Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-29-2019, 06:25 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
If both the Bidens are truly innocent, wouldn't direct testimony to that fact make point #1 even more damaging?
Once again -

The Bidens are not on trial here. TRUMP is on trial. It's about what TRUMP did or didn't do. What Trump did was wrong regardless of what the Bidens might or might not have done.
  #52  
Old 12-29-2019, 06:46 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Not so fast. I'd like to hear what they know about Hillary's email server and Benghazi. If they deny any knowledge, we'll know they are hiding something.
Indeed.

And while we're at it, what did the Bidens know about 9/11, and when did they know it?

And are they lizard people?

They should testify in Donald Trump's impeachment trial so that we can clear this all up.
  #53  
Old 12-29-2019, 06:54 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
From the original NPR transcript 20 days ago:

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/09/78552...=1577609658951

Biden's since walked his comments back a bit saying he would comply with the law, but is still equivocating:

https://time.com/5756251/biden-trump...iowa-subpoena/

If Biden has nothing to hide, then he should welcome the chance to testify before the Senate and be exonerated, correct?


If Biden Trump has nothing to hide, then he should welcome the chance to testify before the Senate and be exonerated, correct?
  #54  
Old 12-29-2019, 07:59 PM
DWMarch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 2,170
The question is not should Joe Biden testify. The question is are 50 Republicans dumb enough to pull the stunt required to make him testify. Because that is exactly what it would be, a dumb stunt. It would be a transparently obvious use of the Mark Fuhrman defense. And we all know OJ is innocent, right?

Every question directed at Joe Biden is going to be a "when did you stop beating your wife?" variation. I hope he answers every single one with a variation of "deez nuts". However, nothing he says will actually matter because on Fox News every story will be about how Joe Biden admitted to his epic corruption and completely exonerated Trump in the process.

And if the theory is that innocent people having nothing to hide then how about we talk about how this all began? Because as I recall it began with people listening to the recording of Trump's "perfect" phone call with Zelensky and deciding that the perfect call record had to be buried in a military-grade server that no one has access to. Because that's what innocent people do with their perfect calls. They hide them and they forbid anyone to talk about the issue.
  #55  
Old 12-29-2019, 08:08 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWMarch View Post
The question is not should Joe Biden testify. The question is are 50 Republicans dumb enough to pull the stunt required to make him testify. Because that is exactly what it would be, a dumb stunt. It would be a transparently obvious use of the Mark Fuhrman defense. And we all know OJ is innocent, right?
It's not a dumb stunt; it's actually an effective ruse because it's a distraction. If you look at how authoritarianism and anti-democratic activism works, it works by deepening cynicism about the entire political process and by leaving voters with the idea that the truth cannot be known, and that there's really no difference between party A and party B, between candidate A and candidate B. The (pseudo) prosecution of Joe Biden makes perfect sense -- from the Republicans' point of view.

I know people want to assume that the average voter is educated, civically-minded, and interested in objective truth. But that's just not true. The average voter is easily confused. Democracy is hard work and most people are more interested in their Netflix playlist than educating themselves about politics.
  #56  
Old 12-29-2019, 08:08 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,204
Suppose Biden ignores the subpoena, are there any penalties for doing so? If not, he can ignore to his heart's content.
  #57  
Old 12-29-2019, 08:20 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,948
It doesn't matter one bit regarding trump's trial if Joe Biden was on the Grassy Knoll. Should he testify? He shouldn't even be asked to.
  #58  
Old 12-29-2019, 08:51 PM
Saint Cad is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
It's about what TRUMP did or didn't do. What Trump did was wrong regardless of what the Bidens might or might not have done.
So if Biden as Vice-President asked a foreign prosecutor to stop an investigation ofhis son, then it is still inappropriate for a later President to ask the foreign country to investigate it?
  #59  
Old 12-29-2019, 09:02 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
So if Biden as Vice-President asked a foreign prosecutor to stop an investigation ofhis son, then it is still inappropriate for a later President to ask the foreign country to investigate it?
Trump didn't ask for an investigation.

Trump asked for an *announcement* of an investigation.

There's no indication he ever wanted or cared about an actual investigation.

Do you see now?
  #60  
Old 12-29-2019, 09:03 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
So if Biden as Vice-President asked a foreign prosecutor to stop an investigation ofhis son, then it is still inappropriate for a later President to ask the foreign country to investigate it?


A more appropriate question is, is it appropriate for a later president to withhold federal taxpayer money, authorized by congress, to use as leverage to demand an investigation.

