What will be the effect of the impeachment on Joe Biden's campaign? (1 Viewer)

[zftcg]

The argument against either Biden testifying is straightforward: Trump is being impeached for using the power of his office to smear his opponent, so he shouldn’t be allowed to use his impeachment trial to further smear him. Having said that, Republicans are clearly going to do that regardless (my senator, Rick Scott, is currently running TV ads in Iowa repeating those smears, even though he’s not running for anything) so maybe the best option for Biden is to take it on directly and spend a couple days spitting fire at Trump. 

 

[Max Power]

Biden is killing his own campaign already. 

 

[sho nuff]

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.

So you admit...the phone call didn't talk about corruption...but Biden.

The defense making a joke of a claim doesn't make him a relevant witness.  Trumps job isnt to investigate conspiracy theories using congressional approved foreign aid.

He may be relevant to discuss...but that doesnt make him a relevant witness to Trumps actions.

 

[sho nuff]

Biden is killing his own campaign already. 

Possibly so...and he is by far not one i want to be the candidate.  Ive said before and keep thinking he should and should have already dropped out.

 

[zftcg]

I always thought that was calculated.

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.

I think any Dem who is seen as legitimizing Trump’s smears will pay a heavy price in the primary. None of them will touch it

 

[The Commish]

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.

I do too, but the GOP is talking about calling guys like Schiff, Biden and his son.  Those are the types of guys they want to call.

 

[unckeyherb]

I do too, but the GOP is talking about calling guys like Schiff, Biden and his son.  Those are the types of guys they want to call.

So what?  To be clear, I'm for everyone testifying.  Bolton, Mulvaney, whomever.  The defense should be able to call any witness they feel will help their case, regardless of what Sho and others think about it. 

 

[The Commish]

I do too, but the GOP is talking about calling guys like Schiff, Biden and his son.  Those are the types of guys they want to call.

So what?  To be clear, I'm for everyone testifying.  Bolton, Mulvaney, whomever.  The defense should be able to call any witness they feel will help their case, regardless of what Sho and others think about it. 

This is a very different statement than the one I agreed with before.

 

[BassNBrew]

1. Who is Pam Bondi?  No effect.

2. Optics of testifying would be bad.  Negative effect.

3. Don't get into a mud wrestling match with the champ.  Ignore Trump.

4. That would be foolish to attach a candidate's kid.  No

 

[sho nuff]

So what?  To be clear, I'm for everyone testifying.  Bolton, Mulvaney, whomever.  The defense should be able to call any witness they feel will help their case, regardless of what Sho and others think about it. 

Help their case with who?  And I mean their actual case?

I think the defense and prosecution, like in any trial, should be limited to witnesses relevant to the case.

How would calling Schiff be relevant or helpful to defend Trump from the accusations against him?  Just start with him...we already know none of us would ever agree on Biden because some think if Biden is guilty then Trump was right to do what he did (I highly disagree as I think most in this country do).

 

[unckeyherb]

Help their case with who?  And I mean their actual case?

I think the defense and prosecution, like in any trial, should be limited to witnesses relevant to the case.

How would calling Schiff be relevant or helpful to defend Trump from the accusations against him?  Just start with him...we already know none of us would ever agree on Biden because some think if Biden is guilty then Trump was right to do what he did (I highly disagree as I think most in this country do).

Don't know.  That's not really my concern as I am not defending Trump in an Impeachment hearing.  And again, you being unconvinced that it will help their case or that it isn't relevant doesn't really matter.  Its not up to you.

 

[timschochet]

So what?  To be clear, I'm for everyone testifying.  Bolton, Mulvaney, whomever.  The defense should be able to call any witness they feel will help their case, regardless of what Sho and others think about it. 

Neither the defense nor the prosecution get to call any witnesses. I’d be fine if they did, so long as the other side could object to relevance and Roberts could issue a ruling. Are you good with this idea? 

 

[timschochet]

Don't know.  That's not really my concern as I am not defending Trump in an Impeachment hearing.  And again, you being unconvinced that it will help their case or that it isn't relevant doesn't really matter.  It’s not up to you. 

It is up to him. And you. And me. This is not a legal proceeding. The senators who decide this are not jurors, they are ultimately subject to our approval. 

