Bribery

[Boosted87]

I was told several times on here that bribery is one of the clear examples laid out in the constitution for impeachment, and that it is clear that trump is guilty of bribery. Why would the house dems not lay it out as clearly as the lefties on this board claimed it was?

Not a lefty on the board but I did make the case for framing this as soliciting a bribe. I think there was a good case to frame it that way, but I also think the Republicans (namely Turley as their witness) did a really job explaining why this wasn't bribery, at least in the context of how the court's have interpreted the federal bribery statute. So to move forward with that framing, they'd be relying on how bribery was interpreted back in the late 1700's. I still think there's a good argument for that, but that case isn't nearly as well developed as the more general "abuse of power" case.

I think they made a political calculation here to limit the articles and keep the focus narrow. I think Trump is in much better shape if we're arguing about the definition of bribery rather than discussing the underlying conduct. This seems to me like an attempt to narrow the focus as much as possible to the underlying conduct.

 

[UCFWayne]

Sorry wayne but this is funny as hell

100% accurate.*

 

[fried-chicken]

100% accurate.*

Try and convince me you don't have multiple tactical flashlights. You can't.

 

[sk8knight]

Ok, so what? That doesn't mean they cant argue he abused his power through use of bribery, which is what they are doing.

But they didn't prove the bribery. Without the bribery, how did he abuse his power?

 

[sk8knight]

Not a lefty on the board but I did make the case for framing this as soliciting a bribe. I think there was a good case to frame it that way, but I also think the Republicans (namely Turley as their witness) did a really job explaining why this wasn't bribery, at least in the context of how the court's have interpreted the federal bribery statute. So to move forward with that framing, they'd be relying on how bribery was interpreted back in the late 1700's. I still think there's a good argument for that, but that case isn't nearly as well developed as the more general "abuse of power" case.

I think they made a political calculation here to limit the articles and keep the focus narrow. I think Trump is in much better shape if we're arguing about the definition of bribery rather than discussing the underlying conduct. This seems to me like an attempt to narrow the focus as much as possible to the underlying conduct.

Ugh, I'm over this. They don't care about abuse of power. They're twisting the law because they need to find a crime for Trump so that they can try to influence the 2020 election and put their party in power. Abuse of Power isn't a crime, it's a component of a crime; except when law professors decide to make an argument that it is a crime. And if they cared about Abuse of Power, Joe Biden would also be under investigation for his admission of a potential abuse of power surrounding Burisma and Ukraine. But they don't. They only care about winning back the White House at any and all costs. Enough of them have admitted it.

 

[DaShuckster]

Ugh, I'm over this.

I feel the same way when it comes to getting you to look beyond your MAGA hat nose, sk8.

A President uses his office in an attempt to push, arm-twist, bribe, extort (use whatever verb suits your fancy) the leader of a foreign country who IS AT WAR WITH RUSSIA to announce that he's opening a criminal investigation of the Bidens in exchange for the $400 million in military aid Congress had appropriated for Ukraine plus a WH visit.

You think pressuring a foreign leader to make an announcement that would give his reelection campaign a huge boost was an a-okay thing for a President to do?

The willful ignorance that some posters show here is staggering to me. When people won't even acknowledge right from wrong, it doesn't give me high hopes for the future.

 

[sk8knight]

I feel the same way when it comes to getting you to look beyond your MAGA hat nose, sk8.

A President uses his office in an attempt to push, arm-twist, bribe, extort (use whatever verb suits your fancy) the leader of a foreign country who IS AT WAR WITH RUSSIA to announce that he's opening a criminal investigation of the Bidens in exchange for the $400 million in military aid Congress had appropriated for Ukraine plus a WH visit.

You think pressuring a foreign leader to make an announcement that would give his reelection campaign a huge boost was an a-okay thing for a President to do?

The willful ignorance that some posters show here is staggering to me. When people won't even acknowledge right from wrong, it doesn't give me high hopes for the future.

Prove that he did it to benefit his campaign. Prove that assumption.

 

[DaShuckster]

Prove that he did it to benefit his campaign. Prove that assumption.

Jesus Christ, man, did you pay attention to ANY of the impeachment hearing testimonies???!?

What was the deal? Was it all made-up or are you saying that it's all 'heresay' because Trump was never heard directing that it be done?

If that's your defense, why is it heresay? Hmmm, maybe it's because the President prohibited all of his direct reports from responding to their Congressional subpoenas. Now why is THAT, sk8? Their direct testimony could clear this 'witch hunt' all up, right?