If anyone beyond this post characterizes Trump's behavior as "just asking questions," I will call that poster a liar.
  #61  
Old 12-29-2019, 09:05 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Trump didn't ask for an investigation.

Trump asked for an *announcement* of an investigation.

There's no indication he ever wanted or cared about an actual investigation.

Do you see now?
I'm sure he's "just asking questions."

Like I said, beyond this point, I'm calling that poster a liar.
  #62  
Old 12-29-2019, 10:04 PM
Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
So if Biden as Vice-President asked a foreign prosecutor to stop an investigation ofhis son, then it is still inappropriate for a later President to ask the foreign country to investigate it?
Bullshit hypothetical.

There is no reason to believe that this happened. In fact, I don't think anyone is even suggesting that this happened.
  #63  
Old 12-29-2019, 10:10 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 3,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
So if Biden as Vice-President asked a foreign prosecutor to stop an investigation ofhis son, then it is still inappropriate for a later President to ask the foreign country to investigate it?
Yes.

If it was a violation of American law, there is an entire American justice department qualified to investigate.

Itís like asking, ďIf the hoodlum is a petty thief, is it still inappropriate for the police chief to ask a rival gang member to punish him?Ē A legitimate response would have gone through legitimate channels.
  #64  
Old 12-29-2019, 10:36 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
You think it will hurt his future campaign. I think it will help his campaign if Biden is innocent, proclaims his innocence, and answers those questioning his innocence. Of course, that's a big if.
Well, no. That's the issue. There are no serious, evidence-based claims that Biden is guilty. There isn't anything but Trump's allegation using selective facts. There is no evidence that it is true.

So, by bringing Biden in to testify, the only purpose could possibly be to provide some sort of legitimacy to accusations. It creates the aesthetic of truth, and turns a situation with no evidence to something that of course the guy taking the stand would deny.

It's a classic technique right out of the Alt-Right playbook: Control the conversation by jumping to the next step. Rather than have to show evidence, assume there is evidence and do the next step of calling someone to testify about the non-existent evidence. This creates the illusion that there must've been valid evidence. Next they'll act as if they've proven he was lying. It's how you can build with no actual evidence or valid argument. Never play defense. (The titles I dropped are the relevant videos.)

There is no probable cause that Biden did anything wrong. Without that, having him testify does not in any way help with finding the truth. That is why the legal system is set up the way it is. You need evidence before you indict.

The whole point is, as Broomstick says, an attempt to move the question of "were Trump's actions proper" further down the line. You are assuming that Trump's actions would be proper if there were evidence. This is not true. His actions are wrong no matter what.

Trump is "on trial" here for clear statements of quid pro quo, saying that he would only give congressionally approved and legally passed aid to Ukraine if the minister announced an investigation on a political rival. He was usurping a role he did not have, and using it to further his campaign. He even had his own lawyer doing the work--a guy who did not have the power to do so.

You have, in effect, bought into their game. You think there must be something there. There is not.

Now, if Biden is subpoenaed, he will have to testify. But he definitely should do what he can to not play into this game. He has to be wary of Republican attempts to pretend there was evidence, despite not bringing him to actual trial over it.

If there was probable cause, Biden (son, father, or both) would be on actual trial.
  #65  
Old 12-29-2019, 11:00 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
So if Biden as Vice-President asked a foreign prosecutor to stop an investigation ofhis son....
Yeah, and what it Joe Biden murdered this prosecutor to cover up Hunter Bidenís child sex ring at a DC pizza shop?

I mean, as long as we are going into fiction, we ought to make it interesting.
  #66  
Old 12-29-2019, 11:47 PM
Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Suppose Biden ignores the subpoena, are there any penalties for doing so? If not, he can ignore to his heart's content.
The Senate has the same options to enforce a subpoena as the House has.

The Senate could hold someone in criminal contempt for not obeying a subpoena. This is similar to what the House did when then Attorney General Eric Holder did not comply with a House subpoena. A contempt finding has little practical effect. It is essentially a formal "Shame on You" but there is no fine or jail sentence involved.

The Senate could refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for possible prosecution. The House did so with a civil contempt vote in the Holder matter. In the case of Holder that was largely a moot point as it was asking the U.S. Attorney to criminally charge Holder. As Holder was the head of the Justice Department that was just not going to happen.

