timschochet
Footballguy
So this is a poll but feel free to give your thoughts as well. I'm wondering if Biden benefits from this attention or if he is hurt by it.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
What will be the effect of the impeachment on Joe Biden's campaign? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
adonis
Footballguy
None, None, yes, yes.
Did Hunter benefit from his Dad's connections? Yes. Was it corrupt? No.
The whole thing is making a mountain out of a molehill and so long as the mainstream media doesn't run with this like they did Hillary's emails, it shouldn't be a factor because there seems to be nothing there.
Did Hunter benefit from his Dad's connections? Yes. Was it corrupt? No.
The whole thing is making a mountain out of a molehill and so long as the mainstream media doesn't run with this like they did Hillary's emails, it shouldn't be a factor because there seems to be nothing there.
timschochet
Footballguy
I tend to agree...unless the Bidens are somehow forced to testify. If that happens, then it could be good, could be bad. I don't know.
timschochet
Footballguy
adonis
Footballguy
, just playing the odds. It may be brought up in a dismissive way, kinda like Bernie told Hillary he didn't care about her damn emails.I just think it's likely to be mentioned at some point by an opponent.
timschochet
Footballguy
That depends. If he explains that there's nothing unusual about it, brings up Ivanka Trump (what is her title again? What's her experience?) and a bunch of others, it might help his dad.
Dickies
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I always thought that was calculated.
I just think it's likely to be mentioned at some point by an opponent.
But you named the one guy who MIGHT bring it up. Getting your kids important jobs is an establishment thing. Bernie might decide he can use it to compare Biden to Trump- they're all corrupt, etc. Not sure about this, though, it would be very very risky.
jm192
Footballguy
I don't think the American people are going to see it that way. I may be wrong.
But I hope we call witnesses and Hunter is brought in.
I see no way it isn't bad for Joe's campaign. But perhaps I'll be wrong.
Max Power
Footballguy
adonis
Footballguy
They could just refer to the baggage that Biden has in comparison to someone like Bernie or any other candidates having less of a history to attack. I'm not saying it'll be something they bring up unprompted, or even discussed in a negative way, I just believe the odds are too great that out of all the candidates that it will be mentioned at some point.
sho nuff
Footballguy
jm192
Footballguy
I know. But he can shed light in whether or not the President was right to want to investigate it.
And i know all dems think it’s stupid.
But he was the subject of the phone call at hand. The defense talked about him. The House managers did as well. Seems Hunter Biden is awfully central to this trial.
And if he doesn’t matter, what’s the harm in letting him go before the Senate? It’ll waste time?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I think the main question here is how Biden should respond to the GOP demands for him and Hunter to testify, and I have not been pleased personally with his responses. Biden should not be going full umbrage and insisting he's not relevant, not needed, not required to testify. These are similar arguments Trump is making, albeit more lucidly and without the full executive immunity garbage. I think his responses should be either 1. yes he'd acknowledge his duty to appear if called though it's irrelevant to the inquiry, or 2. he'll show if Trump shows. Really the latter would be most effective vs Trump IMO.
- As for his son he should simply say he's his own man and he can address those questions himself.
- As for his son he should simply say he's his own man and he can address those questions himself.
Skoo
Footballguy
Because it will do exactly what Trump wanted to do in the first place, which is tarnish Biden's reputation ahead of the election.
It gives credence to a conspiracy with no basis whatsoever in fact.
jm192
Footballguy
OK, so: Trump's defense team has asserted it was reasonable to investigate it. You're saying they can't bring in witnesses to expand upon their defense?
Furthermore: Let's be honest with ourselves. No one from the Democratic side thinks they're going to remove the President. They're using impeachment to tarnish the President. They're using it to tarnish the Senators. "You're on trial too." "You're involved in a cover up if you don't vote for witnesses."
So the House Dems can use this to tarnish the Republican candidate--but the Republicans can't use it to tarnish Biden?
jm192
Footballguy
Skoo
Footballguy
Nope, and here's why:
It doesn't make a difference if Hunter is innocent or guilty of any wrongdoing.
