Impeaching Donald Trump

[Alan Klein]

Probably not.  Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the Senate trial if the House of Representatives adopts articles of impeachment.  While an impeachment is not a judicial proceeding, the Senate rules imply that the usual legal standards for determining what evidence is to be heard apply in impeachment trials. 

There is no plausible legal theory under which the testimony of Hunter Biden (or his father, for that matter) would be relevant to a determination of whether President Trump abused the power of his office by asking the Ukrainian president to investigate the Bidens (père or fils).  While the senators theoretically might override a ruling by the chief justice, I think it's very unlikely that would ever happen.

What if Hunter Biden could testify to the corruption he was aware of in the Ukrainian corporation he worked for and what knowledge his father had of the situation?  That would go to the heart of why the president wanted the Ukrainian president to investigate corruption and justify any quid pro quo, the basis up the impeachment charge?  Of course, the Chief Justice could rule that it's not relative.  But the discussion in the news would remind everyone of Biden's involvement where his kid got a $50K a month job because his father was a political big shot.  Wasn't one of the claims that Trump wanted the Ukrainian president to make the decision to investigate very public?  Well, what better way to make it public than to bring it into a discussion regarding a president's impeachment trial?   

[Alan Klein]

As expected, Schiff ruled out the whistleblower from testifying and earlier ruled out Biden from testifying.  The Democrat Commissar has spoken. The Star Chamber Trial continues.  The anti-Trump media will continue to support the protection of Biden. 
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/09/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower-impeachment-inquiry/index.html 

[BernardLanguillier]

Hilarious.

I am gone 2 days and Allan is still desperately trying to take our attention away from Trump’s deeds in favor of a fantasy story about Biden’s son...

Seriously?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

As expected, Schiff ruled out the whistleblower from testifying and earlier ruled out Biden from testifying.

Indeed, as expected. Hunter Biden is not under investigation and he has played no part in replacing a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine. There is no point in hearing the whistleblower, as actual witnesses have appeared since then.

The only (nasty) reason is to make it less likely that anyone with a sense of justice will ever raise his hand again. And that's exactly why whistleblower protection has been created, and this proves how valuable and necessary it is. It protects the Constitution.

And yes, it's a mere distraction from the thread's topic, and very predictable given the overwhelming evidence and witnesses..

[Alan Goldhammer]

As expected, Schiff ruled out the whistleblower from testifying and earlier ruled out Biden from testifying.  The Democrat Commissar has spoken. The Star Chamber Trial continues. The anti-Trump media will continue to support the protection of Biden. 
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/09/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower-impeachment-inquiry/index.html

When will you understand that there is NO trial.  The trial on takes place after the Impeachment articles are adopted by the House and ONLY THEN does a trial take place over in the Senate.  Everything right now is simple posturing by both sides and Speaker Pelosi will make the final call on whether they move to full impeachment articles.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Indeed, as expected. Hunter Biden is not under investigation and he has played no part in replacing a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine. There is no point in hearing the whistleblower, as actual witnesses have appeared since then.

The only (nasty) reason is to make it less likely that anyone with a sense of justice will ever raise his hand again. And that's exactly why whistleblower protection has been created, and this proves how valuable and necessary it is. It protects the Constitution.

And yes, it's a mere distraction from the thread's topic, and very predictable given the overwhelming evidence and witnesses..

Amazing how someone living in The Netherlands knows more about the American political process than some of those who liver here!!

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Amazing how someone living in The Netherlands knows more about the American political process than some of those who liver here!!

It can help to view the theater from a distance, it allows to overview all aspects of the entire spectacle.

[Alan Klein]

Fair minded people see this as a Star Chamber hearing where the decision was made three years ago.  That's how long Democrats have been wanting to impeach Trump.  Decisions made by Schiff are political in nature and will be seen as such by the public.  Of course anti-Trumpers could care less about the method as long as they see Trump hang.  I get it.  But there are people out there who are concerned that the process is fair.  Otherwise there could be sympathy for Trump in the general election.  Also, remember there are two sections of this process.  Republicans will get their chance to to put their thumb on the scale of justice as well when the impeachment moves to the Senate and Trump is found innocent.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Hunter Biden is not under investigation and he has played no part in replacing a corrupt prosecutor in Ukraine...

That’s an interesting angle. And how do you know that? How do you know that he didn’t go to his daddy and said: “Daddy, daddy, can you please get that nasty man off our backs, pretty please?” And daddy said: “Don’t you worry, kiddo, I’ve been in politics for 40 years, I surely know how to do that without leaving any trace, and how to make it look like I had no idea you were involved.”

