Why are the Democrats opposed to the Bidens testifying?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by AmericanNationalist, Jan 16, 2020.

  1. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Partisan gibberish. Block quoted and nuff said.
     
  2. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Red part added by me.

    Anyways, the answer is simple. They want to make this entirely about Trump pressuring another country to influence the 2020 elections. That is the narrative that they want above all else. They do not want the narrative to be that its possible that Trump had a valid concern as that would, essentially, exonerate Trump and make impeachment be shown for what it is...a sham based on nothing more than their hatred of Trump. Letting either of the Biden's testify would lend credence to that possibility regardless of how they testified.

    Btw, your number 2 point is not going to win anything for the simple fact that it only takes a rumor to start any investigation be it from the lowest 250<> population town up to federal cases.
     
  3. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,132
    Likes Received:
    30,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Bidens have no knowledge of Trump's motives. And my opinion on the subject is of course my call the make. No one is braindead enough to believe that me expressing my POV is somehow robbing Trump or Congress of anything.

    If he hadn't routed this through his PERSONAL ****ING LAWYER, you might have a point. He did. You don't. Trump doesn't care about corruption. He's repeatedly let it skate by. He only cared when it looked like it could be politically useful, and he didn't go through the channels an honest President would . . . he sicked his PERSONAL ****ING LAWYER on it instead, and that lawyer admitted the motive was personal.

    As attached as you are to your fantasies, I advocated for Obama to go through impeachment hearings. You are projecting your hypocrisy onto others.
     
  4. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Keep repeating the above, won't make it true. What's irrelevant is any Biden knowledge of Trump's motives, that's a classic red herring you keep repeating. What is relevant is whether there were reasonable grounds to investigate them and whether their testimony could inform those grounds. Braindead? what's braindead is that the topic of this thread is a procedural issue, namely defense latitude to call specific witnesses, not the merits or conclusions of prospective fact-finders. You all keep arguing the merits over and over ad nauseum. This thread isn't about conclusions based on evidence, but on whether evidence is admissible. Do you not get that?

    More merits and red herring partisan screeching, no procedural argument.

    Dishonest, the topic is not impeachment generally, but procedural issues appurtenant to the impeachment. If Obama had been impeached under similar circumstances and it came to this aspect of procedure, you'd all be on the other side and furious if ANY witnesses Obama wanted to call were even objected to mildly, don't bother denying it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2020
  5. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    41,158
    Likes Received:
    20,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There's such a thing as a 'credible allegation'. One of the reasons that standing holds, is that theoretically the police departments/law enforcements don't have the resources to investigate every rumor under the sun, nor do we want them to do so.

    I'm okay with your edit, so long as it doesn't try to make me say something that I didn't say. But generally, I do agree with ModernPaladin about those kind of things, I prefer if my post were left alone normally but this is okay.
     
  6. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,132
    Likes Received:
    30,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lol . . . so they are important witnesses with regards to his motives . . . and they know nothing about his motives and claiming that a motive witness would know anything about motives is a "red herring." Jesus, this gets more hilarious by the minute.

    Your rich fantasy life is, if nothing else, entertaining. Once again, simply adorable. Keep projecting your hypocrisies onto others. I promise it won't ever get old.
     
  7. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    41,158
    Likes Received:
    20,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Let me more thoroughly explain: Trump's rationale/reasoning/excuse(put the excuse word in there for you, the Left since that's the position) is that he was investigating possible corruption by former VP Joe Biden. Joe Biden establishing that everything was on the up-and-up, is not a separate trial, but rather it would indict Trump in of itself.

    Or hell, call William Barr as a witness and have him testify as to what he knows about the current circumstances.
     
  8. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Called out for an obvious red herring... in response...repeats red herring again. Not surprised.
     
