Biden and Bolton BOTH should have to testify.

[RVonse]

Learn your Constitution!

This isn't a Biden-Trump trial. It's a Constitutional impeachment trial where Trump has to defend himself. Therefore, Biden doesn't NECESSARILY have to be a witness even if he or his son or the combination of the two are guilty of some kind of corruption. Twitler used his office and taxpayer funds to go after a political opponent, regardless of guilty, which is at minimum a conflict of interest but since it involves way more, it's worse--bribery and treason against democracy itself.

Now supposing that Bidens are reasonably guilty of something, then they have a different legal process for discovering this. Such evidence needs to comply with the 4th amendment inasmuch as it applies to national boundaries and persons. That means investigators write up subpoenas involving probable cause for items/documents that are specified and the right people are informed so that the Biden(s) can defend themselves in a court of law later. That court of law has a DIFFERENT set of procedures than a Presidential impeachment trial.

End of Story!

It isn't a Biden-Trump trial but Biden is very relevant to it all. If you believe Trump, his conversation with Ukraine was to further uncover Biden corruption and mis-deeds which was already in the public domain before Trump was POTUS. Yes, it is true that Biden is now a possible democrat candidate for POTUS himself. But in Trumps eyes, it is a campaign promise to investigate all kinds of corruption including Biden and son. In the strict legal since, there is a conflict of interest but since there is only one POTUS there would be no way for a POTUS to recuse himself of this duty.

At least that is Trump's argument. And it is a very compelling argument IMO.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why would Biden have to testify? He doesn't actually have anything to do with this outside of Russian propaganda.

I get that you've all sold your country to Putin, but maybe try and be a little discreet about it?

Yeah. What relevant question could they ask of Biden?

 

[RVonse]

Also Giuliani, and others.


Both sides, Reds and Blues, are liars -- both Trumpsters and Trump-haters. Both want to cover up the truth and prevent witnesses who would hurt their side in the impeachment proceedings.

Anyone honest wants ALL witnesses to testify, be subpoenaed if necessary, no matter which side is hurt -- and all testimony heard, including that relating to the Biden corruption.

If the Bidens were forced to testify, and also the Republicans who directly heard Trump speak his quid-pro-quo, then it's likely both Trump and Biden would be proved guilty. I.e.,

Trump guilty of abusing his office, as charged -- Biden guilty of influence-peddling.​

Even if influence-peddling is not officially a criminal violation and no criminal prosecution is possible, still this abuse of office is a relevant part of the impeachment case and should be exposed and condemned rather than swept aside or covered up to prevent embarrassment to Biden. His quid-pro-quo to have a Ukrainian investigator fired, serving his personal benefit, is an abuse of the Vice Presidential office similar to Trump's quid-pro-quo (even if it's not "the same").

It's appropriate for ALL corruption on either side to be exposed. It is proper for any abuses of power or violations related to the case to be exposed, even though not officially being prosecuted.

I.e., in a legal case it is appropriate to expose related criminals or wrong-doers (the Bidens) other than the one being prosecuted (Trump), and the ones exposed then made subject to the appropriate legal actions against them, even if it's only investigation on suspicion of a criminal act.

I agree with this.

The more corruption is uncovered the better as far as I'm concerned.

The biggest threat to our republic is all the massive corruption and the more that comes out is all the better for us all. Besides taking out the bad players, it will also send the signals to others that common people are tired of looking the other way at business as usual in Washington.

 

[RVonse]

Why would Biden have to testify? He doesn't actually have anything to do with this outside of Russian propaganda.

I get that you've all sold your country to Putin, but maybe try and be a little discreet about it?

Yeah. What relevant question could they ask of Biden?

They would start by asking why his son received millions for doing a job he was not even qualified for.

Another words..... uncover lots and lots of corruption.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The bizarre thing about this thread is it proposes that the removal of Trump from office is acceptable if a comparable Democrat's career is destroyed at the same time.

Has GOP political philosophy come to the point that anything that weakens a Democrat is good, no matter what damage it does to their side?

Or is it just a kamikaze tactic to inflict as much damage possible before inevitable defeat?

I think it's a ploy to try to discredit Biden in the election, they're not going to convict His Flatulence.

 

[zorq]

Why would Biden have to testify? He doesn't actually have anything to do with this outside of Russian propaganda.

I get that you've all sold your country to Putin, but maybe try and be a little discreet about it?

Yeah. What relevant question could they ask of Biden?

They would start by asking why his son received millions for doing a job he was not even qualified for.

