2020 Presidential Election

[CDu]

Exactly. That's why it makes little sense. And as you say, it's not a court, if it were, calling either of them would not even be an option.

It makes perfect sense politically. Trump isn't going to be voted out by the Senate, and there isn't anything that is going to be said that will change that. So they may call Biden to get an opportunity to push the narrative that the Bidens are corrupt.

[OldPhiKap]

A more thorough discussion of whether CJ Roberts can cast a tie-breaking vote or not for witnesses:

https://news.yahoo.com/john-roberts-...151116663.html

tl;dr -- who knows.

[PackMan97]

"Mittens" will vote to convict. If he's a Republican, then my dog is the King of Scotland..

There is no need to call names.

[PackMan97]

Exactly. That's why it makes little sense. And as you say, it's not a court, if it were, calling either of them would not even be an option.

Does their actions in Ukraine not speak to Trump's motivation? That is...legitamate public corruption probe or soliciting foreign help against your political opponents? If I were in charge, I'd be tempted to call Chris Heinz.

[tommy]

That's not why they would want the Bidens there. They wouldn't ask the Bidens a single question about what Trump did or did not do. It would be all about trying to spin the discussion back to any potential nefarious dealings with the Ukraine by the Bidens.

And remember: it's not really a court. Impeachment is a political process. So it doesn't matter that such information is immaterial to the case against Trump.

That depends on the cojones, or lack thereof, shown by the Chief Justice. He has the power under Rule VII to rule on all questions of evidence, including questions of relevancy. In any real courtroom, I'm certain that Hunter Biden's proposed testimony would be ruled irrelevant to the charges of whether the President committed the acts with which he is charged. The question posed would be: "Suppose for the moment that Hunter Biden is the worst criminal in the world, the biggest perpetrator of fraud and just a crook of the highest order involved with a corrupt Ukrainian company. So what? How does that pertain to the question of whether the defendant did what he is charged with doing, which is withholding Congressionally-authorized aid to Ukraine unless and until Ukraine did him personal favors to aid his own political campaign? How would Hunter Biden being proven to be a crook provide a defense of any sort to the President?" I cannot imagine any real judge allowing that testimony if the prosecutor objected based on relevance.

The Democrats will undoubtedly raise the same argument as would the prosecutor in a normal courtroom. Roberts has no trial experience, but he is a very smart guy obviously, and I'm sure understands the basic rules of evidence and what relevance means. Now for political reasons he might allow the Biden testimony anyway, but you never know.

And if he ruled that the Bolton testimony was relevant (which pretty much all neutral observers agree it would be) and the Biden testimony was irrelevant, I'm pretty sure Trump's head would explode.

[JasonEvans]

Quinnipiac Poll just released finds numbers that would seem to make witnesses a sure-thing, until you dig a little deeper.

75% of voters say they want witnesses. By a margin of 13 points, Americans think the President is not telling the truth about Ukraine. But, as we all know, what "Americans" think is really not very important to Trump or the GOP. What matters is what the GOP base thinks. That is why this paragraph is so telling:

More than half of voters, 53 - 40 percent, say President Trump is not telling the truth about his actions involving Ukraine. There are sharp divides along party lines, with 89 percent of Republicans saying the president is telling the truth and 92 percent of Democrats saying he is not telling the truth. More independents, 56 percent, believe President Trump is not telling the truth, compared to the 33 percent who say he is telling the truth.

Of the 75% who want witnesses, the party ID breakdown goes this way:

Democrats -- 95% yes, 3% no, 2% unsure
Independents -- 75% yes, 18% no, 7% unsure
Republicans -- 49% yes, 43% no, 8 unsure

-Jason "despite that, I am increasingly thinking that we won't get witnesses... McConnell is going to convince everyone it is a waste of time that will not matter" Evans

[Devilwin]

There is no need to call names.

"Mittens" is just a nick name Romney has had for years..

[JasonEvans]

-Jason "despite that, I am increasingly thinking that we won't get witnesses... McConnell is going to convince everyone it is a waste of time that will not matter" Evans

WSJ reporting that McConnell is telling other GOP hardliners that he does not have the votes to prevent witnesses. Wow!

Subscription only- https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-d...15229?mod=e2tw

[OldPhiKap]

WSJ reporting that McConnell is telling other GOP hardliners that he does not have the votes to prevent witnesses. Wow!

Subscription only- https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-d...15229?mod=e2tw

The State of the Union on Tuesday could be very interesting. I half expect Trump to go all Captain Queeg.

