Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 12-30-2019, 12:48 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
That bit is completely unrelated to what I posted.

Post #75 is also completely unrelated to what I posted.

You are Gish galloping here. Nothing more.
My point is that Hunter Biden going to work for a Ukrainian company was dodgy as Hell, and the assertion that there is no evidence that the Bidens were involved in corrupt practices in false. I acknowledge there is no smoking gun that would support a criminal conviction, but the situation was certainly dubious enough to be investigated. Want more evidence? Go read the NYTimes article cited earlier. Obama administration officials confronted Joe Biden about the impropriety of his son working for Burisma. Later, from Edward C. Chow, an expert on geopolitics and energy policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan Washington think tank opined: ďAnd having his son doing what he did was a distraction that undermined his message.Ē https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/u...n-ukraine.html

Trump wanted the Bidens investigated for corruption, and yes he wanted a public announcement of that investigation. Repeating myself, so maybe you'll read it this time, Trump may offer as his defence in the impeachment trial that calling for an investigation and requesting that it was announced were within the bounds of his executive authority. That then raises the question of whether it was reasonable to pursue the Bidens for corruption. If the Senate wants to address that question, then they have the right to so, and that includes calling witnesses to testify, which includes the Bidens.

This isnít just throwing out facts as a distraction. Itís an argument Iíve been making throughout this thread, backing it up with cites and substance. Something youíre not doing.
  #102  
Old 12-30-2019, 12:52 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Can this standard be retroactively applied to Brett Kavanaugh, regarding the Supreme Court?
Fine by me. You're just going to need to amend the US Constitution. Get going with that, won't you?
  #103  
Old 12-30-2019, 12:57 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Fine by me. You're just going to need to amend the US Constitution. Get going with that, won't you?
Would you like to say something about Kavanaugh's adequacy to be a Justice, given how he handled himself under not-particularly-difficult questioning by the U.S. Senate?


And by the way, what do you think Biden should be asked, were he to testify?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #104  
Old 12-30-2019, 01:14 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Your more verbose summary is indeed more accurate, ignoring the biased vocabulary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Trump wanted the Bidens investigated for corruption, and yes he wanted a public announcement of that investigation. Repeating myself, so maybe you'll read it this time, Trump may offer as his defence in the impeachment trial that calling for an investigation and requesting that it was announced were within the bounds of his executive authority. That then raises the question of whether it was reasonable to pursue the Bidens for corruption.
And even after you agree that my summary is more accurate, you continue to flog this notion that Trump was impeached for pursuing an investigation of the Bidens. This is false. He was impeached for using congressionally approved funds as leverage to make Ukraine conduct that investigation.

It's not mere verbosity, it's a crucial difference. The question that needs to be settled:
  • is NOT: Can a president investigate a rival?
  • is: Can a president withhold funds as leverage to get a foreign nation to investigate a rival?
In which case, whether the target of that investigation deserves investigation is utterly irrelevant.

If you continue to misrepresent the nature of the behavior for which Trump was impeached I can't see why anyone here would bother to continue to engage you.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #105  
Old 12-30-2019, 01:29 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
If you continue to misrepresent the nature of the behavior for which Trump was impeached I can't see why anyone here would bother to continue to engage you.
I'll be happy to keep engaging him, if everyone else wants to leave. Yes, I will heroically sacrifice my time to spare everyone else.


So, Wrenching Spanners, what do you think Biden should be asked, were he to testify? I'll even expand on it a little - is the impeachment trial an appropriate place to investigate allegations of corruption on the part of Joe and/or Hunter Biden?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #106  
Old 12-30-2019, 01:30 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf333 View Post
Can we stop with this ďoverriding the will of the electorateĒ 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.
Stressing the importance of Congress not ďoverriding the will of the electorateĒ is exactly the opposite of bullshit. Impeachment of the President is probably the most serious action Congress can take short of a declaration of war. Nixon deserved to be impeached and convicted over Watergate if he hadn't resigned. Bill Clinton didn't deserve to be impeached over a blow job. The partisan actions of the Republicans in the Clinton impeachment created a precedent that many Democrats have wanted to exploit since Trump was elected. Thatís the bullshit. The House of Representatives should have had an iron-clad, irrefutable, inarguable case against Trump before they passed the articles of impeachment. Instead, they took the best shot they thought they were going to get, and passed the articles knowing they were never going to get past the Senate. Their impeachment of Trump is every bit as much of a farce as the Republican impeachment of Clinton. And now both sides are strategising about how to get the maximum impact from the Senate trial, doing the maximum possible damage to the other side. Which is even more bullshit.

