GOP asks Hunter Biden to Testify

[_EAllusion]

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.

That's not really true. It's your personal central concern, but it's not the central Republican argument. The Republicans currently are throwing up a variety of mutually contradictory arguments in hopes that each one will find its audience. One might call it flailing. There is no single theme that emerges from these. As of today, the two main arguments getting the most play are 1) An Iran-Contra style gambit in which it is argued that Donald Trump didn't know about the rogue actions of Giuliani, Sondland, etc. and 2) An argument that actually, what Trump did is perfectly fine because the President controls foreign policy and "quid pro quos" are a natural part of the President's authority in that area.

But I can name several other arguments that seemed to be the order of the day in the past couple of weeks. It's a grab bag.

When it comes to Burisma and Hunter Biden, the argument on it's face sounds bad.

Republicans and right-wing media are constantly coming up with fake scandals that on its surface sounds bad. There will be no shortage of them regardless of what you do. Litigating them doesn't prove how not-partisan you are. It just helps them spread them while making the dispute look partisan.

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 strikes me about this is how much it comes across elitist. You of course understand yourself that this is a fake scandal. You assume rubes cannot likewise tell from the available facts because they lack your insight. So you propose a show trial that will convince them. There's an awful lot of assumptions at play here in how people respond to information that aren't born out by common sense or recent history. You're basically proposing letting the impeachment hearings become half Benghazi hearings because you (very wrongly) think that Benghazi hearings make Republicans look bad to the public by exposing them and proving how fair Democrats were for having indulged them. As we all remember, the result of the Benghazi hearings was the public became convinced that Clinton was on the level and Republicans were just pursuing nonsense. Her polls improved as a result of them, right?

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.

They probably should interrogate Seth Rich conspiracy theories during the impeachment of Trump too while were at it. You know, to prove they have nothing to hide. Unless they pursue every conspiracy theory Republicans throw at them and give equal air time to litigating it, then I'm afraid the public can only conclude Trump is good.

[_honorentheos]

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.

That's not really true. It's your personal central concern...

...and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/11 ... am-schiff/

On this week’s broadcast of Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) called the impeachment inquiry a “calculated coup,” and accused Adam Schiff of orchestrating it.

McCarthy said, “It is clear now more than ever this is a calculated coup, and it is being orchestrated by Adam Schiff.”

[_canpakes]

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.

Honor, the issue of impeachment centers on the President withholding aid for what appears to be a desire to have an aid recipient manufacture scandalous- sounding accusations about particular parties, and not for the benefit of Ukraine, but for the partisan and political benefit of the President himself.

I suppose that the question of corruption in Ukraine could be easily addressed or proven - if that were the actual desire of Trump - by looking at any number of known cases or sources. In contrast, no actual evidence has ever been produced to show that a particular political ‘rival’ of Trump’s is one of those sources or cases. That Trump focused solely on that is an issue that directly relates to the appropriateness of his actions or his ability to fulfill his duties in a legal and mature manner.

If Republicans want to ask Hunter Biden questions about their alleged corruption fantasies, then they should start their own separate corruption investigation into him. That would be the only way that any sort of case for actual corruption could be made. Otherwise there’s no relevance to calling Biden to the stand in Trump’s impeachment hearing when addressing Trump’s engagement in his asinine quid pro quo quest. This is why subs skittered back under his rock in the post above when confronted with the reality of questioning Biden having no relevance on Trump’s behavior.

As for how Republicans will play it - yes, you’re correct. They’ll spin it as partisan, but they’ll do that regardless of what happens. We’ve already seen this dozens of times in the process with the latest example being of Trump bitching about the hearings being public now, as opposed to when he was complaining about the questioning being done in ‘private’, yet still with 45 Republicans as part of the process.

Best that the Democrats keep the process focused, complete their impeachment hearing, and then hand it off to the Senate for the inevitable non-serious circus and eventual dismissal that they’ll manufacture there. We all know how this will play out. But at least the Democrats will have completed their responsibility.