[esl]

But, as we all know, what "Americans" think is really not very important to Trump or the GOP. What matters is what the GOP base thinks.

I did not know this. Could you site your source for this information? I thought this type of “opinion” is what this board sought to avoid. Silly me.

[Neals384]

That depends on the cojones, or lack thereof, shown by the Chief Justice. He has the power under Rule VII to rule on all questions of evidence, including questions of relevancy. In any real courtroom, I'm certain that Hunter Biden's proposed testimony would be ruled irrelevant to the charges of whether the President committed the acts with which he is charged. The question posed would be: "Suppose for the moment that Hunter Biden is the worst criminal in the world, the biggest perpetrator of fraud and just a crook of the highest order involved with a corrupt Ukrainian company. So what? How does that pertain to the question of whether the defendant did what he is charged with doing, which is withholding Congressionally-authorized aid to Ukraine unless and until Ukraine did him personal favors to aid his own political campaign? How would Hunter Biden being proven to be a crook provide a defense of any sort to the President?" I cannot imagine any real judge allowing that testimony if the prosecutor objected based on relevance.

This would make sense if there is some law or precedent that candidates running for office, and their immediate families, have immunity from being investigated for possible crimes. If there is no immunity, Trump can certainly claim that asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens is a legitimate criminal inquiry that is not forestalled by the possibility that Biden will be Dem's candidate for President.

[Nick]

DBR: "Impeachment won't move the needle. Everybody has made up their mind."
Also DBR: "Hey, let's talk about impeachment!"

In election news, Trump is having a rally in Wildwood, NJ tonight, which is interesting inasmuch as I can't recall him having had too many rallies in deep blue states recently. Does he think NJ is in play or something, or is this for other purposes? Clinton won NJ in 2016 by 14 points. Wisconsin was viewed as a major upset in 2016, and Romney only lost that by 7 in 2012.

[CDu]

This would make sense if there is some law or precedent that candidates running for office, and their immediate families, have immunity from being investigated for possible crimes. If there is no immunity, Trump can certainly claim that asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens is a legitimate criminal inquiry that is not forestalled by the possibility that Biden will be Dem's candidate for President.

The issue at hand isn’t whether or not the president can ask someone to investigate a potential candidates’ family for possible crimes, though. It is who that someone is that is being asked, and what (if any) means of “enticement” are attached to the question.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

DBR: "Impeachment won't move the needle. Everybody has made up their mind."
Also DBR: "Hey, let's talk about impeachment!"

In election news, Trump is having a rally in Wildwood, NJ tonight, which is interesting inasmuch as I can't recall him having had too many rallies in deep blue states recently. Does he think NJ is in play or something, or is this for other purposes? Clinton won NJ in 2016 by 14 points. Wisconsin was viewed as a major upset in 2016, and Romney only lost that by 7 in 2012.

Interesting question. I think he has almost no chance of flipping NJ. According to this article he is mainly there to support the representative who recently switched from D to R, as well as to reach some of the purple Philly suburbs (which are a pretty long drive from Wildwood but this article makes it sound like people care from pretty far away). It also isn’t far from Atlantic City, where at one time he was likely one of the biggest employers (not so much anymore).

https://whyy.org/articles/trumps-rally-in-wildwood-draws-tens-of-thousands/

[Nick]

The RCP Trump approval average has eked up to its highest level in three years. Go figure:

Screenshot 2020-01-28 at 10.28.52 PM.jpg

[tommy]

This would make sense if there is some law or precedent that candidates running for office, and their immediate families, have immunity from being investigated for possible crimes. If there is no immunity, Trump can certainly claim that asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens is a legitimate criminal inquiry that is not forestalled by the possibility that Biden will be Dem's candidate for President.

Sorry but that would never fly in a real courtroom. Outside the presence of the jury, before any evidence about what Hunter Biden did or didn't do in Ukraine was admitted, defendant Trump would have to establish that this was in fact a legitimate criminal inquiry, or that this was part of a legitimate attempt to root out corruption in foreign lands, or corruption involving American citizens in foreign lands, or some such thing. I may have missed it, but I have not seen any evidence that the Biden/Burisma "investigation" was just another corruption investigation, one among many initiated by the President or his team in Ukraine, or indeed that there ANY other corruption investigations of this type initiated by the Administration in ANY countries or against ANY companies like the Burisma investigation.