This is supposed to be a trial over the removal of the President of the United States from office. Itís a hugely serious matter that should concern and dismay every American. But a politician whoís named in the Articles of Impeachment says he wonít testify because it will be a distraction. Joe Bidenís bullshit is just the cherry on top of the whole bullshit sundae. Itís pathetic.
  #107  
Old 12-30-2019, 01:42 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
My point is that Hunter Biden going to work for a Ukrainian company was dodgy as Hell, and the assertion that there is no evidence that the Bidens were involved in corrupt practices in false.
This is made up nonsense.

There is no inherent conflict of interest in Hunter Biden taking a seat on Burisma's board.

There is, in fact, no evidence that the Bidens were involved in corrupt practices.
  #108  
Old 12-30-2019, 01:43 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
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."
Never thought I'd hear myself say this:

I agree with LAZombie. Trump should testify in front of congress.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #109  
Old 12-30-2019, 02:09 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
And even after you agree that my summary is more accurate, you continue to flog this notion that Trump was impeached for pursuing an investigation of the Bidens. This is false. He was impeached for using congressionally approved funds as leverage to make Ukraine conduct that investigation.

It's not mere verbosity, it's a crucial difference. The question that needs to be settled:
  • is NOT: Can a president investigate a rival?
  • is: Can a president withhold funds as leverage to get a foreign nation to investigate a rival?
In which case, whether the target of that investigation deserves investigation is utterly irrelevant.

If you continue to misrepresent the nature of the behavior for which Trump was impeached I can't see why anyone here would bother to continue to engage you.
You’re focusing on one part of the articles of impeachment, I’m focusing on another. I agree that if the impeachment was solely about the withholding of aid from Ukraine, there would be no point to Biden’s testimony. But that’s not how the House of Representatives drafted their case. They listed the corrupt solicitation as a separate item:
Quote:
(1) President Trump—acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government—corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into—
(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and
(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.
That item seems to me to be the equivalent of an individual charge in an indictment containing multiple charges.

As to what the Senate should ask Joe Biden about:
1) Did he ever discuss with Ukrainian officials corruption at specific Ukrainian companies?
2) If so, was Burisma one of those companies?
3) Further questions about his engagement/non-engagement into inquiries about Burisma based on the above two questions.
4) Was he aware of the conflict of interest posed by Hunter Biden taking a high-paying job at Burisma while Joe Biden, as Vice-President of the United States, was acting against corruption in the Ukraine?
5) Was he aware that the Vice President’s son at Burisma was potentially sending a signal to Ukranian officials that Burisma was out-of-bounds for corruption investigations?
6) What actions did he take to mitigate the conflict of interest or the possibility of an out-of-bounds signal?
7) Did he ever have any discussions with Hunter about Ukrainian corruption?
8) If so, was Burisma ever mentioned in those discussions?
Biden claims that he maintained a firewall with his son such that Hunter never discussed his lobbying activities and Biden never discussed any of his political activities that might involve his son’s business clients. If that’s true, then he should easily be able to handle any questions from the Senate related to corruption in Ukraine, or Hunter’s position at Burisma.

Last edited by Wrenching Spanners; 12-30-2019 at 02:10 PM.
  #110  
Old 12-30-2019, 02:24 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
This is made up nonsense.

There is no inherent conflict of interest in Hunter Biden taking a seat on Burisma's board.

There is, in fact, no evidence that the Bidens were involved in corrupt practices.
Right. There was so little conflict of interest that Biden's aides were totally unbothered by it. Oh Wait:
Quote:
Several aides recalled a surreal split-screen of activity onboard, as Mr. Bidenís team focused mostly on the speech (he urged them to make it tougher), but peeled off for intermittent huddles on how to handle the Hunter story (Mr. Biden dismissed the story as a distraction, and did not engage). The group defaulted to the pushback plan used the year before when the story had first emerged, issuing a statement that Hunter Biden was ďa private citizen and a lawyer.Ē
--From the same NYTimes article.

