Why are the Democrats opposed to the Bidens testifying?

I'm sure Trump's counsel appreciates your wise and completely nonpartisan legal observations.

 

And he would absolutely do so, we have seen this with just about every legal case he has been involved in — delay, delay, delay...

 

how about this, if we can have the Trump, the Trump staff, Giuliani and Nunes and all the docs, then after they testify, the defense can call Biden, gonna be a waste of their time, but hey, if they want to make that deal, have at it

prosecution witnesses always go first

 

Do you really want me to cite the reasoning behind allowing an accused broad procedural discretion in their defense, including calling witnesses, when the stakes are of this magnitude? Don't hold your breath.

But it is an irrefutable legal fact and not opinion.

Uh. Yes.

 

you do realize this is not a criminal trial, this is just a trial to fire Trump over his crimes or not

and you and I both know Republican will not fire Trump, so lets just hear from the Trump staff and see the docs before Republican give Trump a Mulligan

if it was a criminal trial, Trump coordinating with the jurors, woudl be considered Jury tampering and any juror talking about their verdict before the trial started or talking to the defendent would be removed

 

And just like that, yet ANOTHER LW Irony Universe BANGS into existence!

 

Trolling will get you no where

 

FBI investigators visit Robert Hyde's home and office
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/politics/fbi-robert-hyde/index.html

For the same reason Repubs would object if Dems wanted to have Hyde testify. It would be a great way to embarrass Trump, just as dragging in Hunter Biden's past would be a way to embarrass Uncle Joe. Neither man's testimony having to do with the AoI.

An admittedly shady deal Hunter made to make money has no relevance to Don's impeachment. Just because some people believe batshyte crazy conspiracies theories doesn't mean they should become part of the Senate proceeding.

 

I am sure they will never receive them in a jurist paper.

 

As stated, that is irrelevant, the principles of justice require that any accused in any procedure, case, trial be allowed to mount a defense, including calling witnesses. And no, Trump, who has stated on numerous occasions he wants this process to go swiftly, would most certainly -not- try to call an endless list of witnesses.

That the Bidens' conduct in Ukraine is somehow irrelevant to this proceeding is some of the most dishonest, ignorant manure in a mountain of it I've ever seen LW post here in several years. Keep up with that, though, as I'm sure you will, voters are watching.

 

The Bidens are irrelevant to the case, but if trump wishes to call them I am sure they would be willing to work out a deal for Hunter and Joe to testify in exchange for trump’s sworn testimony. Might as well get him for perjury as well...
Deal?

No, it doesn’t — especially when it isn’t fact and cannot be proven.

“I killed this person because I thought they stole a candy bar even though there is no real evidence they did” — would be laughed out of court.

 

if it was a criminal trial, Trump coordinating with the jurors, woudl be considered Jury tampering and any juror talking about their verdict before the trial started or talking to the defendent would be removed

so do you want them removed and Trump charged with jury tamperng too?

like I said, prosecution goes first in a trial, lets get the Trump staff to testify and then see the docs, then the defense can call their witnesses

if Trump wants a fast trial, he will tell his staff to release the docs and that they can testify.... you know he will not do that

I will trade Nunes for Biden as witnesses, let's see what Nunes knows about Ukraine

 

Another foundation of our legal system is the 5th Amendment restrictions of self-incrimination, not surprised in the least that you aren't familiar with that 6th grade Civics topic.

Someone also doesn't understand the relationship between evidence/the weight of it and proof. Not surprised at that either.

As far as what would be "laughed out of court," that is generally the point, the fact finders decide and weigh the evidence as dispositive, convincing, frivolous, etc., but accused are given broad latitude in offering evidence that counters prosecution evidence of all elements.

But change your example above to "he raped and killed my daughter and wife in my house before I came home armed" and your internet legal education can -start- to get underway.

And thus endeth the lesson, for you or any of the others. It's like talking to children about things that adults take for granted.

 

So are you claiming that the Bidens have ESP or that they had conversations with Trump about his motives? Which is it?

Yes, this is a lot different. Just on its face and following the same principles. If you are going to bring in witnesses to establish your motive, they have to have some kind of knowledge about your motive. The Bidens no knowledge of Trump's motives. Motives which, as we've already seen, were obviously personal. The victim narrative fails once again, but it is the only tune Trump and his followers know.

