There are a lot of ops about Joe Bidens' interview with the Register yesterday.

[Peacetrain]

A question was asked if he would comply with the senate calling him as a witness. He is not a first hand witness to anything. The only reason that was brought up was because that is the way the Trumpsters work.. They deflect. Why in holy hell would he be called as a witness to something he did not witness. If accused of anything, they the Trumpsters turn that accusation on to another person trying to deflect.

Again, for anyone who has an issue with understanding why the VP would say that.. he is not a first hand witness to the phone calls that Donald Trump made to the Ukrainians and the withholding of monies approved for the Ukraine in order to do a deflection.. A favor the Donald said..

[Thekaspervote]

1. Agree! It's just the repukes way of trying to drag Biden thru the mud and keep him from the

Campaign trail.

I’m sure he’s consulted his attorney and is well within his legal rights

[Peacetrain]

2. If he had been listening in on the phone call.. or working in the embassy when

Guilani tried to force people out etc.. that would be a totally different matter. He is not a witness to the crimes that Trump is being accused of.

[George II]

3. Yes, it was an in depth interview, but all some can zero in on is one single sentence.

[Peacetrain]

4. It was a perfectly good question..because the right is trying to deflect.. and he gave a

perfectly good answer. He is not a witness to the crime. Trump is refusing to let people who were witnesses to the crimes he committed testify. That is a wholly different ball of wax.

[Lexee]

5. Then he should have simply said there is not legal reason to subpoena me seeing I am not a first

hand witness.

Not validating Republicans defiance of legal subpoenas by saying he too would ignore a subpoena. I hate his answer and hate that he has made Democrats on the same side as Republicans on this.

[Peacetrain]

6. Yep, the purposefully obtuse had to be addressed today.. and he did that.

I mean honest to God people... its like picking at a scab sometimes with certain members of the media etc. it is always..but but but.. fortunately VP Biden handles that quite well.. Much better than I would. that is for sure.

[Lexee]

7. You can not blame people for what Biden said. He said he would not comply with a subpoena.

His words. Makes us Republicans. We get to say, we do not stand with that comment. Put the blame where is belongs. What Biden said was atrocious and for those of us that feels it matter to not be thrown in with the Republican corruption validating their abuses, it matters.

[Peacetrain]

9. Again.. he is NOT a first hand witness to anything in the impeachment inquiries of the house

or the upcoming trials in the senate. If you feel like you are a Republican, then that is your issue. Makes no sense to me.. but you be you I guess. Remember the Trump administration kept first hand witnesses from testifying, and now they are trying to deflect so they will not be held accountable. Biden is not going to help them with that.

[Lexee]

10. Rearrange words, add some in. Bottom line, Biden's people knew that was a bad statement and the

next day they came out and corrected the statement. People knew it was a bad statement and now you are blaming them for calling it out.

[Peacetrain]

13. It was a perfectly good statement.. to a perfectly good question..

Because he is not a first hand witness. I did not need a clarification of anything. Fortunately I do not run for office, I do not have the patience the VP Biden has.

[Lexee]

14. I will not comply with a subpoena is not a perfectly good statement and Biden's people knew it.

[pnwmom]

24. The person subpoenaed isn't the one who gets to decide if his testimony is relevant.

What he CAN do is file a legal challenge to a subpoena and let the courts decide.

He can't just blow it off.

[Qutzupalotl]

12. I agree with you.

It’s like we’ve entered a new world where subpoenas don’t matter.

Your answer would have been much better. I suppose the reporters would have pressed him to say what he would do if called; but he could have said, “I will show up, but I have no firsthand knowledge of why Trump extorted Ukraine. And since I did nothing wrong, I would testify truthfully and fearlessly.”

But Biden seems to be about as bulletproof as Trump, so I don’t think his answer here will hurt him much if at all.

[Lexee]

15. Exactly.

[Lexee]

16. It is not like we are asking too much of Biden. We are willing to be behind him 100% fighting a

bogus subpoena. We do not stand behind him stating he simply does not have to comply. That is not a high bar.

