Warren: 'If there's a lawful order for a subpoena, I assume' Biden would comply

[Omaha Steve]

FULL story: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/476145-warren-if-theres-a-lawful-order-for-a-subpoena-i-assume-biden-would-comply

BY ZACK BUDRYK - 12/28/19 09:06 PM EST

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Saturday that former Vice President Joe Biden should comply with any lawfully-issued Senate subpoena after Biden suggested he would not comply with one. However, she also said the focus should remain on officials the White House has ordered to defy subpoenas.

On the campaign trail in Iowa, the Massachusetts senator commented on Biden's involvement as a witness in the impending impeachment trial to a gaggle of press. A reporter for CBS, Zak Hudak, shared footage of the lawmaker on Twitter.

“Donald Trump is being impeached for abuse of power and that’s where our focus should be. Shame on him for trying to switch the focus over to something else,” Warren told reporters in Iowa. “But Joe Biden has said that he has always abided by every lawful order, and if there’s a lawful order for a subpoena, then I assume he would follow it.”

“Right now, we should be focusing on the subpoenas that have already been issued, for [former White House counsel] Don McGahn and for [acting White House Chief of Staff] Mick Mulvaney, who have first-hand knowledge of what the president did,” she added.

[Thekaspervote]

1. Yes...she has an opinion...It isn't up to her!!

[TomSlick]

5. No, it's up to VP Biden.

He must decide whether he truly believes in the rule of law. If Democrats abandon the rule of law, the republic is lost.

[Hav]

7. And he has already said that he would. That discussion should be over.

But this is the typical game played out in the media. As far as I can see from the clip, Warren was asked about it and didn't use it as an attack against Biden. The opposite is true actually. But the question was definitely used to create soundbites.
Please guys, don't fall for it. Warren answered it perfectly without using this topic as an opportunity to score points against Biden.

[emmaverybo]

23. Legally, he's not a witness. No way he should give even an appearance of participating in a

sham that is a moral travesty. Resist!

[stopdiggin]

54. where did we come up with the idea of a "legal" witness?

I'm assuming the senate can subpoena whomever they feel like. Correct?

[TomSlick]

71. Exactly!

Any party can subpoena a witness. The presiding judge - in the case of an impeachment trial in the Senate, the Chief Justice - rules whether a question asked the witnesses is irrelevant. If a witness claims a privilege, it is possible to file a motion to quash the subpoena. However, VP Biden does not claim a privilege. Rather, he contends (quite reasonably) that he has no relevant evidence but that is not his objection to raise.

If VP Biden is served a subpoena, he must appear. If Trump's lawyers ask an irrelevant question, I would expect the House managers to object. If the question is irrelevant, I would expect the Chief Justice to sustain the objection. I am unsure a majority of the Senate would vote to overrule the Chief Justice. However, if they did, Biden must answer the question. That would appear unjust but the legal process often appears unjust to the litigants.

The rule of law requires that the rules be followed - even if they appear unfair to the litigants.

[Thekaspervote]

59. with good legal advice, I'm sure he feels he is well within his legal rights

[stopdiggin]

72. with good legal advice he will follow the law

and appear. -(if in fact there is ever a subpoena)- There's a REASON that this statement got walked back (quickly). It WON'T stand up as rule of law. Biden realizes that.

[pnwmom]

20. It's not up to Biden whether or not he should follow the law. n/t

[Lexee]

42. She stuck up for Biden, put the focus on Trump and answered perfectly complimentary to what

Biden said. Good for Warren being a true supporter of Democrats even while in competition.

[Hav]

2. Biden already said he'd abide by a lawful order

and he should have said so in his initial comment. But the fact that we are at a point that Warren has to comment on that kind of nonsense proves his point that it's a distraction with no merit from Trump's crimes that are clear beyond any doubt.

[TomSlick]

21. The clarification was less than clear.

He seems to be saying that he will decide whether a subpoena is a lawful order. Either, that or he's threatening a court challenge for any subpoena which would be essentially a stall. It is unclear to me that a court is going to accept jurisdiction regarding a subpoena issued by the Senate in an impeachment trial - in which the Chief Justice is the presiding judge.

You are correct that this is an unnecessary distraction. However, it was a distraction caused by VP Biden's improvident comment. I am looking forward to a more clarifying clarification.

[SCVDem]

3. Thank you for your support!

Bartyles and James

Keep swinging Liz! I like you less every time you attack!

[blm]

8. That wasn't an attack at all. Biden said he'd comply to a lawful subpoena and

Last edited Sun Dec 29, 2019, 12:34 AM - Edit history (1)

Warren said she is sure that Biden would comply to a lawful subpoena, only in answer to a question about it.

