There wasn't any law broken. I know you want it to be but there wasn't. The dems will come up with nothing because there is nothing there. This will become a huge nothingburger as everything else has been. This was politics from the beginning. Before you start, the Mueller Report was a nothingburger which was shown during Mueller's testimony.
Have we had anyone impeached out of office when no one broke a law? Possible, but I don't think anyone has gone there.
Clinton was impeached for, among other things, two counts of perjury to a grand jury and Johnson for violating the Tenure of Office Act. It was argued that both impeachments were politically motivated (though they were both most assuredly guilty) but I would ask if there has been a single decision on the federal level since the ratification of the Constitution that wasn’t politically motivated. I’ll get back to my corn dog and ginger ale now.
Biden is one of many democrats running for president. That doesn't automatically makes it impossible for Trump to bring them up during a foreign investigation. What you're saying isn't backed up by law or common sense. Now, if Guiliani has lied about being pushed by the state department to do this then we have a problem.
Put it on a sliding scale. With 1 being no intent/thought about the elections process, and 100 being absolutely intended for personal election gain, where does the phone call and decision go? At what number would that need to be for it to be "harmful?" Or "backed up by law?"
That's the problem. You guys are trying to put something subjective into something that doesn't belong there. Did he break the law? No, he didn't.
I thought it was a simple question. Answering is so tough because then the tribalism will be exposed.
That why we don't have a habit of impeaching people when no law has been broken. Doing it subjectively as the dems wish to do is dangerous because what one person finds outrageous another person might not find it to be.
It's not subjective. If a lawyer can stand in front of potential jurors and use the same exact analogy for probable cause, then so can someone who looks at the actions/intent of the president.
Serious? I think that is your problem. Half of America does not take it as serious because the democrats have been clamoring for impeachment since Jan 2017. In this latest attempt, the hearing investigating started with the democrat chair lying about the transcript while later calling it "parody." The media lies everyday about the call as well by saying he asked them to "dig up dirt" on Biden. What he actually spoke about was corruption. He said Ukraine should investigate Biden given his son was given a $50,000 board seat on a company that Biden is on record bragging about closing an investigation on by withholding aid. As stated earlier, I am all for impeachment coming to the Senate. Let's investigate every government official who worked with Ukraine in the past 12 years. For anyone who did something illegal, put them in jail regardless of party.
Lots of great irony in the clips on this page. Many, many Democrats defending slick willie from impeachment, who are now doing EXACTLY what they accused Republicans of doing back in the day. I've linked Chuckles' prophetic commentary. Follow the link for more delicious democrat double standards. LINKY
Getting you back to reality... The phone call. The problem you have is POTUS getting "dirt" on Biden? If that's the case...., then he isn't allowed to seek investigations of wrong doing, or illegal acts, on anyone running for office? That makes no sense at all If you're "dirty" then just run for POTUS. You're immune to investigations of any kind.... Giggity giggity! What POTUS did, was doing his job
I'd agree if he was generally concerned about corruption. You haven't seen me criticize Barr or Trump on the conversations with Australia about the genesis of the Russia probe. Altruism is grand although he didn't pursue general corruption in the call with Ukraine. He was only interested in 2 instances. In fact, the justice department isn't publicly known to be investigating Biden so who is? Trump's personal attorney, Guiliani. So the claim that he was simply being altruistic doesn't hold up to the known facts.
As a citizen, to me, what Joe Biden did for his son was abuse of power. I'm glad someone, even if it's Potus, is looking into it. To flippantly say the justice dept isn't looking into it doesn't answer the obvious.
What did he do for his son? Facts (and links preferably) please. BTW, I think Hunter Biden profiting off his fathers role is abhorrent, no different than the Trump children. If you want to suggest legislation to prevent the children from profiting off their parents roles in government I might be able to support that depending on the specifics.
Lot's of hypocrisy on both sides in this latest impeachment inquiry. One could argue the roles have simply reversed. I suspect the result will be the same. House recommends impeachment and sends it over to a Senate controlled by the POTUS' party who lets the matter die a quiet death.
Senator Chuck Grassley, Chair of the Senate Whistleblower Protection Caucus (who knew there was such a thing?), has come out in defense of the whistleblower.
You made a funny. I know that wasn’t your intentions but good job man. Are you seriously going to try to defend Biden intervening with a investigation by the Ukraine prosecutor that involved Biden’s son?