Another words..... uncover lots and lots of corruption.

Again, the key word there is "relevant." It is like you have absolutely no clue what a trial is. If the Bidens have committed acts of corruption, then they should be investigated and have their own trial.

Let's give you a simple example you can understand.
You don't use the criminal trial of Jeffrey Dahmer to try to dig up evidence against O.J. Simpson. That's ridiculous and stupid. What the two men are accused of is completely unrelated.

What you and other Trump deluded folks are proposing here is even more stupid and ridiculous because an impeachment trial isn't even a criminal trial. They aim to achieve completely different things.

 

[ZiprHead]

Also Giuliani, and others.


Both sides, Reds and Blues, are liars -- both Trumpsters and Trump-haters. Both want to cover up the truth and prevent witnesses who would hurt their side in the impeachment proceedings.

Anyone honest wants ALL witnesses to testify, be subpoenaed if necessary, no matter which side is hurt -- and all testimony heard, including that relating to the Biden corruption.

If the Bidens were forced to testify, and also the Republicans who directly heard Trump speak his quid-pro-quo, then it's likely both Trump and Biden would be proved guilty. I.e.,

Trump guilty of abusing his office, as charged -- Biden guilty of influence-peddling.​

Even if influence-peddling is not officially a criminal violation and no criminal prosecution is possible, still this abuse of office is a relevant part of the impeachment case and should be exposed and condemned rather than swept aside or covered up to prevent embarrassment to Biden. His quid-pro-quo to have a Ukrainian investigator fired, serving his personal benefit, is an abuse of the Vice Presidential office similar to Trump's quid-pro-quo (even if it's not "the same").

It's appropriate for ALL corruption on either side to be exposed. It is proper for any abuses of power or violations related to the case to be exposed, even though not officially being prosecuted.

I.e., in a legal case it is appropriate to expose related criminals or wrong-doers (the Bidens) other than the one being prosecuted (Trump), and the ones exposed then made subject to the appropriate legal actions against them, even if it's only investigation on suspicion of a criminal act.

I agree with this.

The more corruption is uncovered the better as far as I'm concerned.

The biggest threat to our republic is all the massive corruption and the more that comes out is all the better for us all. Besides taking out the bad players, it will also send the signals to others that common people are tired of looking the other way at business as usual in Washington.

Doing that would be adding to the corruption. Biden did nothing wrong.

 

[ZiprHead]

Why would Biden have to testify? He doesn't actually have anything to do with this outside of Russian propaganda.

I get that you've all sold your country to Putin, but maybe try and be a little discreet about it?

Yeah. What relevant question could they ask of Biden?

They would start by asking why his son received millions for doing a job he was not even qualified for.

Another words..... uncover lots and lots of corruption.

Tell us what Joe Biden's job was and why he wasn't qualified.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But in Trumps eyes, it is a campaign promise to investigate all kinds of corruption including Biden and son.

TRUMP has admitted that he embezzled from a Veteran charity, but had to go overseas to find corruption to fight....

 

[laughing dog]

Also Giuliani, and others.


Both sides, Reds and Blues, are liars -- both Trumpsters and Trump-haters. Both want to cover up the truth and prevent witnesses who would hurt their side in the impeachment proceedings.

Anyone honest wants ALL witnesses to testify, be subpoenaed if necessary, no matter which side is hurt -- and all testimony heard, including that relating to the Biden corruption.

If the Bidens were forced to testify, and also the Republicans who directly heard Trump speak his quid-pro-quo, then it's likely both Trump and Biden would be proved guilty. I.e.,

Trump guilty of abusing his office, as charged -- Biden guilty of influence-peddling.​

Even if influence-peddling is not officially a criminal violation and no criminal prosecution is possible, still this abuse of office is a relevant part of the impeachment case and should be exposed and condemned rather than swept aside or covered up to prevent embarrassment to Biden. His quid-pro-quo to have a Ukrainian investigator fired, serving his personal benefit, is an abuse of the Vice Presidential office similar to Trump's quid-pro-quo (even if it's not "the same").

It's appropriate for ALL corruption on either side to be exposed. It is proper for any abuses of power or violations related to the case to be exposed, even though not officially being prosecuted.

I.e., in a legal case it is appropriate to expose related criminals or wrong-doers (the Bidens) other than the one being prosecuted (Trump), and the ones exposed then made subject to the appropriate legal actions against them, even if it's only investigation on suspicion of a criminal act.

I agree with this.

The more corruption is uncovered the better as far as I'm concerned.

