Should Joe and Hunter Biden be forced to testify before the Senate?

Typical, predictable (tiresome, and wearisome) liberal Democrat deflection, conjecture, and irrelevancies....

You KNOW that ol' Joe didn't get his cocaine-huffing, bust-out child that job in Burisma? You KNOW that? The EVIDENCE (i.e., getting $83K/month to do NOTHING), along with ol' Joe's lack of subtlety in dealing with the Ukrainian oligarchs strongly suggests otherwise.... Moreover, none of this has anything to do with any of Donald Trump or his family -- but the Left's lib-agenda suggests that you drag them into the Biden scandal... a well-known, low-brow "what-about" deflection tactic that involves nothing with the issue at hand -- BIDEN.

Want to know some specifics about Hunter Biden, ipsum, that are well-documented FACTS? Take as long as necessary....
Link: https://www.conservapedia.com/Hunter_Biden

 

No matter what happened Trump stepped in the pile of doo-doo and got dirty doing it wrong and at the wrong time to do it.

 

Yeah, don't get me started on Trump's actual stupidities! The man is an abyss of coarse, shallow, reckless 'indelicacies' -- one after another.

If the Democrat Party were (WERE) capable of producing candidates who were better overall, we of what I refer to as "the rational Middle-Class" would probably elect one of them in 2020. But if Joe Biden is all they can come up with then they are doomed! Nobody but welfare-sucking fans of weird political fantasies are going to vote for a corrupt clown like HE is... who's even worse than Trump is on his worst day....

 

Candidates are there yet the establishment will not support them and the establishment is who allows whomever to get into a position of being electable in the final race. Trump is effective to a degree yet his idiosyncrasies don't allow him to understand how the system works to make him more efficient like Reagan was because Reagan was a governor before being president so he understood how the system worked.

 

Yes, and in much the same way, Bill Clinton was an effective president, although nowhere near being what I would want ideally. Reagan and Clinton were capable of the art of compromise, each in his own way, with greater and lesser degrees of effectiveness. But Trump is definitely a "my way or the highway" kind of person.

It gags me to say it (or even to think it), but Michael Bloomberg might end up being the best candidate that the Democrats can field. I loathe his stance on a number of 'social' issues, and I'm allergic to his views on the 2nd Amendment -- our fundamental right to defend ourselves with firearms.

But, the man does have extensive experience in running a large governmental system, he actually knows WHAT an "economy" is, and, he's a proven success at being able to run a business! If he can shed some of his "SJW" baggage and stop trying to fight against our right to protect ourselves, he might make a strong candidate. Never forget, he's got FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS to use, too.

But, who Mikey could pick as a running-mate is both mysterious, and, a bit frightening, considering that he will be 78 years old next month....

 

Biden was hired as a LEGAL advisor, something he definitely knew something about, so false claim number 1.
Biden was a board member for 5 years, only 18 months of which he got $83k, false claim number 2.
And the FAKENESS of your FAKE quote was not what he was paid but what you QUOTED Hunter as saying to his father, false claim number three.
"Where else could I make $50K a month doing nothing? Thanks, Daddy!"

 

Ol' Joe's little boy, Hunter, became a Burisma BOARD MEMBER! And even that $83K/month is very likely just the tip of the iceberg. You may benefit from reading something besides the heavily liberal-slanted tract that appears in the "Wikipedia" about ol' Joe's child, so, try this instead: Link: https://www.conservapedia.com/Hunter_Biden . Did you know that in his exalted station at Burisma, Hunter Biden reportedly never even went to Ukraine? Not even once!

You may also enjoy:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hu...while-on-board-of-ukranian-gas-company-report

After that, you may want to toil into the allegations about the Biden's and CHINA (BHR Equity Investment Fund Management Company, a Chinese state-backed private equity firm)! This just gets better and better.... No wonder these scheming Democrats want nothing to do with the possibility of either of the Biden's being forced to provide testimony in a Senate trial UNDER OATH!

 

yes, the right hates when the left brings up facts....

the Trump children benefit from their fathers last name exactly like Biden's son did, the only difference is some of Trump's children worked for the white house while taking advantage with foreign countries

 

Only said what I know....no plagiarizing.

 

Just like the House can impeach a sitting president for anything, the senate can legally call any witness they desire . . . for any reason IF they claim that it has got something to do with the trial . . . whether or not it actually does. Perhaps the Dem Party's leadership should have considered THAT when they were engaging in a faux impeachment in the first place.

 

You reiterated verbatim now report yourself like you do other people.

 

Honestly, Fresh, you haven't presented any "facts" at all. No, not even one....

If it's any consolation, though, I have said ever since Trump appeared as a serious candidate in 2015 that I wish he'd keep his children entirely OUT OF SIGHT! When any politician has his or her children in any part of the political spotlight, it only creates an irritating annoyance that reminds people of exactly the kind of crap that can go on behind the scenes -- EXACTLY AS HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE THE CASE WITH HUNTER BIDEN!

But, tell you what -- you Leftist libs go find some dirty, nauseating, underhanded thing that one of Trump's kids did and THEN you'll have grounds to equate them with what we've seen that Biden's kid was involved in... fair enough?!

 

Conservapedis and The FAUX Rumor Mill, now there are two unbiased sources for ya'.
NOT!
Why exactly would Biden have to be in Ukraine to give them legal advice, which is what he was hired for????

 

OK, those are intriguing observations and questions. And I agree in principle -- all "rumors" should be sorted into two piles -- one we can call FACTS, and the other that we will call BULLSHIT.

Therefore, I DO suggest that we do hear direct testimony from witnesses in the Senate trial -- and that the first two that Trump's attorneys call are Joe and Hunter Biden -- UNDER OATH! Fair enough...? Let's DO this!