But in the present instance the Republican controlled Senate could refer a refusal to comply with its subpoena to U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jessie Liu. Liu would be unlikely to act without guidance but Attorney General Bill Barr could, in theory, green light a criminal prosecution if Biden disobeyed a Senate subpoena.

Finally, each house of Congress has the power of inherent contempt. In theory either house of Congress could invoke this power to have a person arrested by the Sergeant-At-Arms of the House or Senate and presented to the relevant house to give testimony.

Last edited by Iggy; 12-29-2019 at 11:50 PM.
  #67  
Old 12-30-2019, 01:10 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,347
If I recall correctly, Biden's move to remove a corrupt prosecutor was not an individual effort, but also involved numerous other persons. Like, Europe.
  #68  
Old 12-30-2019, 01:15 AM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
So if Biden as Vice-President asked a foreign prosecutor to stop an investigation ofhis son, then it is still inappropriate for a later President to ask the foreign country to investigate it?
Anyone suggesting Biden as Vice-President asked a foreign prosecutor to stop an investigation of his son is a bald faced liar.

Anyone suggesting Biden, when he wasn't Vice-President, asked a foreign prosecutor to stop an investigation of his son is a bald faced liar.

Anyone suggesting Biden ever asked a foreign prosecutor to stop an investigation of his son is a bald faced liar.

Last edited by Kolak of Twilo; 12-30-2019 at 01:18 AM.
  #69  
Old 12-30-2019, 02:18 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
OP should be more concerned about getting Rudy to testify.

But heís not.

I wonder why....
I do think Giuliani should be called before a Congressional investigative committee and be instructed to answer questions about his involvement in Ukraine. The man was clearly promoting his personal interests while acting as a go-between between the Trump administration and Ukrainian officials.

How 'bout you wonder about that?
  #70  
Old 12-30-2019, 02:24 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
I imagine that this will be the typical questions he gets.

"Just so I'm sure of the timeline. Was your personally motivated attempt to railroad the worthy Ukrainian prosecutor out, due to his potentially damaging investigations into your son's company before or after, your son got a huge payout from said company for which he was completely unqualified and only got so that based on the influence they expected you to wield on their behalf. Please answer the question, before or after."

Easy to answer and totally non damaging if he has nothing to hide right?
Yes. Biden's supposed to be a smart guy. He's running for President. You'd like a smart guy in the White House, right? If Biden can't handle himself in front of senators asking difficult questions, then that probably says something about his adequacy to be President. Or maybe that's what he's afraid of?
  #71  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:18 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamerlane View Post
It's a common refrain that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." But the real world doesn't work like that. First because there may be no unambiguous way to prove your innocence, just a lot of declarations that can add up to folks disbelieving you anyway. Second because lacking such unambiguous evidence( or even if you have some but their is some tiny side point that is arguable )a skilled prosecutor can twist your responses to cast you in the worst light. Worse if you get confused or rattled while on the hot seat and start misspeaking or even worse start flat out getting things wrong and contradicting yourself.

The other point is of course the same as everyone else is making. It's a transparent ploy to distract from the real focus of the hearing, i.e. Trump by taking his leading challenger in the upcoming presidential election and trying to score points or short-circuit his campaign. And since the presidential contest is large measure a personality fight, you can be completely right but still come off as hostile, combative or confused in the hearing and damage your political brand. Even assuming Biden is 100% squeaky clean he has nothing to gain and everything to lose by appearing in the hearing. You never want to get forced on the stand for anything - shit can go sideways even if you're as pure as the driven snow.

Now Biden is going to have to appear if he's called and sure there is the possibility he'll emerge triumphant and all of America will flock to vote for him in the next election. But there is a reason smart medieval rulers avoided pitched battles when they could. Even if the odds are in your favor it is a colossal gamble to stake everything on a venture that could sink you, even if you're in the right.
This is a thoughtful articulate response. Maybe it could be applied retroactively to all the posts from the summer questioning why Brett Kavanaugh was not more cooperative during his confirmation hearings and why the Republicans should have supported further investigations into the allegations against Kavanaugh.
  #72  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:21 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
If Biden Trump has nothing to hide, then he should welcome the chance to testify before the Senate and be exonerated, correct?
Yes. On the other hand, I think Trump probably has something to hide. Care to continue the analogical comparison between Trump and Biden?
  #73  
Old 12-30-2019, 06:29 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
The Bidens are not on trial here. TRUMP is on trial. It's about what TRUMP did or didn't do. What Trump did was wrong regardless of what the Bidens might or might not have done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
So if Biden as Vice-President asked a foreign prosecutor to stop an investigation ofhis son, then it is still inappropriate for a later President to ask the foreign country to investigate it?
Since you ask the question - no I do not think it was "appropriate" for Biden to make that request. But no one impeached him over it. Not surprising since the current Republican party seems to entirely lack a moral compass.