The biggest threat to our republic is all the massive corruption and the more that comes out is all the better for us all. Besides taking out the bad players, it will also send the signals to others that common people are tired of looking the other way at business as usual in Washington.

Corruption is a big threat to our country. The impeachment investigation unearthed corruption at the highest level but you claim the impeachment is fake, so it is hard to take your comments seriously.

 

[Ford]

Learn your Constitution!

This isn't a Biden-Trump trial. It's a Constitutional impeachment trial where Trump has to defend himself. Therefore, Biden doesn't NECESSARILY have to be a witness even if he or his son or the combination of the two are guilty of some kind of corruption. Twitler used his office and taxpayer funds to go after a political opponent, regardless of guilty, which is at minimum a conflict of interest but since it involves way more, it's worse--bribery and treason against democracy itself.

Now supposing that Bidens are reasonably guilty of something, then they have a different legal process for discovering this. Such evidence needs to comply with the 4th amendment inasmuch as it applies to national boundaries and persons. That means investigators write up subpoenas involving probable cause for items/documents that are specified and the right people are informed so that the Biden(s) can defend themselves in a court of law later. That court of law has a DIFFERENT set of procedures than a Presidential impeachment trial.

End of Story!

It isn't a Biden-Trump trial but Biden is very relevant to it all. If you believe Trump, his conversation with Ukraine was to further uncover Biden corruption and mis-deeds which was already in the public domain before Trump was POTUS. Yes, it is true that Biden is now a possible democrat candidate for POTUS himself. But in Trumps eyes, it is a campaign promise to investigate all kinds of corruption including Biden and son. In the strict legal since, there is a conflict of interest but since there is only one POTUS there would be no way for a POTUS to recuse himself of this duty.

At least that is Trump's argument. And it is a very compelling argument IMO.

"If you believe Trump." Taking Trump at his word is rarely a good idea. As for "Biden corruption and misdeeds," that was public information, and for the most part was not corrupt at all. As has been pointed out, Biden's dealings with the Ukraine government were in an official capacity, and perhaps more importantly were undertaken with the purpose of actually fighting corruption. The administration wanted the prosecutor in question removed because he was not doing enough to fight corruption.

As to Hunter Biden's position with Burisma, that was investigated by the Ukrainians and he was found to have nothing to do with the shenanigans that company was involved in prior. Was he given a cushy job because of who his dad was? Probably, but if that's the sort of corruption Trump is dedicated to fighting, then he has a funny way of showing his dedication to the cause. Unless of course you believe that Jared Kushner really is the most qualified person to negotiate Middle East peace, and it's just a coincidence that he's married to Trump's daughter (who also was given a high level job in the White House).

Finally, the "very compelling" part of the argument falls apart when you have a parade of witnesses saying that the "perfect" phone call was merely the culmination of an ongoing effort - not to fight corruption - but to smear one person and one person alone: Democratic front-runner Joe Biden. No corrupt Ukrainians have been brought to justice by Trump's never-ending campaign, which actually started when Biden announced his candidacy and ended when the "perfect" phone call became public.

But hey, if you want to detail all the successful prosecutions of Ukrainian corruption that Trump has fought for since this past summer, please do...

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Learn your Constitution!

This isn't a Biden-Trump trial. It's a Constitutional impeachment trial where Trump has to defend himself. Therefore, Biden doesn't NECESSARILY have to be a witness even if he or his son or the combination of the two are guilty of some kind of corruption. Twitler used his office and taxpayer funds to go after a political opponent, regardless of guilty, which is at minimum a conflict of interest but since it involves way more, it's worse--bribery and treason against democracy itself.

Now supposing that Bidens are reasonably guilty of something, then they have a different legal process for discovering this. Such evidence needs to comply with the 4th amendment inasmuch as it applies to national boundaries and persons. That means investigators write up subpoenas involving probable cause for items/documents that are specified and the right people are informed so that the Biden(s) can defend themselves in a court of law later. That court of law has a DIFFERENT set of procedures than a Presidential impeachment trial.

End of Story!

It isn't a Biden-Trump trial but Biden is very relevant to it all. If you believe Trump, his conversation with Ukraine was to further uncover Biden corruption and mis-deeds which was already in the public domain before Trump was POTUS. Yes, it is true that Biden is now a possible democrat candidate for POTUS himself. But in Trumps eyes, it is a campaign promise to investigate all kinds of corruption including Biden and son. In the strict legal since, there is a conflict of interest but since there is only one POTUS there would be no way for a POTUS to recuse himself of this duty.

