Biden says he would not comply with a Senate subpoena in Trump's impeachment trial https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...-with-a-senate-subpoena-in-trumps-impeachment According to House Democrats, that's "obstruction of Congress", a "high crime and misdemeanor". So aside from SCOTUS affirming the legal right to appeal a congressional subpoena to the courts, this only further highlights the farce of the second article of impeachment.
you seem to want people to consider your opinions as being well considered, however you say nothing of bill clinton pan-handling to dissafected republicans in the conservative liberal new voter category where trump picked up his presidency in swing states. your theme of assertion is that republican voter mainstream are moral champions ? lol or the lesser ? what is your main purpose ? to define the impeachment process as political lobbying(opinion) ? or to say the democrats are equally as righteous as the republicans ? Biden is pretty clean compared to all the other candidates the best the republicans can hope for is to associate bidens name as much as possible to "clinton" name so swing voters will think biden is the same as clinton which is the same as untrustworthy women. pathetic ! but very effective if you have money to pay for the media what political media company do you work for ?
Just holding Democrats to THEIR OWN STANDARD. If one is obstruction of Congress, demonstrating that one is unfit for the office of president, so is the other. You can't have it both ways without being a completely unprincipled hypocrite. No idea what Biden has to do with Clinton. Sounds like incoherent ramblings.
lol the game is a-foot as they say that is your republican media company primary message all it has to be is fair for both sides that's why black face hanging is ok to virtue signal as an opening moral metaphor ? (both-sodes-moral-equality of weapons of mass destruction) lol what morals ?(oh you didn't mean morals , you meant standards... that's "government regulation" isn't it?) your pitching to hicks in a science forum !
Can anyone make heads or tails of that rambling? I sure can't. As far as I can tell, what Biden supposedly has to do with Clinton has nothing to do with Biden nor Clinton.
On Saturday morning, Mr. Biden elaborated on Twitter: “I am just not going to pretend that there is any legal basis for Republican subpoenas for my testimony in the impeachment trial. ... Speaking to reporters after a town hall-style event in Tipton, Mr. Biden said he had “no firsthand knowledge” about the accusations against Mr. Trump, so there was “no basis” for calling him as a witness. But, he added, “I would honor whatever the Congress in fact legitimately asked me to do.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/us/politics/biden-subpoena-democrats.html But the fact remains that, if there is no "legal basis for Republican subpoenas", he has the legal recourse of appealing them to the courts. The fact that he initially said he wouldn't comply admits as much. Just took the old guy that long to figure out he'd undermined his own party's narrative.
So? One impeachment at a time - Biden has not yet refused to comply with a Senate subpoena, and if he ever does the House will have a few months to look into the matter, as they had with Trump.
It remains as true, now, as it ever was: Joe Biden was never going to be the nominee. Donald Trump sank himself in part because he doesn't know how to read polls. I mean, sure, the rest of us rolled our eyes when the old white guy polled high on name recognition, but Donald Trump? Well, here we are.
Look, consider the poster and post I was replying to. The language is not mine. One can, technically, probably (https://blogs.findlaw.com/legally_w...ctually-impeach-a-former-president-maybe.html) impeach a former office holder (if convicted, the penalty would be cancellation of benefits, exclusion from impeachable public offices, etc) That would be a context in which Voc's post made sense. Another is an anticipated Biden electoral victory and Presidency. Another is who cares - the post is what it is, and one replies on its terms or troubles to attempt correction. The reply on its terms was less work.
an illegal act if so doesnt not validate the mandatory force to comply with an illegal act while seeking verification of an illegal act asking the Donkey to pole dance for their wages while you give the elephant free seats ...