But okay, you explain to me how Hunter Biden's employment at Burisma was totally based on merit and an outstanding track record of improving corporate governance at Ukrainian energy companies.

The conflict of interest is by itself evidence of the potential of corruption. I've already stated it's not a smoking gun. But it certainly begs the question of what Burisma was paying Hunter Biden for?
  #111  
Old 12-30-2019, 02:32 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
But okay, you explain to me how Hunter Biden's employment at Burisma was totally based on merit and an outstanding track record of improving corporate governance at Ukrainian energy companies.
This is not a claim I'm making so I have no obligation to explain it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
The conflict of interest is by itself evidence of the potential of corruption.
There is no evidence of conflict of interest.
  #112  
Old 12-30-2019, 02:33 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Youíre focusing on one part of the articles of impeachment, Iím focusing on another. I agree that if the impeachment was solely about the withholding of aid from Ukraine, there would be no point to Bidenís testimony. But thatís not how the House of Representatives drafted their case. They listed the corrupt solicitation as a separate item:
That item seems to me to be the equivalent of an individual charge in an indictment containing multiple charges.
IANAL, but the line about Biden is not a "separate item":
1) President Trumpóacting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Governmentócorruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations intoó
(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and
(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraineórather than Russiaóinterfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.
It's just a detail describing one of the targets of the investigations which Trump allegedly pursued corruptly. (Hence the A, and not a 2.) The "corruptly" is the key point -- not the "solicited ... investigations." And all your questions which seek to validate the reasons for the investigations don't make Trump's means of pursuing them any less corrupt.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #113  
Old 12-30-2019, 02:54 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
As to what the Senate should ask Joe Biden about:
1) Did he ever discuss with Ukrainian officials corruption at specific Ukrainian companies?
How is that relevant to what Trump allegedly did?

Quote:
2) If so, was Burisma one of those companies?
How is that relevant to what Trump allegedly did?

Quote:
3) Further questions about his engagement/non-engagement into inquiries about Burisma based on the above two questions.
How are those relevant to what Trump allegedly did?

Quote:
4) Was he aware of the conflict of interest posed by Hunter Biden taking a high-paying job at Burisma while Joe Biden, as Vice-President of the United States, was acting against corruption in the Ukraine?
How is that relevant to what Trump allegedly did?

Quote:
5) Was he aware that the Vice Presidentís son at Burisma was potentially sending a signal to Ukranian officials that Burisma was out-of-bounds for corruption investigations?
How is that relevant to what Trump allegedly did?

Quote:
6) What actions did he take to mitigate the conflict of interest or the possibility of an out-of-bounds signal?
How is that relevant to what Trump allegedly did?

Quote:
7) Did he ever have any discussions with Hunter about Ukrainian corruption?
How is that relevant to what Trump allegedly did?

Quote:
8) If so, was Burisma ever mentioned in those discussions?
How is that relevant to what Trump allegedly did?

Quote:
Biden claims that he maintained a firewall with his son such that Hunter never discussed his lobbying activities and Biden never discussed any of his political activities that might involve his sonís business clients. If thatís true, then he should easily be able to handle any questions from the Senate related to corruption in Ukraine, or Hunterís position at Burisma.
I gather you are of the opinion that these impeachment hearings are an appropriate opportunity to investigate the Bidens. Is that correct?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #114  
Old 12-30-2019, 02:54 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
My point is that Hunter Biden going to work for a Ukrainian company was dodgy as Hell, and the assertion that there is no evidence that the Bidens were involved in corrupt practices in false. I acknowledge there is no smoking gun that would support a criminal conviction, but the situation was certainly dubious enough to be investigated. Want more evidence? Go read the NYTimes article cited earlier. Obama administration officials confronted Joe Biden about the impropriety of his son working for Burisma. Later, from Edward C. Chow, an expert on geopolitics and energy policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan Washington think tank opined: ďAnd having his son doing what he did was a distraction that undermined his message.Ē https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/u...n-ukraine.html

Trump wanted the Bidens investigated for corruption, and yes he wanted a public announcement of that investigation. Repeating myself, so maybe you'll read it this time, Trump may offer as his defence in the impeachment trial that calling for an investigation and requesting that it was announced were within the bounds of his executive authority. That then raises the question of whether it was reasonable to pursue the Bidens for corruption. If the Senate wants to address that question, then they have the right to so, and that includes calling witnesses to testify, which includes the Bidens.