  9. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A lot of people believe it to be credible. But aside from that even what appears to be uncredible has been proven to be credible after an investigation. I get that cops don't have the resources to investigate everything so they try and triage. But a former VP? Possible corruption? That should be investigated even based on a rumor because it is a serious thing, even if the chances of it are next to 0.

    I rarely do that type of thing, when I do I ALWAYS make sure that everyone knows that I added whatever it is in so they can take it in proper context.
     
  10. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    how many jobs where an employee refuses to speak to hr about a possible crime and withholds all documents and prevents any witnesses from speaking to hr woudl not be fired?
     
  11. Crownline

    Crownline Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2016
    Messages:
    6,472
    Likes Received:
    6,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When you are losing the argument, start slinging insults.

    Joe Biden was Obama’s point man in Ukraine. If joe used his position to enrich his family with US aid, that’s relevant to trumps concerns, rival or no rival.

    I have no doubt US aid is ripe for skimming and corruption.
    I wouldn’t be surprised if this has been going on for years. The octaves climbed in the REEEE chorus when trump mentioned Biden tells me there is probably a there-there.
     
    TBLee likes this.
  12. Chester_Murphy

    Chester_Murphy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,503
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Agreed, which is why there should be no added witnesses at the Senate hearings. The HoRs can start a new impeachment inquiry if they feel there is more evidence of wrongdoing.
     
  13. Sandy Shanks

    Sandy Shanks Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    26,679
    Likes Received:
    6,470
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm all for it. Trump's witnesses will make him look foolish because there is nothing there. There is not even relevance to the case against Trump. I hope the Bidens get called.

    That is normal procedure in a trial.
     
    FreshAir likes this.
  14. Sandy Shanks

    Sandy Shanks Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    26,679
    Likes Received:
    6,470
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In other words, Joe may have been instrumental in Hunter being hired by Burisma.

    In the first place that is not a crime, not corruption. Perhaps poor judgment, but that's it.

    In the second place, that kind of thing has been going on since the Roman Empire. You are just learning about the practice? It is called nepotism, and it has been around for centuries.

    In the third place, want proof? Jared Kushner and his wife, Ivanka. The son-in-law and daughter are a part of the Trump government. If you tell me they are not making any money as relatives of the President, I will lose all respect for you. I mean, nobody could be that stupid.
     
  15. Crownline

    Crownline Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2016
    Messages:
    6,472
    Likes Received:
    6,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you insulting me?
     
  16. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump could take that to his DOJ or his FBI if he believed that, he can not ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival by holding up aid and a meeting unless they "announce" an investigation

    Trump could of even took to twitter and attacked Biden himself

    but instead Trump decided to do something impeachable... stupid President
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2020
    cd8ed likes this.
  17. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,825
    Likes Received:
    32,493
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It’s not an insult — it is factual.

    If anyone believe a man that has had numerous business and organizations closed for fraud and corruption (he stole from a charity for christ’s sake) just happened to want to find corruption and just happened to want to start in Ukraine and just happened to specifically target a political opponent who had just happened to announce their candidacy against him then they are preforming so much mental gymnastics they should lose the right to own a firearm as they are insane.

    Thankfully, none of you actually believe the above, you are just covering for for orange GEOTUS by any means necessary — even if it means sacrificing your own credibility.
     
  18. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,825
    Likes Received:
    32,493
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When you have no argument just start screaming everyone is attacking you ;)
     
  19. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,825
    Likes Received:
    32,493
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry, the turtle and impeached president have no way of making that happen, witnesses will be called as they do not have the votes within their own party to prevent it.

    Only 18 Republicans are needed to convict and we went from zero to potentially six in a matter of a few weeks with several legal organizations and governmental agencies demanding several Republicans recuse themselves for collusion — wonder how many we might have by the time it domes down to a vote?
     