At least that is Trump's argument. And it is a very compelling argument IMO.

Hello, Earth to RVonse. I already refuted your argument in the post you responded to. It is not Trumpkin's mixing business with pleasure responsibility to go after Biden. If the DOJ or FBI had evidence then they need to follow the Fourth Amendment to get subpoenas based on probable cause signed and reviewed by a judge. Then, Biden's trial needs to be in criminal court. NOT using Rudy Giuliani, my taxpayer money by Twitler's request, or McCrazyPant's impeachment trial!

ETA: I will add: In every instance where Twitler had stiff competition, he did something unprofessional or nefarious, most often creating conspiracy theories. He did this against Obama; then in GOP primaries against Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio; and then in the general election against Hillary.

For a guy who recognizes patterns and conspiracy theories, you sure seem to have a problem recognizing patterns and conspiracies. Even when they say things out loud on national television and then their cronies flip on them...

Anyway, yeah, think critically.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why would Biden have to testify? He doesn't actually have anything to do with this outside of Russian propaganda.

I get that you've all sold your country to Putin, but maybe try and be a little discreet about it?

Yeah. What relevant question could they ask of Biden?

They would start by asking why his son received millions for doing a job he was not even qualified for.

Another words..... uncover lots and lots of corruption.

But what does that have to do with whether His Flatulence should be removed from office?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Learn your Constitution!

This isn't a Biden-Trump trial. It's a Constitutional impeachment trial where Trump has to defend himself.

Right now he has at least two defenses: 1) He thought Biden might be guilty of a corrupt act in Ukraine, so it was legitimate to call for an investigation of him, so the infamous phone call was legitimate; and 2) there's still no one who has testified who ever heard him say the quid pro quo, and if he never did say it, then he's not guilty.

But he's probably guilty, and this would come out if EVERYONE connected in any way is forced to testify.

But otherwise it won't come out, and he's not guilty until someone testifies that they heard him say the quid pro quo.

That's why ALL of them should be forced to testify.

Therefore, Biden doesn't NECESSARILY have to be a witness even if he or his son or the combination of the two are guilty of some kind of corruption.

If they are, then Trump is innocent, because then it was legitimate for him to demand the investigation in that infamous phone call. It is relevant to Trump's trial whether the Bidens did something corrupt. If they did, or there's good reason to suspect it, then it exonerates him. It was appropriate for him to demand the investigation if there was reason to suspect them.

Twitler used his office and taxpayer funds to go after a political opponent, regardless of guilty, which is at . . .

translation: if you're a political candidate, then you can commit any crime and they can't "go after" you. Which is false. You don't get a license to commit crime by running for political office and then screaming "You can't 'go after' me because I'm a political candidate."

So it does matter whether the Bidens did anything corrupt. That he's a political candidate is irrelevant.

. . . which is at minimum a conflict of interest but since it involves way more, it's worse--bribery and treason against democracy itself.

Not if the Bidens did something corrupt, or there was good reason to suspect it, in which case an investigation of them was appropriate and it was not wrong to demand the investigation. Unless you can prove the quid pro quo from Trump, which you can't until someone testifies that they heard him say it.

Now supposing that Bidens are reasonably guilty of something, then they have a different legal process for discovering this.

But that's relevant to whether Trump is guilty. If they are guilty of something, then Trump was not wrong to suspect that and demand the investigation of them, and so the phone call was not wrong (to demand the investigation). So whether the Bidens were guilty is relevant to the Trump trial and they should be required to testify in the Trump trial.

Such evidence needs to comply with the 4th amendment inasmuch as it applies to national boundaries and persons. That means investigators write up subpoenas involving probable cause for items/documents that are specified and the right people are informed so that the Biden(s) can defend themselves in a court of law later.

Of course, but nothing about that prevents them from testifying now in Trump's trial where they have relevant testimony to offer about Trump's guilt or innocence. If he was right to suspect them, then his demand for them to be investigated was legitimate, and he's innocent, unless you can prove the quid pro quo, which hasn't happened yet.

That court of law has a DIFFERENT set of procedures than a Presidential impeachment trial.

Even so, it does not prevent the Bidens from testifying at the impeachment trial, if they are connected to the case against Trump, which they are.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It's a Constitutional impeachment trial where Trump has to defend himself.

And we can't forget, what he's to defend himself about is Inappropriately using his office, and government resources, to make . . .