This isnít just throwing out facts as a distraction. Itís an argument Iíve been making throughout this thread, backing it up with cites and substance. Something youíre not doing.
It's an argument. It's not a good argument, though.

Would it not have been a more prudent course of action to have the DoJ and FBI open an investigation into the Bidens. I mean, what's more damaging to your political opponent than to have it known that he and his son is being investigated by top crime investigation agencies of the US government? Particularly since there are previously standing "concerns" on record about this very issue. Surely, Barr would have launched a domestic investigation if he thought there was something to be gained politically.

But that didn't happen, did it? Instead, Trump chose to extort a statement about an investigation from a foreign government. He chose to do so over the objections of his cabinet: Bolton, Pompeo and Esper.

Now, why do you suppose Trump chose not to leverage the considerable power of his government to destroy his political opponent, and instead chose to coerce a foreign government's involvement? Is it possible that he did so out of desperation because he was told that there was no case to be made through legitimate means?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #115  
Old 12-30-2019, 02:56 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Never thought I'd hear myself say this:

I agree with LAZombie. Trump should testify in front of congress.
Wouldn't it be glorious, though? Within five minutes, Trump would give them enough material to immediate re-impeach him on perjury charges. Can the House amend the original impeachment or would they have to file a new one?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #116  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:06 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
If Biden has nothing to hide, then he should welcome the chance to testify before the Senate and be exonerated, correct?
Wildly incorrect.

Lets step back to the kind of things defense lawyers would tell their clients. Never submit to an optional search of your vehicle is one of those normal pieces of advice. You may think you have nothing to hide but you cant really say what that friend of a friend dropped out of their pocket and lost under the seat 9 months ago. (Police will even sometimes try the "you've got nothing to hide, right?" card.) Even if they find nothing the delay costs you your time and possible embarrassment when people you know see by the side of the road. Testifying before Congress would have opportunity costs for his presidential campaign.

Then there is answering police questions, especially without a lawyer to advise whether you answer a given question. That is true even if you are completely innocent. Misremember some detail or phrase an answer awkwardly and suddenly they have evidence that they can bring up in a court of law against you to make it look like you are lying. If you aren't careful you can talk yourself into looking guilty, and maybe a conviction, even if you genuinely are innocent. Biden potentially has a lot to lose even if he is innocent. Remember there are people calling for his actions to be criminally investigated.

Now Biden shouldn't just ignore a subpoena. Lawyer up and take it to court. Trump has been claiming broad executive privilege including for those no longer in his administration. Biden's lawyers may well be able to jump on the exact same arguments being presented to keep people like Bolton from testifying before the House. It is like Trump tried to set up Biden's legal argument for him. Well see how far SCOTUS lets executive privilege be a shield from Congressional subpoena later this year.
  #117  
Old 12-30-2019, 03:14 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,744
I can see this working out for Biden if he makes sure to include in every response a reference to how much Trump is being a pussy, unable to face him in a fair fight.

In fact, he should be saying this now.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.

Last edited by Bryan Ekers; 12-30-2019 at 03:15 PM.
  #118  
Old 12-30-2019, 04:00 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,382
I consider the prospect of Biden being called to testify. But doesn't that open up the proceedings to further testimony? If one witness is called, why not others?

Well, why not, indeed! Which causes me to wonder, how might Il Douche prevent testimony he would find...unhelpful?

But, of course! The miracle of Executive Privilege, that central pillar of the Constitution, which holds that the President is not above the law, but simply exempt! He is (Trump), within the parentheses, he is untouched by the constraints of the law. Biden is merely an ex-Vice President and Senator, he can be compelled to speak. Pompeo, Guilliani, and others, they are touched with the grace of (Trump), that radiant Executive Privilege.

