Bringing up fabrications and lies almost certainly would disturb and upset Democrats. Because there’s zero evidence that either Biden or Obama attempted to pressure foreign governments to announce investigations into US citizen political opponents for their own personal political gain.
It’s amazing to me that the GOP position, even on this board, is swinging towards “yes he did it and it was glorious!”. I really thought that most of you would be opposed to such clear and obvious corruption as this.
Yup. Every word of this is false, except the part where you acknowledge that Republicans are defending Trump because he is a Republican.
I’d be flabbergasted if you even attempt to back up any of these other allegations, except that Trump has Republicans by the balls and they would eat dog food if instructed to.
This is exactly the “special pleading” that Shodan is referring to. You define the evil as something so narrow that only one person in the world, if he is guilty, could have possibly done it and then exclaim how uniquely awful such a thing is because only one person has done it. It’s an informal logical fallacy.
Left wing justices on the Supreme Court have perfected this to an art form when they announce “general principles” as a reason for their holdings.
There’s nothing even close to comparable. The GOP had the House for many years under Obama, and they never found anything close to Obama or Biden using their official powers for personal gain.
Obama didn’t do anything like this. Neither did Biden. Nothing has been put forward that comes close. And it’s not credible that the House GOP and Senate didn’t try their hardest to find such a thing (which is absolutely fine and appropriate for the opposition to search for).
This is a cite-free garbage post. Might as well say “liberals are poopy-heads”.
Right wing justices on the Supreme Court have perfected this to an art form when they announce “originalist principles” as a reason for their holdings.
Hey… I like this game. Let’s do another!
Biden’s kid who is a complete fuckup: no training or education in the energy field, has a crack cocaine issue, gets strippers pregnant and abandons his child. Are you suggesting that if his name was Hunter Ultravires he would have gotten that job? So there is at least smoke there…and it’s from a foreign power like Ukraine who depends on us for military aid. And getting your kid a job cannot be more personal. It has not even a fig leaf cover like Trump suggesting he was ferreting out corruption. This is a straight up personal political favor, after Biden had threatened to previously withhold aid.
Now, I don’t think Biden is corrupt. I’m just saying that this is par for the course. Perhaps it shouldn’t be. But everyone not named Trump gets away with these sorts of things all the time and throughout history…that is unless you define the evil in such a specific way that only Trump is guilty of it.
This phrasing is unfair to Biden. To say it doesn’t matter if he is guilty or not is to suggest there may be something he is guilty of, when no evidence of any crime has ever been shown.
It could also be a disaster. Since the Republicans have long suggested that Biden is indeed guilty of something, they would have to pursue that line of questioning when he is on the stand, otherwise they look foolish. But having no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, what the hell are they going to ask him about? As for what you suggest, surely they would try to make the point that Biden got the job because of his Daddy, etc, but I don’t think the American public is dumb enough not to know this kind of thing goes on all the time in politics, and in the end it’s not that big of a deal, especially given that the Republicans haven’t got shit on him otherwise.
As to the the stripper story, bringing that up in the context of Biden’s known issues with drugs and alcohol, this could look like gratuitous piling on, and make the Republicans look desperate. I don’t think that would be a good move at all.
Hunter Biden shouldn’t testify because anything he could say would be completely irrelevant to the questions at hand. The only reason to call him to testify would be to distract attention away from real questions.
If he actually did something wrong, then put him on trial for it, and call him to testify at that trial.
I strongly disagree. The reality is the Democrats could easily afford to have Joe Biden or Hunter Biden testify. (Yes, I noted how you switched from Hunter Biden to Joe Biden. Which demonstrates what this is really about.)
Republican calls to investigate Biden are no different than their calls to lock up Hillary. They’re just empty noise. The Republicans have nothing to back it up. The Republicans can’t to go to trial because at a trial, they’d be forced to show their hand and everyone would see they’ve been bluffing.
There’s no evidence against Hunter Biden. There’s no evidence against Joe Biden. There’s no evidence against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. The Republicans are lying and lying and lying and lying. And they’re going to keep on lying. Because there’s no penalty for lying as long as they never have to enter a courtroom.
There’s a massive difference between the Democratic accusations against Trump and the Republican accusations against everyone else. The Democrats can back it up. They’ve got evidence that proves Trump is guilty. The Democrats are not bluffing like the Republicans are. The Democrats are not lying like the Republicans are.
So this is a battle between the Republican’s ability to tell lies and the Democrats’ ability to tell the truth. Normally such a battle would favor the Republicans because they are really good at lying. But there’s the Trump factor; Trump is the exception to the Republican norm because while he lies all the time he’s really bad at it. Trump is the Republicans’ weakpoint. If the Democrats can maneuver Trump into a position where he has to speak under oath, he’s finished. He’ll fall and he’ll take a lot of other Republicans down with him.
And the other Republicans know this. Which is why they’re trying to take Donald Trump out of his own impeachment trial by throwing other names into it.
Does Roberts have any say so in the subpoenas? If the Republicans vote to subpoena HB, can Roberts just say “No. His knowledge is not material to the matter at hand.”?
Which is it? Do you have “evidence that proves Trump is guilty” or do you need more witnesses in order to prove the case? You side keeps saying both things. They both cannot be true.
There is as much evidence of criminality against Joe Biden as there is against Donald Trump. All you have is smoke and inferences. But as you see things through the tinted glasses, the inferences against Joe are small, petty, and really meaningless, but as you hate Trump and have always hated him with a passion, then every inference goes against him and it is perfectly clear that he did what you suspect.
We did this in the other thread with the “very fine people” on both sides comment. It is clear from the text that he didn’t say what your side said he did. It’s right there. When pressed on it, well, you just know what he meant even if he didn’t say it and expressly denied that was his intention, because Trump is just evil and you can feel it. That’s what Trump has put up with this entire time, and if this principle was applied generally, then every president gets impeached and removed.
Trump is being accused of extorting a foreign government for personal gain. Not of hiring his own family to serve in his own administration. So Trump is getting away with everything that Biden has gotten away with.
Yes Joe got him the job, the same way G.W. Bush got into Harvard because of his dad. But if we get all Trumpy about it then we have to say that these fathers (along with all other powerful fathers throughout history) committed bribery or extortion or abused their power and charge them under the federal bribery statute.
You don’t believe that Ukraine thought that there might be something in the pipeline for that job for Hunter? And we aren’t talking about box seats to the Yankees game; we are talking $50k/month. They didn’t pay to have someone in Joe’s ear?
While there are no doubt healthy doses of partisanship on both sides, surely you aren’t suggesting they exist in equal amounts, right? On one side, you have a simple and irrefutably correct argument that if you want to decide if someone should be thrown out of office, you should hear as much evidence as possible from both sides in order to make the best informed decision that you can. And on the other side, you have Republicans…