My point is that Hunter Biden going to work for a Ukrainian company was dodgy as Hell, and the assertion that there is no evidence that the Bidens were involved in corrupt practices in false. I acknowledge there is no smoking gun that would support a criminal conviction, but the situation was certainly dubious enough to be investigated. Want more evidence? Go read the NYTimes article cited earlier. Obama administration officials confronted Joe Biden about the impropriety of his son working for Burisma. Later, from Edward C. Chow, an expert on geopolitics and energy policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan Washington think tank opined: “And having his son doing what he did was a distraction that undermined his message.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/us/politics/joe-biden-ukraine.html
Trump wanted the Bidens investigated for corruption, and yes he wanted a public announcement of that investigation. Repeating myself, so maybe you’ll read it this time, Trump may offer as his defence in the impeachment trial that calling for an investigation and requesting that it was announced were within the bounds of his executive authority. That then raises the question of whether it was reasonable to pursue the Bidens for corruption. If the Senate wants to address that question, then they have the right to so, and that includes calling witnesses to testify, which includes the Bidens.
This isn’t just throwing out facts as a distraction. It’s an argument I’ve been making throughout this thread, backing it up with cites and substance. Something you’re not doing.
Would you like to say something about Kavanaugh’s adequacy to be a Justice, given how he handled himself under not-particularly-difficult questioning by the U.S. Senate?
And by the way, what do you think Biden should be asked, were he to testify?
And even after you agree that my summary is more accurate, you continue to flog this notion that Trump was impeached for pursuing an investigation of the Bidens. This is false. He was impeached for using congressionally approved funds as leverage to make Ukraine conduct that investigation.
It’s not mere verbosity, it’s a crucial difference. The question that needs to be settled:
[ul]
[li]is NOT: Can a president investigate a rival?[/li][li]is: Can a president withhold funds as leverage to get a foreign nation to investigate a rival?[/li][/ul]
In which case, whether the target of that investigation deserves investigation is utterly irrelevant.
If you continue to misrepresent the nature of the behavior for which Trump was impeached I can’t see why anyone here would bother to continue to engage you.
I’ll be happy to keep engaging him, if everyone else wants to leave. Yes, I will heroically sacrifice my time to spare everyone else.
So, Wrenching Spanners, what do you think Biden should be asked, were he to testify? I’ll even expand on it a little - is the impeachment trial an appropriate place to investigate allegations of corruption on the part of Joe and/or Hunter Biden?
Stressing the importance of Congress not “overriding the will of the electorate” is exactly the opposite of bullshit. Impeachment of the President is probably the most serious action Congress can take short of a declaration of war. Nixon deserved to be impeached and convicted over Watergate if he hadn’t resigned. Bill Clinton didn’t deserve to be impeached over a blow job. The partisan actions of the Republicans in the Clinton impeachment created a precedent that many Democrats have wanted to exploit since Trump was elected. That’s the bullshit. The House of Representatives should have had an iron-clad, irrefutable, inarguable case against Trump before they passed the articles of impeachment. Instead, they took the best shot they thought they were going to get, and passed the articles knowing they were never going to get past the Senate. Their impeachment of Trump is every bit as much of a farce as the Republican impeachment of Clinton. And now both sides are strategising about how to get the maximum impact from the Senate trial, doing the maximum possible damage to the other side. Which is even more bullshit.
This is supposed to be a trial over the removal of the President of the United States from office. It’s a hugely serious matter that should concern and dismay every American. But a politician who’s named in the Articles of Impeachment says he won’t testify because it will be a distraction. Joe Biden’s bullshit is just the cherry on top of the whole bullshit sundae. It’s pathetic.
You’re focusing on one part of the articles of impeachment, I’m focusing on another. I agree that if the impeachment was solely about the withholding of aid from Ukraine, there would be no point to Biden’s testimony. But that’s not how the House of Representatives drafted their case. They listed the corrupt solicitation as a separate item:
That item seems to me to be the equivalent of an individual charge in an indictment containing multiple charges.
As to what the Senate should ask Joe Biden about:
Did he ever discuss with Ukrainian officials corruption at specific Ukrainian companies?
If so, was Burisma one of those companies?
Further questions about his engagement/non-engagement into inquiries about Burisma based on the above two questions.
Was he aware of the conflict of interest posed by Hunter Biden taking a high-paying job at Burisma while Joe Biden, as Vice-President of the United States, was acting against corruption in the Ukraine?
Was he aware that the Vice President’s son at Burisma was potentially sending a signal to Ukranian officials that Burisma was out-of-bounds for corruption investigations?
What actions did he take to mitigate the conflict of interest or the possibility of an out-of-bounds signal?
Did he ever have any discussions with Hunter about Ukrainian corruption?
If so, was Burisma ever mentioned in those discussions?
Biden claims that he maintained a firewall with his son such that Hunter never discussed his lobbying activities and Biden never discussed any of his political activities that might involve his son’s business clients. If that’s true, then he should easily be able to handle any questions from the Senate related to corruption in Ukraine, or Hunter’s position at Burisma.
