Joe Biden: I Will Not Comply with Senate Subpoena in Impeachment Trial

I have no idea, it's their conduct that is at the heart of the matter. Was there corruption that needs to be investigated? There is sure probable cause. Was Trump correct in requesting assistance from Ukraine into corruption investigations, you betcha.

 

If you had probable cause, then Trump would not have needed to leverage a foreign government into announcing an investigation. You would have been able to just get a domestic investigative agency to launch an investigation and make the request themselves.

That didn't happen. You do not have probable cause.

 

Sure he did, as Volker testified the Ukraine government had a history of making private promises and then never following through. A public announcement would be further commitance to the investigation.

 

An actual investigation from a domestic investigative agency would be an actual investigation.

You don't have that because you don't have probable cause.

 

How do you figure? This whole clown show revolves around Biden corruption. To presume what the Senate will or won't do, even before you folks have your sham vote is short-sighted. There is a small chance that Democrats will see reason and logic and simply vote "NO". The Senate isn't going to show its hand until it has to, and right now they haven't, no matter how many times you say otherwise...

 

Actually, Federal rules of evidence are in play so establishing a fact pattern for why Trump brought his name up is very valid.

Biden publicly admitted to a Quid Pro Quo on national TV. This was introduced into testimony from the Republican side during the hearing last night. The Senate now has a valid entry point to obtain the information.

The Dems have got to be acting on a death wish to want to open up the kickbacks, money laundering and Naftogaz documentation.
And the State Department can't sit on the Yovanovitch no prosecution list that was submitted to the Ukraine government while Hunter Biden was on the board. (They can put off Judicial Watch, but not an Impeachment evidence request.)

The subpoena would be brought for a Federal trial and not a hearing, so Biden has no choice. He can plead the 5th to all of his testimony or none of it.

 

Regardless of any of that.

It WON'T Happen. Case closed.

 

The only way it won't happen is if the Dems wise up and don't vote for impeachment. If they do, all bets are off.

 

The bolded is untrue. The House and the Senate set their own rules. The FRE is not in play.

 

No, the reason it will not happen is because at least 3 Republicans will not vote to subpoena Joe Biden.

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/t...le-witness-in-trump-senate-impeachment-trial/

 

I may take the fifth as well

 

McConnell has already stated that the Federal rules would be used. I see no reason why all of the Republicans would not agree with Mitch.
Chief Justice Roberts would then simply rule on standing of any evidence.

So the bold is peremptorily true. Next....

Nemo Est Supra Legis

 

Show me that quote.

 

Summary Judgement........ based on no evidence.

So you are now on record admitting that the Dems have no case.

 

I'm watching the impeachment proceedings. I think it's getting to the point where all the mentions of Joe and Hunter Biden are going to serve as counter-productive to the Republican narrative.

I'm no particular fan of Biden but they are giving him so much free name recognition that this will probably push him up in the polls; just out of pure familiarity.

 

The Republicans introduced the Biden name for it to be introduced in a Senate trial. No doubt about it. How profound it would be for the Senate to make a criminal referral on Joe Biden for his TV admission of a Quid Pro Quo.

 

Again, Biden would have no choice but to appear.

He could always plea the 5th. How would that go over in front of the entire nation?

 

It all relates to Biden, that's where this started. If Biden doesn't testify he may as well end his campaign. He hid beyond Pelosi's skirts begging for impeachment, if he backs out now what sort of leadership does that show?

 

You're missing the point. In today's political circus, detail is irrelevant. People will just hear the name and think "I've heard about that guy".

It's an old adage but: any publicity is good publicity. If Republicans push this too far they're just pouring virtual money into the Biden campaign.

He's not even that good of a candidate so I don't know why the Republicans are getting so worked up into a lather about this non-issue.

And no, I don't think either "Biden" will be a feature in the actual Senate trial.

 

Ridiculous. The Democrats in the House of Representatives refused to go to the Judiciary to have their subpoenas enforced. The Republicans in the Senate will use the courts and Joe Biden is a piece of **** that sold his office to enrich his family.

The Democrats were afforded by Newt Gingrich during the Clinton Impeachment:

(1) Full Subpoena Power
(2) Any witnesses they want
(3) Lawyer Cross Examination​

Trump was not given any of those fair considerations. Of course he told them to pound sand as any President should do to protect the office from a corrupt Congress.

 

....where did I make or imply that admission?

 

Okay....but surely that cannot happen this way...........

I am served with a subpoena. Prima facie it is valid. I decide....'stuff that, I am not doing it.'

Are you telling me that the onus is then on the person who issued the subpoena (here....funnily enough.... it is the 'Queen,' to toddle off to a Court and have to discharge some onus going to the validity of the subpoena, and the person served just sits back and gets to watch the circus and the associated delay in proceedings in the principal action?

 

Be nice to the Queen, she's getting older.

 

It is adjudicated in the court. As noted today that is exactly what happened when Obama refused to comply in Fast and Furious. The Democrats have created a canard.

 

DOJ and FBI are and they would work as under treaty with the Ukraine's and a President has every right and authority to discuss that with his counterpart.