 

[sk8knight]

Jesus Christ, man, did you pay attention to ANY of the impeachment hearing testimonies???!?

What was the deal? Was it all made-up or are you saying that it's all 'heresay' because Trump was never heard directing that it be done?

If that's your defense, why is it heresay? Hmmm, maybe it's because the President prohibited all of his direct reports from responding to their Congressional subpoenas. Now why is THAT, sk8? Their direct testimony could clear this 'witch hunt' all up, right?

I watched witness after witness with no direct knowledge speculate and Schiff pontificate. I watched Sondland testify without establishing proof. So, yeah, they didn’t prove bribery.

 

[Crazyhole]

Shukster:

"because Trump was never heard directing that it be done?"

Case closed.

 

[DaShuckster]

I watched witness after witness with no direct knowledge speculate and Schiff pontificate. I watched Sondland testify without establishing proof. So, yeah, they didn’t prove bribery.

Then they should have had Giuliani, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton, and Perry testify. Oh, wait...they tried.

Gee, I wonder if there is any evidence of a Contempt of Congress charge against the President.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Prove that he did it to benefit his campaign. Prove that assumption.

You can see what levels of delusion they’re sinking to by Shooksters post. And as usual he’s just inventing shit again.

 

[sk8knight]

Then they should have had Giuliani, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton, and Perry testify. Oh, wait...they tried.

Gee, I wonder if there is any evidence of a Contempt of Congress charge against the President.

I don’t have a problem with a contempt of Congress charge. I think Congress should levy that charge whenever Presidents decide that they are going to ignore the legislation Congress puts in place in non-emergency times and direct their branch organizations to do the same. Of course, that’s not an impeachable offense so it’s really nothing more than a weakened vote of no confidence.

 

[DaShuckster]

The political playbook for Trump and his minions: When faced with irrefutable facts, ignore reality and troll away.

 

[Boosted87]

Ugh, I'm over this. They don't care about abuse of power. They're twisting the law because they need to find a crime for Trump so that they can try to influence the 2020 election and put their party in power. Abuse of Power isn't a crime, it's a component of a crime; except when law professors decide to make an argument that it is a crime. And if they cared about Abuse of Power, Joe Biden would also be under investigation for his admission of a potential abuse of power surrounding Burisma and Ukraine. But they don't. They only care about winning back the White House at any and all costs. Enough of them have admitted it.

If the standard is merely "committed a crime", then Democrats could have moved forward via the Cohen case. Trump was an un-indicted co-conspirator. Cohen is serving jail time for carrying out a crime authorized and directed by Trump. Or, Democrats had 10 examples laid out by Meuller that conformed to federal statutes of Obstruction of Justice. By any reasonable read I've found, at least 3 of them would have been considered slam-dunk type prosecutions as laid out in the report.

So let's put that to bed. If Democrats were merely in search of a crime they have that in spades. I think Democrats learned from the Clinton impeachment on this though. A crime is not enough to remove a President. Clinton was pushing 70% approval ratings as the Senate acquitted him even though it was pretty clear he did commit perjury. I think the public would have viewed the Stormy Daniels deal exactly as they viewed the perjury charge against Clinton.

So you need something much bigger than a technical violation of the law. You need to make a case that the President is unfit for the office. You need to demonstrate a pattern of abuses. Show that he's violated the public trust. That he's abused the unique power he's granted for his own benefit, prioritizing himself above the best interests of the nation.

 

[Crazyhole]

The political playbook for Trump and his minions: When faced with irrefutable facts, ignore reality and troll away.

So I'm assuming that you won't ignore what Yermak had to say in the Time magazine article, which corroborates what Trump, Zelensky, and Sondland (initially) said.

 

[UCFWayne]

Try and convince me you don't have multiple tactical flashlights. You can't.

guilty as charged lolololololololololololololo

 

[Boosted87]

Prove that he did it to benefit his campaign. Prove that assumption.

I think you're viewing this the wrong way. This isn't a criminal prosecution. Think of this like a CEO of a company. If there's a a credible and shady set of circumstantial evidence that the CEO is using his office for personal benefit at the expense of shareholders, the board doesn't need to "prove" anything. If the CEO wants to keep his job, the burden falls on the CEO to demonstrate that his actions and motives were actually in the best interest of the company.

Not that the Democrats don't have a high bar, but being President is a position of public trust. But in light of the evidence and testimony as presented, I think Trump has just as much obligation to prove he was acting in the best interest of the public as democrats have to show otherwise.

