Biden says he would not comply with a Senate subpoena in the impeachment trial of Trump

[Miles Archer]

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2019/12/27/joe-biden-would-not-comply-senate-subpoena-trump-impeachment/2759398001/

Former Vice President Joe Biden confirmed Friday he would not comply with a subpoena to testify in a Senate trial of President Donald Trump.

Leaders in the Democratically controlled House and Republican leadership in the GOP-controlled U.S. Senate are trying to come to terms for an impeachment trial. Biden said in early December he wouldn’t comply with a subpoena by the Senate, and confirmed that statement Friday in an interview with the Des Moines Register’s editorial board. He has not been subpoenaed, but Trump's allies have floated the idea.

Biden said even if he volunteered to testify in an attempt to clear the air, it would create a media narrative that would let Trump off the hook.

“What are you going to cover?” Biden said to Register Executive Editor Carol Hunter in response to a question. “You guys are going to cover for three weeks anything that I said. And (Trump’s) going to get away. You guys buy into it all the time. Not a joke … Think what it’s about. It's all about what he does all the time, his entire career. Take the focus off. This guy violated the Constitution. He said it in the driveway of the White House. He acknowledged he asked for help.”

[dem4decades]

1. Why doesn't Biden just say "I'll testify right after Trump does"?

And he answers the questions.

[onetexan]

7. Biden doesn't need to given that would lend credibility to a sham senate trial

[dem4decades]

10. If Trump testifies it wouldn't be a shame would it?

And there's nothing wrong with Biden demanding witnesses and a fair trial. All the candidates should.

[onetexan]

25. I have a bridge to sell u if u think the GOP will allow the Idiot to perjure himself

[John Fante]

38. Which guarantees that Biden would never testify.

It would have been a better response.

[Thekaspervote]

2. Good for him!!

[Cha]

3. Good on Biden.. lol@.. "This guy.. "

“What are you going to cover?” Biden said to Register Executive Editor Carol Hunter in response to a question. “You guys are going to cover for three weeks anything that I said. And (Trump’s) going to get away. You guys buy into it all the time. Not a joke … Think what it’s about. It's all about what he does all the time, his entire career. Take the focus off. This guy violated the Constitution. He said it in the driveway of the White House. He acknowledged he asked for help.”

[machI]

4. Stand firm Joe

Don't give a inch to the authoritarian rule in the Senate.

[greatauntoftriplets]

5. What bullshit.

Why should he give them the satisfaction of acceding to their demands after all the stonewalling from the other side.

[onetexan]

8. +1 -K&R

[Lexee]

6. So, now we confirm that no one has to obey a subpoena. Or just us ordinary Joe's.

I do not like that the Senate is doing this. Everything about it is wrong. What makes Biden diffferent from all the Trumpco's refusing a subpoena in the house?

[Mr.Bill]

9. He is not a material witness

to anything in the articles of impeachment.

[TomSlick]

13. Eminently correct

but witnesses - at least normal witnesses - don't get to decide if their testimony is material.

I get it, calling VP Biden as a witness would be a sham but he ought not - once and for all - establish that subpoenas can be ignored by the powerful.

If we argue that it is not acceptable for Trump's co-conspirators to ignore subpoenas, it is equally unacceptable for Democrats to ignore subpoenas.

I would expect the House managers to object to irrelevant questions. I would also expect the Chief Justice to sustain objections to irrelevant questions. I am not convinced a majority of the Senate would override such a ruling. If they did, the stink will be obvious and impossible to wash away.

If we believe in the Rule of Law, it must apply to everyone.

[Lexee]

14. If we believe in the Rule of Law, it must apply to everyone.

he ought not - once and for all - establish that subpoenas can be ignored by the powerful.

[TomSlick]

15. You surprised me. When a reply was posted so quickly, I was expecting a good flaming.

I hope that if VP Biden is issued a subpoena, he will consult with counsel before making a decision.

[Lexee]

20. I do not want to end up in the muck and taint of all that is wrong with Republicans.

What you say is very true, right on. I would love for Biden to reconsider. I would love for him to make the points of how wrong it is that Republicans are taking it in this directions. But, a subpoena should be upheld and we need the next President of the United States understanding this very simple concept.

I do not want to reinforce Trumps behavior as new norms. Our nation can not afford this.

[TomSlick]

43. I perceive we are in the minority here.

I am not interested in a pollyannish "high road." My interest is the rule of law. If no one is above the law, then everyone is subject to the law. Adherence to core principles means doing the right thing even when it is inconvenient or unpopular.

[Lexee]

44. Exactly. Pretty clear. Nothing about a high road. All about the law. The end.

It seems so clear I ponder the controversy. Even Biden's people saw there was not controversy with the wrong of Biden's statement having him clarify today. Though even that fell a bit short, nonetheless.

[not_the_one]

23. It has already been established.

The turd and his republican enablers have already re-set the rules. We continue to get screwed when we refuse to use their tactics.

