Jimmy Valentine said:
aggieforester05 said:
Jimmy Valentine said:
aggieforester05 said:
Jimmy Valentine said:
Wildcat said:
Jimmy Valentine said:
Wildcat said:
You are splitting hairs on 1 and you know it. The transcript of the call does not support your position. And what's the point of giving Hunter that position if you aren't going to use the leverage?
Unqualified, connected people are on boards of companies all over the world. John Sharp is on the board of American Momentum Bank.
Yes. Because they have various connections...like a Dad who is a VP and can influence policy.
At the very least it's a COI and then you need to add the old man's boasting.
Certainly a conflict of interest, but when you examine the facts, they don't show that Biden did anything wrong by pressing for the firing of a prosecutor who wasn't investigating corruption.
The facts certainly don't show Trump did wrong by pressing for the investigation of a US official who withheld aid to pressure the firing of a foreign prosecutor with ties to his son. Doesn't hurt to investigate, to get to the bottom of it. Democrats have pursued unending baseless investigations into Trump for political gain. To say Trump didn't have the right to investigate Biden here when there was a legitimate concern is the height of hypocrisy. What do you not understand about that?
How could there be a legitimate concern to investigate if history shows that, for fact, Shokin was fired for NOT investigating corruption, which could not have provided any benefit to Burisma?
If true, then that's what the investigation would uncover. From there position of supporting unending baseless investigations of Trump, what is your problem with Biden being investigated for extremely fishy circumstances to clear his name? Hypocrisy at its best if you support the Trump investigations but not Biden
My problem is setting a precedent where the President could use the power of his office to involve a foreign government in an investigation of a political opponent predicated on a very political bias.
You have a problem with setting a precedent? A precedent of a *foreign* government being asked to investigate US citizens because they happen to be running for political office and it might provide untoward political advantage to a sitting President? You don't say?
How much of a problem is it for you that a sitting President and at least a dozen of his senior staff used the FISA courts to get warrants for political spying? How much of a problem is it that a Democrat presidential candidate paid for a completely fabricated dossier that was fed to the FBI as "intelligence" when in fact everyone from the President to DCI, DNI, AG, and the Director of the FBI knew it was a complete and total fabrication but swore an affidavit that it was not only credble but verified independent? Is it a problem for you that none of those people were prosecuted or impeached?
So it's a problem for you that a foreigner might be asked to conduct an investigation of a US citizen at the behest of the President. Foreigners like an MI6 agent who allowed his asset to be poisoned with Polonium? How about an ambassador from a foreign country being used to try and trick a campaign staffer into falsely stating that he had knowledge of Russian hacking of an opposing candidate? Suppose an FBI asset being paid through a no-compete contract from the DoD Office of Net Assessment was used by a President and his FBI appointees to try and entrap the campaign staffer by urging him in secretly recorded conversations to corroborate false statements that the staffer never heard nor spoke.
Would any of those precedents be a problem for you? Apparently not because all of that happened and you haven't so much as made a peep to condemn it on this forum. All of those precedents that have been substantiated in sworn testimony, recovered text messages, a report of investigation by the IG, and documents released in response to FOIA requests but that's not the problem thats not the problem thatost concerns you about precedents or presidential abuse of power for political gain?
