The problem is we have conflict of interest rules just for this reason. No one knows exactly what Biden's motivation was. His public statements seem to indicate some kind of crazed replay of his long ago confrontation with Corn Pop. So the reason we have conflict of interest rules is so we don't have to speculate about motivation after the fact. We just say, don't do something that looks bad or appear to involve a conflict. I don't know how anyone could suggest Biden's conduct did not at least appear improper or questionable. He got the prosecutor fired who was investigating a corrupt company paying his son millions of dollars for nothing other than his last name. I find it interesting that Obama has not weighed in and said that Biden was acting on his instructions. That would at least give Biden some cover, but radio silence from Obama.
As it should be. Unless you are going to argue that Adam Schitt has not controlled as much as possible. Good luck wit dat.
I think I have said several times that the greater risk is that the Senate will not only give a hearing but it will be months longer than you bargained for, including the "getting there" time. Not to worry there is going to be more attention than the dems ever wanted. Especially if the horowitz and durham stuff bubbles over in to the senate trial and the republicans think that that is a perfectly fine forum to hash all of that over ad naseum. You will be complaining that the trial is not supposed to be about impeaching Holder and Clapper. Fun, fun, fun......
Not even a little bit. I’m someone who believes in the rule of law. That’s why I do not expect the senate to conduct themselves in the same manner as they did when Clinton was tried and never expected the House to act any differently. The constitution is broad in this area with the exception of which body does what. How each body conducts itself is up to their own governance. For example, right now the senate must take up the articles of impeachment within one day from the house when passed. The senate can change those rules and say we want to sit on this for a few weeks. The can change the rules of how many days a week to try the charges or even how senators can ask questions. It’s totally open for them to change if they want. As I’m thinking about this I think the way they set the rules for the trial may actually be telling of how the senate is leaning. If McConnell wants to overly control witnesses’ testimony and senate procedure then I’d say there isn’t much Republican support for impeachment. But if McConnell opens the whole thing up that may be an indication that Republican Senators May be more open than we think.
Eh, if the republicans really wanted to mess with the democrats they would work the trial right around the Iowa caucuses. Not that the senators in the race are doing particularly well but it adds pressure to a tense time and election results can overshadow a failure to remove verdict. No one really cares about the Horowitz Durham stuff except Sean hannity viewers.
They're walking a tightrope between disobeying their paymasters at Koch and China and seeing open political graves with their names on them. I predict McConnell and the cuck republicans will try to use it as leverage on Trump to give in on China trade war, immigration and endless wars. That's what these dirtbags did with the Russia hoax and managed to effectively block Trump's agenda, you know, the one the voters wanted, for two years.
Fine, keep that in mind when all your various grievances about how the Senate actually ends out conducting itself arise. Let's see if you are so quick to point out that is all entirely up to them.
You got the wrong guy for this kind of stuff. I used to work in a heavily regulated industry and learned young that the rules are the rules and there is no sense in crying about them.