Where is the attack?

This 4month long piling on Warren for little to no reason has gotten pretty old.

[BeyondGeography]

10. Warren's mere existence is a form of attack for some

Or many.

[Demsrule86]

12. She should not have said anything about it...it makes her look bad IMHO and I believe will impact

her campaign negatively. So we march to the GOP's tune...we can't get them to honor subpoenas but we must...I disagree. I expect some are hoping this will hurt Biden but I doubt it will.

[BeyondGeography]

15. Right on cue

[Demsrule86]

31. Perhaps you expected it because you know in your heart that I am right...only reason to call Biden

is to damage his candidacy and save Trump from a real senate trial by providing a distraction... I would say no Democrat should honor any subpoena until the GOP does... should not allow them to call the tune and obstruct with impunity.I don't think this will hurt Biden but I fear it may help Trump.

[Thekaspervote]

61. Exactly...I would guess that Biden knows this and is the basis for his intentions

[Hav]

19. She was asked a direct question

I agree with you, getting Biden into Trump's impeachment is a planned distraction.
But Warren was asked about it and made basically the same point that Biden did: The focus should be on Trump's crimes.

[Demsrule86]

29. She said Biden should testify...I disagree and believe she should not have said that

Has it occurred to any of you all that should they succeed in making Biden a distraction it will cause much trouble in the Senate trial? After the house had the courage to impeach the SOB, we could end with one of our own on trial in the Senate and not Trump...that would be a bad outcome and impact the election no matter who the candidate it....and I must say the idea that other candidates will profit from this is just wrong. It could hurt our chances in 20...and Biden can't speak to the issue of what Trump did so the only reason he would be called is to damage his candidacy and our chances in 20.

[Hav]

34. I can only go by the video clip

because I don't know how much was creatively added in that article from The Hill.

If she had said "Biden should testify" in her stump speech or in that interview, I would agree with you.
But my view from the clip and not the article is, she was asked whether Biden should testify which is a stupid bait and she immediately changed it to that the focus should be on Trump. She then referenced Biden saying that he has always abided by a lawful order and that she therefore assumes he would also do so again in this case if it's a lawful order.
In essence, this is a topic where we are all in agreement.

[Demsrule86]

35. I will watch the video ...I may be unfair in this matter...the Hill pretty much sucks these days.

[pnwmom]

53. No, she said the SAME THING he's saying -- she thinks Biden would comply with a lawful subpoena,

and he says that too

[pnwmom]

22. She said exactly the right thing. It's not her fault Biden told the interviewer

he wouldn't comply with a subpoena, or that he had to "clarify" what he'd meant.

[Demsrule86]

26. All she had to say is VP Biden will make that decision...there done...but mark my words...this won't

help her campaign.

[pnwmom]

28. There was absolutely nothing wrong in how she replied. It's laughable that some frame

this as an attack.

[Demsrule86]

32. We can agree to disagree. I think it was wrong on her part.

[Green Line]

33. I agree

She’s my Senator, so I’m not surprised. She told the voters of MA that she wouldn’t run for President during her Senate race.

[BeyondGeography]

36. If she said today was Saturday you'd say it was wrong

[pnwmom]

37. What did she say that was wrong?

Here it is again.

“Donald Trump is being impeached for abuse of power and that’s where our focus should be. Shame on him for trying to switch the focus over to something else,” Warren told reporters in Iowa. “But Joe Biden has said that he has always abided by every lawful order, and if there’s a lawful order for a subpoena, then I assume he would follow it.”

“Right now, we should be focusing on the subpoenas that have already been issued, for [former White House counsel] Don McGahn and for [acting White House Chief of Staff] Mick Mulvaney, who have first-hand knowledge of what the president did,” she added.

[Lexee]

45. Warren gave an awesome answer directing it to Trump and supporting Biden. It is crazy she is being

attacked.

I agree she not only said nothing wrong, but answered really well, having Biden's back.

[Lexee]

44. She was asked a question. Biden asked, failed in his response. Warren at least had Biden's back.

[Thekaspervote]

60. +1000

[BlueMTexpat]

13. So it seems. eom

[BlueMTexpat]

11. Wow, to consider what Warren

said was an attack shows a predisposed bias against her.

It seems that you have such a bias.

She answered well. And it wasn't an attack. It was what ANY self-respecting lawyer who respects the rule of law would say. As a self-respecting lawyer myself and one who respects the rule of law, I would have answered the same way.

It was the question that was the attack. The media are NOT our friends.

[Demsrule86]

16. I consider the wine cave thing and this an attack by Warren on other candidates because it is.

[stopdiggin]

56. COMPLETELY different situations

Substance, context, tone and intent .. by virtually every measure ... This was in NO sense an attack. Please look at the clips again.

