I’m sure he’s “just asking questions.”
Like I said, beyond this point, I’m calling that poster a liar.
Bullshit hypothetical.
There is no reason to believe that this happened. In fact, I don’t think anyone is even suggesting that this happened.
Yes.
If it was a violation of American law, there is an entire American justice department qualified to investigate.
It’s like asking, “If the hoodlum is a petty thief, is it still inappropriate for the police chief to ask a rival gang member to punish him?” A legitimate response would have gone through legitimate channels.
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.
Yeah, and what it Joe Biden murdered this prosecutor to cover up Hunter Biden’s child sex ring at a DC pizza shop?
I mean, as long as we are going into fiction, we ought to make it interesting.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Yes. On the other hand, I think Trump probably has something to hide. Care to continue the analogical comparison between Trump and Biden?
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.
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.
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 Ukraine’s leaders to tackle the rampant corruption that made their country a risky bet for international lenders — and pushing reform of Ukraine’s cronyism-ridden energy industry.
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 country’s investigators to obtain the evidence.
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, it’s valid to ask both Bidens, Joe and Hunter to testify as to what was going on. And, as stated before, and respecting Tamerlane’s reply, if nothing was going on, then either Biden, but especially Joe, should provide the asked-for testimony.
It’s blatantly apparent that Hunter Biden was hired by the Ukranian company Burisma for his connections. Hunter’s career was as a lobbyist and a business facilitator. In 2014, Burisma’s 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 President’s son. Go ahead and believe the claim stated in Wikipedia that Biden was hired to “help Burisma with corporate governance best practices”. Hunter Biden - Wikipedia Try not to believe the emails you receive from Nigerian businessmen claiming they’ll make you rich if you do them just a little favour. But if you believe the first, you’ll 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? I’ve no idea and apparently there’s no smoking gun. But there’s 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 Biden’s son. That’s 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.
Other posters were bringing up Benghazi, Pizza-Gate, and for some reason lizard-men. I’m just trying to join in in the spirit of the occasion.
Gee, in a thread I started about Joe Biden, I’m discussing Joe Biden. Who would have thought?
You’re avoiding the question. Please answer “yes” or “no” or I will have to interrupt you again.
And what about Pompeo, Mulvaney, and others who are already ignoring subpoenas? Should they be prosecuted for contempt of Congress?
What relevance would his testimony have? In other words, what wrongdoing do you believe he has evidence of?
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).
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.”