Biden and Bolton BOTH should have to testify.

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why would Biden have to testify?

Because the Trump team is entitled to require witnesses who know anything about the Biden corruption claims. If there was a legitimate reason to suspect Biden, that could exonerate Trump, and anything doing that is relevant to this trial.

He doesn't actually have anything to do with this outside of Russian propaganda.

You mean he's not the "political opponent" or "political rival" Trump wanted the Ukrainians to investigate? Except for that, there is no charge against Trump. If they can show there was good reason for the Bidens to be investigated, then there was nothing wrong with Trump demanding the investigation in the famous phone call.

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

So Hunter Biden never was paid by the Ukrainian corporation? or sat on their board? That was just a Putin lie?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It is telling that Trump didn't want an investigation of Hunter Biden, he only wanted a public announcement of the opening of an investigation on American TV. Typically there is no public announcement of an investigation, so what he wanted would be unusual.

My guess is that Trump wanted the barest excuse to be able to yell "Lock him up" at every rally he holds, a really fine point for a man who has told more than 14,000 lies since he has been in office, his supporters are well past demanding the truth from him at this point.

You are probably right, if Trump said, "Make that public announcement or we are withholding the funding."

Or to Giuliani or someone: "Tell them we're withholding the funding until they make that announcement, on TV in prime time" etc.

But so far no one has testified having heard Trump say that. Unless he said that, or the equivalent, he's not guilty.

If he tried to get that idea out there without saying such words to that effect, then he's still not guilty. He had to explicitly make that demand in order to be guilty. Some have testified that he said "Just do the right thing." It's not good enough to say "everyone knew that's what he meant." There has to be at least one who really heard him say it.

But if EVERYONE involved is forced to testify, then someone who did hear it will finally say so, and it will prove he's guilty.

But that won't happen if any high-profile players are exempt from testifying, on either side. If the Blues are allowed to exclude witnesses like the Bidens, then the Reds are entitled to exclude Bolton or others who could give the evidence damaging to Trump.

If you want anyone excluded from testifying, you're the problem.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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..

Umm...what lies have the Democrats been spreading about Trump?

Jay Sekulow probably has a list of them.

One lie, probably, is that Biden did nothing wrong, or nothing relevant to the impeachment case. So they want all that to be excluded.

Whoever wants any evidence or testimony excluded is probably lying or hiding the truth.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

To any question asked of Biden from his lawyer, "Objection. Relevance. Client has no knowledge of the facts surrounding the charges of Obstruction or Abuse of Power".

If you would like Biden to answer questions about something in a criminal trial, you will have to find a criminal charge that has anything to do with his actions.

He is identified in the criminal charge as being the object/victim against whom the crime was committed. That makes him relevant to this case.

I'd be interested to know what questions you would ask either of the Bidens that has relevance to the Articles of Impeachment.

"Why were you appointed to that corporate board?"

or

"What was your expertise that the company paid you for?"

"Did you tell them you were the Vice President's son in your application for that job?"

"Did the Vice President speak to them about hiring you?"

etc.

And Joe Biden should have to swear under oath that he did not influence the company to hire his son.

All that should have been investigated, and when all those questions and others are answered, the Senators can judge if Trump was out of line to demand the investigation of it.

It's relevant to the impeachment, because the "Articles" are accusing Trump of making an illegal demand for it to be investigated.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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.

Lots of careers are destroyed because the guy did something wrong. Why shouldn't they suffer the consequences? We're supposed to feel sorry for them? Whose fault is it that they screwed up?

Has GOP political philosophy come to the point that . . .

Nevermind whose political philosophy it is. The right philosophy demands that ALL witnesses testify and ALL evidence be heard, and "let the chips fall" etc. And nevermind whose career suffers, or who gets hurt.

. . . to the point that anything that weakens a Democrat is good, no matter what damage it does to their side?

It doesn't matter what damage it does to someone or which side is weakened. The public is entitled to all the evidence, no matter what. A demagogue who did something wrong is entitled to no sympathy. If they crash and burn, that's just the nature of the career they chose.

