Can they make Hunter Biden testify?

[question everything]

Yes, I am scared. These Rs think only of themselves. Of their reelection campaigns.

[Snarkoleptic]

1. No.

Democrats must approve any requests submitted by Republicans and they are expected to reject the requests for Hunter Biden and the whistleblower to appear.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/09/politics/house-republicans-impeachment-witness-requests/index.html

I shudder to think how screwed we'd be right now, had the Dems not taken back the House of Representatives.

[question everything]

2. Thanks.

[not_the_one]

23. new rules...

NO ONE has to testify.

Period.

Ever.

They can volunteer, IF they want. IF they are in the mood.

[Mike Nelson]

3. No and yes...

... no for the House of Reps... yes for the Senate or AG Barr.

[question everything]

4. That's bad

[killaphill]

16. Why is it bad?

He did absolutely nothing wrong

[question everything]

17. There are so many former prosecutors in the senate

they would love to confuse any witness with no experience in facing a barrage of questions.

Perhaps I have been watching too many detective shows...

[StarfishSaver]

10. True, but it will be difficult in the Senate

If the Articles are drafted right, anything about Hunter Biden would be irrelevant from an evidentiary standpoint and the Chief Justice could exclude it.

[uponit7771]

19. Makes me think democrats should charge Red Don with a crime instead of just an impeachable act.

Would that make things more formal and able to keep out there distracting BS we know is coming?

tia

[mcar]

20. How could they charge him with a crime?

They don't have that capability.

[uponit7771]

21. Couldn't the impeachment of a president involve charging him with a crime? I'm thinking they did ...

... this with Clinton right?

thx in advance

[mcar]

22. IIRC, Clinton's impeachment was based on his

supposed perjury in a deposition in a civil case. They based the impeachment on his perjury. They didn't charge him with a crime.

[tblue37]

5. Not unless Adam Schiff says it's OK--which he *won't*. nt

[Hav]

6. Why should you be scared?

There is no indication so far that Hunter Biden has done anything wrong that would even warrant an investigation.
This is like 2016 when too many just believed baseless and made up accusations.

[question everything]

7. Will give them a chance to twist facts and any statements

We have seen many - certainly Graham - switch ideas and opinion almost within the same paragraphs.

I don't think - don't know, really - whether Hunter is a skilled speaker. We don't know how he can withstand facing hostile inquisitors. We have had too many stories, in the criminal system, when witnesses ending up implying different things.

Hope to be found wrong on all accounts.

[Meadowoak]

8. +1

[4139]

9. If it makes it to the senate he will have to testify if he does not testify to the House.

[StarfishSaver]

11. Not necessarily

If the Articles of Impeachment are drafted well, the Chief Justice could exclude as irrelevant any evidence about or testimony by Hunter.

[4139]

12. If the articles of impeachment include Ukraine, trump will be call both Bidens if he wants

Trumps defense is he was just asking Ukraine to investigate possible corruption.
Chief Justice will allow him call both Bidens if trump chooses to

[StarfishSaver]

15. Not necessarily

They don't need to question Biden to put Trump's mindset into the record.

That would be like calling Monica Lewinsky in Clinton's impeachment trial to testify about her sexual encounters with Clinton. The details of what they actually did were irrelevant on the issue of obstruction and perjury.

That would be the case here. Even if Hunter Biden HAD engaged in corrupt acts, which, of course, he didn't, that's irrelevant on the issue of Trump's extortion, bribery, obstruction and other wrongdoing.

And if they want to make Trump's mindset the issue the issue, Trump would have to testify to it himself, which isn't likely to happen.

Moreover, I don't think Roberts would allow it because he had no intention of presiding over a circus.

[former9thward]

25. Not necessarily

Roberts will almost assuredly follow the Rehnquist precedent in the Clinton impeachment.

Rehnquist ruled "The Senate is not simply a jury. It is a court in this case.". Rehnquist also said: "I did nothing in particular, and did it very well." Senator Harkin sent a letter to Rehnquist asking him to adopt certain limits on the House managers' questioning of potential witnesses. Rehnquist begged off.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/29/politics/william-rehnquist-impeachment-trial-senate/index.html

[5X]

13. If they want to do their investigation,

let them rent their own hall, call who ever they want and see if anyone shows up.
Media included.

[Vinca]

14. No. For starters, it wouldn't matter if Hunter Biden had been a serial killer operating in Ukraine.

The meat of the matter is Don wanting a favor before delivering the aid already approved by Congress.

[lark]

18. Not in the House, they can't.

If it goes to the Senate, you won't even know drumpf is involved, R's will make it all sbout Biden and Hunter and destroy our constitution - if they can/

[smirkymonkey]

24. Why can't he just behave like a republican and refuse?

I don't get why Democrats need to abide by the rules while republicans get to ignore them.

[rampartc]

26. how would he know anything anout trump's crimes?

[drray23]

27. Nope. Adam Schiff already said he won't approve it. Nt.