ONE MORE TIME:

The impeachment and trial of TRUMP is about what TRUMP did. Not what anyone else did or didn't do. If you're on trial for embezzling funds from your employer whether or not Zeke in accounting was attempting to do the same is irrelevant to YOUR case.

Anyone dragging Biden into this mess is engaging in a tu quoque fallacy.
  #74  
Old 12-30-2019, 06:33 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
This is a thoughtful articulate response. Maybe it could be applied retroactively to all the posts from the summer questioning why Brett Kavanaugh was not more cooperative during his confirmation hearings and why the Republicans should have supported further investigations into the allegations against Kavanaugh.
You really like that tu quoque thing, don't you?

How about you focus on Trump? The guy who has actually been formally accused of doing something wrong.
  #75  
Old 12-30-2019, 08:02 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Wrenching Spanners, have you stopped beating your wife yet? Answer yes or no. You have nothing to hide, right?
Senator Broomstick, I have never beaten my wife. I defy you to provide any evidence that I have ever beaten my wife. Were you not in a position of privilege, I would seek redress against you for your defamation. Your question is a base, untrue insinuation and you demean this chamber with its false implications.

Got any other softballs you want to throw up?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
It is not Biden on trial, it is Trump. It was wrong of Trump to ask a foreign government to investigate an American citizen. It was also wrong with withhold aid appropriated by Congress for that nation in order to coerce their president to announce an investigation. THAT is what is on trial, not what Biden may or may not have done. Even if Biden was the devil himself and doing horrible things it would be irrelevant to Trump's impeachment because Trump's guilt or innocence is based on whether or not what Trump did was wrong (which it was) and not what Biden did or didn't do.
First of all, it is entirely appropriate for the executive of a country to request assistance of the executive of another country to perform investigations on their soil. What do you think Joe Biden was doing in Ukraine? From the New York Times, Biden was:
prodding Ukraineís leaders to tackle the rampant corruption that made their country a risky bet for international lenders ó and pushing reform of Ukraineís cronyism-ridden energy industry.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/u...n-ukraine.html
And that appropriateness extends to actions of American citizens on foreign soil who are breaking American laws. How do you think cybercriminals get caught? If investigators from one country need evidence from another country, they ask that countryís investigators to obtain the evidence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Onymous

You, and other posters, seem to think that Trump should have directed any investigations through a law enforcement agency. Guess what? I agree with you. But failure to follow the expected process is not an impeachable offence. The question is if Trump committed an impeachable offence by requesting the investigation of a political opponent. A defence against that charge is that there was actual corruption and investigation of that corruption falls within the authority of the executive. So if Trump goes with that defence, itís valid to ask both Bidens, Joe and Hunter to testify as to what was going on. And, as stated before, and respecting Tamerlaneís reply, if nothing was going on, then either Biden, but especially Joe, should provide the asked-for testimony.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
And it's not a "big if" - there is ZERO evidence of any wrong-doing on either Biden's part here, outside of Trump's twitter account.
Itís blatantly apparent that Hunter Biden was hired by the Ukranian company Burisma for his connections. Hunterís career was as a lobbyist and a business facilitator. In 2014, Burismaís owner was facing charges of money-laundering and the Ukrainian government was under international pressure to fight corruption. So who did Burisma hire for assistance? The US Vice Presidentís son. Go ahead and believe the claim stated in Wikipedia that Biden was hired to ďhelp Burisma with corporate governance best practicesĒ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter...risma_Holdings Try not to believe the emails you receive from Nigerian businessmen claiming theyíll make you rich if you do them just a little favour. But if you believe the first, youíll probably believe the second. If a company needs help with corporate governance, they hire a management consultant, not a lobbyist. Did Hunter or Joe cross any lines into outright corruption as opposed to influence-peddling? Iíve no idea and apparently thereís no smoking gun. But thereís one hell of a conflict of interest, in a company with a dodgy record, in a country known for its corruption problems, that exists for no other reason than Hunter Biden is Joe Bidenís son. Thatís certainly more than enough circumstantial evidence for an investigation into wrongdoing. Is it enough for a criminal conviction? No. Is it justification for asking questions? Yes. Should the Senate want to ask those questions and subpoena either Biden to ask those questions, is it within their purview? Yes.
  #76  
Old 12-30-2019, 08:18 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
You really like that tu quoque thing, don't you?
Other posters were bringing up Benghazi, Pizza-Gate, and for some reason lizard-men. Iím just trying to join in in the spirit of the occasion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
How about you focus on Trump? The guy who has actually been formally accused of doing something wrong.
Gee, in a thread I started about Joe Biden, I'm discussing Joe Biden. Who would have thought?
  #77  
Old 12-30-2019, 08:24 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Senator Broomstick, I have never
You're avoiding the question. Please answer "yes" or "no" or I will have to interrupt you again.
  #78  
Old 12-30-2019, 09:10 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
I do think Giuliani should be called before a Congressional investigative committee and be instructed to answer questions about his involvement in Ukraine. The man was clearly promoting his personal interests while acting as a go-between between the Trump administration and Ukrainian officials.