[Alan Klein]

That’s an interesting angle. And how do you know that? How do you know that he didn’t go to his daddy and said: “Daddy, daddy, can you please get that nasty man off our backs, pretty please?” And daddy said: “Don’t you worry, kiddo, I’ve been in politics for 40 years, I surely know how to do that without leaving any trace, and how to make it look like I had no idea you were involved.”

Of course.  The whole point of the Trump request to Ukraine's president is to clean up any corruption in the Ukraine including corruption that the Bidens may have been involved in.  To find out if the request had some basis of legitimacy would go to the heart of deciding whether the president should be impeached.  Only Democrats wanting to impeach regardless of the evidence and wanting to protect their presidential candidate would dismiss testimony from the Bidens.   

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

That’s an interesting angle. And how do you know that?

The investigation into Burisma had already stalled before Hunter Biden was employed. That was one of the reasons that the international community, including the USA, have pressured Ukraine to replace the prosecutor with one that would become more active in fighting corruption.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... to replace the prosecutor with one that would become more active in fighting corruption.

And how is that going? Any change? Why wasn't the investigation into Burisma reopened then?

[Alan Klein]

The investigation into Burisma had already stalled before Hunter Biden was employed. That was one of the reasons that the international community, including the USA, have pressured Ukraine to replace the prosecutor with one that would become more active in fighting corruption.

All of that is nice but doesn;t answer the question.  Did VP Joe Biden and his son do anything to protect Barisma?  Testimony from Biden could reveal that.  After all, for what purpose was Hunter being paid $50,000 a month if fear of an investigation was eliminated?   If they did collude to use the VP office to protect Barisma, then the president was perfectly right in asking for an investigation and he should not be impeached.

[faberryman]

If they did collude to use the VP office to protect Barisma, then the president was perfectly right in asking for an investigation and he should not be impeached.

And if they did not collude for such purpose, he should be impeached?

[Alan Klein]

And if they did not collude for such purpose, he should be impeached?

No.  If the president had a reason to ask for an investigation, that would be acceptable as well.  After all, the purpose of an investigation is to find out the facts.  You can't know what happened until you investigate.  Isn't that what the whole Mueller investigation was about? 

That's why the whole impeachment thing is bogus.  There is an appearance of corruption that should be investigated.  While there certainly is political fallout against Biden, that doesn;t eliminate the rationale for an investigation.   The VP shouldn;t got himself involved with his son;s nonsense in the first place as he was warned by his Democrat friends.  Maybe that's why he decided not to run in the 2016 presidential election knowing that this might become an issue.  You can be sure his democrat rivals today would love to see Hunter testify.  They're just not saying it or they'll be lambasted by democrats.

[faberryman]

No.  If the president had a reason to ask for an investigation, that would be acceptable as well.  After all, the purpose of an investigation is to find out the facts.  You can't know what happened until you investigate.  Isn't that what the whole Mueller investigation was about?

That's the whole "are you still beating your wife" rationale you like to quote. You make an unfounded allegation, and then say you need a investigation to determine the facts. Which is exactly what the Biden thing is about. You have to ask with all the corruption everywhere in the world, why is he only interested in investigating alleged corruption of the son of the political rival he consistently loses to in the polls. Witch hunts are okay as long as he is the one pursuing them.

[Alan Klein]

That's the whole "are you still beating your wife" rationale you like to quote. You make an unfounded allegation, and then say you need a investigation to determine the facts. Which is exactly what the Biden thing is about. You have to ask with all the corruption everywhere in the world, why is he only interested in investigating alleged corruption of the son of the political rival he consistently loses to in the polls. Witch hunts are okay as long as he is the one pursuing them.

So why was it OK for Obama to launch an investigation of Trump a political rival based on a dossier prepared by Trump's adversary, Hillary Clinton, a Democrat?  In any case, the Trump request was rather benign and mild compared what happened to him when the whole secret forces of the US government were directed against him and still are three years later in the current impeachment.  Yet, you have no concern with these attacks. 


Of course there's political fallout from an investigation.  But that doesn;t make the investigation illegitimate. Otherwise, any politician could get away with corruption by saying they're after me for political reasons and the investigation should be dropped, just what Trump has said as well.  If you don't want to be investigated, you have to remain squeaky clean, something Biden, Trump, Warren, and all the others really don;t know how to do. 

[faberryman]

If you are going to quote me, don't change my words.

[Alan Klein]

If you are going to quote me, don't change my words.

What are you talking about?  I quoted your entire post.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And how is that going? Any change? Why wasn't the investigation into Burisma reopened then?

It was, by the subsequent Prosecutor General who later exempted Mr. Zlochevsky, the owner of Burisma, from the suspicions.