To the contrary, and again apologies if I've missed it, but it appears that this was the only investigation of this type sought by the President and his team, and was not simply part of a wider anti-corruption initiative. The fact that the ONLY such investigation happens to be targeted at the son of the President's most likely rival for the Presidency, would undermine if not destroy his argument that this was a legitimate criminal inquiry, and I'm certain that any judge would not permit the jury to hear it.

Even if the evidence was somehow deemed to be relevant, it likely would be excluded anyway. Each state has its own similar state Evidence Code provisions, but if it was a federal case, Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence would provide the basis for the judge to exclude it as "its probative value [would be] substantially outweighed by the danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." These types of Evidence Code sections are routinely used by judges to exclude marginally relevant evidence that would turn what is a tangential issue in the case into a central one, and essentially create a mini-"trial within a trial." Here, the "trial within the trial" would be "Is Hunter Biden a crook?" Real judges would not let the Trump trial turn into the Biden trial in that manner.

[SouthernDukie]

The RCP Trump approval average has eked up to its highest level in three years. Go figure:

Screenshot 2020-01-28 at 10.28.52 PM.jpg

Not surprising with the economy/stock market doing well. That's fairly standard. The incredible thing, that I'm not sure we've ever seen before at these levels, is that the man doesn't have much greater approval ratings overall because half the country doesn't like him personally (not making any comments on validity or non-validity of said dislike). It's just an amazing thing to see play out.

The wedding analogy really applies with this POTUS and the GOP. It's for better or worse. "Till death do us part."

[JasonEvans]

I did not know this. Could you site your source for this information? I thought this type of “opinion” is what this board sought to avoid. Silly me.

While my wording may have been somewhat less absolute, it is not at all controversial to say that Trump seems primarily concerned with appealing to his base. But, if you are going to demand a source for that notion, look no further than this quote from Trump himself in an article titled: How GOP Insiders View Trump's 'Base-Only' 2020 Strategy

When Time asked (Trump) whether he should reach out to swing voters, he said, “‘I think my base is so strong, I’m not sure that I have to do that.’”

As a side note, I do not appreciate the 'silly me' comment. I put a ton of effort into this thread. The other mods have made it abundantly clear that this thread would not exist if I was not willing to continue that effort. A PM or a weee bit of respect will work a lot better than being snide if you think I have erred.

-Jason "I'm gonna go simmer down for a bit now..." Evans

[bundabergdevil]

While my wording may have been somewhat less absolute, it is not at all controversial to say that Trump seems primarily concerned with appealing to his base. But, if you are going to demand a source for that notion, look no further than this quote from Trump himself in an article titled: How GOP Insiders View Trump's 'Base-Only' 2020 Strategy



As a side note, I do not appreciate the 'silly me' comment. I put a ton of effort into this thread. The other mods have made it abundantly clear that this thread would not exist if I was not willing to continue that effort. A PM or a weee bit of respect will work a lot better than being snide if you think I have erred.

-Jason "I'm gonna go simmer down for a bit now..." Evans

Plenty of evidence to support Trump’s base focus. In fact, this may be the first evidence of any kind Trump is even trying to make inroads with non-core constituencies. According to this report, Trump supporters are just giving away envelopes of cash to entice black voters. Small sample size of events but in OH and tbd VA so far.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/29/trump-black-voters-cash-giveaways-108072

[JasonEvans]

According to this report, Trump supporters are just giving away envelopes of cash to entice black voters. Small sample size of events but in OH and tbd VA so far.

Really interesting thought... lets say Michael Bloomberg ($50+ bil net worth), Jeff Bezos ($110+ bil net work), and George Soros ($8+ bil net worth) got together and said they were going to combine to spend $2 billion on the election. They go to Michigan (Trump won by 13,000 votes in 2016), Wisconsin (27,000 votes), Pennsylvania (66,000 votes), Florida (114,000 votes), North Carolina (177,000 votes) and Arizona (91,000 votes) and look for Trump voters who are not very wealthy. Then, they offer to pay those folks $1000 each to just stay home... they don't have to vote for the Dem, they merely have to stay home and not vote for anyone (something that could be checked by looking at voter rolls).

$1000 not to vote... it would seem really tempting to someone who makes $30k per year.

You could prevent 2-million people from voting for Trump by doing that. It would likely turn the election into a landslide.

-Jason "I'm not advocating this and I think it would be terrible. I am an advocate for more more more people voting, not less... but it would be a way to absolutely assure the Democrat would win" Evans

P.S. - I need to check the law, this may be illegal.