How 'bout you wonder about that?
And what about Pompeo, Mulvaney, and others who are already ignoring subpoenas? Should they be prosecuted for contempt of Congress?

Quote:
Yes. Biden's supposed to be a smart guy. He's running for President. You'd like a smart guy in the White House, right? If Biden can't handle himself in front of senators asking difficult questions, then that probably says something about his adequacy to be President. Or maybe that's what he's afraid of?
What relevance would his testimony have? In other words, what wrongdoing do you believe he has evidence of?

Last edited by Ravenman; 12-30-2019 at 09:13 AM.
  #79  
Old 12-30-2019, 09:14 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
This is a thoughtful articulate response. Maybe it could be applied retroactively to all the posts from the summer questioning why Brett Kavanaugh was not more cooperative during his confirmation hearings and why the Republicans should have supported further investigations into the allegations against Kavanaugh.
WTF? Kavanaugh was interviewing for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. When I'm interviewing for a job, I'm expected to answer any appropriate questions and, if it's a high enough level job, I would expect to be investigated -- when I had to get clearance, I was investigated and had to respond to all kinds of questions.

Biden isn't interviewing for a job in the Senate. Seriously, WTF?

You mention that Biden is supposed to be a smart guy who is looking to be president. Trump is also supposed to be a smart guy, a real Stable Genius, who is already president -- surely, you should be pushing for him to testify under oath first, and then we could get to Biden if necessary, right?

To specifically address the OP, not the bizarre Kavanaugh side trip you brought up, if Biden is subpoenaed by the Senate, he should testify and show the Republicans and the Trump administration that there really is something called the rule of law. He should only answer questions relevant to the impeachment trial, and since nothing about his actions as Vice President or after are relevant to the impeachment trial, he should feel free to state as such. Pelosi should agree to this after getting McConnell to agree first to having Giuliani, Bolton, and others testify first (that is, before Biden, so they can't say, sorry, my fingers were crossed).
  #80  
Old 12-30-2019, 09:28 AM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Yes. Biden's supposed to be a smart guy. He's running for President. You'd like a smart guy in the White House, right? If Biden can't handle himself in front of senators asking difficult questions, then that probably says something about his adequacy to be President. Or maybe that's what he's afraid of?
EXACTLY! Keep up the great arguments!

I think it would be great if Trump testified. Remember McConnell controls the gavel and this is not a traditional trial. Outside of fervent Trump haters, nobody has been really paying attention to this impeachment. If Trump were take the stand, the whole world would be watching. He could turn it into free media time to promote his reelection.

The answer to every question would be, "The economy is doing great, better than ever. This is just a desperate attempt by Shifty Schiff and Senator Chucky to stop my reelection. I wouldn't hire a coke fiend like Hunter Biden to sweep the sidewalks in front of my beautiful buildings much less as legal counsel."
  #81  
Old 12-30-2019, 09:49 AM
Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,216
John Roberts controls the gavel.
  #82  
Old 12-30-2019, 09:51 AM
Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Itís blatantly apparent that Hunter Biden was hired by the Ukranian company Burisma for his connections.
No shit.

That's not a crime. And it is certainly not a crime committed by Joe Biden.

There is a clear and public record of the action Joe Biden took regarding the prosecutor. We know exactly why he took those actions, we know the results of those actions, and we know that nobody named Biden profited from those actions.