The President committed an impeachable offense either way by holding up the aid in exchange for an "announced" investigation.
That's why people like me are saying "he doesn't matter".
He could be guilty as hell. Doesn't make Trump innocent in the slightest.
jm192
Footballguy
If Joe “did it,” then Trump is 100% in the right to investigate him. And no one will dispute that. Except House/senate Dems and most of footballguys.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
I don't get this line of thinking. Biden's son getting placed into that cushy high paying job smells like corruption to me, but I'm just a dude on a FF site.
Dems are arguing that Trump's only possible motivation was to collect dirt on a potential political opponent. Republicans counter is that Trump wanted to investigate corruption en masse, a specific example of which is how Biden, while VP, might have gotten his son a cushy job in a position that he was not at all qualified for. If there is evidence that this is the case, then it bolsters their argument and throws water on the dems argument.
Trump wanting to make sure corruption has indeed been rooted out prior to releasing the funds seems like his job. Did he do it tactfully? Of course not. But in that context it certainly wouldn't warrant removal from office.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Whether Trump was right it not isn't very relevant to whether or not his actions were impeachable. Not because I say so...but because thats the fact of it.
I thought corruption was the subject of the call?
Whats the harm? Lets see, because of nothing but politics you smear the son of a leading candidate for then presidency?
jm192
Footballguy
I mean seriously: you say you want the truth. But let’s “not smear” someone to search for it? Oh poor Hunter. He’s smeared himself enough.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Well yeah...facts would show its still impeachable even if Hunter is dirty. You know..the whole abuse of power and the office to try and get political/personal gain.
Hunters actions don’t justify Trump doing impeachable things.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Yes...the truth. About what Trump did because that is what this is about. Hunter Biden and Hoe Biden are not under actual investigation and are not in trial.
Impeachment proceedings are not where we search for probable cause to investigate someone else. That’s ludicrous.
jm192
Footballguy
So, the President's defense team shouldn't get witnesses that may support their defense. That's what is ludicrous.
Thunderlips
Footballguy
Meh. Much ado about nothing. It's been established that the narrative for Trump wasn't to legitimately investigate......but just to get the headline of investigation.
The Commish
Footballguy
Best I can tell, the only people that care about Biden testifying are the Trump supporters. I've not run into, or seen on these boards, anyone identifying as "independent" etc who care to hear from Biden. All those people claiming we need to hear from Biden are voting for Trump regardless of what comes of this mess. I fail to see how this changes anything other than the bulb in the spotlight shining on the circus attempting to be created. If his testifying illuminates anything, it'll be the clowns running the show. Go for it?
Joe Mammy
Footballguy
unckeyherb
Footballguy
I'm not a trump supporter and would never vote for him. I think its fair for the defense to call witnesses that would lend credence to the claim that there was concern about corruption-especially if linked to our own government.
ETA especially as a rebuttal to the dems claims that Trump's only motivation was to smear a political opponent.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Neither Hunter Biden nor Joe Biden can provide evidence that this is the case. If you want to prove that Trump's goal was to investigate corruption, then it should be fairly easy to find that out. All you have to do is look at emails, correspondence, and interview people who talked to Trump about it. Then you'll know. The Bidens won't tell you anything about Trump's motives.
timschochet
Footballguy
Again, the only witnesses that can tell you that are people close to the President.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
They can shine a light on an actual example of potential corruption, which Dems have been arguing is a conspiracy theory.
timschochet
Footballguy
unckeyherb
Footballguy
No, dems are just stating that there was no corruption, ergo Trump's only motivation was political ####ery. Showing that there is evidence of corruption will help Trump's case. You can choose to not believe that, but I think a lot of people, upon hearing testimony that paints Biden as corrupt would be enough for them to throw their hands up and say it was valid.