[Peacetrain]

17. It most definitely is the dust up of the day..

Its the craziness.. it was a perfectly okay question as far as I am concerned, because they (the right) are trying so hard to deflect..grasping at any straws. It was the republicans (Trump) who refused to let first hand witnesses testify at the inquiry. And why should he (Biden) take a subpoena for something he has no knowledge of, while the right will not let first hand witnesses testify..That would have been crazy if he had said yes to that scenario. Talk about people having their hair on fire. So it was a [perfectly good answer. I did not need any clarifications, but some have. And it is still but but but.. kind of reminds me of the wine cave dust up ..

[Demsrule86]

23. Lots of wishful thinking going on here...their candidates won't beat Biden so they kind of hope this

might...nauseating.

[Lexee]

30. He probably is going to be our candidate. We are going to have to get on board, and soon.

I prefer a candidate that I do not have to defend doing the same as Republicans ignoring the subpoena. I am not the enemy. I am the base.

[Qutzupalotl]

26. Defying a subpoena removes our ability to criticize Trump for the same.

We can’t do what we criticize others for. Even if we don’t like the proceedings, even if we have nothing to testify about. You show up and say so.

Subpoena means “under penalty” — but if there is no penalty, our whole process breaks down.

I’m not trying to bash Biden here. I like him a lot. And as I said, this likely won’t hurt him at all. But we absolutely cannot give the trolls any reason to call us hypocrites. And it is hypocritical to say Trump is breaking the law by defying a subpoena if we accept it as the new normal.

[Demsrule86]

35. They(GOP) don't respect subpoenas...so fuck them.

[Qutzupalotl]

36. And fuck us if we don't either.

In fact, fuck anyone who undermines the rule of law.

[treestar]

54. Interesting how we can't, because they surely can

Look at McConnell and Gringich those hypocrites get away with criticizing Democrats for the things they do themselves.

[Qutzupalotl]

59. True. The Republican Party is morally adrift and rudderless

but let’s not join them just yet.

Times like this require one party to lead by example. Republicans cannot do the right thing anymore without getting singled out and destroyed, but we still can.

[Demsrule86]

22. So we should just allow the right to ignore subpoenas but comply with even their bullshit

subpoenas? Great plan for those who desire to cave and be pure and all. I don't agree with that.

[Qutzupalotl]

28. Invert the parties involved and you have your answer.

If you get called, you have to show up. It is not optional.

No, we should not allow the right to ignore subpoenas. No, we should not do it too.

[Lexee]

31. We should follow the law? Yes. And continue to attack Republicans for not

following the law. Correct.

[floppyboo]

25. yup.

Very distressing that he didn't think this through. Horrible answer. go keep punching and punching and beating them like a drum - NOT.

[Demsrule86]

20. Of course we can blame those who support other candidates for attacking a candidate who is our

likely nominee...because their candidate is losing with no thought to how it might help Trump...I sure can...not saying you did this of course.

[Lexee]

32. It has to do with integrity and not being an hypocrite. I am sorry so many think this is about

protecting a candidate. We have rule of law and I expect our next President to respect that rule of law. I do not think that is too high a bar to hold our candidates to.

[Demsrule86]

33. There is no rule of law involved in subpoenaing Biden for political purposes...

And impeachment is a political process...

[Lexee]

34. There are rules of law with a subpoena.

[Demsrule86]

37. We should not cave to the right in this matter period.

[Lexee]

38. No caving. Following laws.

[Demsrule86]

41. There is no justice when one side flouts subpeonas and one side doesn't...it will be open season

on our side.

[Lexee]

42. I can not go with this thinking to break laws and become corrupt. They oppress/suppress votes.

You want to start doing that to win? Republicans do it.

[Demsrule86]

46. First of all, it is a breaking a law to put out a political subpoena and yeah we may have

to fight such things or everyone of our effective Democrats will be targets...

[Demsrule86]

47. One side gets to flout the law and attack our candidates and we just take it ...no no and no.

I expect this is about your candidate improving her numbers...

[Lexee]

49. You are not going to ever hear me encouraging our Democrats to be the scum Republicans are.

[wryter2000]

39. Don't I always hear around here

“We have to learn how to fight like Republicans”? Or “Democrats bring a knife to a gun fight.”

