DiscussMormonism.com

The GOP asks Hunter Biden to testify in the impeachment inquiry.

I am uncertain what they are up to with that seemingly irrelevant request. Are they trying to make a mockery of the Congressional inquiry process?

moksha wrote:The GOP asks Hunter Biden to testify in the impeachment inquiry.

I am uncertain what they are up to with that seemingly irrelevant request. Are they trying to make a mockery of the Congressional inquiry process?

They're trying to turn the inquiry into a platform for the propaganda efforts that lie at the heart of why the inquiry exists in the first place to muddy the waters.

These kind of stunts with zero pushback from GOP officeholders are a clear sign that impeachment has already failed, in my opinion. Whatever window there was to persuade Republican Senators seems closed. Since Democrats take the view that you gotta wrap it up quick, we're effectively watching enabling acts for Trump while pundit class imagines this to be bad for Trump.

Good luck trying to win an election against Trump (and Republicans on his coattails) if and when he gets to cheat as much as he wants.

The Republican goal is to make the process seem like more partisanship on the part of Democrats trying to overturn the results of the 2016 election. Their witness list is easily recognized as seeking that goal. From Hunter Biden to Alexandra Chalupa the aim is to show that this isn't about Trump having done something that damages the very structure of our democracy but is, instead, simply Democrats grasping at straws to stop Trump from winning again in 2020.

That makes this a bit of a difficult situation. On one hand, my own view is that the Democrats should make open negotiations with the Republicans and litigation over the value of each witness to the investigation a public discussion so as to undermine the idea Democrats are trying to manipulate the process. In the case of Hunter Biden, the Democrats should have a friendly witness who can be used to expose just how dumb the claim is that Joe sought to help Hunter's client. In a way, having that openly shut down in the proceedings would be ideal so I don't object to calling Hunter Biden as a witness. On the other hand, I am also uncertain of Democrat skill in doing so. The Mueller Report fiasco was not encouraging.

The whistleblower, though, should be protected. If that can't gain bipartisan support then that is a different issue entirely. Given the claims in the whistleblower's complaint are essentially being supported or discredited by other witnesses, a public litigation of that point should undercut Republicans. A repeated argument that Republicans would have to show this isn't an intimidation tactic and that calling the whistleblower would shed light on the matter missed by the witnesses already having testified in the inquiry process should be the drum beat of that discussion. "You want to call the whistleblower to testify? Other than to try and intimidate whistleblowers, what do you expect them to say that isn't addressed by the witnesses already being called? Trump has a right to face his accusers? The House of Representatives is his accuser. The whistleblower simply made us aware of an issue which we have investigated and, through witnesses, have determined warrants formal impeachment proceedings. If we determine he should be impeached and he faces the Senate, we will be his accuser there as well. He's welcome to come and face this body in person at any time." Making whistleblower protection an issue and setting Republicans on the side opposed to it should be a politically good position for Democrats. Again, it would take a certain degree of skill but that should be the result.

honorentheos wrote:The Republican goal is to make the process seem like more partisanship on the part of Democrats trying to overturn the results of the 2016 election. Their witness list is easily recognized as seeking that goal. From Hunter Biden to Alexandra Chalupa the aim is to show that this isn't about Trump having done something that damages the very structure of our democracy but is, instead, simply Democrats grasping at straws to stop Trump from winning again in 2020.

I think that casts it too narrowly. It's also about giving oxygen to the Biden conspiracy theory, so it becomes a he said / she said between dueling conspiracy claims.

The trade off is giving up the argument the Democrats are manipulating the impeachment process for partisan reasons. Giving it oxygen would help demonstrate it was a fake argument that lacks fuel to burn given the oxygen. All the heat is coming from outside the issue.

honorentheos wrote:The trade off is giving up the argument the Democrats are manipulating the impeachment process for partisan reasons. Giving it oxygen would help demonstrate it was a fake argument that lacks fuel to burn given the oxygen. All the heat is coming from outside the issue.

That doesn't give up that argument.

Watch.

Democrats are manipulating the impeachment process for partisan reasons.

There, I just made the argument.