[Lexee]

43. She stuck up for Biden, she put the focus on Trump. She answered it well without taking a swing.

She was asked a question and there was no jab. Good job Warren.

[stopdiggin]

55. WHAAAT? How did you come up with THAT? -- (nt)

[StarfishSaver]

65. How was that an attack?

[Hekate]

4. IF it is LAWFUL. So far all it is is Trump's Big Top Circus Fantasy.

[BlueMTexpat]

14. True. eom

[David__77]

6. I don't agree.

I think it would be fine for him not to do so.

[Demsrule86]

18. I agree with you.

[Demsrule86]

9. Warren should mind her own business...and it won't be lawful because there is no lawful reason for

it ...so much for not attacking other candidates...I am so not supporting anyone else but Biden except in the general...should he not be the nominee which I don't think will happen.

[LAS14]

17. I believe she was answering a question. nt

[BeyondGeography]

27. Stop already

Here’s the clip; she didn’t bring it up, a reporter did and her answer is completely fair and professional:

Link to tweet

[Hoyt]

24. He won't be subpoenaed by GOPers, but I'd be disappointed if he did

not appear, if he were.

He’d move the needle on trump’s removal by making people realize he did nothing wrong, and that trump is a traitor the way he — and the trump family — have abused and tarnished the office and America.

[wiley]

25. Warren really needs to shut up

And get back to taking selfies or something. I’m not ruining my day thinking about her today.

[blm]

30. Why should she have said something different when asked?

She stayed on the same page as Biden when he said he would comply with a lawful subpoena.

[pnwmom]

38. Why? Please tell me what part of this quote from the OP was wrong.

“Donald Trump is being impeached for abuse of power and that’s where our focus should be. Shame on him for trying to switch the focus over to something else,” Warren told reporters in Iowa. “But Joe Biden has said that he has always abided by every lawful order, and if there’s a lawful order for a subpoena, then I assume he would follow it.”

“Right now, we should be focusing on the subpoenas that have already been issued, for [former White House counsel] Don McGahn and for [acting White House Chief of Staff] Mick Mulvaney, who have first-hand knowledge of what the president did,” she added.

[TwilightZone]

39. She answered a question she was asked.

Telling her to "shut up" in that (or any) context is misguided, at best.

[BeyondGeography]

40. She needs to shut up, huh?

Care to elaborate?

[wellst0nev0ter]

41. She's literally repeating what Biden said today

Now she can't echo what other candidates say without people like you telling her to "shut up"?

[Lexee]

46. Warren stuck up for Biden. Focused on Trump. Had Biden's back.

Biden was the one that screwed up. Warren if nothing else helped Biden out of the hole he dug.

[caraher]

48. She's been told to shut up before

Nevertheless, she persisted.

[Lexee]

49. Yes.

[LovingA2andMI]

52. This..

Thank you!

[ms liberty]

64. This. n/t

[LovingA2andMI]

51. How about you....

She answered a question. That is HER JOB as a CANDIDATE.

[StarfishSaver]

66. She needs to "shut up"?

Seriously?

[Lexblues]

47. Warren wants Biden to testify

It would be good politics for her. It would make Biden look like a defendant being on the stand and testifying under oath.

[stopdiggin]

57. virtually NOTHING in the clips to suggest this is true (nt)

[boomer_wv]

58. Does she also...

think that Barack Obama should testify in the trial? He could offer better testimony than Biden because he could testify as having given the order for Biden to predicate aid money of the removal of the corrupt prosecutor. Given that it was the policy of everyone involved to reduce corruption in the prosecutors office, this was a legitimate reason to threaten aid money to achieve. This testimony would prove that Bidens actions were not based on personal gain and would make Trumps arguments invalid. Biden could testify the same thing, but his boss saying he had been ordered to do it would carry more weight.

[Skya Rhen]

62. +1000

[comradebillyboy]

50. Biden is not lawless. He will do as the law requires.

Liz is perfectly correct. He may also avail himself of all legal remedies to protect his rights such as appealing the validity of any subpoena.

[greatauntoftriplets]

63. The Republicans are trying to put Joe Biden on trial.

Their goal is to distract from Spanky's many crimes. That's what this is about.

[StarfishSaver]

67. They're also trying to get him to call into question the validity of Congressional subpoenas

[Skya Rhen]

68. If an impeachment-related subpoena is issued to StarfishSaver, shouldn't its validity be questioned?

[StarfishSaver]

70. You've missed the point

[greatauntoftriplets]

69. Excellent point.

[BuffaloJackalope]

73. How many "lawful subpoenas" has Trump refused to comply with?