 

how about Tramp being the first witness to be put under oath.
fair enough?

 

Maybe... there are some constitutional caveats that may apply to what the Congress can or can not require a sitting president to do. Don't get irritated with me -- I'm just telling you what will weigh on any suggestion that Trump can be compelled to provide testimony -- especially concerning activities which he almost certainly will state were within his responsibilities and/or prerogatives as president. It's all a part of that 'balance-of-power' conundrum involving the Constitution of the United States.

As for little, old piss-ant me? If Trump has committed any crimes, then I want him OUT of office. I've been very clear about this ever since the first murmurs about the whole "Russia" thing came bubbling up in some Democrat political 'think-tank'.... If it were left up to me, yes, I'd want Trump to provide answers to questions pertaining to the Articles of Impeachment! Surprised? But I ain't running this show....

By the same token, if Biden (or his child) committed any crimes or highly-questionable activities, then I want them exposed for what they are, and what they were, and what they did! Nothing more, and nothing less. Fair enough?

 

If Trump were convicted of littering, speeding, simple possession of a controlled substance, DWI, assault, or even tax evasion, I would not want him out of office for those crimes.

To impeach, I think it needs to be a) a crime and b) a crime that indicates a violation of the public trust, like bribery or treason. There is a reason they put those two crimes in the constitution. I think they are guideposts. Anyway, I'd want to see both.

Anyway, I don't think congress has a duty to remove anybody for any reason. They have the prerogative and the power -- not the same thing as "duty."

 

I voted "other." They should be invited and urged, not compelled.

 

I thank you for the opportunity I really do and I do see your piont please see mine too.

I'm not a democrat I believe that democrats are far more dangerous than republicans can ever be. Look at Obama and his sweet words and his ISIS production.
AG was investigating Hunter but that can't charge Biden. Technically he didn't do anything wrong I mean it's obvious that there is some serious dirt on them but the fact is all of these politicians are this way and they know how to flee. But Biden didn't break any law.

And I agree that Pelosi did pushed this process and made a big deal of it. But look EVEN if they can prove the dirt on Hunter they can never prove the dirt on his daddy. Biden himself is smart he is saying that I didn't know anything about Hunter it means that he's not even saying that Hunter is innocent. Means that if he's guilty what does it have to do with me I was doing my job and I did a good job.
And that's true that Pelosi lied but US means Trump and Trump means US because he's the president.
And I truly get it that this whole process is kind of sham and I have no pride in admitting it. But you gotta admit that Pelosi can say " Biden is clearly innocent so going after Biden is for Trump's self interest".
BUT Trump can argue that I wasn't going after Biden in the first place I was going after Hunter. But Pelosi will say why did you endangered national security by withholding the aid?
And Trump can say I'm the president and I can do that since I didn't break the law because after all I did release the aid but he can't argue that he didn't endanger national security.
And this national security is the only thing they have to say in their propaganda.
And I'm more of a Bernie and like Biden to be executed.
Bottom line if we want to discuss that is it impeachable? I ADMIT THAT IT'S NOT IMPEACHABLE .

 

What do you consider about Biden openly threatening to withhold money from the Ukraine to get a prosecutor fired? Isn't that the same quid pro quo? If Hunter is guilty of anything, it was the idea he was to give access THROUGH his DADDY to the White House. That is why he was worth $80,000/ month. Biden was part of that.

I will stand, til my dying day against Bernie's Socialism. It creates a haven for elitists, like Bernie, and limits any opportunity for the average Joe. That is it's history and it is undeniable. Bernie has his wealth. You won't EVER hear rags to riches stories by successful entrepreneurs in countries where Socialism dominates.

 

Unfortunately, the Constitution is peculiarly VAGUE about 'impeachment criteria'. Ostensibly, using the description written into the document, impeachment could cover everything from outright treason against the nation, all the way down to spitting on the sidewalk (a "misdemeanor" in a lot of cities in the United States).

And we all have different views of which presidents should have been impeached and removed from office, too. My own list would have Abraham Lincoln right at the top, in capital letters! Next would be 'Frankie' D. Roosevelt, followed by Lyndon B. Johnson! But other U. S. citizens speak of these same men as though they were 'demi-gods'. "Different opinions make horse races." -- Mark Twain.

. "You like the 10th Amendment to the Constitution...? Well... TOO BAD FOR YOU!"

 

Yes. let me ask you something. Do you read the constitution to mean congress has a duty to impeach in any circumstance? Make it a worst case scenario: the President is caught red handed delivering military secrets to Iran in exchange for a concession to build a hotel un Teheran. Does congress have a duty to impeach? Not a moral obligation (which they would), but a constitutional duty?

I don't see it, and therefore this business of Congress's solemn duty to impeach is poppycock.

 

I do not see a "duty" to impeach... rather, using the admittedly very imprecise criteria described in the Constitution, I see an "ability" to impeach. Nothing more, or less -- the "solemnity" of the thing notwithstanding....

. "If I close my eyes would I look more 'solemn'...?"

 

Voted for "other".

An investigation into the Biden's is certainly valid. Making it a part of the impeachment process is beyond stupid. It doesn't matter if the Biden's did everything they are accused of, Trump still did what he did and would be no less responsible for his actions. Even Republicans would have agreed with that in the past when they still had integrity.

 

I can see both sides of that one, but Democrats have claimed that the Bidens had already been investigated by Ukraine, that there was 9nothing there, and Trump's call for an investigation was for that reason bogus.

If we stipulate that placing young Biden on that board was a corrupt act, then Trump's concern about it is legitimate.