Biden clarifies after saying he wouldn't comply with impeachment-related subpoena

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden attempted to clarify his recent announcement that he'd refuse to comply with a subpoena should the Senate issue one forcing his testimony in the impeachment hearing.

The former vice president made the initial remarks in a recent interview with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register. His statements comes as some Senate Republicans are calling for Biden and his son Hunter to testify in the impeachment trial.

"I want to clarify something I said yesterday. In my 40 years in public life, I have always complied with a lawful order and in my eight years as VP, my office — unlike Donald Trump and Mike Pence — cooperated with legitimate congressional oversight requests," Biden tweeted Saturday morning. "But I am just not going to pretend that there is any legal basis for Republican subpoenas for my testimony in the impeachment trial. That is the point I was making yesterday and I reiterate: this impeachment is about Trump’s conduct, not mine."

Link to tweet

?s=20

Biden went on to say that the Senate should subpoena White House officials who were witnesses to "Trump’s shaking down the Ukraine government."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-clarifies-after-saying-he-wouldnt-comply-with-impeachment-related-subpoena/ar-BBYqa3e?li=BBnb7Kz

[abqtommy]

1. There's a saying that I think applies here: If you're explaining, you're losing.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

3. Oooookay

[DavidDvorkin]

6. Except that, according to the polls, he's winning.

[bluewater]

13. Polls show Joe is leading, not winning.

The polls show all candidates significantly below 30% support in the polls, splitting the vote, and having no candidate outright winning enough delegates to get the 2020 nomination. So far.

Just a "clarification". lol

We will know after Super Tuesday if any candidate has over 50% of the delegates at that point or not.

If Biden has more delegates than Warren and Sanders combined after super Tuesday, it's over, he will be the nominee.

If not, it will remain an open question.

[newblewtoo]

15. exactly right

I wish more people understood your explanation. Primaries are one thing, the general election another; a lot can happen between now and next November.

[Cha]

32. HA! Excellent point.. Thank you, David.

[elleng]

12. 'I am just not going to pretend that there is any legal basis'

[abqtommy]

16. Yes, I read the op. Did you have a point?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

28. Exactly... always having to splain. This one makes no sense with what Joe said previously.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[Cha]

30. you keep on saying that..

[Thekaspervote]

2. Good!!

[monmouth4]

4. He seems to have to clarify everytime he opens his mouth..C'mon Joe, get with it..n/t

[elleng]

10. 'I am just not going to pretend that there is any legal basis'

[stopdiggin]

31. you're repeating yourself (nt)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

29. Exactly... what Joe should have done is recant what he said previously...

and VOLUNTEER to testify at Dolt45's Impeachment hearing, since he obviously did nothing wrong, and SLAM the PEE-resident in his testimony, clobbering the a-hole for his traitorous crimes.

Joe might even improve his chances against Bernie in the Democratic primary if he did that, though I think Joe would still lose to Bernie.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[Cha]

33. No he doesn't.

[wellst0nev0ter]

5. Joe said he can best handle the repubs

This only makes him look like he's running away from them

[elleng]

9. NOT if one pays attention to his REASON:

'I am just not going to pretend that there is any legal basis'

[wellst0nev0ter]

19. Legal basis?

Republicans were looking for an excuse not to call up relevant witnesses, and Joe just handed them a gift.

He could have proven he had nothing to hide and tarred Trump on national TV, but instead Biden gave the trumpanzees all sorts of ammo.

[stopdiggin]

34. another "statement" that doesn't really mean anything

where do we come up with the idea that the Senate needs a "legal basis?" They can subpoena the weatherman or the ice cream vendor if they want to. And law abiding citizens show up!

[Peacetrain]

7. When people are so purposefully obtuse, you have to try and clarify things for them

[elleng]

8. 'I am just not going to pretend that there is any legal basis

for Republican subpoenas for my testimony in the impeachment trial. That is the point I was making yesterday and I reiterate: this impeachment is about Trump’s conduct, not mine."'

[pnwmom]

20. He's free to make a legal claim in court. He isn't free to ignore a lawful subpoena

as he seemed to be saying yesterday.

[stopdiggin]

36. precisely. let's not make the R's arguments FOR them! (nt)

[Aaron Pereira]

11. Happy to see Joe taking a tough approach with the Republicans.

If there was ever a time to support one of our own this is it.

[Gothmog]

14. Any subpoena would not proper but Joe would comply

It will take 51 votes in the Senate to issue a subpoena for Joe to testify. If that happens, Joe will testify but it will also be clear that the Senate is not interested in conducting a fair trial

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Cha]

37. Gracias for the tweets, Goth!

Link to tweet

[Lexee]

17. That was the answer he should have given, not that he would defy a subpoena.

[David__77]

18. I don't see a problem with what he said.

...

[pnwmom]

21. Biden himself saw the problem, and that's why he backtracked. nt

[David__77]

24. I'm not sure I saw a backtrack there.

He still didn’t say he would comply or that he would defer to anyone’s judgment on that than his own. His citation of past practice doesn’t, to me, confirm anything.

I don’t see why he should necessarily comply.

[pnwmom]

25. He should of course comply with any lawful order because he believes

in the rule of law.

He is free to challenge any subpoena in court, but not just blow it off.

[David__77]

26. If he didn't leave open the possibility of non-compliance then he did misspeak.

Based on my reading of what he wrote, I’d say he left that option on the table.

[stopdiggin]

39. you are arguing for illegal action

I don't know what this stems from -- but I do make note

[David__77]

40. Oh good lord. There's been lots of civil disobedience I've found commendable.

And by the way it was Biden who argued against complying.

Good luck with the Rolodex.

[stopdiggin]

41. ah. "civil disobedience."

was Biden who argued against complying.

yes -- and quickly recognized that for a mistake .. but you apparently don't, or won't.

[Uncle Joe]

23. The only problem I see is that technically speaking

if the House or Senate issues a subpoena, it's legal.

I have never heard of a case being otherwise.

[Kingofalldems]

22. Boom!

Attackers won't like this one at all. He makes total sense.

[greatauntoftriplets]

27. McConnell and his coven want to put Biden on trial, not the one who's been impeached.

They're trying to turn this into a kangaroo court. Biden is correct.

[Cha]

38. Exactly, GreatAunt!

[greatauntoftriplets]

44. It's all a big distraction from the real criminal.

Disgusting Cha!

[Cha]

46. Yes, it's so disgustingly obvious.

[greatauntoftriplets]

47. And they expect us to buy this BS.

Fools.

[cwydro]

35. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have the choice to ignore or defy a subpoena.

Just sayin”.

[Kingofalldems]

42. Pretty sure republicans are part of a criminal conspiracy.

Just sayin'.

[cwydro]

45. No shit.

But any politician who thinks he or she is above the law annoys me.

That was my point.

[Kingofalldems]

43. Seems Trump and his cohorts have no problem with it...

[mahina]

48. This undermines our calls for the right to respond to subpoenas.

He just cost the Democrats a lot.

And I like Joe.