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

If the Blues and Reds somehow destroy each other, maybe the country is better off. The highest priority is on making sure all the evidence is presented, not protecting the political parties from self-destructing.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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.

You're admitting the Dems have something to hide. And they'll circle the wagons around Biden and even let Trump off the hook in order to prevent all the truth from being exposed.

And it's time for that game to stop, and for ALL the bad guys to be exposed, on both sides.

They have to try SOMETHING to get out of the mess they created in some way other than the complete annihilation of their party.

If they propose to hear ALL the evidence and witnesses, for whatever reason, they're finally taking us the right direction. To clean up the real mess.

 

[SimpleDon]

It is telling that Trump didn't want an investigation of Hunter Biden, he only wanted a public announcement of the opening of an investigation on American TV. Typically there is no public announcement of an investigation, so what he wanted would be unusual.

My guess is that Trump wanted the barest excuse to be able to yell "Lock him up" at every rally he holds, a really fine point for a man who has told more than 14,000 lies since he has been in office, his supporters are well past demanding the truth from him at this point.

You are probably right, if Trump said, "Make that public announcement or we are withholding the funding."

Or to Giuliani or someone: "Tell them we're withholding the funding until they make that announcement, on TV in prime time" etc.

But so far no one has testified having heard Trump say that. Unless he said that, or the equivalent, he's not guilty.

If he tried to get that idea out there without saying such words to that effect, then he's still not guilty. He had to explicitly make that demand in order to be guilty. Some have testified that he said "Just do the right thing." It's not good enough to say "everyone knew that's what he meant." There has to be at least one who really heard him say it.

But if EVERYONE involved is forced to testify, then someone who did hear it will finally say so, and it will prove he's guilty.

But that won't happen if any high-profile players are exempt from testifying, on either side. If the Blues are allowed to exclude witnesses like the Bidens, then the Reds are entitled to exclude Bolton or others who could give the evidence damaging to Trump.

If you want anyone excluded from testifying, you're the problem.

I don't want anyone excluded from testifying, that is the position that has Trump being impeached for impeding this investigation. He tried to prevent anyone from the executive branch of government from testifying. I just don't think that there is any good reason for the Bidens to testify. If Trump would let his people testify then I would let the Republicans call whoever they want. I would want Trump to at least be deposed. Let's see what he and the other members of the administration say under the threat of perjury as the witnesses were in the House hearings. I am agreeing with your position in the OP.

I just need you to tell us what crime Joe Biden and Hunter Biden committed. If being grossly overpaid is a crime then virtually the entire Republican donor base is guilty, hedge fund managers, CEOs of corporations, banks, etc.

And the other crime that Trump is being impeached for is not asking for an investigation that might or might not be justified, he is being impeached for withholding the funds until there is a public announcement of an investigation into the Bidens. The phone call is not the only thing being considered. We know how the DoD was told to withhold the unspent portion of the funds two hours after the phone call. We now know that this is illegal, according to the GAO. We learned in the House impeachment hearing testimony of the Trump donor and ambassador to the EU that he thought that there was a quid pro quo after talking to Trump.

There is more than enough evidence to justify the impeachment. Only one side seems to be interested in seeing if there is enough to convict Trump. I think that there is, you think that there isn't.

I am not a good judge because I am predisposed to believe that Trump is guilty because he is the most corrupt president we have ever had, a criminal. You ignore his many crimes because he agrees with your corrupt ideology. It is simple.

 

[laughing dog]

Bolton is a witness to one of the actions in tge articles in the indictment. No Biden is a witness. The Bidens are as relevant to the impeachment articles as Melania and Ivanka Trump.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The op.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

1) It doesn't matter if Biden was guilty of something in Ukraine. He has no business trying to force such an investigation.

2) He wasn't actually after an investigation. Rather, he was after an announcement of an investigation. That's 100% political. State power diverted to individual benefit--textbook corruption.