Naturally, my next thought follows, that this is utter nonsense. No such argument could be made, no reasonable person would accept it, its dumber than a sack of wet mice. That witnesses can be called, but (Trump) decides which can be permitted to speak?

Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot! No one would dare present such a callow absurdity for serious consideration!

Then I remember who we are talking about.
  #119  
Old 12-30-2019, 04:56 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
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.
Impeachment for high crimes and constitutional violations does not override the "will of the electorate" who voted against Tramp. Ms Clinton needed a greater supermajority than she received, to balance the rigged US electoral system that theoretically allows a candidate with 29% of popular votes to take the White House. Tramp won the game. The election is not being challenged; the criminal acts of the incumbent are.

I don't argue with your conclusion, only the assumption that the 2016 election reflected American voters' will - those voters not disenfranchised nor suppressed. Yes, the House prosecutors SHOULD be able to present full evidence. No, Moscow Mitch won't allow that.

Back to topic: No Biden has any role in the trial. Of course GOPs will fling shit anyway.
  #120  
Old 12-30-2019, 05:00 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
I consider the prospect of Biden being called to testify. But doesn't that open up the proceedings to further testimony? If one witness is called, why not others?

Well, why not, indeed! Which causes me to wonder, how might Il Douche prevent testimony he would find...unhelpful?

But, of course! The miracle of Executive Privilege, that central pillar of the Constitution, which holds that the President is not above the law, but simply exempt! He is (Trump), within the parentheses, he is untouched by the constraints of the law. Biden is merely an ex-Vice President and Senator, he can be compelled to speak. Pompeo, Guilliani, and others, they are touched with the grace of (Trump), that radiant Executive Privilege.

Naturally, my next thought follows, that this is utter nonsense. No such argument could be made, no reasonable person would accept it, its dumber than a sack of wet mice. That witnesses can be called, but (Trump) decides which can be permitted to speak?

Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot! No one would dare present such a callow absurdity for serious consideration!

Then I remember who we are talking about.
Given that Biden's actions in Ukraine were apparently sanctioned by Obama, can't he declare executive privilege as well?
  #121  
Old 12-30-2019, 05:44 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,515
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. 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.
If Trump blamed the Lizard People for blackmailing Ukraine, must we hear from them to? What if Trump blamed you for holding up the aid? Would you then need to testify? What if Trump blamed every single Clinton voter in 2016 for wrongdoing? Must the Senate hear from 65 million people?

The point Iím making is that Trump is clearly making up bullshit and that doesnít mean a body doing a serious job needs to buy into his nonsense. Nobody can say what Joe Biden did that was wrong or unethical; therefore calling him as a witness makes no sense since he is not actually involved in the facts of the matter except to throw up chaff.
  #122  
Old 12-30-2019, 05:53 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Trump wanted the Bidens investigated for corruption, and yes he wanted a public announcement of that investigation.
The evidence shows this is untrue. Trumpís main interlocutor for months prior to the phone call, and even to this day, in seeking the investigation was his personal attorney, not any government agency.

Barr didnít even know the July phone call happened. There is no evidence that there was an effort to seek a legitimate investigation into any laws being broken. It was all about Rudy getting dirt to further Trumpís ambitions. There really isnít any other plausible reading of the facts, unless one is totally in the tank for Trump. Seriously, Trump supporters are peddling Pizzagate level bullshit here. Itís frightening that they actually donít seem to know how much they have lost touch with the reality-based community.
  #123  
Old 12-30-2019, 06:06 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Senator Broomstick, I have never --
Answer the question yes or no.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Senator Broomstick, I --
Answer the question yes or no.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Sena--
Answer the question yes or no: Have you stopped beating your wife?

Later, headline for Fox News: "Wrenching Spanners will not deny beating his wife!"


What the hell makes you think anyone is going to play fair?

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.
No, it's not. Or rather, that is at the heart of the dispute here. Let's hold a trial to make that determination, hmm?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
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.
Incorrect. An "impeachable offense" is whatever the House decides it is. The current House of Representatives has decided it is. It is done. It is up to the Senate to determine whether or not that warrants removing Trump from office.