Maybe not from you, but I read that constantly.

[Lexee]

40. I have never been one to agree that we should break laws and be corrupt to compete with

Republicans how low we can go. One of the very real time reasons I am proud to be a part of the Democratic Party. We are better than that.

[wryter2000]

48. Actually, I agree

I always wonder exactly what people expect us to do when they claim we need to fight dirty if we hope to win. Lie? Slander? Conspiracy theories? Disenfranchise people who are likely to vote Republican?

We're not going to do those things.

[Lexee]

50. I agree.

[LakeArenal]

44. Only you can make yourself a Republican.

Geez people. Free will.

Some sure love, Need and fear labels.

Quit parsing every word of a statement. Quit worrying what Republicans think of or call us.

When are we going to accept that all our candidates have a plan. They aren’t necessarily telling us what it is.

Calling anything our candidates say atrocious, is atrocious. Save your rancor for Republicans.

[calimary]

53. There's another way to look at it.

Oh he’s defying a subpoena?

That’s ... that’s ... that’s ... terrible ...

Uh ...

Oh wait ... trump’s already been doing that ...

You mean you can do that now?

Well trump did it so it must be okay now, right?

I guess it’s okay to defy a subpoena now, ‘eh?



Shove it back in their faces. You SURE you’re okay with this? Cuz that sure does open the door. If he does it and is allowed to get away with it, you can bet everybody’s going to start defying lawful subpoenas. And a subpoena isn’t gonna mean anything anymore. (Yet another valuable thing he’s broken.) And everybody who wants to get away with shit too is gonna tie things up in court and point to him and say “well, HE did it, so why can’t I? What I did was perfect, TOO! I’M innocent, TOO, y’know.”

Hello Pandora’s Box.

[Kingofalldems]

8. My take:

People grasping at straws for anything anti Biden.

[Peacetrain]

11. Yep.. it looks to be that.

I am so glad Biden is Biden. You know if that was me, I would never have the patience Biden or Pelosi or Schiff etc have with the constant but but but. It would drive me crazy.

[Cha]

19. There is that.

[stopdiggin]

18. the question could have (and should have) been answered in other ways

it was a bad look -- and the evidence for that is the attention it's drawn.

I hope for a"clarification" soon.
Edit: apparently already made. time to move on.

[Demsrule86]

21. Really...I kind of think those who have it in for Biden would still have had an 'issue' with any

reply he made...not saying you...just in general. My opinion is that McConnell won't call Biden at all...it will backfire if he does despite all the hopes and prayers of those who support different candidates.

[stopdiggin]

27. the clarification statement was a better look

you'll get no argument about this being an excuse for detractors to pile on. but I think Joe handed them this one.

[David__77]

29. I have no problem with what he said.

Not that I have it in for Biden.

I think it’s a fine statement.

[Demsrule86]

45. I thought it was fine too.

[treestar]

56. In the end how can it look worse than the Dotard

and what he's done?

[stopdiggin]

60. why in the world would that be any standard for us? (nt)

[treestar]

61. It is where the Dotard is the only realistic opponent

We should not let the Republicans use things against Biden that Dotard has gotten away with.

[samnsara]

43. good for him..

[Kurt V.]

51. has the senate made this claim or was it a hypothetical?

[wellst0nev0ter]

52. It was a hypothetical

But Biden, who doesn't know how to talk, played into the repukes hands, and handed them and the media a gift of false equivalency.

[Kurt V.]

55. Thanks. best he just skip that question until its reality

[wellst0nev0ter]

58. I'll admit, he was pretty feisty when giving the answer

I just wish he was feisty in the other direction.

Link to tweet

[gulliver]

57. He clarified today.

It looks to me like Biden's clarification today is a good balance. He seems to leave the door open to testifying if required while, at the same time, making sure people know there is no legal basis for requiring him to appear.

I think the time to dispute Biden being called is when he is called. At that time, Roberts and the Senate can publicly argue the justification for Biden being called side-by-side with that of Mulvaney, Bolton, or Trump himself.