Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,570
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
That "abuse" charge says he wrongly tried to get Biden investigated. That attempt to get Biden investigated has to be explained. If Biden improperly used his influence, that is corrupt. It's reasonable to demand an explanation why H. Biden was hired, or if J. Biden influenced that decision. That is relevant to whether Trump abused his office.
It's relevant to the charge that he tried to get "his political opponent" investigated. I don't think smearing someone is the charge.
No matter what the answer is to that, it doesn't change the fact that Trump can argue that he legitimately suspected Biden of a possible violation, abusing his office. Even if they subsequently decided not to pursue it now, it doesn't change the fact that Trump at that time thought there was something corrupt about it, and possibly criminal. And there probably was something corrupt about it, so the Senators are entitled to know all about it before voting to terminate Trump. They should take into consideration anything about Biden which might have been corrupt before condemning Trump regarding his demand for the investigation.
Whether there should be or not, that's not the way to determine if something corrupt was happening. Many corruptions are not investigated for one reason or another, sometimes for a bad reason. In this case it appears something corrupt happened, and it's appropriate for Senators to hear if there was a reason for Trump to demand an investigation of it, regardless if some other investigation ought to be happening. A court does not use as evidence in its case a claim that some other court ought to be investigating something. All that matters is whether something corrupt might have been happening, regardless whether someone else should or should not have suspected it.
Either. If the testimony is relevant to the case it should be heard, regardless whether it should also be heard somewhere else. You can't say in court, "I'm innocent (or he's innocent) because someone else should be hearing this case who is not hearing it."
That doesn't prove Biden did nothing corrupt. Why H. Biden was hired has to be answered by someone, or should have been investigated, regardless whether the administration is pursuing the Bidens, or what someone speculates that the administration should or should not be pursuing.
Trump is accused of wrongly demanding an investigation of Biden, and this has to be resolved by questioning what he demanded. This has to be investigated, regardless whether any other court or administration or investigator should be doing this or that.
That's not a reason to prevent a witnesses from testifying. If the testimony is relevant to the case, it's proper to put the witness on the stand, even if it's "purely political." In this case the Senators are entitled to hear the testimony about Biden, or his possible corrupt behavior, regardless if someone calls it "purely political" or some other description.
If someone testifies that they heard him say this, then he's guilty. But so far no one testifies that they heard him say this. As long as the defense is that he really wanted the investigation, not only the public announcement, then he can claim it was a legitimate demand for an investigation.
There is probably evidence that all he really cared about was the public announcement. But it's probably not enough, because the standard has to be high in order to prove that he wanted only that and cared nothing about a real investigation. It's not an abuse of his office if he wanted both. It's not wrong to want something further -- the public announcement -- in addition to the investigation.
Maybe they should have. What they should or should not have done doesn't prove Biden did nothing corrupt. Even if Trump is corrupt for not investigating Biden earlier, that doesn't prove that Biden did nothing corrupt and should not have been suspected earlier of something corrupt when Trump demanded the investigation of him. You can probably list a hundred faults of Trump in addition to this one, but none of that proves Biden did nothing corrupt or should not have been suspected of it.
Probably for the worst of reasons. But even so, that doesn't prove Biden did nothing corrupt. You don't get Biden off the hook by exposing Trump for neglecting to do what he should have done, or proving he's a fraud and a hypocrite and a hundred other bad things.
What they should or should not have done earlier doesn't answer if Biden did something corrupt. No doubt the Trump gang is not very earnest about stuff. But a case is not resolved by charging some player with not being "earnest" enough. The case now is about the demand for an investigation of Biden, and it's not clear if he might have done something corrupt enough to be investigated. So this has to be answered by having everyone testify, because this is relevant to the charge against Trump.
No doubt you can name a dozen other bad motives by Trump, and signs of insincerity. But none of that answers whether Biden did anything corrupt or needing to be investigated.
I'm sure you can name several more. But that's no reason why anyone should not testify who knows anything about the case, including whether Trump might have had a legitimate reason to demand the investigation of Biden.