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. A defence against that charge is that there was actual corruption and investigation of that corruption falls within the authority of the executive.
No, it's not. If it's wrong to ask another country to investigate a political opponent then it is wrong regardless of whether or not the subject of the investigation did anything wrong. Why are you having trouble comprehending that?

If the police kick in your door and perform an unauthorized - that is, illegal - search of your person and possessions then that action is wrong regardless of whether or not you yourself are guilty of anything. They don't get pardoned because they turned up something wrong. Indeed, under our system of law conducting an illegal search can result in a criminal going free because the product of an illegal search can not be used as evidence in a trial.

Again - what the Bidens were or were not doing is completely irrelevant to Trump's upcoming Senate trial and whether or not Trump is guilty of wrong-doing.

Stop trying to make this about the Bidens.

It's about Trump - what he did or did not do. Not what anyone else was doing or not doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Should the Senate want to ask those questions and subpoena either Biden to ask those questions, is it within their purview? Yes.
No. Not for determining whether or not Trump should be removed from office based upon the current impeachment.

Again, this is nothing but a ploy to turn Trump's trial into a trial for someone else.

When is Trump going to be called to account for HIS actions, instead of someone else taking the fall for him?
  #124  
Old 12-30-2019, 06:17 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Trump wanted the Bidens investigated for corruption, and yes he wanted a public announcement of that investigation.
If Trump wanted such an investigation why didn't he ask the FBI to investigate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Trump may offer as his defence in the impeachment trial that calling for an investigation and requesting that it was announced were within the bounds of his executive authority.
Ok, do you understand that the impeachment occurred because the House determined it was NOT within his executive authority?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
That then raises the question of whether it was reasonable to pursue the Bidens for corruption. If the Senate wants to address that question, then they have the right to so, and that includes calling witnesses to testify, which includes the Bidens.
Making Trump's trial into a trial of the Biden's?

No, that's not legal, that's not right, in fact, it's pretty fucked up.

IF there is a reason to investigate the Biden's it should be done through normal legal channels, not as a distraction from Trump trying desperately to get out of the consequences of his actions. The Senate trial is about TRUMP. No one else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
This isnít just throwing out facts as a distraction. Itís an argument Iíve been making throughout this thread, backing it up with cites and substance.
The problem here is that you are flat out wrong.

Repeating the same falsehood(s) over and over will not magically make them right.
  #125  
Old 12-30-2019, 06:26 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Stressing the importance of Congress not ďoverriding the will of the electorateĒ is exactly the opposite of bullshit.
Impeachment is NOT "overriding the will of the electorate for two reasons:

1) Congress ALSO represents the "will of the electorate".

2) The "will of the electorate" made Pence Vice President, ready to take over if for any reason Trump is unable to fulfill the duties of the office of President. Remove Trump and his duly elected alternate becomes PotUS - Pence, who is still a devoted Republican. How much do think that will actually change things?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Bill Clinton didn't deserve to be impeached over a blow job.
Clinton wasn't impeached over a blowjob - he was impeached for LYING about a blowjob. Also note that no one felt compelled to ask Monica Lewinski to testify, either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
The partisan actions of the Republicans in the Clinton impeachment created a precedent that many Democrats have wanted to exploit since Trump was elected.
Actually, since Bush the Younger was decreed winner by the SCotUS. And yet that didn't happen, did it?
  #126  
Old 12-30-2019, 08:18 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Impeachment is NOT "overriding the will of the electorate for two reasons:
Plus, what a manufactured concern. As if in the minds of 42% of the country, ďnot breaking the lawĒ isnít a priority.
  #127  
Old 12-30-2019, 11:31 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Given that Biden's actions in Ukraine were apparently sanctioned by Obama, can't he declare executive privilege as well?
Republican Constitutional theologians still debate whether the radiant nimbus of Executive Privilege is manifested by the Oath of Office or by the Electoral College. There is unanimous agreement, however, that an illegitimate President of uncertain nativity has no divine penumbra.
  #128  
Old 12-31-2019, 01:56 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
If Biden has nothing to hide, then he should welcome the chance to testify before the Senate and be exonerated, correct?
I realize you're Just Asking Questions, but some questions are just too silly even for this ignorance-fighting Board. (Obviously my comment is NOT directed at Mr. Spanners, who may have left his keyboard unguarded.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Not only should Biden not be there, the partisan idiots who proposed this idea should be struck on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and firmly told "No!"
Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
  #129  
Old 12-31-2019, 05:41 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,744
Can we at least get an unredacted transcript of the Ukraine call before going fishing?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #130  
Old 12-31-2019, 06:19 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Should Joe Biden Testify During the Impeachment Hearings?
No.
  #131  
Old 12-31-2019, 09:27 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I can see this working out for Biden if he makes sure to include in every response a reference to how much Trump is being a pussy, unable to face him in a fair fight.