There isn't even a coherent narrative for how this might have occurred.
  #83  
Old 12-30-2019, 10:22 AM
Translucent Daydream is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Grand Valley
Posts: 1,880
I have to say, in my viewpoint as an independent, I don't think that the OP has made a case as to why either of the Biden boys need to testify in DJT's impeachment trial in the senate. "Why doesn't he testify anyway if he has nothing to hide?" Like I noted earlier, I have nothing to hide in the OJ trial, or any of the upcoming trials for the people that have been caught being domestic terrorists in New England going after the Jewish folks there.

I would strongly suspect that he hasn't/won't be called because it would make the GOP look stupid. I wish we didn't have a stupid GOP at the moment, but for whatever reason we do, so he might be called anyway.
__________________
I promise itís not as bad or as good as you think it is.
  #84  
Old 12-30-2019, 10:25 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
And what about Pompeo, Mulvaney, and others who are already ignoring subpoenas? Should they be prosecuted for contempt of Congress?
In a gravely serious matter, where the legislature of a democracy is trying to override the will of the electorate and overturn their decision on who should be president, should the body tasked with making the final decision seek to have as much information as possible, and seek to review the circumstances and events that transpired as thoroughly as possible? Absolutely yes.

Do you think the impeachment trial should be some kind of bargaining session? Iíll trade you Pompeoís testimony for Bidenís?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
What relevance would his testimony have? In other words, what wrongdoing do you believe he has evidence of?
I believe that Trump may put forward a defence that his actionís in pursuing Biden for corrupt actions fell within his executive authority. If he does pursue that defence, then itís relevant for the Senate to assess whether there were legitimate reasons for thinking that Biden was corrupt. Testimony of people familiar with Joe Bidenís words and actions towards Ukraine, including both Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, are therefore relevant if the Senate wishes to call them as witnesses. If Joe Biden is called as a witness, he can choose to comply with the instruction to testify, or seek to block it. If he does seek to block his own testimony, stating that Trump is trying to use him as a distraction, then I think the Senate, the courts, and the general public should be sceptical of his motivation.
  #85  
Old 12-30-2019, 10:37 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
WTF? Kavanaugh was interviewing for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. When I'm interviewing for a job, I'm expected to answer any appropriate questions and, if it's a high enough level job, I would expect to be investigated -- when I had to get clearance, I was investigated and had to respond to all kinds of questions.

Biden isn't interviewing for a job in the Senate. Seriously, WTF?

You mention that Biden is supposed to be a smart guy who is looking to be president. Trump is also supposed to be a smart guy, a real Stable Genius, who is already president -- surely, you should be pushing for him to testify under oath first, and then we could get to Biden if necessary, right?

To specifically address the OP, not the bizarre Kavanaugh side trip you brought up, if Biden is subpoenaed by the Senate, he should testify and show the Republicans and the Trump administration that there really is something called the rule of law. He should only answer questions relevant to the impeachment trial, and since nothing about his actions as Vice President or after are relevant to the impeachment trial, he should feel free to state as such. Pelosi should agree to this after getting McConnell to agree first to having Giuliani, Bolton, and others testify first (that is, before Biden, so they can't say, sorry, my fingers were crossed).
Tamerlane's point was that the process of testifying in a partisan environment can be damaging to the individual providing the testimony. I acknowledge that that is true. However, I don't think it's a one-sided truth. If it would be politically damaging for Joe Biden to testify, even if he had nothing to hide, then it should be acknowledged that it would be politically damaging for other witnesses before a partisan Congress to give uninhibited testimony. I brought up Kavanaugh because it was recent, and because several posters on this board were saying his lack of candor should disqualify him. I think the standard of expectation should be consistent, and not based on the side you're on.
  #86  
Old 12-30-2019, 10:38 AM
Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
I believe that Trump may put forward a defence that his actionís in pursuing Biden for corrupt actions fell within his executive authority.
It is impossible to put forward such a defense without distorting the truth or outright lying.

That said, should we get to a point where Trump's defense is in need of Biden's testimony to be believable, then the Trump defense team has failed so badly at their jobs that conviction would be inevitable. I'm sure it won't come to that point.
  #87  
Old 12-30-2019, 10:40 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
No shit.

That's not a crime. And it is certainly not a crime committed by Joe Biden.

There is a clear and public record of the action Joe Biden took regarding the prosecutor. We know exactly why he took those actions, we know the results of those actions, and we know that nobody named Biden profited from those actions.