 

I'd take that deal in a heartbeat!

 

If part of Trump's defense is that his motive and intent was to investigate corruption, whether or not such corruption reasonably existed is the -most- important facet of that part of the defense. The Bidens' knowledge of Trump's motives is irrelevant, as you well know, what is relevant is how reasonable Trump's beliefs about the Biden quid pro quos were. Testimony under oath by the Bidens would directly inform how reasonable Trump's beliefs were.

And not surprised to see a statist such as yourself arguing in such a specious way against the basic individual rights of an accused, any accused, as against -any- government inquiry. Par for the course for authoritarians.

 

I don't get it.
Even if biden testified and said "daddy threatened them with quid pro quo if they didn't pay me 50k a month", I still don't see how it has anything at all to do with trump. We already all know about the hypocrisy on the left and this won't matter one bit. What am I missing here?

 

No, whether or not the corruption actually existed would not establish whether or not it was his motive. The corruption could not exist and yet still be his motive, and vice-versa. Plus, his motive was personal.

And, ah, I see you still don't understand what Statism and Libertarianism actually mean. Not surprised to see and authoritarian like yourself rail against any and every potential check on the chosen one's power. (Hint: Libertarians actually like limits on power).

 

Relevance.

For the Senate’s sake I hope they’re not called it would make them appear clownish. However if that is the cost of hearing from relevant witnesses so be it.

 

I am in complete agreement with your point in bold letters here. You describe what McConnell & his Republican horde is attempting to do in the Senate right now. Every American who honors the law should be enraged. These actions by McConnell & his Republican sycophants will have the effect of elevating Trump above the law, & make him immune to persecution. For the first time in America's history, we will have a President who will not be subject to the same laws you & I are. If re-elected, that will give Trump a clear road toward enhancing his personal powers even more, threatening our republic, our democracy, & our Constitutional rights. Since McConnell announced his intent to disregard Trump's responsibility to the law & dismiss the charges from the impeachment in due course, I've felt like the entire Senate "trial" will become a farce. For McConnell, that's just another political "win." But McConnell is being just as irresponsible toward his oath of office as Trump has been to his, & both can damage our government, our Constitution & our grasp on individual rights, by their actions. Those who elected them need to take a hard look at them & their actions, & recognize the inherent dangers connected with them, & reconsider their voting choices for 2020, IF they truly care about the Constitution.

 

If the Bidens were reasonably relevant witnesses, you might have a point. They aren't, and you don't.

 

You are playing at judge and jury, then making wholly conclusory appeals based on partisan ___, not surprised, it's symptomatic. Yes, as weighed by the relevant fact-finders, and not you, whether or not Trump's belief in corruption was reasonable is a key prospective part of the defense because part of Trump's job description is investigating such corruption. OP covered this, and you have all been yammering at a wall since.

Yet you aren't advocating limits of power but limits on individual rights, the rights of an accused to defend themselves against government accusations, and therefore expansion of government power. That's the very essence of statist-authoritarianism in print for all to see. It sure isn't remotely "libertarian."

 

Strawman, yes I am aware, no trump then no Bidens. Watch.

In your scenario there is the fact of a crime — not just a simple accusation and prosecution would tale in account moments of temporary insanity due to the extreme nature of it. trump could probably plead insanity and it be believed however.

 

As adorable as it is that you apparently think I have the ability to convict Trump, I don't. And you still failed to address the facts.

Yes, I am.

That's because you are making up an "individual right" to call irrelevant witnesses. I don't have that power. You don't have that power. Trump shouldn't have that power. Making up special powers for Trump to protect his power hold is the very essence of statist-authoritarianism in print for all to see. It sure isn't remotely "libertarian."

 

Again, that's not your call to make. Accused are given broad latitude in introducing evidence, especially when the stakes are so high. This latitude extends most especially to the witness list and exculpatory evidence such witnesses may offer. The existence of actual governmental corruption, past, present, future... that the POTUS is tasked to investigate... is the most relevant prospective exculpatory evidence in this whole charade.

You lot would spin on a dime if this were Obama being impeached. My analysis would remain exactly the same. Telling.