 

[Crazyhole]

I think you're viewing this the wrong way. This isn't a criminal prosecution. Think of this like a CEO of a company. If there's a a credible and shady set of circumstantial evidence that the CEO is using his office for personal benefit at the expense of shareholders, the board doesn't need to "prove" anything. If the CEO wants to keep his job, the burden falls on the CEO to demonstrate that his actions and motives were actually in the best interest of the company.

Not that the Democrats don't have a high bar, but being President is a position of public trust. But in light of the evidence and testimony as presented, I think Trump has just as much obligation to prove he was acting in the best interest of the public as democrats have to show otherwise.

Public trust is impossible to quantify, and quite honestly it's kind of dumb for the dems to make that case within a few months of the election. If that was a baseline for impeachment then Carter and Hoover probably would have been removed. Well, actually they were via election.

 

[Boosted87]

I don’t have a problem with a contempt of Congress charge. I think Congress should levy that charge whenever Presidents decide that they are going to ignore the legislation Congress puts in place in non-emergency times and direct their branch organizations to do the same. Of course, that’s not an impeachable offense so it’s really nothing more than a weakened vote of no confidence.

This is an interesting one as Trump basically gets a complete do-over in the Senate. I don't think any Senate - regardless of how much one party had control - would convict a POTUS of Obstructing Congress if they fully participate in the Senate Trial. On the other hand, if POTUS directed his administration to refuse cooperation with the Senate Trial, in the same manner that was ordered for the House process, I think that POTUS would lose even his own party.

I think that was an important Article to include for that very reason. If the Senate holds a real trial with real witnesses, the White House has to cooperate or risk major defections on that article.

 

[Boosted87]

Public trust is impossible to quantify, and quite honestly it's kind of dumb for the dems to make that case within a few months of the election. If that was a baseline for impeachment then Carter and Hoover probably would have been removed. Well, actually they were via election.

You say a few months, but we haven't even held primaries yet. This isn't September of 2020 yet. Here's the thing - we're always less than 24 months from the prior or future election. An argument can always be made that you're trying to overturn the previous election, or you're trying to impact the pending election. I think they are moving as fast as they are precisely because of your point though. If they waited for judges to rule on subpeona's and let this linger even another month, the window where it seems reasonable to move forward would disappear quickly.

 

[Crazyhole]

You say a few months, but we haven't even held primaries yet. This isn't September of 2020 yet. Here's the thing - we're always less than 24 months from the prior or future election. An argument can always be made that you're trying to overturn the previous election, or you're trying to impact the pending election. I think they are moving as fast as they are precisely because of your point though. If they waited for judges to rule on subpeona's and let this linger even another month, the window where it seems reasonable to move forward would disappear quickly.

Seems like it would have been more politically expedient to censure Trump than impeach him. I know that censure doesnt resonate with voters as much as impeachment does, but it would have given the dems the exact same talking point without subjecting themselves to backlash, especially if they fail to impeach or the Senate flips the script.

 

[DaShuckster]

This is an interesting one as Trump basically gets a complete do-over in the Senate. I don't think any Senate - regardless of how much one party had control - would convict a POTUS of Obstructing Congress if they fully participate in the Senate Trial. On the other hand, if POTUS directed his administration to refuse cooperation with the Senate Trial, in the same manner that was ordered for the House process, I think that POTUS would lose even his own party.

You're assuming this will be a real, honest-to-goodness trial in the Senate. If the Senate subpoenaed the cast of characters who reported directly to Trump, then you'd see Trump stonewall yet again. BUT...

...that ain't gonna happen because Moscow Mitch wants this thing over ASAP.

Here's my prediction: We have a day or two where the House presents its case for an impeachment conviction, Then the WH's Defense team presents their case. And then...(drumroll)...there's a call for a vote, period. That's it. No testimonies, No cross-examinations, no nothing because the Senate majority doesn't care.

 

[Crazyhole]

You're assuming this will be a real, honest-to-goodness trial in the Senate. If the Senate subpoenaed the cast of characters who reported directly to Trump, then you'd see Trump stonewall yet again. BUT...

...that ain't gonna happen because Moscow Mitch wants this thing over ASAP.

Here's my prediction: We have a day or two where the House presents its case for an impeachment conviction, Then the WH's Defense team presents their case. And then...(drumroll)...there's a call for a vote, period. That's it. No testimonies, No cross-examinations, no nothing because the Senate majority doesn't care.