Biden would be stupid to give them ready made campaign ads, which is EXACTLY what they would use his testimony for. They already have a set of questions for him and Hunter, tailor made to imply they were on the take. Never mind that "board members" selected for name recognition may typically meet once or twice a year, and get paid (relatively) large sums. It happens all the time, yet this will be framed to be conclusive proof that Joe and Hunter were corrupt and out for the cash. (it's all about the Ukraine corruption, which RUDY wanted to exploit for propaganda purposes, and so he could get his Texan buddies that sweetheart deal worth BILLIONS)

Yet Don Jr got 50,000 for a 90 minute campus event at the University of Florida. He knows nothing, has no skills in anything, is totally useless, but he has the name. None of the turd supporters think twice about that.

Biden would be a fool to help them out.

And Dems will be fools if they continue to "take the high road" when they have already been forced into the gutter. FUCK the high road. Just get the job done.

Americans will respect whomever will tell them the truth, AS LONG AS IT IS THE TRUTH. We can handle it. We are thirsty for it. Hemming and hawing about it, dancing around it, trying to "spin" it, won't get it.

The truth will set us free.

[Lexee]

27. So instead Biden says he will ignore the subpoena? Not different than republicans that did that.

It makes Biden no better. Pelosi is not handing over the impeachment with their already set circumstances. HRC sat for 11 hours on bogus bullshit trumped up by Republicans. She did not simply ignore the subpoena.

Biden does this and we did fall in republicans trap of making it both parties do it.

[onetexan]

26. Biden testifying would be playing into the GOP's trap

Joe is correct not to be a part of the circus theyre settin up.

[Lexee]

29. Biden ignoring the subpoena would equally be playing in their trap and validating their own choices.

[onetexan]

31. Taking the high road is playing into their hands

And give the rethugs opp to smear him. Bad idea.

[Lexee]

32. Following the law, not about taking the high road. Seriously?

Not following the law gives them lots of ammunition. The truth of it is Biden has to deal with this Ukraine issue running as president, in our primary. He has no choice now. He has to. He does not get to opt out. So, how Presidential can he be in resolving this issue?

Ignoring a subpoena?

No.

[onetexan]

33. Joe is not material witness. He isnt obligated

Get your facts straight

[Lexee]

34. If he is served a subpoena he is not "obligated" to obey? Well then, he wouldn't

be breaking laws, rules, procedures and the conversation should be moot. I have not heard that when served, there are conditions when a person is not "obligated".

[onetexan]

35. Bottom line he is not obligated to be part of a sham

That would not hold up in court. End of story.

[Lexee]

36. So, he would be defying a subpoena because he calls it a sham, ignoring law, rule or procedure?

I am not a lawyer and do not know much about subpoenas seeing how I have never been served and I do not know what my entitlements or rights are.

He is running for President of the United States. He is going to have to figure out a better way to address this issue.

[Aaron Pereira]

11. Good for Biden! Don't allow Trump to muddy the waters of his own criminal conduct.

[samnsara]

12. good for him!! we need to start fighting back. Hubby never fought back but he..

..finally did after a lot of bitching from me. He messaged and then blocked a long time college friend who sent him an offensive pelosi cartoon.

[Gothmog]

16. Joyce Vance-Joe Biden is not a proper witness

Link to tweet

[dalton99a]

17. +1

[boomer_wv]

18. Good

Considering that the only reason Republicans would bring him in to testify would be to turn the entire thing into a circus and try to damage him in the process.

He has nothing to add to the case. He wasn't present for any of the event outlined in the articles.

[Hekate]

19. Entirely appropriate response from Joe. For the surprising number of DUers who seem to think...

...hauling Joe in there would "show Trump" -- what the hell are you smoking? Exactly what would it "show" Trump except that his tactics work yet again? Where were you when Trump ran his 2015 - 2016 campign and destroyed every GOP competitor with lies and smears?

[gulliver]

22. It would be an unequalled free spotlight to sell himself as Trump's replacement.

[Hekate]

24. Ah -- no

[onetexan]

28. +1 -K&R

[gulliver]

21. I disagree with that.

If the House or Senate call him to be a witness in impeachment, he has to testify. All Americans, in my understanding of the Constitution, must comply with impeachment document and testimony demands, and have no right whatsoever to refuse under any circumstances or for any reason other than the Fifth Amendment.

By the same token, Trump, Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo, etc., have no recourse but to testify either. In my view, there is no limit to what the House and Senate can demand for evidence, and it can't be questioned, nor is it up to the Judiciary to decide. Impeachment is a root account access privilege.

Perhaps Biden is trying to get the Senate to issue him a subpoena, hoping he wouldn't comply. Then he would comply.

[onetexan]

30. No. No playing a part in the Rethugs' sham.

[Gothmog]

37. Statement/clarification from Joe Biden

Link to tweet

[John Fante]

39. This would be akin to forcing McGovern testify

in a hypothetical Watergate trial. Completely ridiculous.

[stopbush]

40. Agree 100% with Joe.

The Rs may as well subpoena a few DUers for good measure. We are as relevant to tRump’s impeachment as Biden...which is to say irrelevant.

[Deb]

42. "He has not been subpoenaed, but Trump's allies have floated the idea."

Reporting on the hypothetical, people actually get paid for that?