3) It doesn't require an explicit quid-pro-quo, merely an understanding of the request. The way it was said makes that blindly obvious.

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.

People that actually might know something. There's absolutely no reason to think Biden knows anything.

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

Twitler isn't in law enforcement.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Biden isn't accused of breaking a specific law. Meanwhile Trump's goons were apparently targeting and surveilling a US Ambassador (referencing security in a message)... an American citizen, which is against the law. Apparently trying to get her fired wasn't enough!

And Trump covered it up via obstruction. This is arguably worse than the whole Biden angle. Which, too, has been argued by the GAO as being a crime... at least the whole withholding of Congressionally appropriated funds... as was the Pentagon's fear.

Witnesses? Trump should be resigning as we speak. We could save the witnesses for the trials of Giuliani, Hyde, Parnas, etc...

It doesn't matter that Biden is not as guilty as Trump, even only 1/100 as guilty.

He's named (identified) in the indictment as part of the reason Trump is accused of something. Trump's defenders are entitled to question anything in the indictment. If they can't make the Bidens testify about that, then that part of the indictment naming (identifying) the Bidens should be excised from the indictment.

The accusation that he sought help to interfere in the 2020 election should be eliminated from the indictment if the Bidens are irrelevant. That accusation names (identifies) the Bidens, making them relevant to this case. Or -- if they're not relevant to this case, then that accusation is false and has to be deleted.

The only way around this is if the Bidens are absolutely innocent of anything and cannot possibly be accused of having done anything wrong. And yet everyone agrees that something was wrong about H. Biden being appointed to that board.

Covering up their mistake is not a legitimate reason to excuse them from having to testify in a case where they are named (identified) in the charges.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It's all about Red fanatics vs. Blue fanatics.

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?

He's relevant to the case, because he's named/identified in the indictment, and he's in the indictment because he did something wrong. Just because he would get speared does not excuse him from explaining his part in a case where he's part of the basic charges against the defendant.

Is just vindictiveness, the kind of animosity that pursued Hillary for the past 20 years?

It doesn't matter what you call it. If the Bidens are relevant to the case, the defense is entitled to have them testify. It's their fault that they are part of the case, because they did something wrong. This is relevant to the charges against the defendant, and depending on what the facts are about it, it can affect whether the defendant is guilty, or whether his guilt is serious enough to warrant his being terminated.

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.

So maybe both Red fanatics and Blue fanatics really don't want the extra witnesses.

But for the benefit of the country ALL witnesses should be required to testify, regardless whether Trump blows up, or Bidens, or any other partisans on either side.

It's only Red or Blue fanatics on either side who have an interest in suppressing any testimony from being presented. It's amusing how partisan fanatics rush to protect their side from being exposed and want evidence suppressed, that would hurt their side only, while clamoring for more witnesses to testify against the other side.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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.

If there were even a shred of evidence that Biden had broken any law, Trump's in-house toady (aka "Attorney General" William Barr) would have set a speed record with the indictment.

There's evidence that they did something wrong, possibly criminal. But Barr might be calculating to leave it alone. And the criminal part of it might be minimal, so not worth it.

Which is no reason they should not testify and be exposed. The accusation against Trump is not clarified until it's made known what the Bidens did, because it might have been serious enough to warrant the investigation he was demanding. Anything relevant to that is part of the impeachment case.

Take your "what about" diversion and shove it.

When the demand is legitimate, you don't refute it by calling it a "diversion." There is relevant testimony from them pertaining to the charges against Trump. Just because it's also a "diversion" or something Blue fanatics prefer be swept under the rug doesn't change the fact that the public is entitled to know everything pertinent to the case, and especially anything which would expose corruption, however small, on either side.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

I agree--also think that that Trump, like Clinton, should be deposed, and that Jared and Ivanka should be subpoened.

Anyone/anything having possible relevancy to the impeachment charges.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

I think these people that talk about Joe Biden doing wrong/illegal things in Ukraine fundamentally have no idea what they are talking about.