But then again, I may be way off on my take.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
Wait, all I've heard is dems telling me what Trump's motivation MUST HAVE been. Now the defense can't use other people's testimony to show that his stated motivation had merit?
timschochet
Footballguy
last time: even if the Bidens are as guilty as hell it won't tell you a thing about Trump's motivations. For that you need somebody close to the President.
But we're wasting time. This whole thing is a ruse. Republicans don't really want the Bidens to testify; they just want a talking point to float out there so that they can avoid witnesses altogether. Even if the Democrats said we're OK with the Bidens testifying, the Republicans would still find a way to refuse. They want this over.
beef
Footballguy
I think so too. It's politics, and even within the same party the gloves comes off.
I just think it's likely to be mentioned at some point by an opponent.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
If their defense isn't legally sound and logical? No, they shouldn't get call whoever they want.
In an actual trial...you think any competent judge allows the defense to do that?
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
So to prove they didn’t want to smear an opponent...you want them to be able to call the opponents son and likely smear him and his dad in a congressional hearing?
Because that is why they want Biden.
The claim they were interested in corruption os weak...given he never mentioned the word corruption in the calls that he wants us all to keep reading the “transcript” for.
And the fact that once found out, the aid was released...and the calls for an actual investigation are now gone.
The Senate trial isn't a place to investigate someone without probable cause.
jm192
Footballguy
Let's see:
House managers: Talked about Bidens
Defense: Talked about Bidens
I actually do think most judges would allow a witness that everyone keeps talking about.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
After the DNC screwed him over Bernie may have no problem bringing it up. And why not?
unckeyherb
Footballguy
No, I’m saying that they would want to call those witnesses to confirm that there was potential corruption, something the Dems have gone out of their way to claim was a defunct conspiracy theory.
The rest of your post is simply your opinion. To say that they are not allowed to call witnesses that will debunk the Democrats claim that his only motivation was political sabotage Is ridiculous.
Also, they would not be investigating anyone. They would be asking questions to a witness. Which is how trials go. Even if you don’t deem it acceptable.
jm192
Footballguy
Yes?
The phone call in question was about...Hunter Biden.
The defense claims Trump was doing his job in investigating...Hunter Biden.
The House tried to clear the name of...Hunter Biden.
All this talk about Hunter Biden and yet he is "not relevant." He can't be relevant to you because you only care that Trump is removed. And I've got bad news man.
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
Surprisingly I seem to be among the majority on the questions. But I think the Dem in-fighting will have more impact (negative) on Biden's campaign. Bernie seems to have gotten a bump in the polls this past week.
I don’t know how all of these things will affect Joe’s campaign, but I do think everyone is overlooking the fact that Biden is very well known, generally well-liked and has never had a whiff of scandal in 50 years of public service (I’m not counting the plagiarism stuff from the ‘80s, which seems almost quaint now). And Hunter is the only surviving child of a family that has experienced unimaginable tragedy.
Again, that doesn’t guarantee how this will play out. But I think too many people are jumping to the conclusion that this will be Hillary 2.0, and forgetting Biden has a lot more goodwill to fall back on than Hillary did.
Again, that doesn’t guarantee how this will play out. But I think too many people are jumping to the conclusion that this will be Hillary 2.0, and forgetting Biden has a lot more goodwill to fall back on than Hillary did.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Because there is zero probable cause to indicate corruption. In so much as Trump himself never mentioned corruption in the calls. The dems were right in saying the crowdstrike stuff and hunter biden were defunct conspiracy theories.
My opinion? No, its a fact that aod was released just after the wb account was known. There is still no investigation now that aid was released.
And I think its pretty rational to say an impeachment trial
is not the tome to try and manufacture probable cause into another individual.
Hunter Biden would not be able to provide evidence of corruption...how would he? It would likely prove the point that its just about then potential candidate in Joe Biden. That is pretty obvious.
The witness in question isn't a witness into Trumps actions...which are the reason for the trial. Neither is the whistleblower.
Similar threads