"Aha!," you might say, "that's false because blah blah." Yeah, it's no more false today than it was yesterday. One ludicrous argument can replace the next because you are not interacting with good faith actors. The only thing that will make it "not partisan" in the eyes of Republicans is if it is given total Republican partisan control. Otherwise, there will always be a next argument up for why Democrats are just trying to unfairly undo an election result.

It didn't even occur to me until I read this that you are seriously arguing in favor of letting Republicans hijack impeachment proceedings to let them promote conspiracy theories. In addition to that likely spreading those conspiracy theories more, that will make the proceedings look more, not less partisan. It's the dueling views that looks partisan, not the content of it.

It's like listening to you propose letting a bully kick your teeth in because then everyone will see how unreasonable the bully is and you will have won. Just give Republicans your lunch money and get it over with.

moksha wrote:The GOP asks Hunter Biden to testify in the impeachment inquiry.

I am uncertain what they are up to with that seemingly irrelevant request. Are they trying to make a mockery of the Congressional inquiry process?

Not sure how Republicans could exceed the mockery achieved by Democrats thus far.
But its reasonable that you would not see the relevance.

subgenius wrote:

moksha wrote:The GOP asks Hunter Biden to testify in the impeachment inquiry.

I am uncertain what they are up to with that seemingly irrelevant request. Are they trying to make a mockery of the Congressional inquiry process?

Not sure how Republicans could exceed the mockery achieved by Democrats thus far.
But its reasonable that you would not see the relevance.

Neither can you explain the relevance. Because there is no relevance.

EAllusion wrote:

honorentheos wrote:The trade off is giving up the argument the Democrats are manipulating the impeachment process for partisan reasons. Giving it oxygen would help demonstrate it was a fake argument that lacks fuel to burn given the oxygen. All the heat is coming from outside the issue.

That doesn't give up that argument.

Watch.

Democrats are manipulating the impeachment process for partisan reasons.

There, I just made the argument.

"Aha!," you might say, "that's false because blah blah." Yeah, it's no more false today than it was yesterday. One ludicrous argument can replace the next because you are not interacting with good faith actors. The only thing that will make it "not partisan" in the eyes of Republicans is if it is given total Republican partisan control. Otherwise, there will always be a next argument up for why Democrats are just trying to unfairly undo an election result.

It didn't even occur to me until I read this that you are seriously arguing in favor of letting Republicans hijack impeachment proceedings to let them promote conspiracy theories. In addition to that likely spreading those conspiracy theories more, that will make the proceedings look more, not less partisan. It's the dueling views that looks partisan, not the content of it.

The central argument of the Republican strategy is the Democrats are pursuing a biased witch hunt to undermine an otherwise successful President on his way to reelection. The media is going to play both sides of that argument because that's what it does. People are going to hear lots of competing facts and unless the facts force them to accept that Trump was acting in a way that warrants removal from office then the outcome is almost certain to be Trump will come out better off rather than worse off. I think we agree at least to some degree on that much.

When it comes to Burisma and Hunter Biden, the argument on it's face sounds bad. While Vice-President, Joe Biden DID set a condition for aid to Ukraine based on the removal of the Prosecutor General. The Prosecutor General WAS tasked with investigating corruption in Ukraine. Those are facts and if that is what people know about the issue it will look like the Democrats are trying to protect Biden while going after Trump for doing the same thing. That's what they'll see as the backdrop for not allowing Hunter Biden to testify.

What counters that? Making the total case known: The Prosecutor General who was removed was protecting the President of Burisma, failing to prosecute him because he was aligned with the Russians and the former President of Ukraine. The nations on the side of Western Democracy were united behind the demand the PG go in order to help Ukraine overcome the corruption that was it's legacy from the period prior to the revolution. Ukraine WAS rife with corruption, and international real estate companies like the Trump organization were the favored vehicles for laundering the wealth of Ukraine out of the country and away from the people into the pockets of the corrupt wealthy elite...like Donald J. Trump.

Putting Hunter Biden in front of the House shows the Democrats aren't protecting him and have a double standard when it comes to Trump. The facts are clearly bad, VERY BAD, for Trump if one wants to litigate the nature of corruption in Ukraine leading up to and after the 2014 revolution. The context of Trump withholding aid to Ukraine as they are besieged by an aggressive Russia is made even worse if one wants to let the Republicans bring that into the narrative.