  20. StillBlue

    StillBlue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    13,002
    Likes Received:
    14,650
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did the investigation of Trump's quid pro quo begin in the Ukraine? No. Why? Because it was American laws that were violated, not Ukrainian. Why would anyone expect the Ukrainian's to investigate possible violations of US laws when the US itself was not investigating? Cooperate with a US investigation sure but not lead one.
    The only reason to send Rudy to get the Ukrainian government to announce an investigation was so he could bedazzle his rallies with "lock him up" chants. Worked wonders with the yet again exonerated Clinton. Why meddle with success?
     
  21. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I suspect the concern is that it would be a distraction, publicly, political and judicially, shifting the focus on to the allegations against the Bidens when this case is about allegations against Trump. I’m sure the Democrats would object regardless of whether it was legitimate (just as Republicans would demand it regardless of whether it was legitimate) but I think they happen to be right, even if it’s on a “stopped clock” basis.

    It doesn’t actually matter whether either of the Bidens were actually guilty of anything, the manner in which Trump is accused of trying to manipulate the process would be wrong regardless so the only relevant evidence relates to what he did or didn’t do. Actual legitimate investigations in to the Bidens and the related businesses could be legitimate too but they would and should be separate from the Presidential impeachment.
     
  22. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    41,158
    Likes Received:
    20,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't see it as a distraction in anyway, to definitively prove or disprove whether or not there was merit in investigating the Bidens. Having a statement from them under oath(backed with whatever evidence they'd wish to provide) would go a very long way in answering this question. In order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that means eliminating all such doubts. The doubt that Trump raises(like it or not) is that he felt compelled to investigate the Bidens.

    Proving that there was nothing to investigate, would be a slam dunk for the Democratic House managers. It's Democrats who should feel more compelled to get Biden testimony.
     
  23. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It would certainly be a media and political distraction, which is what this is all about from all sides anyway.

    I don’t see how. Whatever they actually did and whatever evidence of that is available now is irrelevant. The question of whether it would be a legitimate investigation can only be based on what was known at the time. If anything, introducing evidence that wasn’t known at the time adds undue confusion.

    Anyway, the accusation against Trump isn’t that investigating the Bidens and the Ukrainian companies they’re were linked to wasn’t legitimate but that the manner in which he tried to make that investigation happen wasn’t legitimate. It’s like if a police officer is accused of planting evidence. It doesn’t matter if the target turned out to be guilty anyway, especially if the officer couldn’t know they were guilty at the time, the officer’s actions would be equally wrong regardless.
     
  24. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    41,158
    Likes Received:
    20,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Specifically, the idea that he withheld the aid to pressure the Ukrainians(though the Ukrainian President/PM have said that that's not true.). And Sondland's comments on "do the right thing" are certainly going to be used by the defense(among other things that they may be privy too.)
     
  25. LoneStarGal

    LoneStarGal Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    15,050
    Likes Received:
    18,807
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If Joe Biden is asked, "Were you aware that Mikola Zlochevsky, Government Ecology Minister, Head of Burisma, and owner of one of Ukraine's largest banks was siphoning off millions of dollars and laundering them through offshore accounts?"

    If he answers "Yes", he looks stupid for not holding our funds until that corruption was investigated.

    If he answer "No", he looks incompetent for being the U.S. point person who was giving our U.S. tax dollars to a country where that oligarch and others should have been investigated.

    Forget the fact that he should have recused himself as point person because his son was helping the corrupt oligarch, or that he's a lousy father for not trying to warn his son away from enriching himself through an extremely corrupt company.

    ---
    The Democrats' best chance to beat Trump, Joe Biden: "I didn't know he was on the board of that company. And, in fact, no one has asserted on the board that it illegal for him to be on the board or he did anything wrong."

    WOODRUFF (PBS journalist): "But, if you had known, would you have said, don't, or would you have believed — said, this is wrong?"

    BIDEN: "No, it's not wrong."
    ---

    Meh. Either way, Biden looks incompetent. It's not surprising they don't want him on the stand. The less he says the better for his chances.
     

Share This Page