I wonder how Trump would respond to that. He has said that he wants a full trial in the senate. Does he just take the vote and act as though he is vindicated or does he use it to rail against the swamp because he wanted everything out in the open? He's a loose cannon so I can't predict his response to anything.

 

[DaShuckster]

I wonder how Trump would respond to that. He has said that he wants a full trial in the senate.

Here's my prediction for you, Crazy:

"THE SENATE TOTALLY VINDICATED ME. I WANTED A FULL TRIAL BUT THE DEMOCRATS CASE WAS SO WEAK AND SUCH A HOAX THAT THE SENATE SAW NO NEED FOR ONE."

 

[Crazyhole]

Here's my prediction for you, Crazy:

"THE SENATE TOTALLY VINDICATED ME. I WANTED A FULL TRIAL BUT THE DEMOCRATS CASE WAS SO WEAK AND SUCH A HOAX THAT THE SENATE SAW NO NEED FOR ONE."

You're probably right. Of course, if he does that then he's really only rallying his base. Seems pretty stupid to pass on the opportunity to gain as much political capital as he stands to get from a trial but we are talking about Trump and DC here. They all kind of have one another's back.

 

[Boosted87]

Seems like it would have been more politically expedient to censure Trump than impeach him. I know that censure doesnt resonate with voters as much as impeachment does, but it would have given the dems the exact same talking point without subjecting themselves to backlash, especially if they fail to impeach or the Senate flips the script.

I don't disagree. The problem is that Trump would have impugned Republicans supporting censure with the same methods he would impugn them for supporting impeachment. If there was a genuine movement on the part of Republicans in the house to say this was wrong and we'd support censure, I think that might have happened. The power of a bi-partisan rebuke via censure, supported in both the house and senate, would have been more powerful than a partisan impeachment as a check on executive wrong doing.

But if Trump isn't going to admit he was wrong, and crack the whip on any Republican that dares to do so, then censure would have ended as a partisan house vote that doesn't even get taken up in the senate, and Democrats would look incredibly weak if that's all they could muster.

 

[DaShuckster]

You're probably right. Of course, if he does that then he's really only rallying his base. Seems pretty stupid to pass on the opportunity to gain as much political capital as he stands to get from a trial but we are talking about Trump and DC here. They all kind of have one another's back.

The outcome is a foregone conclusion so why in the world would the Senate Republicans conduct an actual trial that would make the President -- and his Senate Republican supporters -- look bad?

Trump also has been quoted as saying he's LOVE to have Guiliani, Pompeo, Mulvaney, and Perry testify in a Senate Trial because "it will be fair there." Anyone want to bet me whether ANY of them will even be subpoenaed to testify under oath?

If this was a real trial where the jury was interested in the truth, those subpoenas would be a no-brainer.

 

[Boosted87]

You're assuming this will be a real, honest-to-goodness trial in the Senate. If the Senate subpoenaed the cast of characters who reported directly to Trump, then you'd see Trump stonewall yet again. BUT...

...that ain't gonna happen because Moscow Mitch wants this thing over ASAP.

Here's my prediction: We have a day or two where the House presents its case for an impeachment conviction, Then the WH's Defense team presents their case. And then...(drumroll)...there's a call for a vote, period. That's it. No testimonies, No cross-examinations, no nothing because the Senate majority doesn't care.

I think this is a HUGE question mark. Mitch needs 51 votes or the default rules apply. I do not believe Pence can break a tie on procedural rules changes (I could be wrong). In the Clinton impeachment, all 100 senators voted to approve the rules. Politically, it's important that Mitch and crew keep the appearance of taking this seriously for the sake of his vulnerable incumbents. He cares more about keeping his own power as majority leader than anything else.

Even if Mitch were desperate to do that, there's a handful of Republican Senators I don't think he could get on board. The result of this is likely a set of rules that gets bipartisan support. It will probably look like Clinton's rules and we end up with video-taped depositions of a few key witnesses we haven't heard from yet. I'd imagine a compromise is something like Mulvaney, Bolton, and the Whistleblower (with identify protected) being deposed.

 

[Crazyhole]

The outcome is a foregone conclusion so why in the world would the Senate Republicans conduct an actual trial that would make the President -- and his Senate Republican supporters -- look bad?

Trump also has been quoted as saying he's LOVE to have Guiliani, Pompeo, Mulvaney, and Perry testify in a Senate Trial because "it will be fair there." Anyone want to bet me whether ANY of them will even be subpoenaed to testify under oath?

