This is just shockingly harmful bullshit. The President isn’t God-Emperor – he actually has to follow the law. And he swore an oath to put the interests of the country over his own. Bribery is illegal, both offering and soliciting.
It’s not credible that Trump did this for any purpose other than his own personal political benefit. No more than arguing that the women Cosby raped consented to being drugged and having their bodies used by him.
From Political Wire (but subscription only column):
So Democrats continue to press for witnesses, Republicans continue to block, Democrats say “Why are Republicans refusing the will of the American people regarding conducting a fair trial?” Eventually more and more info will come out as well through other channels and each time is an opportunity to ask a GOP senator up for re-election why he or she refused to hear from these witnesses when they could have learned this critical information during the trial instead of after.
It doesn’t matter, in the end, because even if 4 GOP Senators vote to subpoena witnesses, Trump will just claim executive privilege and block them from testifying. The Senate won’t wait around for the courts to adjudicate the issue any more than the House did. Any deal of “Biden for Bolton”(which I think Democrats are smart to avoid anyways) is moot since there is 0% chance Trump will let Bolton testify.
McConnell will probably even allow a few of them (Collins and Gardner in particular) to vote in favor of witnesses to give them some cover in their re-election races (assuming they feel that they can survive the wrath of the right in their states). The path here is pretty much set (barring new evidence, of course) and for McConnell it’s just a matter of how to protect Trump while throwing his at-risk Senators a bone here and there to make them seem “deliberative and serious”.
Bolton can just show up… he’s not a WH employee. I don’t know if he would, but he could, and I’m not sure if there’s anything the WH could do to stop him.
You can’t spell hypocrisy without GOP.
Does the same principal apply to Biden (either one or both) testifying? They should be eager to exonerate themselves, right?
Your extremely weak argument relies on the idea that Trump asked Zelensky to investigate something. Whether or not it is a legitimate use of executive power to ask a foreign government to investigate a US citizen is not relevant because that’s not a thing that happened.
The ‘deliverable’ for this scheme was for Zelensky to publicly say things to bolster two debunked conspiracy theories. The first being the completely nonsensical idea that Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor for the purpose of enriching Hunter Biden. The other being that it was Ukraine, as opposed to Russia, that attacked the US electoral process in 2016. Neither of these conspiracy theories stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.
I understand why you want to shift the battleground to something like, “Is it illegal for the President to order an investigation?” But the President did not order an investigation in this case so that question is moot.
The question we’re dealing with here is, “Is it a high crime for the President to bribe a foreign government to smear a political rival using taxpayer money?”
They’re not on trial.
He’s explicitly not allowed to withhold funds as a bargaining tool in this case. You don’t have a king, you know.
They’re not in impeachable offices. Also, the principle of exoneration doesn’t apply only to trials. The Biden’s have certainly been accused of wrongdoing. Shouldn’t they be anxious to exonerate themselves from those accusations of wrongdoing?
If they are, there’s plenty of avenues available to them besides participating in a sham trial run by people desperate to tear them down. So I don’t know why they’d choose that option. If they’re feeling “anxious”, there’s always 20/20.
They have already been exonerated by even the most casual examination of the accusations against them.
There is not even a coherent narrative in which one of them came anywhere near committing a crime in this matter.
So you’re basically saying that Robot Arm was wrong in post #15. Thought so. Thanks.
No, but you seem more interested in winning silly word games so go on with your bad self victory 
Exonerate themselves from what? Neither is on trial and there’s no evidence of anything to accuse them of. To the extent that there’s innuendo (“they’re paying Hunter Biden a lot of money, what’s up with that?”) that’s already been countered by facts.
And, lest we forget, the impeachment trial (and this thread) are about Trump’s guilt or innocence, not the Bidens’.
No, no… Trump’s interest in full witness participation in a trial to determine if he’s removed from office is exactly the same thing as whether or not Hunter Biden wants a bunch of GOP hacks to grill him just to prove some nebulous point. No possible way to have one without the other.
The accusation against Hunter Biden is that he engaged in a massive conflict of interest, receiving large amounts of money to work in an industry where he had no experience, in a country with corruption problems, for a company under investigation for corruption, while his father was the most prominent international figure involved in addressing Ukrainian corruption. That accusation is 100% justified and there is no rational argument against it. Hunter Biden was hired into a corrupt situation because of who he knew, and the person he knew that he had the most influence with was Joe Biden. The question is if Hunter was just a prominent, connected person whose presence could be used by Burisma to influence others, or if he personally engaged in efforts to lobby politicians and other involved parties in ways that crossed the line into outright corruption. I agree there’s no smoking gun that Hunter Biden engaged in criminal corruption. However, he certainly put himself into a place where his actions should be investigated.
The accusation against Joe Biden is that he was aware of his son’s conflict of interest, which Joe’s own aides have substantiated is true, and that he took no actions to avoid improper interactions with his son. That’s not illegal, but it certainly is unsavoury, especially for someone running for President. It also leads to a connect-the-dots situation where, if an investigation found that Hunter Biden had committed corrupt actions, Joe Biden would be implicated as a subject of, and possible participant in, those actions.
Unless/until either of the Bidens is called to testify before the Senate, this is a digression from the OP’s purpose for the thread, which is to have an ongoing discussion of the impeachment trial. If you want to discuss the Biden’s in relation to the impeachment trial, feel free to revive the thread from last year. (I might actually have time to start responding again.)
Then why were the Bidens mentioned in the first sentence of the OP?
What did the Bidens witness?
Missed edit window. I meant to say that I don’t want to hijack this thread into a rehash of the Biden testimony thread. The “ongoing discussion of the impeachment trial” is another thread. This thread is obviously about Senate witnesses. Sorry if I’m sowing confusion.