Biden's call to have the prosecutor removed was the Obama administration's official position. Biden was communicating that position. Congressional Republicans agreed with that position. The European Union took the same position as did the World Monetary fund.

Biden wasn't protecting his son. As a matter of fact, replacing the prosecutor could have put his son in jeopardy.

Some of this is conjecture. Making them testify would clear it up.

One point you're ignoring is the improper appointment of H. Biden to that board. That has not been explained so far. If Biden would admit that he used his influence improperly, you might be able to make the case that there's nothing more, and it should be dropped. But he's lying (probably), and so the questions need to be put to him, in testimony under oath. And it's all pertinent to this impeachment case.

The reason everyone wanted the prosecutor gone was because he wasn't investigating and prosecuting corrupt organizations. He wouldn't even investigate the Maidan massacre.

If Ukraine wanted to clean up its act and join the rest of the world, they needed to address corruption.

Maybe. Whatever of this is true would come out in the testimony from all the extra witnesses who should be called. So they should be called in order to clear up these points, because they are relevant to the impeachment case.

If these points are correct, it could be established by requiring testimony from both Bidens, e.g.

There is no legitimate reason to exclude any testimony relevant to the case, despite the emotional sentiment to protect someone's reputation.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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?

"Did you put pressure on that company to hire your son?"

Under oath he would probably have to admit that he did. It might be illegal -- at least it's an abuse of his office. Perhaps it can be dismissed as "Politics as usual" -- but still, it's a point the Senators should consider when judging if Trump should be terminated for wrongly going after Biden. If Biden can be excused for his corruption, the Senators can legitimately question if Trump's "crime" was serious enough to terminate him over it. No? Well, at least they're entitled to first hear that testimony before deciding.

To rule it out is to arbitrarily make the judgment that one wrongdoing is permitted and another is not.

Maybe one "crime" does matter while another does not. If so, let the Democrats say it -- i.e., that Biden's crime will be ignored as being less important, so he's excused from any accountability, because Trump should have known that this was just business-as-usual for a Vice President or other power-wielder, who is allowed to commit small abuses like this, because it just goes with the territory.

If the Democrats would say this openly, honestly, officially, then they'd have a good case for suppressing the Biden testimony but demanding Bolton and the other bad-guy witnesses. And of course they'd be calling Biden a liar for denying he did anything wrong.

 

[Ford]

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?

"Did you put pressure on that company to hire your son?"

How is that relevant to Trump's abuse of his office? How is that relevant to a scheme to smear a US ambassador?

(Hint: It's not)

Under oath he would probably have to admit that he did. It might be illegal --

Then why isn't the Justice Department pressing charges?

If this was so illegal and so corrupt, then there should at least be an investigation underway. Biden should be brought to testify in a court of law, not the Senate. But no, the Trump administration isn't pursuing the Bidens in court. Everything they did was purely political. In fact (as has been corroborated by multiple sources) they didn't even really want an investigation...just the announcement of one.

They could have easily done that on their own. "We're officially investigating corruption by the former Vice President." Did they even take that step? Nope. In fact they hid all of their actions by keeping it out of official channels, and their "anti-corruption" effort was only exposed when the whistleblower came forward.

Why is that, Lumpy?

What's more, if they were earnest about fighting corruption, they could have announced their "investigation" years ago. Instead, they waited to start their clandestine operation until Biden had officially become a candidate, and ramped it up when he started beating Trump in the polls.

An odd coincidence, don't you think?

 

[ZiprHead]

I think these people that talk about Joe Biden doing wrong/illegal things in Ukraine fundamentally have no idea what they are talking about.

Biden's call to have the prosecutor removed was the Obama administration's official position. Biden was communicating that position. Congressional Republicans agreed with that position. The European Union took the same position as did the World Monetary fund.

Biden wasn't protecting his son. As a matter of fact, replacing the prosecutor could have put his son in jeopardy.