[_honorentheos]

Again, "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."

Of course Republicans are going to spin it as partisan if the Democrats refuse to allow Hunter Biden to be called as a witness. It's what they are doing now. But you don't shut down subbie and exiled bringing it up by ignoring it. You shut it down by putting out the facts that contextualize the issue in full.

Is that showing contempt for people who only know the basics on the issue to argue the House should use the opportunity to both undermine the claim they are protecting Biden AND inform the public of the facts on why Joe Biden presented the US position the Ukraine needed to remove the PG to receive aid? May I be so disrespected.

[_EAllusion]

McCarthy said, “It is clear now more than ever this is a calculated coup, and it is being orchestrated by Adam Schiff.”[/color]

Yes, referring to impeachment as a violent overthrow of the lawful government orchestrated by Adam Schiff definitely is an argument about partisanship intended to persuade people with rational discourse.

[Guest]

McCarthy said, “It is clear now more than ever this is a calculated coup, and it is being orchestrated by Adam Schiff.”[/color]

Yes, referring to impeachment as a violent overthrow of the lawful government orchestrated by Adam Schiff definitely is an argument about partisanship intended to persuade people with rational discourse.

How I described 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. Remember? You said no one was making that argument but me? Turns out it's the main point being pushed on Fox News this morning in relation to the subject of this thread.

[_EAllusion]

Of course Republicans are going to spin it as partisan if the Democrats refuse to allow Hunter Biden to be called as a witness. It's what they are doing now.

They spin everything as partisan. You're just going to have to accept that.

But you don't shut down subbie and exiled bringing it up by ignoring it. You shut it down by putting out the facts that contextualize the issue in full.

You don't shut down subbie at all. He's not operating in good faith. You ever see him acknowledge he was owned by facts?

Is that showing contempt for people who only know the basics on the issue to argue the House should use the opportunity to both undermine the claim they are protecting Biden AND inform the public of the facts on why Joe Biden presented the US position the Ukraine needed to remove the PG to receive aid? May I be so disrespected.

Should the impeachment hearings, which you think should be brief, also take time to call witnesses where Republicans promote Seth Rich murder conspiracy theories while Democrats try to rebut them with cogent argument? After all, Donald Trump was trying to encourage Ukraine to deal with corruption involving Ukraine framing Russia for 2016 election interference. Maybe they conspired with Democrats to have Seth Rich killed and Trump was just trying to find a little justice in this world. If Democrats had nothing to hide and were non-partisan, they'd make the hearings about that.

[_honorentheos]

I've made my case, and in good faith, EA. I can't say you are holding up the good faith part at this point. You think allowing Hunter Biden to be called as a witness is on par with whomever one might call in relation to the Seth Rich conspiracy is a good argument? It's like you just have to argue until your argument breaks down into becoming the thing it's supposedly against...

[_EAllusion]

How I described 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.

And I pointed out that Republicans are trying every argument under the sun, so no one argument is the "central Republican argument." There isn't one. Cherry picking doesn't refute that, but even in the quote you offered, it goes beyond what you argued. He's calling it a coup. A coup.

You ever read reports of a coup where journalists describe the toppling of the regime as the work of partisan bias?

This rhetoric is from the FEMA-camp school of Democrats as dangerous proto-authoritarians looking to instill tyranny via underhanded conspiracy.

[_honorentheos]

I said - 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.

You said - That's not really true. It's your personal central concern, but it's not the central Republican argument.

I then pointed out it was the talking point today by the ranking Republican member of the House on Fox News.

You argued that a coup is more than what I argued in another thread we've been debating the importance of a focused impeachment over an wide ranging airing of Democrat issues with Trump. And since the Republicans have used all kinds of defenses so far, there is no central Republican strategy.

First principles based on this thread's OP: 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.