But it wasn't inappropriate if the Bidens did something corrupt, so that question is relevant to Trump's guilt or innocence. It was appropriate to do what he did if there was reason to suspect them of corruption.

. . . using his office, and government resources, to make political difficulties for a political rival.

Being a "political rival" does not give someone a license to commit crime. If Biden did something corrupt, he doesn't gain immunity from being investigated by becoming a political candidate or "political rival" to someone.

Having either Biden testify would be an inappropriate use of the Impeachment trial to make political difficulty for his political rival.

That's like saying Biden could commit murder and it would be inappropriate to prosecute him because doing so would create "political difficulty" for him.

If he committed a corrupt act, or might have, that should be investigated. And therefore it was not wrong for Trump to demand the investigation of him in that phone call. So whether Biden did something corrupt is relevant to Trump's case, and the Bidens both should have to testify in order to determine if Trump had a legitimate reason to make that demand in the phone call.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The Biden testimony demand is a bluff. It is a desperate attempt to muddy the waters.

Whatever that means, it does not excuse them from testifying if it's relevant to the impeachment case. Were they guilty of corruption or not? If they were, it exonerates Trump. If there was reason to suspect them of corruption, it exonerates him.

The President now has an Attorney General who will do his bidding. It's a simple matter for AG Barr to launch an investigation and convene a Grand Jury to investigate both Joe and Hunter Biden, if he thought there were any grounds.

That's conjecture. We need testimony under oath to determine if the Bidens were doing anything corrupt. Even if there's a reason to not prosecute them now, that doesn't prove they did nothing corrupt. Not all cases are prosecuted. Getting appointed to a Ukrainian corporate board through abusing the Vice President's office might not be something to prosecute in the U.S., or not high enough in priority. But still it was corrupt and was appropriate to be investigated. Or might have been -- making them testify under oath is the way to determine what was the extent of the corruption. Or having them investigated at the time, as Trump demanded, was the way to determine it.

When there is suspicion, an investigation is appropriate to determine if there's something wrong to be exposed or prosecuted.

This is just the investigation. It doesn't have to lead anywhere, or reveal wrong doing. GOP led investigations never do. It just has to keep people distracted and rationalize the remaining support for an incompetent President.

translation: BLUE TEAM! BLUE TEAM! Rah! Rah! Rah!

Barr hasn't done this and there . . .

He might still do it. Or maybe this is not high enough on the priority list. But what he does or does not do is not how to determine what is relevant to the impeachment case. This case depends on whether there was legitimate reason to suspect the Bidens of corruption and ask for the investigation of them. If this was a legitimate matter to investigate, then Trump is exonerated.

. . . and there is one simple reason. President Trump has exhausted his supply of people willing to face prison on his behalf. There is no one left willing to perjure themselves to protect him from his own actions.

BLUE narrative interpretations are not the basis for legal procedure rules.

Everyone should have to testify, regardless whether it hurts either the BLUES or the REDS or both.

REDS would exclude all witnesses who undermine the RED narrative, and BLUES would exclude all witnesses who undermine the BLUE narrative. This should not be the criterion for choosing which witnesses are to testify at trials.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The bizarre thing about this thread is it proposes that the removal of Trump from office is acceptable if a comparable Democrat's career is destroyed at the same time.

Has GOP political philosophy come to the point that anything that weakens a Democrat is good, no matter what damage it does to their side?

Or is it just a kamikaze tactic to inflict as much damage possible before inevitable defeat?

It's an attempt to get the Dems to back off on the idea of calling witnesses in a trial where a Republican stands to lose. That have to try SOMETHING to get out of the mess they created in some way other than the complete annihilation of their party.

That's obvious, but the OP concedes that Trump has committed impeachable offenses, but in order to actually impeach the President, insists that the Democrats concede that Joe Biden did something bad.

If they've already conceded that impeachment is justified, what's the point of spearing Biden? Is just vindictiveness, the kind of animosity that pursued Hillary for the past 20 years?

The push for calling Biden et al to testify before the Senate is a bluff, and a very pathetic bluff, at that. Any attorney worth his retainer knows to never ask a question if you don't know how the witness is going to answer. This is why depositions are taken under oath. The last thing Trump's lawyers want to happen is have the Impeachment trial turn into an investigation into Giuliani's schemes in Ukraine and expose Trump's conspiracy to destroy Ambassador Yanovich's reputation and career. The motives for that have not been made clear.

It would be funny to discover that Giuliani had used Trump's gullibility and poor understanding of foreign policy, for his own financial gain. Trump is manipulated to coerce a foreign government to interfere in our next election, so Giuliani and his pals can make some money. That's the story that the Trump team so not want heard.

