That’s not a crime. And it is certainly not a crime committed by Joe Biden.
There is a clear and public record of the action Joe Biden took regarding the prosecutor. We know exactly why he took those actions, we know the results of those actions, and we know that nobody named Biden profited from those actions.
There isn’t even a coherent narrative for how this might have occurred.
I have to say, in my viewpoint as an independent, I don’t think that the OP has made a case as to why either of the Biden boys need to testify in DJT’s impeachment trial in the senate. “Why doesn’t he testify anyway if he has nothing to hide?” Like I noted earlier, I have nothing to hide in the OJ trial, or any of the upcoming trials for the people that have been caught being domestic terrorists in New England going after the Jewish folks there.
I would strongly suspect that he hasn’t/won’t be called because it would make the GOP look stupid. I wish we didn’t have a stupid GOP at the moment, but for whatever reason we do, so he might be called anyway.
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.
Do you think the impeachment trial should be some kind of bargaining session? I’ll trade you Pompeo’s testimony for Biden’s?
I believe that Trump may put forward a defence that his action’s in pursuing Biden for corrupt actions fell within his executive authority. If he does pursue that defence, then it’s relevant for the Senate to assess whether there were legitimate reasons for thinking that Biden was corrupt. Testimony of people familiar with Joe Biden’s words and actions towards Ukraine, including both Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, are therefore relevant if the Senate wishes to call them as witnesses. If Joe Biden is called as a witness, he can choose to comply with the instruction to testify, or seek to block it. If he does seek to block his own testimony, stating that Trump is trying to use him as a distraction, then I think the Senate, the courts, and the general public should be sceptical of his motivation.
Tamerlane’s point was that the process of testifying in a partisan environment can be damaging to the individual providing the testimony. I acknowledge that that is true. However, I don’t think it’s a one-sided truth. If it would be politically damaging for Joe Biden to testify, even if he had nothing to hide, then it should be acknowledged that it would be politically damaging for other witnesses before a partisan Congress to give uninhibited testimony. I brought up Kavanaugh because it was recent, and because several posters on this board were saying his lack of candor should disqualify him. I think the standard of expectation should be consistent, and not based on the side you’re on.
It is impossible to put forward such a defense without distorting the truth or outright lying.
That said, should we get to a point where Trump’s defense is in need of Biden’s testimony to be believable, then the Trump defense team has failed so badly at their jobs that conviction would be inevitable. I’m sure it won’t come to that point.
Not what happened. Biden, with other EU leaders’ backing, pressured Ukraine to get rid of its prosecutor who was known to be corrupt. There was no investigation of Hunter Biden, indeed the new prosecutor would have been more likely to investigate him if indeed there was anything to investigate.
What the Republicans should be asking is why neither Biden nor Obama was in the Oval Office on 9/11.
Wrong. The question is if Trump committed an impeachable offense by withholding congressionally approved aid to strongarm a vulnerable ally into announcing the investigation of a political opponent.
The actions of that opponent are irrelevant to this question.
Under oath, with standard penalty for perjury? Yes! Hell, yes! Goody gumdrops!
Now, Universe, I know I haven’t been a very good pantheist, but if You could just give me this one sign…
Even if we stipulate that an investigation of the Bidens is appropriate, it is NOT appropriate to carry out that investigation during the testimony phase of a different person’s actual trial. Which is exactly what your demand for Joe Biden’s testimony is an attempt to do.
Except that in the Kavanaugh instance, there were specific allegations that were being probed. Can you point to specific allegations that remain to be probed wrt either of the Bidens?
Can we stop with this “overriding the will of the electorate” bullshit?
Impeachment was included in the constitution for a reason
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.