 

[unckeyherb]

Neither the defense nor the prosecution get to call any witnesses. I’d be fine if they did, so long as the other side could object to relevance and Roberts could issue a ruling. Are you good with this idea? 

Of course.  I already stipulated that I think we should hear from everyone, including Bolton and Mulvaney.  If the defense can't make a cogent argument for calling Hunter Biden, then fine.  

 

[unckeyherb]

It is up to him. And you. And me. This is not a legal proceeding. The senators who decide this are not jurors, they are ultimately subject to our approval. 

This is not really true.  I mean, idealistically it is.  But in reality it isn't.  They might be punished down the line, but that isn't quite the same thing.

 

[timschochet]

Of course.  I already stipulated that I think we should hear from everyone, including Bolton and Mulvaney.  If the defense can't make a cogent argument for calling Hunter Biden, then fine.  

Good. Full agreement. Of course it’s all fantasy. They will never allow Roberts to make such a ruling, nor do I except they will ever call Biden or any witnesses at all. 

 

[timschochet]

This is not really true.  I mean, idealistically it is.  But in reality it isn't.  They might be punished down the line, but that isn't quite the same thing.

Sooner than you might think. Corey Gardner, Martha McSally, Thom Tillis- they are all going to lose their seats over this vote, I believe. 

 

[unckeyherb]

Sooner than you might think. Corey Gardner, Martha McSally, Thom Tillis- they are all going to lose their seats over this vote, I believe. 

Right, but not soon enough to actually motivate one way or the other.  

 

[sho nuff]

Don't know.  That's not really my concern as I am not defending Trump in an Impeachment hearing.  And again, you being unconvinced that it will help their case or that it isn't relevant doesn't really matter.  Its not up to you.

So you don't know what it would convince or why it would be relevant...you just want it to happen?

Im all for any relevant witnesses...and its not just about me saying its relevant...but its actual relevancy.

Schiff...is not relevant to any of it...please explain in what way he is?

 

[unckeyherb]

So you don't know what it would convince or why it would be relevant...you just want it to happen?

Im all for any relevant witnesses...and its not just about me saying its relevant...but its actual relevancy.

Schiff...is not relevant to any of it...please explain in what way he is?

I already explained why I think its relevant-as a rebuttal to dems claims that any corruption involving the Biden's is a "debunked conspiracy theory" and therefore Trump's ONLY motivation for asking for investigations was to damage a potential political opponent.  If R's think that grilling Hunter will expose some evidence that there was in fact corruption (a task that I honestly don't think would be that hard) then it throws cold water on the Dem argument that its all a debunked conspiracy.  This may not move the needle for you, but it will for a lot of people.  And that is a right that should be afforded to the defense.

I've stated this more than once in response to you.  It is relevant.  I don't know how else to explain my point of view other than what I wrote above.  I know you disagree, but you also know I've answered this question at least 2 or 3 times now, so please don't misrepresent what I am saying as, I "just want it to happen".  I think there is a reasonable argument for having these witnesses appear.  

Also, I don't think I have ever mentioned Schiff as a witness I think is relevant, so I don't really feel the need to defend him as one.  

 

[roadkill1292]

One benefit that could come from a quick vote of acquittal would be Biden's "corruption" dropping off the radar nine months before the election, an eternity in today's news cycle. While the president is guaranteed to do 90 more mean and/or stupid things during that same time period. I realize this is a feature, not a bug, for some.  OTOH, with an acquittal, Donald has the chutzpah and the motivation to keep trashing whichever Dem is the leading candidate and the most threatening to him in the polls. His most remarkable skill is using one misstep, one thing, to tear an opponent apart while committing an infinite number of worse misdeeds at the same time and remain relatively unscathed.

 

[unckeyherb]

One benefit that could come from a quick vote of acquittal would be Biden's "corruption" dropping off the radar nine months before the election, an eternity in today's news cycle. While the president is guaranteed to do 90 more mean and/or stupid things during that same time period. I realize this is a feature, not a bug, for some.  OTOH, with an acquittal, Donald has the chutzpah and the motivation to keep trashing whichever Dem is the leading candidate and the most threatening to him in the polls. His most remarkable skill is using one misstep, one thing, to tear an opponent apart while committing an infinite number of worse misdeeds at the same time and remain relatively unscathed.

Its a sight to behold.  I can't describe it any better than you have, but its amazing to me and its not going to get better/less relenting moving into the summer I think.