The false charges against the Bidens came from Ukrainian ex-prosecutor Shokin and oligarch Firtash, both who had dishonest agendas.
Hunter Biden was in fact investigated by the Ukrainians, who found no wrong doing by him. Biden was sent by Obama to Ukraine to get Shokin fired for his failure to investigate corruption. That was not his initiative.

It might actually be fun to see them testify, and state the facts openly in face of GOP ignorance and partisanship.

There is an old legal maxim for lawyers, "Never ask a question you don't really want to hear the answer to." The GOP goombas should reflect carefully on that. What they are doing is making a demand that they know will probably not be allowed so they can accuse the Democrats of cover up and the Bidens of corruption, "Why wouldn't they testify if they had nothing to hide!?".

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...-burisma-donald-trump-whistleblower-complaint

 

[Harry Bosch]

But it wasn't inappropriate if the Bidens did something corrupt, so that question is relevant to Trump's guilt or innocence. It was appropriate to do what he did if there was reason to suspect them of corruption.

. . . using his office, and government resources, to make political difficulties for a political rival.

Being a "political rival" does not give someone a license to commit crime. If Biden did something corrupt, he doesn't gain immunity from being investigated by becoming a political candidate or "political rival" to someone.

Having either Biden testify would be an inappropriate use of the Impeachment trial to make political difficulty for his political rival.

That's like saying Biden could commit murder and it would be inappropriate to prosecute him because doing so would create "political difficulty" for him.

If he committed a corrupt act, or might have, that should be investigated. And therefore it was not wrong for Trump to demand the investigation of him in that phone call. So whether Biden did something corrupt is relevant to Trump's case, and the Bidens both should have to testify in order to determine if Trump had a legitimate reason to make that demand in the phone call.

I like your general theme here. It could save us a lot of money. We could go further: we could lay off the FBI. We could just allow the President, in his sole discretion, to take over all investigations himself. If it gets to be too large of a problem, just give him a secret police to conduct the investigations. They could all report to the President. Of course, there would be no oversight (more cost savings).

Whatdoyouthink?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Whatever that means, it does not excuse them from testifying if it's relevant to the impeachment case. Were they guilty of corruption or not?

We would need a trial against Hunter Biden or Joe Biden to determine that. This is impeachment. And based on everything we have seen, the Biden angle had nothing to do with corruption.

If they were, it exonerates Trump.

In the targetting of a US ambassador in Ukraine? Of illegally impounding Congressionally approved funding?

If there was reason to suspect them of corruption, it exonerates him.

Odd how this secretly became a problem years after this all occurred publicly.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But it wasn't inappropriate if the Bidens did something corrupt, so that question is relevant to Trump's guilt or innocence. It was appropriate to do what he did if there was reason to suspect them of corruption.

No, it was never appropriate to do what he did.
But even if there were conditions where it would be right for a candidate to ask a foreign national to interfere in a US election, we do not need Biden's testimony in Trump's impeachment.

IFF Trump felt that there was a reason to suspect corruption, he could have produced this evidence during the House investigation. All we have is an edited transcript of a phone call where he said that some nameless people are saying there was corruption.
Trump has often appealed to 'people are saying' to justify his fantasies. I don't believe such people exist.

But, still, after providing any actual evidence towards this suspicion, he can THEN submit his reasoning why he could not delegate the investigation to any actual law enforcement personnel.

. . . using his office, and government resources, to make political difficulties for a political rival.

Being a "political rival" does not give someone a license to commit crime. If Biden did something corrupt, he doesn't gain immunity from being investigated by becoming a political candidate or "political rival" to someone.

Never said Biden shouldn't be investigated. I am saying he should not be testifying in Trump's impeachment.
If there's corruption, then there are proper channels to investigate it. In Trump's impeachment, it's a distraction.

Having either Biden testify would be an inappropriate use of the Impeachment trial to make political difficulty for his political rival.

That's like saying Biden could commit murder and it would be inappropriate to prosecute him because doing so would create "political difficulty" for him.

No, it is not.

It's more like saying that Trump should not just accuse Biden of committing murder, and demanding that this be investigated during Trump's trial.

If he committed a corrupt act, or might have, that should be investigated.

And the testimony at the impeachment would NOT be an investigation.

And therefore it was not wrong for Trump to demand the investigation of him in that phone call.

Actually, yes it was.
It's a felony. Straight up.