Some of this is conjecture. Making them testify would clear it up.

One point you're ignoring is the improper appointment of H. Biden to that board. That has not been explained so far. If Biden would admit that he used his influence improperly, you might be able to make the case that there's nothing more, and it should be dropped. But he's lying (probably), and so the questions need to be put to him, in testimony under oath. And it's all pertinent to this impeachment case.

The reason everyone wanted the prosecutor gone was because he wasn't investigating and prosecuting corrupt organizations. He wouldn't even investigate the Maidan massacre.

If Ukraine wanted to clean up its act and join the rest of the world, they needed to address corruption.

Maybe. Whatever of this is true would come out in the testimony from all the extra witnesses who should be called. So they should be called in order to clear up these points, because they are relevant to the impeachment case.

If these points are correct, it could be established by requiring testimony from both Bidens, e.g.

There is no legitimate reason to exclude any testimony relevant to the case, despite the emotional sentiment to protect someone's reputation.

No, none of what I wrote above is conjecture. It's all facts.

And what you're asking for is an investigation. You do not do investigations at trials. Bonespurs owns Bob Barr. If he wanted an investigation of the Bidens, he could have had that a long time ago.

All he wanted was an announcement of an investigation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Biden isn't accused of breaking a specific law. Meanwhile Trump's goons were apparently targeting and surveilling a US Ambassador (referencing security in a message)... an American citizen, which is against the law. Apparently trying to get her fired wasn't enough!

And Trump covered it up via obstruction. This is arguably worse than the whole Biden angle. Which, too, has been argued by the GAO as being a crime... at least the whole withholding of Congressionally appropriated funds... as was the Pentagon's fear.

Witnesses? Trump should be resigning as we speak. We could save the witnesses for the trials of Giuliani, Hyde, Parnas, etc...

It doesn't matter that Biden is not as guilty as Trump, even only 1/100 as guilty.

He's named (identified) in the indictment as part of the reason Trump is accused of something. Trump's defenders are entitled to question anything in the indictment. If they can't make the Bidens testify about that, then that part of the indictment naming (identifying) the Bidens should be excised from the indictment.

The accusation that he sought help to interfere in the 2020 election should be eliminated from the indictment if the Bidens are irrelevant. That accusation names (identifies) the Bidens, making them relevant to this case. Or -- if they're not relevant to this case, then that accusation is false and has to be deleted.

The only way around this is if the Bidens are absolutely innocent of anything and cannot possibly be accused of having done anything wrong. And yet everyone agrees that something was wrong about H. Biden being appointed to that board.

Covering up their mistake is not a legitimate reason to excuse them from having to testify in a case where they are named (identified) in the charges.

It doesn't matter if Biden is as guilty as sin, that in no way exonerates His Flatulence.

 

[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?

"Did you put pressure on that company to hire your son?"

Under oath he would probably have to admit that he did. It might be illegal -- at least it's an abuse of his office. Perhaps it can be dismissed as "Politics as usual" -- but still, it's a point the Senators should consider when judging if Trump should be terminated for wrongly going after Biden. If Biden can be excused for his corruption, the Senators can legitimately question if Trump's "crime" was serious enough to terminate him over it. No? Well, at least they're entitled to first hear that testimony before deciding.

To rule it out is to arbitrarily make the judgment that one wrongdoing is permitted and another is not.

Maybe one "crime" does matter while another does not. If so, let the Democrats say it -- i.e., that Biden's crime will be ignored as being less important, so he's excused from any accountability, because Trump should have known that this was just business-as-usual for a Vice President or other power-wielder, who is allowed to commit small abuses like this, because it just goes with the territory.

If the Democrats would say this openly, honestly, officially, then they'd have a good case for suppressing the Biden testimony but demanding Bolton and the other bad-guy witnesses. And of course they'd be calling Biden a liar for denying he did anything wrong.

I asked what relevant question they could ask. You are giving a question that has absolutely nothing to do with whether His Flatulence is guilty.