When talking about witnesses Republicans want to get people like Joe and Hunter Biden so they can try and make the Bidens look corrupt and so justify what Trump did.
But let’s say that the Democrats say something along the line of, “We’re fine with you subpoenaing Hunter Biden* if we can subpoena John Bolton.” (or Mick Mulvaney, or take your pick).
Now this question is obviously a guess, but do you think that the possible damning evidence someone like Bolton could give would overcome the Republican’s attempts to use Hunter to confuse and obfuscate the facts? Would it be a wash? Or would it be a victory for the Republicans.
This assumes that the White House doesn’t stonewall and allows whoever’s subpoenaed to appear before the Senate.
As for me, regardless of who the Democrats got, even Bolton, I would expect a lot of claims of executive privilege. If the lawyers for the Democrats think that they could get damning information despite those claims, I think it would be worth it. Otherwise not.
I’m excluding Joe because in addition to being pointless, it would take him off the campaign trail. And even though he’s not my choice for the primaries, I don’t want to help the Republicans in any way.
It’s not going to happen. The Democrats are banging their heads against a brick wall here and it’s only going to make them look even MORE incapable of getting what they want. When they asked the candidates in the last debate if they felt that Trump might appear “vindicated” in the wake of this impeachment and whether they thought it would make the election more of an uphill battle, they all shrugged it off very cavalierly. But they’re wrong, IMO.
Is this for “fairness”? Bizarre. Especially since it isn’t Hunter who is on trial. Especially especially since Hunter’s guilt or absence thereof is irrelevant to the impeachment charges.
GOP behavior, as well as comments by their supporters, remind me of 4th-graders squabbling on a playground.
Of course it matters. If Hunter Biden is guilty of violating the FCPA, then that is evidence that Trump was doing his job to take care the the laws are faithfully executed. Even if he is not guilty, Trump can still investigate. And he can do it how he deems fit, not how posters on the SDMB deem fit.
Trump choosing not use the legitimate investigative tools at his disposal and instead trying to bribe Zelensky to smear Biden with taxpayer money is proof that he was not doing his job to take care that the laws are faithfully executed even if Biden is guilty. In fact, it’s worse if either Biden guilty.
Good news for Trump is that this has been thoroughly investigated and it is clear that neither Biden is guilty of anything.
No it’s not, not even close. If Trump was concerned about law-breaking by a US citizen, he would have referred this to US law enforcement. There’s no legitimate reason for asking a foreign government – especially one known for corruption – to announce an investigation into a US citizen political rival.
He didn’t investigate. That’s the whole point. He tried to pressure a foreign government (and one known for corruption) to announce an investigation into a US citizen political rival.
I’m fine with Hunter Biden being called, because it’s irrelevant, and it can further demonstrate the “LOOK A MONKEY” tactics used by the Republicans. On the other hand, getting Bolton and Giuliani to testify is key.
Bolton, Rudy and Mick obviously have firsthand knowledge of events that would have probative value. Who knows, maybe it is exculpatory.
Other than your political bias, by what measure do you judge that two of these witnesses should not testify?
ETA: also, I think you need to pick a theory of why Hunter is bad and stick with it for more than six seconds. It started off as Hunter being the one who was paid obscene amounts of money for REASONS!!! and now you’re saying that Hunter was bribing some foreign company. Come on. Seriously, this is the Trumpist version of the pee tape: the Red Hats have it in their mind that Hunter must be up to no good, yet there’s no evidence of it. How well as the hunt for the pee tape gone? In some respects, better than the hunt for evidence of Biden corruption, I suppose.
Tactically, I don’t care if Biden testifies. There’s no legitimate reason for it, but it’s politics, and this is a political process, so if that’s what it takes to get Bolton, then fine with me. And I couldn’t care less if it hurts him during the primary.
So it matters if Hunter Biden is guilty, but, even if he’s not guilty, Trump didn’t do anything wrong. Think about that for a minute.
If Trump didn’t do anything wrong whether Biden is guilty or not, then you have just admitted that Biden’s guilt is irrelevant to the trial. And you are correct.
Where you err is in the part you take for granted–that Trump was doing his job investigating. The evidence we have shows Trump trying to withhold Congressionally approved aid to Ukraine contingent on Ukraine coming up with something against Hunter Biden. That’s not an investigation. That’s usurping the power of Congress and paying Ukraine to find or make up stuff to help him win a political election.
The President cannot do as he sees fit, any more than anyone else. He has constitutional restrictions. He has to follow the law. And the allegations are that he did not do so. The actual transcript of the call confirms
None of this has anything to do with Hunter Biden.
Counterpoint: The refusal of the GOP to allow any witnesses (and amendments to the trial rules, etc) makes it look more and more like a show trial. Which it is, of course, but it gives Democrats additional ammunition against vulnerable Republican senators to say that they refused to hear witnesses or accept evidence, etc. The GOP strategy during the House proceedings were to conflate them with a criminal trial and bemoan the lack of due process, etc. Now the Democrats will go a similar route and ask how McConnell’s trial can possibly be considered legitimate when they refused basic things like witnesses.
Obviously Trump isn’t going to be removed from office by this crop of senators but Democrats can blunt the “vindication” angle by leaning into the kangaroo court proceedings.
This “referral to U.S. law enforcement” argument: Trump IS the U.S. law enforcement. He is under no obligation to follow the precedents of prior presidents. He is under no obligation for follow best practices as defined by anyone. He is under no obligation to respect the burgeoning increase of the federal government with teat suckling one to another. He IS the executive branch.
If he wants to ask my drunk brother in law to investigate a bank robbery, that’s his job, and the way he does it is to his discretion, much like how Obama used his discretion to only punish certain illegal immigrants. The Prez is the Prez.
The optics of the scenario still favor the Republicans. They refused to allow witnesses because they can. They still look like the brick wall and the Democrats still look like eggs thrown against it.
Right. The question is how to frame the optics. Nothing is going to make McConnell hold a real trial but they can make it look more obvious that nothing will make McConnell hold a real trial. Quietly acquiescing isn’t going to get them anything. “It’s a sham trial and we… uhh… sat quietly through it and went along…”