if you want to decide if someone should be thrown out of office, you should hear as much evidence as possible from both sides in order to make the best informed decision that you can. And on the other side, you have Republicans...

UltraVires 01-24-2020 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuickSilver (Post 22098022)
Trump is being accused of extorting a foreign government for personal gain. Not of hiring his own family to serve in his own administration. So Trump is getting away with everything that Biden has gotten away with.

We're not talking about leaning on a foreign government to ferret out corruption when we are giving them billions of dollars in aid. We are talking about corruptly extorting a private university to give hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits to an unqualified private student because his father abused the powers of his office to gain that admission.

See how special pleadings work?

Fiddle Peghead 01-24-2020 10:23 AM

nm

Lance Turbo 01-24-2020 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 22098015)
You think Hunter Biden got the job on merit? That he interviewed with all of the other qualified candidates and came out on top?

Do you believe that this is the process for appointments to boards of directors?

iiandyiiii 01-24-2020 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 22097962)
Biden's kid who is a complete fuckup: no training or education in the energy field, has a crack cocaine issue, gets strippers pregnant and abandons his child. Are you suggesting that if his name was Hunter Ultravires he would have gotten that job? So there is at least smoke there....and it's from a foreign power like Ukraine who depends on us for military aid. And getting your kid a job cannot be more personal. It has not even a fig leaf cover like Trump suggesting he was ferreting out corruption. This is a straight up personal political favor, after Biden had threatened to previously withhold aid.

There's no evidence of such a favor. I have no doubt that Hunter got his job because of his last name, but no evidence has presented that Joe Biden helped his son get this job. It's not Joe's fault that his son has his name. And yes, this is a corrupt practice, but barring evidence that Joe stepped in to get his son this job, the corruption lies with Hunter and Burisma (the latter of which the Obama administration wanted investigated by Ukraine due to their corruption), not with Joe Biden.

Quote:

Now, I don't think Biden is corrupt. I'm just saying that this is par for the course. Perhaps it shouldn't be. But everyone not named Trump gets away with these sorts of things all the time and throughout history....that is unless you define the evil in such a specific way that only Trump is guilty of it.
I'm all for impeaching Hunter Biden and the board of Burisma, should they be elected President. But I'm not sure how this is a defense of Trump's obvious crimes.

iiandyiiii 01-24-2020 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 22098012)
There is as much evidence of criminality against Joe Biden as there is against Donald Trump. All you have is smoke and inferences.

This is just colossally and obviously false. The Trump administration's own records and even own personnel speak of a quid-pro-quo, investigation-for-congressionally-approved-aid-and-visits scheme that was directed and personally benefiting Trump rather than any legitimate US interests.

It's just sad that you're so okay with this. It's not okay. Trump really is worse than past presidents. He's not doing the same things, he's doing worse things, and he's doing worse things out in the open. Not everything is the same, and not everyone is the same. Some people are actually worse, and have actually done worse things, and Trump is one of those people, by the words and records of his own administration.

Lance Turbo 01-24-2020 10:49 AM

"As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign." - Bill Taylor text to Gordon Sondland (September 9, 2019)

Where's the Joe Biden version of anything like that?

UltraVires 01-24-2020 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 22098103)
This is just colossally and obviously false. The Trump administration's own records and even own personnel speak of a quid-pro-quo, investigation-for-congressionally-approved-aid-and-visits scheme that was directed and personally benefiting Trump rather than any legitimate US interests.

It's just sad that you're so okay with this. It's not okay. Trump really is worse than past presidents. He's not doing the same things, he's doing worse things, and he's doing worse things out in the open. Not everything is the same, and not everyone is the same. Some people are actually worse, and have actually done worse things, and Trump is one of those people, by the words and records of his own administration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lance Turbo (Post 22098111)
"As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign." - Bill Taylor text to Gordon Sondland (September 9, 2019)

Where's the Joe Biden version of anything like that?

When "people in the administration" like Bill Taylor say things, that is not evidence; that is simply their opinion. And many of these people are Never Trumpers.

But put that aside. We don't allow opinion evidence in criminal or civil trials because it is unreliable and ultimately meaningless. The only people's opinions who count are the jurors, in this case the senators.

If my neighbor is charged with murder, I can testify that I saw him come home at 2:30 a.m., dump a bag of trash in the bin, and sneak around the back of his house. What I cannot testify to is that "I think he must have just murdered someone." And why is that? Because I cannot substitute myself for the jury. I can tell them the who, what, where, and when, but my opinion does not mean anything.

So it really doesn't matter if you can pick out a few people who think they believe that they know what Trump was reaaaally doing. What matters is hard evidence which 100 senators will determine the meaning of.

And there is no hard evidence. Just inferences.

Ravenman 01-24-2020 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 22098036)
Yes Joe got him the job, the same way G.W. Bush got into Harvard because of his dad.

Here on earth, there's a difference between a powerful person calling up someone and arm twisting them to do somethiing nice for their son, and people lining up to do favors for those connected to powerful people. That's the difference between privilege and corruption.

Quote:

But if we get all Trumpy about it then we have to say that these fathers (along with all other powerful fathers throughout history) committed bribery or extortion or abused their power and charge them under the federal bribery statute.
This sentence is a powerful example of Trump derangement syndrome. Baseless accusations against unnamed people who don't like the corrupt President, a total disconnection from reality, conspiracy theories and threats, and probably some wild gesticulating too (but I can't prove that).\

Quote:

When "people in the administration" like Bill Taylor say things, that is not evidence; that is simply their opinion. And many of these people are Never Trumpers.
More of the same. I guess the definition of "Never Trumper" includes a non-partisan person with personal and professional integrity. Trump can't stand that shit.

iiandyiiii 01-24-2020 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 22098180)
When "people in the administration" like Bill Taylor say things, that is not evidence; that is simply their opinion. And many of these people are Never Trumpers.

Mulvaney is not a "Never Trumper". Neither was the official White House transcript of the call.

Quote:

But put that aside. We don't allow opinion evidence in criminal or civil trials because it is unreliable and ultimately meaningless. The only people's opinions who count are the jurors, in this case the senators.
Exactly -- that's why it's important they call witnesses who were involved (Bolton, Pompeo, Barr, Mulvaney, and others), but also heed the White House's own record of the call, which clearly lays out Trump's intentions to bribe/extort Ukraine for his own personal political gain.

Quote:

And there is no hard evidence. Just inferences.
There's a mountain of hard evidence, including the words and records of the administration. You just appear to be unable, or uninterested, in seeing it.

QuickSilver 01-24-2020 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltraVires (Post 22098045)
We're not talking about leaning on a foreign government to ferret out corruption when we are giving them billions of dollars in aid. We are talking about corruptly extorting a private university to give hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits to an unqualified private student because his father abused the powers of his office to gain that admission.

See how special pleadings work?

I believe that's called, 'changing the subject'. Which is a whole other thing.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.