If this was a real trial where the jury was interested in the truth, those subpoenas would be a no-brainer.

So if they aren't subpoenaed, who does that come down on the most? This is where I don't really know what the long game is for a guy like Graham, saying that he doesnt want to subpoena anybody. I guess it gives Trump political cover but Graham and McConell both come from red states where the electorate wants to expose the deep state. Are they willing to sacrifice themselves for Trump? Would the party in general have more to lose by calling witnesses than by sweeping this under the rug with an immediate vote, or does this give some senators political cover where they can claim that they wanted to expose everything but don't have the power to do so. The whole thing kind of brings me back to the notion that everybody in DC is on the same side and that they play the game of "give me your pound of flesh and then I'll take mine", all the while knowing that it's just about getting re-elected.

 

[DaShuckster]

So if they aren't subpoenaed, who does that come down on the most?

The answer depends on your politics.

Since both sides know where votes are, McConnell will propose a quick and dirty schedule and while the democrats will grouse about it publicly, they will accept it and the whole thing will be over by the end of January.

 

[Crazyhole]

I think this is a HUGE question mark. Mitch needs 51 votes or the default rules apply. I do not believe Pence can break a tie on procedural rules changes (I could be wrong). In the Clinton impeachment, all 100 senators voted to approve the rules. Politically, it's important that Mitch and crew keep the appearance of taking this seriously for the sake of his vulnerable incumbents. He cares more about keeping his own power as majority leader than anything else.

Even if Mitch were desperate to do that, there's a handful of Republican Senators I don't think he could get on board. The result of this is likely a set of rules that gets bipartisan support. It will probably look like Clinton's rules and we end up with video-taped depositions of a few key witnesses we haven't heard from yet. I'd imagine a compromise is something like Mulvaney, Bolton, and the Whistleblower (with identify protected) being deposed.

In general I agree, but I think if an agreement is made for which witnesses will be called it will include hunter Biden and Chalupa. I don't think the senate dems will protect either of them because they stand nothing to gain or lose politically by doing so. The dems, if they see it as an opportunity to save face with swing voters, will absolutely throw Hunter under the bus, and Chalupa is a relatively low level player here who could easily plead the 5th. The republicans, conversely, would be more than willing to throw Mulvaney and Perry under the bus. Bolton and Joe Biden are the guys that they want to keep from speaking under oath for opposite reasons, Bolton being that he is a wildcard and Biden because he is likely to say something that opens a can of worms.

 

[UCFKnight85]

If you want to know what a disaster this debacle is for Democrats, there are now 10-12 D's in the Senate quietly asking House R's if they'd vote for a censure in exchange for killing off this impeachment vote. Any D who doesn't answer only to fringe left wingers back home is finding this sham to be very problematic.

 

[Boosted87]

In general I agree, but I think if an agreement is made for which witnesses will be called it will include hunter Biden and Chalupa. I don't think the senate dems will protect either of them because they stand nothing to gain or lose politically by doing so. The dems, if they see it as an opportunity to save face with swing voters, will absolutely throw Hunter under the bus, and Chalupa is a relatively low level player here who could easily plead the 5th. The republicans, conversely, would be more than willing to throw Mulvaney and Perry under the bus. Bolton and Joe Biden are the guys that they want to keep from speaking under oath for opposite reasons, Bolton being that he is a wildcard and Biden because he is likely to say something that opens a can of worms.

I'd be shocked if Mitch let's this devolve into a chance for Trump and Rudy to air their conspiracy theories. Senate Intel interviewed Chalupa already in 2017 and didn't find anything worth pursuing. Plus, this gives Trump more political cover. Mitch and Senate Intel know there is ZERO to Trump's Ukraine conspiracy theories. Airing that out in the Senate Trial makes it worse for Trump. Same thing with Hunter Biden. Unless they're going to play investigator and drag this out with by issuing subpeona's for Joe and Hunter's records, they aren't going to get anything from testimony.

Trump is much better off perpetuating the conspiracy theories to his base than letting the Senate disprove them. Trump doesn't realize this because he thinks their real.