There isn't even a coherent narrative for how this might have occurred.
You left out this bit:
Quote:
thereís one hell of a conflict of interest, in a company with a dodgy record, in a country known for its corruption problems, that exists for no other reason than Hunter Biden is Joe Bidenís son.
  #88  
Old 12-30-2019, 10:46 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
It is impossible to put forward such a defense without distorting the truth or outright lying.

That said, should we get to a point where Trump's defense is in need of Biden's testimony to be believable, then the Trump defense team has failed so badly at their jobs that conviction would be inevitable. I'm sure it won't come to that point.
Already answered in post #75:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
First of all, it is entirely appropriate for the executive of a country to request assistance of the executive of another country to perform investigations on their soil. What do you think Joe Biden was doing in Ukraine? From the New York Times, Biden was:
prodding Ukraineís leaders to tackle the rampant corruption that made their country a risky bet for international lenders ó and pushing reform of Ukraineís cronyism-ridden energy industry.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/u...n-ukraine.html
And that appropriateness extends to actions of American citizens on foreign soil who are breaking American laws. How do you think cybercriminals get caught? If investigators from one country need evidence from another country, they ask that countryís investigators to obtain the evidence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Onymous

You, and other posters, seem to think that Trump should have directed any investigations through a law enforcement agency. Guess what? I agree with you. But failure to follow the expected process is not an impeachable offence. The question is if Trump committed an impeachable offence by requesting the investigation of a political opponent. A defence against that charge is that there was actual corruption and investigation of that corruption falls within the authority of the executive. So if Trump goes with that defence, itís valid to ask both Bidens, Joe and Hunter to testify as to what was going on. And, as stated before, and respecting Tamerlaneís reply, if nothing was going on, then either Biden, but especially Joe, should provide the asked-for testimony.
Do try and keep up.
  #89  
Old 12-30-2019, 10:55 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
So if Biden as Vice-President asked a foreign prosecutor to stop an investigation ofhis son, then it is still inappropriate for a later President to ask the foreign country to investigate it?
Not what happened. Biden, with other EU leaders' backing, pressured Ukraine to get rid of its prosecutor who was known to be corrupt. There was no investigation of Hunter Biden, indeed the new prosecutor would have been more likely to investigate him if indeed there was anything to investigate.

What the Republicans should be asking is why neither Biden nor Obama was in the Oval Office on 9/11.
  #90  
Old 12-30-2019, 11:05 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
The question is if Trump committed an impeachable offence by requesting the investigation of a political opponent.
Wrong. The question is if Trump committed an impeachable offense by withholding congressionally approved aid to strongarm a vulnerable ally into announcing the investigation of a political opponent.

The actions of that opponent are irrelevant to this question.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #91  
Old 12-30-2019, 11:08 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
.... Iíll trade you Pompeoís testimony for Bidenís?....
Under oath, with standard penalty for perjury? Yes! Hell, yes! Goody gumdrops!


Now, Universe, I know I haven't been a very good pantheist, but if You could just give me this one sign....
  #92  
Old 12-30-2019, 11:54 AM
Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
You left out this bit:
That bit is completely unrelated to what I posted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Already answered in post #75:
Post #75 is also completely unrelated to what I posted.

You are Gish galloping here. Nothing more.
  #93  
Old 12-30-2019, 11:56 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Senator Broomstick, I have never beaten my wife. I defy you to provide any evidence that I have ever beaten my wife. Were you not in a position of privilege, I would seek redress against you for your defamation. Your question is a base, untrue insinuation and you demean this chamber with its false implications.

Got any other softballs you want to throw up?



First of all, it is entirely appropriate for the executive of a country to request assistance of the executive of another country to perform investigations on their soil. What do you think Joe Biden was doing in Ukraine? From the New York Times, Biden was:
prodding Ukraineís leaders to tackle the rampant corruption that made their country a risky bet for international lenders ó and pushing reform of Ukraineís cronyism-ridden energy industry.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/u...n-ukraine.html
And that appropriateness extends to actions of American citizens on foreign soil who are breaking American laws. How do you think cybercriminals get caught? If investigators from one country need evidence from another country, they ask that countryís investigators to obtain the evidence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Onymous

You, and other posters, seem to think that Trump should have directed any investigations through a law enforcement agency. Guess what? I agree with you. But failure to follow the expected process is not an impeachable offence. The question is if Trump committed an impeachable offence by requesting the investigation of a political opponent. A defence against that charge is that there was actual corruption and investigation of that corruption falls within the authority of the executive. So if Trump goes with that defence, itís valid to ask both Bidens, Joe and Hunter to testify as to what was going on. And, as stated before, and respecting Tamerlaneís reply, if nothing was going on, then either Biden, but especially Joe, should provide the asked-for testimony.



