Re: Biden
"Everybody knows the issue here is not what I did," Biden continued, “because no one has proved one scintilla of evidence that I did anything other than do my job for America as well as anybody could have done it. Making sure that we, in fact, got rid of a corrupt prosecutor who everybody, including our allies as well as … the IMF and everyone else said has to go. I did my job incredibly well.”
I’m so happy that I read that article. I was under the impression that Biden broke the law.
its about responding to an impeachment related subpoena. If Biden said “I’ll challenge it in court”, or “I’ll show up, and if Trump testifies under oath and makes my testimony relevant, I will respond” it would be one thing. But a “no” to the question “will you comply” followed by a lot of malarkey having nothing to do with the issue of whether a congressional impeachment subpoena can be ignored –
nope. That’s Trumpian in the extreme.
Counselor, is Biden the plaintiff or is he the defendant?
Is ‘tabloid television’ good for democracy or should we use the aforementioned to entertain a selected few?
The last thing Democrats need during Trump’s Senate trial is for Biden to honor a subpoena to show up, sit down and answer questions. And there are 1,000 reasons why it would be just plain stupid, with far worse consequences than simply defying a subpoena. Have you and @george lost your way? Biden defying a subpoena isn’t even an issue.
This is really helpful, thanks.
we’re talking about messaging here… so if the message has to be delivered in a tabloid format, so be it.
Because when Democrats ignore this kind of crap coming from its leading candidate, to the average person impeachment looks exactly like what Trump claims it is – a political exercise having nothing to do with constitutional principles.
Joe Biden doesn’t get to ignore the constitution just because he is Joe Biden. And quite honestly, I don’t want to see what will happen once Trump is acquitted, and can say “hey, Democrats are fine with Joe Biden ignoring subpoenas…”|
its the freaking constitution at stake is all. Like it or not, a Senate subpoena is just as valid as a House one.
I’ve already said that Biden should challenge the subpoena – in court, or in the Senate. “Not complying” is not an option – because its the Trump option. And the minute you are okay with Biden not showing up, you’ve lost an moral or constitutional authority to complain about what Trump has done in defying House subpoenas.
No, we’re talking about a continuous car crash, because unwilling bystanders are at the mercy of a demented and bored few.
Should Biden have to testify? Playing along, yes. However, why does he have to testify? Is it necessary for him to show up or is this a need (wish?) from you, a strange desire for popcorn.
And the minute you are okay with Biden not showing up, you’ve lost an moral or constitutional authority
There’s no more moral or constitutional authority to lose. Trump has claimed it all.
no. Biden should not have to testify. But he should comply with the subpoena – by responding to it in some fashion.
Do you understand the distinction here?
What kills me is that everyone says that the #1 goal is beating Donald Trump — but now the #1 priority seems to be protecting Joe Biden from his past. Because a Biden subpoena, handled properly, would be a massive plus for the Dems.
disagree. Dems should have constitutional and moral authority in order to impeach Trump. Otherwise, we have become Trump.
ok
Are you saying that he should game the system?
Which past are we talking about?
The past that a % will always have a problem with or the one that folks are willing to ‘paint’ for him.
Wow, you delivered two insults to old people in one comment.
Do you think that I know?
I recall that both the House and Kupperman had filed motions to dismiss the case since the subpoena had been withdrawn. Now Kupperman’s counsel is saying that it’s not moot.
Maybe I’d get this if I’d taken a different set of courses in law school, but just as a matter of logic and consistency, none of this is making sense. I think the only thing to be gleaned is that Judge Leon is loath to give up whatever leverage he has here, and is probably pissed that his colleague Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson issued such a thorough opinion on the Don McGahn subpoena, and that he would have disagreed about the enforceability of the Kupperman subpoena.
Yes.
Chuck Schumer is a Senator. Under the constitution, impeachment is solely a power of the house. While some senators (Hello Lindsay! How’s the handler it appears comrade Vlad assigned you?) are shooting off their mouths, Schumer’s not getting into it. What do you want a Senator to do when they constitutionally have nothing to do with the process at hand? And since you want to tell the house what to do, have you filed to run for your district’s house seat yet? Or at least actually talked with your rep? Jeez.
Btw, perhaps labor doesn’t think Dems are so “candy assed” since AFL/CIO endorsed the NAFTA update that 80 year old granny negotiated with the deal making con man to get what labor wanted. Yeah, weak. Right. Sure. You sure are good with recitation of talking points. Especially the GOP ones about granny and afraid. Keep projecting.
In other wall news, Trump’s acolytes are making themselves real popular with their hijinks in South Texas.
In an interview with right-wing news outlet The Rundown, Kolfage smeared Snipes, a beloved figure in the border town of Mission known for his love of Lone Star beer and vocal defense of a historic chapel threatened by Trump’s wall. “[Snipes] is promoting human trafficking and abuse of women and children,” Kolfage said, referring to the priest’s criticism of border fences. “Instead of driving around in expensive boats with media he should be helping … to combat the rampant pedophilia in the church.” Since Friday, Kolfage has also tagged the butterfly center in about 30 tweets, accusing the refuge of assisting the cartels, implying it has ties to insect smuggling, and labeling the center “left wing thugs with a sham butterfly agenda.”
If Judge Leon wanted to go first he could have found an earlier date on the calendar.