Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And you should be directing your question at trump who is blocking witnesses from talking g. What does trump have to hide, huh?
Funny that you focus the "why would he" factor instead of the clear illegality of his refusal to testify under what would be a lawful congressional subpoena. And, unlike the subpoenas issued to the Trump administration, Biden's testimony wouldn't be covered by any privilege. Funny that you're willing to call out what you consider malfeasance on one side while ignoring it on the other side. But such is the Democrat way.
The thread is about Biden !!! Not Trump or Mulvaney !!! See bold above and deny being hypocritical !!!
Virtue signaling 101 failure !!!
Joe Biden is not on trial. The impeachment is of Donald Trump. Not Joe Biden. Donald Trump will be on trial in the Senate due to his actions. Due to his crime. This impeachment is about Donald Trump, not Joe Biden. Joe Biden committed no crime and is not the one who is obstructing Congress. He was not witness to POTUS'
PANDEMONIUM, unlike so many who are being maligned for their truthfulness.
You are sadly mistaken if you think your fellow Americans will fall for that which you have fallen for and that which you deploy once again. This type of Putinesque phony propaganda pablum IS NO LONGER CONFUSING MANY IN THIS NATION.
The bold is laughable. The Dems failed to put forward an actual witness but you want the President to defend himself against conjecture?
As the learned Jonathan Thurley, Democrat Voting, Trump bashing Law expert said in his testimony:
"I would like to start, perhaps incongruously, with a statement of three irrelevant
facts. First, I am not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him in 2016 and I
have previously voted for Presidents Clinton and Obama. Second, I have been highly
critical of President Trump, his policies, and his rhetoric, in dozens of columns. Third, I
have repeatedly criticized his raising of the investigation of the Hunter Biden matter with
the Ukrainian president. These points are not meant to curry favor or approval. Rather
they are meant to drive home a simple point: one can oppose President Trump’s policies
or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just
woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment
of an American president. To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My
personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my
impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my only
concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of
impeachment. President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the
wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned
about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of
anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would
stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest
evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.7I]"
"the House Intelligence Committee declared that it would
not subpoena a host of witnesses who have direct knowledge of any quid pro quo.
Instead, it will proceed on a record composed of a relatively small number of witnesses
with largely second-hand knowledge of the position. The only three direct conversations
with President Trump do not contain a statement of a quid pro quo and two expressly
deny such a pre-condition. The House has offered compelling arguments why those two
calls can be discounted by the fact that President Trump had knowledge of the underlying
whistleblower complaint. However, this does not change the fact that it is moving
forward based on conjecture, assuming what the evidence would show if there existed the
time or inclination to establish it. The military aid was released after a delay that the
witnesses described as “not uncommon” for this or prior Administrations. This is not a
case of the unknowable. It is a case of the peripheral. The House testimony is replete with
references to witnesses like John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Mulvaney who clearly
hold material information. To impeach a president on such a record would be to expose
every future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment."[/i]
Jonathan Thurley claiming to not be a Trump voter is an incredible Trumpian style lie. Thurley is telling us that the testimony against Trump was all lies. Trashing a couple of Purple Heart recipients isn`t really a reach for those who support a president who trashed our POWs. To not impeach gives a green light to Trump and presidents who follow him to shake down foreign leaders for personal favors. The Russian trolls have gotten to this "learned" cultist.
If I were Biden, I would testify if Donald Trump testifies
He's not in a position to set terms. If they subpoena Biden, he has to testify. He can go up there and plead the 5th if he's worried about incriminating himself.
All of that said, there's not going to be a trial anyway. Impeachment is likely to happen officially and even if it does, they'll most likely just dismiss the articles soon after receiving them.
All this talk about different people testifying is a waste of time.
He's not in a position to set terms. If they subpoena Biden, he has to testify. He can go up there and plead the 5th if he's worried about incriminating himself.
All of that said, there's not going to be a trial anyway. Impeachment is likely to happen officially and even if it does, they'll most likely just dismiss the articles soon after receiving them.
All this talk about different people testifying is a waste of time.
No, he won't. He will do the same thing everyone else in the Trump administration has done and challenge it in court; then let it sit for months while some judge figures it out.
That's been the Trump playbook from Day one.
Secondly, Joe Biden has absolutely ZERO to do with why Trump abused his office to bribe another country to interfere in our election.
IF the state department wishes to investigate Joe biden separately - they should get on with it.
He doesn't need to testify. The people that need to testify and under Trump's thumb. Why won't Trump let anyone testify?
Why does he NOT NEED to testify? Why should he refuse to comply with a subpoena? Do you know what a subpoena is? It’s a legally binding order to appear and testify. So why do you think it’s ok for him to refuse?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
