Senate trial witnesses

[Lance_Turbo]

@Wrenching_Spanners

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 is not what conflict of interest means.

[Ann_Hedonia]

@UltraVires

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.

Cite, counselor ?

Law enforcement officers get in legal trouble ALL THE TIME for using their LEO powers to pursue personal vendettas. Just because you’re a cop, even if you are Chief of Police, you can’t just investigate anyone you feel like.

[Ravenman]

@UltraVires

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.

You’re a lawyer. You’re certainly aware of the appointments clause in the Constitution. Are you asserting that Presidents can direct private individuals to exercise government power without being appointed to a position in government?

@Wrenching_Spanners

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.

It’s quite clear that you are misusing the term “conflict of interest,” but just for shits and giggles, please explain what specific responsibilities Hunter Biden had that came into conflict in this arrangement, and whether you see those as legal, fiduciary, ethical, or other responsibilities.

Bonus points: is the family member of any politician allowed to accept employment at all? Why isn’t all employment by family members of politicians – say, Mitch McConnell’s wife serving as a cabinet secretary, or vice versa, Elaine Chao’s husband serving as a senator, also a conflict of interest?

[Lance_Turbo]

@Ann_Hedonia

Cite, counselor ?

Law enforcement officers get in legal trouble ALL THE TIME for using their LEO powers to pursue personal vendettas. Just because you’re a cop, even if you are Chief of Police, you can’t just investigate anyone you feel like.

Please don’t go down this rabbit hole with him. It’s a distraction.

It’s not relevant whether or not it is legal for Trump to order an investigation in to any old thing (it isn’t). He didn’t order an investigation in this particular case so the question is moot.

[Jas09]

@iiandyiiii

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.

This may be true, but from what I’ve read it’s far from settled law. I have no doubt that Trump will try. And I can imagine a possible world in which the GOP Senators in question agree to a “Bolton for Biden” deal and then also vote to circumscribe Bolton’s testimony along lines agreeable to Trump/McConnell.

I also have very little confidence in the notion that Bolton is ready to blow up the Trump world - I think he just wants to be in the news before his book launches.

[Nobody]

@UltraVires

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.

So if the Republicans agreed to let the Democrats subpoena someone of their choice, providing that Hunter Biden also got subpoenaed, who do you think that would help more?

[Nobody]

@Robot_Arm

Yeah, if Trump is innocent, then Republicans (and Trump himself) should be anxious to get Bolton, et al., to testify and exonerate him.

Although, if allowed to testify, Bolton would probably turn out like the so called “moderate Republicans”, I.E. say the right things when it doesn’t matter, then toe the party line when it does

On the other hand, just the though of Bolton testifying has trump nervous and I almost think that alone would be worth trying to get him.

NPR

@Trump

He knows some of my thoughts. He knows what I think about leaders. What happens if he reveals what I think about a certain leader and it’s not very positive and that I have to deal on behalf of the country? It’s going to be very hard. It’s going to make the job very hard. He knows other things. And I don’t know if we left on the best of terms. I would say probably not, you know? And so you don’t like people testifying when they didn’t leave on good terms, and that was due to me, not due to him.

[Nobody]

@kayaker

What did the Bidens witness?

Wa wa wa waaaa

[Nobody]

@Wrenching_Spanners

Then why were the Bidens mentioned in the first sentence of the OP?

Because I’m talking about a hypothetical offer, where, to get a witness or two the Democrats want, they agree to a witness or two the Republicans want. And I’m curious which party people think such a deal would benefit more, if either, or if they think it would be a wash? What’s your opinion?

[MikeF]

@Wrenching_Spanners

Does the same principal apply to Biden (either one or both) testifying? They should be eager to exonerate themselves, right?

Exonerate themselves from what? Are they on trial, here?

[Robot_Arm]

@Nobody

Because I’m talking about a hypothetical offer, where, to get a witness or two the Democrats want, they agree to a witness or two the Republicans want. And I’m curious which party people think such a deal would benefit more, if either, or if they think it would be a wash? What’s your opinion?

Don’t the Republicans have a majority in the Senate? If they want to hear from John Bolton, or anyone else, they don’t need the Democrats permission; all they have to do is vote for it.

I think all the talk of bargaining to allow witnesses is the Republicans trying to weasel out of their responsibility. This way, they can have a trial without witnesses, and say afterwards “it wasn’t our fault, the Democrats wouldn’t make a deal with us to allow it.”

[MikeF]

@Wrenching_Spanners

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.)

Who has made this accusation? You? Trump? Normally, accusations (at least formal ones) are supported by evidence obtained by some official body or person. That isn’t the case here.

How you can make noise about Hunter Biden being unqualified for a position with a straight face while Trump puts his family members in senior positions is simply baffling. Not to mention the lack of Trump’s qualifications to be POTUS.

It is completely beyond me how people can be deluded into thinking Trump actually gave a rat’s ass about corruption in the Ukraine. There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim. I’d wager he couldn’t point to Ukraine on a map.

[guizot]

@UltraVires

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.

And impeachment-removal was put into the Constitution precisely to get rid of the presidents who use this discretion in particularly corrupt ways. Trump is the epitome of corrupt discretion, far removed from anything you can point to that Obama did. He’s led an entire life of fraud, and the founders knew that there would always be enough dipshit voters to be duped into electing such a person. It’s self-evident, and sooner or later everyone will have to admit it.

[Lightnin]

While I’d like to see Bolton testify under oath, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to get Trump up on the stand?

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Trump tells the Senate one thing and the courts another when it comes to witnesses: Trump tells the Senate one thing and courts another when it comes to witnesses | CNN Politics

[enipla]

@Lightnin

While I’d like to see Bolton testify under oath, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to get Trump up on the stand?

I don’t now, but it would be funny as shit to see.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@enipla

I don’t now, but it would be funny as shit to see.

I still regret Mueller didn’t take his live testimony under oath. Racking up future perjury charges - every minute or two, I’m guessing - would’ve been sweeeeet.

[Nobody]

@Robot_Arm

Don’t the Republicans have a majority in the Senate? If they want to hear from John Bolton, or anyone else, they don’t need the Democrats permission; all they have to do is vote for it.

I think all the talk of bargaining to allow witnesses is the Republicans trying to weasel out of their responsibility. This way, they can have a trial without witnesses, and say afterwards “it wasn’t our fault, the Democrats wouldn’t make a deal with us to allow it.”

Of course Republicans have all the power. And in reality they don’t want any witnesses. Also, Democrats recently shot down rumors about a Biden for Bolton deal, or anything similar.

That’s why this is a hypothetical. IF such a deal were struck, do dopers think it would benefit Democrats or Republicans more (or neither)?

[septimus]

@Wrenching_Spanners

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?

Are you even pretending to be serious? Jeremy Blaine of Wichita, Kansas has been accused of reckless driving. Should he be anxious to appear in the Senate trial to exonerate himself? Rudy G. also stands accused. Shouldn’t he therefore be anxious to appear? I accuse you of being unreasonable — are you anxious to appear?

:smack: Give us a break.