In fact, he should be saying this now.
Yup. Trump has handed this to Biden on a silver platter. Every interview, Biden should lead with some version of "I would love to testify before Congress about what I know about Trump's various crimes. While I have no direct knowledge of all of those crimes, if Congress wishes to hear from me anyway, I believe that's appropriate. For now, however, the Republican party has determined that they do not wish to hear from any witnesses about Trump's criminal activity. So, once Congress determines to hear from all the fact witnesses, including Mr. Trump who appears to be hiding from them, I would be glad to set a date."
  #132  
Old 12-31-2019, 11:17 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Yup. Trump has handed this to Biden on a silver platter. Every interview, Biden should lead with some version of "I would love to testify before Congress about what I know about Trump's various crimes. While I have no direct knowledge of all of those crimes, if Congress wishes to hear from me anyway, I believe that's appropriate. For now, however, the Republican party has determined that they do not wish to hear from any witnesses about Trump's criminal activity. So, once Congress determines to hear from all the fact witnesses, including Mr. Trump who appears to be hiding from them, I would be glad to set a date."
Yeah, that's good... Biden should hit the "Trump's criminal activities" button a lot, work it into every interview at least once. Also, "I look forward to testifying and hearing President Trump's testimony," saying it like it's a given that Trump will indeed testify. Biden should never discuss the possibility of giving testimony without linking it to Trump doing the same.

Hmm.... what's the odd expected feeling I'm getting.... could it be... hope? Optimism? Maybe this will be a happy new year after all.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #133  
Old 12-31-2019, 04:17 PM
Bookkeeper's Avatar
Bookkeeper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ottawa, Canuckistan
Posts: 2,850
Of course Biden should testify when called by Trump's defence, right after the prosecution hears the testimony of Bolten, Pompeo, and all the other witnesses they call.
  #134  
Old 12-31-2019, 07:32 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,387
I doubt Moscow Mitch will allow any witnessing because once they start, they're hard to stop. Easier to just have Faux NŁz report on what witnesses WOULD have said. All former and current Trampsters would exonerate this POTUS. All else are partisan traitors or turncoats against the God-Emperor. Vote: Not guilty. Now go home.
  #135  
Old 12-31-2019, 10:17 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
I doubt Moscow Mitch will allow any witnessing because once they start, they're hard to stop. Easier to just have Faux NŁz report on what witnesses WOULD have said. All former and current Trampsters would exonerate this POTUS. All else are partisan traitors or turncoats against the God-Emperor. Vote: Not guilty. Now go home.
Roberts might be signaling that he is not on board with this.

"Happily, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay ulti-mately succeeded in convincing the public of the virtues of the principles embodied in the Constitution. Those principles leave no place for mob violence. But in the ensuing years, we have come to take democracy for granted, and civic education has fallen by the wayside. In our age, when social media can instantly spread rumor and false information on a grand scale, the publicís need to under-stand our government, and the protections it provides, is ever more vital."
  #136  
Old 01-01-2020, 11:41 AM
Jeff Lichtman's Avatar
Jeff Lichtman is offline
Head Cheese
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: El Cerrito, CA
Posts: 4,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
So Biden get's to decide that, and determine at the same time that his judgement override's that of the Senate? I'm pretty sure that's not an option available to witnesses at most other trials.
In a normal trial, the judge won't allow either the prosecution or defense to call a witness who is irrelevant to the case, and if either side asks a witness an irrelevant question, the other side can object and have the question disallowed.
__________________
'Tis a pity that I have no gravy to put upon Uncle Hymie.
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 03:53 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.

 
Copyright © 2017