Itís blatantly apparent that Hunter Biden was hired by the Ukranian company Burisma for his connections. Hunterís career was as a lobbyist and a business facilitator. In 2014, Burismaís owner was facing charges of money-laundering and the Ukrainian government was under international pressure to fight corruption. So who did Burisma hire for assistance? The US Vice Presidentís son. Go ahead and believe the claim stated in Wikipedia that Biden was hired to ďhelp Burisma with corporate governance best practicesĒ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter...risma_Holdings Try not to believe the emails you receive from Nigerian businessmen claiming theyíll make you rich if you do them just a little favour. But if you believe the first, youíll probably believe the second. If a company needs help with corporate governance, they hire a management consultant, not a lobbyist. Did Hunter or Joe cross any lines into outright corruption as opposed to influence-peddling? Iíve no idea and apparently thereís no smoking gun. But thereís one hell of a conflict of interest, in a company with a dodgy record, in a country known for its corruption problems, that exists for no other reason than Hunter Biden is Joe Bidenís son. Thatís certainly more than enough circumstantial evidence for an investigation into wrongdoing. Is it enough for a criminal conviction? No. Is it justification for asking questions? Yes. Should the Senate want to ask those questions and subpoena either Biden to ask those questions, is it within their purview? Yes.
Even if we stipulate that an investigation of the Bidens is appropriate, it is NOT appropriate to carry out that investigation during the testimony phase of a different personís actual trial. Which is exactly what your demand for Joe Bidenís testimony is an attempt to do.
  #94  
Old 12-30-2019, 12:02 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Wrong. The question is if Trump committed an impeachable offense by withholding congressionally approved aid to strongarm a vulnerable ally into announcing the investigation of a political opponent.
Your more verbose summary is indeed more accurate, ignoring the biased vocabulary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
The actions of that opponent are irrelevant to this question.
That's an opinion, not an argument.
  #95  
Old 12-30-2019, 12:05 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
EXACTLY! Keep up the great arguments!

I think it would be great if Trump testified. Remember McConnell controls the gavel and this is not a traditional trial. Outside of fervent Trump haters, nobody has been really paying attention to this impeachment. If Trump were take the stand, the whole world would be watching. He could turn it into free media time to promote his reelection.

The answer to every question would be, "The economy is doing great, better than ever. This is just a desperate attempt by Shifty Schiff and Senator Chucky to stop my reelection. I wouldn't hire a coke fiend like Hunter Biden to sweep the sidewalks in front of my beautiful buildings much less as legal counsel."
Indeed. It would likely be his answer to the question ďWhat are the names of your children?Ē
  #96  
Old 12-30-2019, 12:11 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Tamerlane's point was that the process of testifying in a partisan environment can be damaging to the individual providing the testimony. I acknowledge that that is true. However, I don't think it's a one-sided truth. If it would be politically damaging for Joe Biden to testify, even if he had nothing to hide, then it should be acknowledged that it would be politically damaging for other witnesses before a partisan Congress to give uninhibited testimony. I brought up Kavanaugh because it was recent, and because several posters on this board were saying his lack of candor should disqualify him. I think the standard of expectation should be consistent, and not based on the side you're on.
Except that in the Kavanaugh instance, there were specific allegations that were being probed. Can you point to specific allegations that remain to be probed wrt either of the Bidens?

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 12-30-2019 at 12:16 PM.
  #97  
Old 12-30-2019, 12:17 PM
Wolf333 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,208
Can we stop with this “overriding the will of the electorate” bullshit?

1. Impeachment was included in the constitution for a reason

2. The house members were voted for by that same electorate, and one of the jobs they were elected to perform was oversight of the executive branch - up to, and including impeachment.
  #98  
Old 12-30-2019, 12:18 PM
drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,504
Hi just have a microsec. No.
  #99  
Old 12-30-2019, 12:37 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Or maybe Biden should just give honest answers. That's generally what we expect of witnesses, right?
An honest answer from Biden would be that he has no relevant testimony to give.

What questions do you think Biden should be asked?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #100  
Old 12-30-2019, 12:46 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
If Biden can't handle himself in front of senators asking difficult questions, then that probably says something about his adequacy to be President.
Can this standard be retroactively applied to Brett Kavanaugh, regarding the Supreme Court?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:58 PM.

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.

 
Copyright © 2017