 

[Cubs79]

In general I agree, but I think if an agreement is made for which witnesses will be called it will include hunter Biden and Chalupa. I don't think the senate dems will protect either of them because they stand nothing to gain or lose politically by doing so. The dems, if they see it as an opportunity to save face with swing voters, will absolutely throw Hunter under the bus, and Chalupa is a relatively low level player here who could easily plead the 5th. The republicans, conversely, would be more than willing to throw Mulvaney and Perry under the bus. Bolton and Joe Biden are the guys that they want to keep from speaking under oath for opposite reasons, Bolton being that he is a wildcard and Biden because he is likely to say something that opens a can of worms.

I'm not really sure what Hunter Biden needs protecting from, or what purpose he would serve the Republicans. We all already know that rich kids tend to get special treatment with many things, but that in and of itself isn't illegal. But even if you think he did do something illegal, that doesn't exonerate Trump if he did issue a quid pro quo.

 

[Cubs79]

If you want to know what a disaster this debacle is for Democrats, there are now 10-12 D's in the Senate quietly asking House R's if they'd vote for a censure in exchange for killing off this impeachment vote. Any D who doesn't answer only to fringe left wingers back home is finding this sham to be very problematic.

They aren't in the Senate they are in the House, and 10-12 out of 234 members isn't that significant of a #.

 

[Crazyhole]

I'm not really sure what Hunter Biden needs protecting from, or what purpose he would serve the Republicans. We all already know that rich kids tend to get special treatment with many things, but that in and of itself isn't illegal. But even if you think he did do something illegal, that doesn't exonerate Trump if he did issue a quid pro quo.

Quite simply, he is an easy target. They can frame him as being an example of how a powerful politicans child reaps the benefits of being the child of a powerful politician, which speaks to not only trumps base but most of the country. Frame him as an example of washington corruption and it serves the same purpose as bringing Joe Biden in to testify, except it's an easier target.

Remember that trumps message isn't that Democrats are bad and republicans are good, it's that they are ALL bad, corrupt, etc.

This is all predicated on the notion that Trump will have any input whatsoever in the senate trial, but if he does I could see his team taking this approach.

 

[Cubs79]

Quite simply, he is an easy target. They can frame him as being an example of how a powerful politicans child reaps the benefits of being the child of a powerful politician, which speaks to not only trumps base but most of the country. Frame him as an example of washington corruption and it serves the same purpose as bringing Joe Biden in to testify, except it's an easier target.

Remember that trumps message isn't that Democrats are bad and republicans are good, it's that they are ALL bad, corrupt, etc.

This is all predicated on the notion that Trump will have any input whatsoever in the senate trial, but if he does I could see his team taking this approach.

If they try and frame him as that, you don't think Jared and Ivanka won't be brought up and discussed ad nausem for getting even more preferential treatment? Trump is every bit as bad, and honestly worse, in this regard, so I cant possibly see how this would benefit him.

Secondly, if Trump has input into his own trial then it pretty much shows what a farce the Senate has become.

 

[Sir Galahad]

If they try and frame him as that, you don't think Jared and Ivanka won't be brought up and discussed ad nausem for getting even more preferential treatment? Trump is every bit as bad, and honestly worse, in this regard, so I cant possibly see how this would benefit him.

Secondly, if Trump has input into his own trial then it pretty much shows what a farce the Senate has become.

How exactly is Trump worse in this case. Are his kids getting rich off of his position.

 

[Cubs79]

How exactly is Trump worse in this case. Are his kids getting rich off of his position.

Of course they are getting rich, not to mention they affect policy that affects peoples lives, even though neither has any sort of qualifications to be in there positions. Hunter Biden, also not qualified, but he just got a cushy job that doesnt impact us on any level. I dont support that, but comparing his job to Ivanka is an apples and oranges comparison. I can't possibly see how Republicans think bringing Biden would be a winning strategy, because there is no way it isnt pointed out that Trump's family hasnt benefited even more than Hunter Biden.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ivanka-trump-made-4-million-last-year-from-dc-hotel-2019-6
https://thinkprogress.org/ivanka-trump-ethics-disclosure-profit-d6190f663c6b/
https://www.vogue.com/article/how-trump-family-profits-from-presidency
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/06/ivanka-trump-gets-initial-approval-from-china-for-16-trademarks.html
https://www.gq.com/story/kushner-company-flooded-with-money
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/08/world/middleeast/saudi-mbs-jared-kushner.html

“In May 2018, Ivanka Trump’s business received approval for several new Chinese trademarks a week before President Trump announced that he wanted to lift the ban on the Chinese company ZTE, for violating US sanctions,” CREW said.
“In 2017, the business received three new Chinese trademarks on the same day she dined with Chinese President Xi Jinping,” CREW said.