Right. There was so little conflict of interest that Biden’s aides were totally unbothered by it. Oh Wait:
–From the same NYTimes article.
But okay, you explain to me how Hunter Biden’s employment at Burisma was totally based on merit and an outstanding track record of improving corporate governance at Ukrainian energy companies.
The conflict of interest is by itself evidence of the potential of corruption. I’ve already stated it’s not a smoking gun. But it certainly begs the question of what Burisma was paying Hunter Biden for?
IANAL, but the line about Biden is **not **a “separate item”:
President Trump—acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government—corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into—
(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and
(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.
It’s just a detail describing one of the targets of the investigations which Trump allegedly pursued corruptly. (Hence the A, and not a 2.) The “corruptly” is the key point – not the “solicited … investigations.” And all your questions which seek to validate the reasons for the investigations don’t make Trump’s means of pursuing them any less corrupt.
It’s an argument. It’s not a *good *argument, though.
Would it not have been a more prudent course of action to have the DoJ and FBI open an investigation into the Bidens. I mean, what’s more damaging to your political opponent than to have it known that he and his son is being investigated by top crime investigation agencies of the US government? Particularly since there are previously standing “concerns” on record about this very issue. Surely, Barr would have launched a domestic investigation if he thought there was something to be gained politically.
But that didn’t happen, did it? Instead, Trump chose to extort a statement about an investigation from a foreign government. He chose to do so over the objections of his cabinet: Bolton, Pompeo and Esper.
Now, why do you suppose Trump chose not to leverage the considerable power of his government to destroy his political opponent, and instead chose to coerce a foreign government’s involvement? Is it possible that he did so out of desperation because he was told that there was no case to be made through legitimate means?
Wouldn’t it be glorious, though? Within five minutes, Trump would give them enough material to immediate re-impeach him on perjury charges. Can the House amend the original impeachment or would they have to file a new one?
Lets step back to the kind of things defense lawyers would tell their clients. Never submit to an optional search of your vehicle is one of those normal pieces of advice. You may think you have nothing to hide but you cant really say what that friend of a friend dropped out of their pocket and lost under the seat 9 months ago. (Police will even sometimes try the “you’ve got nothing to hide, right?” card.) Even if they find nothing the delay costs you your time and possible embarrassment when people you know see by the side of the road. Testifying before Congress would have opportunity costs for his presidential campaign.
Then there is answering police questions, especially without a lawyer to advise whether you answer a given question. That is true even if you are completely innocent. Misremember some detail or phrase an answer awkwardly and suddenly they have evidence that they can bring up in a court of law against you to make it look like you are lying. If you aren’t careful you can talk yourself into looking guilty, and maybe a conviction, even if you genuinely are innocent. Biden potentially has a lot to lose even if he is innocent. Remember there are people calling for his actions to be criminally investigated.
Now Biden shouldn’t just ignore a subpoena. Lawyer up and take it to court. Trump has been claiming broad executive privilege including for those no longer in his administration. Biden’s lawyers may well be able to jump on the exact same arguments being presented to keep people like Bolton from testifying before the House. It is like Trump tried to set up Biden’s legal argument for him. Well see how far SCOTUS lets executive privilege be a shield from Congressional subpoena later this year.
I can see this working out for Biden if he makes sure to include in every response a reference to how much Trump is being a pussy, unable to face him in a fair fight.
I consider the prospect of Biden being called to testify. But doesn’t that open up the proceedings to further testimony? If one witness is called, why not others?
Well, why not, indeed! Which causes me to wonder, how might Il Douche prevent testimony he would find…unhelpful?
But, of course! The miracle of Executive Privilege, that central pillar of the Constitution, which holds that the President is not above the law, but simply exempt! He is (Trump), within the parentheses, he is untouched by the constraints of the law. Biden is merely an ex-Vice President and Senator, he can be compelled to speak. Pompeo, Guilliani, and others, they are touched with the grace of (Trump), that radiant Executive Privilege.
Naturally, my next thought follows, that this is utter nonsense. No such argument could be made, no reasonable person would accept it, its dumber than a sack of wet mice. That witnesses can be called, but (Trump) decides which can be permitted to speak?
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot! No one would dare present such a callow absurdity for serious consideration!
Impeachment for high crimes and constitutional violations does not override the “will of the electorate” who voted against Tramp. Ms Clinton needed a greater supermajority than she received, to balance the rigged US electoral system that theoretically allows a candidate with 29% of popular votes to take the White House. Tramp won the game. The election is not being challenged; the criminal acts of the incumbent are.
I don’t argue with your conclusion, only the assumption that the 2016 election reflected American voters’ will - those voters not disenfranchised nor suppressed. Yes, the House prosecutors SHOULD be able to present full evidence. No, Moscow Mitch won’t allow that.
Back to topic: No Biden has any role in the trial. Of course GOPs will fling shit anyway.