A step towards becoming a banana republic.

I attack both as well. I attack fake conservative rinos, and democrats.

This doesn't put me on the fence. It just means I don't put up with fakes.

It's not like you can be on the fence between private property ownership rights and public ownership rights. You're either on one side or the other. Is the shirt on your back your own? If it's some kinda communal property and is only on your back at the present moment because nobody else needs it, then vote democrat. Is it yours because you worked to get the money to buy it? Then vote republican.

 

I am not on the fence either. I resolutely stand against any sitting President using the Office of the President to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political adversary.

 

sorry, but it's perfectly legal and happens all the time. There is no special legal status for "political adversary". It's Trump's job to work with foreign leaders, and he's doing it. Just because Biden wants the democratic nomination gives him no protection against being investigated in Ukraine. It also doesn't mean that the POTUS shouldn't or can't ask him to be investigated.

Don't like it? Well, that's too bad.

 

Claiming it is legal is not proof it is legal. Trump supporters predictably say it is legal and the left predictably say that it is illegal. As I am not an expert on federal law I remain neutral on the legality of the matter but say if it is not illegal, it should be.

 

If you think it's immoral, then how so? Are you now suddenly opposed to opposition research?

Where were you back when Hillary paid for the steele dossier which gave us the mueller investigation? Suddenly there's a conscience about oppo research when it's constantly done all the time during political campaigns?

What you probably don't realize is that ethics is a branch of philosophy, and that means you need to be consistent in your values. You can always suddenly change course and realize that you were wrong. A good mea culpa is always good for the soul, but you'll have to excuse me for doubting that this sudden interest in morality is based on a true interest in finding out the truth.

 

No problem with opposition research. But think that should be done through the RNC rather than done through the Office of the President. As for morality, I would say it more about ethical standards. Any politician that uses their Office to get an investigation into those who may be running against them is unethical by my measure of ethics. And depending upon who you ask it is illegal. Whether that is true or not has yet to be determined.

As for Hillary Clinton, I assume that if there were enough evidence to charge her with a crime that the AG, a Trump appointee would have done that by now. The fact that he has not speaks volumes.

Neither side is interested in moral truths, both are simply on a dirt digging exposition where each side hopes to find dirt that sticks. That is not morality, that is partisan politics.

 

sigh... okay, you want to help political prisoners? Where is the standard you feel is necessary? It sounds like you want people to be protected against politicians, but I'm not sure. There are lots of political prisoners to be sure. Hell, communists have their hands full of political prisoners, so I kinda get it. The gulags under stalin were filled with nothing but. Same place the bernie visited and thought he found paradise. Then you've got Trudeau who thinks that Castro with his prisons filled with political prisoners was just the bee's knees.

I can understand not wanting people having to suffer from having a political bias that differs from the guy in power. The problem I have is that I don't want to be cobbled like that. Lefties have been quite adamant prior to this ukraine situation that this is a right and just power to use.

Now suddenly, all of those people who thought it was just fine to target political adversaries like the tea party are suddenly aghast that it could be used against them. Sorry, but the new rules are simple. We win and you lose. I wish it could be otherwise, but there's far too much water under the bridge to listen to people who have suddenly woken up to simple truths.

It's war, my friend, and I wouldn't care if Trump just put the entire DNC in prison. No appealing to morality or deciding that suddenly, rapists shouldn't rape or that muggers shouldn't mug. The left did that, and now they don't like the tables turned.

Sorry, but it's just war now.

 

The standard I want is that no politician should use their Office to investigate a political adversary. I agree with you on the hypocrisy of the left, but I do not stop there as I also take issue with the hypocrisy on the right. Both the left and right are guilty of doing that which they accuse the other of. It is illogical by my measure of logic to justify bad behavior because the other side behaves badly.

 

Well then, okay. Stay out of the way because things are going to get really ugly.

I wish it could have been otherwise, but the left didn't want to take the high road back when Obama was in office. So now these pleas for conservatives to suddenly be agents of morality fall on deaf ears. Now it's just war, and we'll see what we will see.

 

You are morally equating war with paint ball.

 

Yeah, there's definitely some intellectual dishonesty floating around...

******n, all Al Capone had to do was run for President. He must have had bad lawyers.

 

In a race to the bottom it does not matter to me who is guilty of the greater crimes and hypocrisy. The reason why is that 2nd place in that race is nothing to brag about. Tribalism makes us all predictable in that Trump supporters will say that the left is more guilty while the left will say that the right is more guilty.

 

Proving that they committed the crime is what the trial is for...not the investigation.

In that extremely rare situation they would be witnesses to the crime and would have to recuse themselves from the investigation. An investigation would be needed to collect their statements.

Then not only does it have to be investigated, it has to be proven in a court of law.[/quote]
Your scenario is inapposite. You asked whether candidates who commit crimes should be investigated. I asked why bother investigating if we (i.e., the general public) knows they committed a crime. Your answer is that we would still conduct an investigation even if 3 detectives witnessed a crime first hand. But in your scenario, we (the general public) do not know that a crime was committed.

The only way the general public would know that a crime has been committed is if everyone had access to dispositive evidence similar to the three detectives in your scenario. With dispositive evidence sufficient to put the world on notice of the crime, what additional evidence is there to gather from an investigation?

 

Yep, basically accurate. But the infiltration of gov is pretty complete and elections are hijacked so expecting any lawful action from gov correcting itself is not realistic.

American state Citizens need to use constitutional law directly and control their states.

Period. That is EXACTLY what the framers intended to recover from a worst case scenario. We are covertly there.

 

"Becoming" a banana republic? We became one the moment a corrupt former reality TV star with a documented track record of criminal-fraudulent behavior was appointed prez by the EC.

 

So if a person admits to something that might be a felony, all they need to do is run for political office and they are immune from even being investigated?

Meanwhile, the dems can make up crimes they want to accuse a sitting president of, and investigate him all they like. But it's wrong to investigate anyone else running for president.

And on a side note, you can leak classified material to a third party, and be immune from investigation if the person who you leaked the classified material to, becomes a "whistleblower," because no one can question the 'whistleblower" about who you are.

 

Could you imagine if Melania Trump was receiving $500,000 for speeches in Russia, and Trump's son was getting the multi-million dollar sweet deals, like Hunter Biden got??? Or if Trump blackmailed Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating the company his son sat on the board of directors for?

Hell, the dems want to impeach Trump because foreigners pay for a room at one of his hotels.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/06/ivanka-trump-gets-initial-approval-from-china-for-16-trademarks.html

Your assertion about Hunter Biden is factually incorrect.

Your analogy about Shokin being dismissed is factually incorrect.

Violations of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution are illegal.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/02/trump-hotel-empty-rooms-016763

 

The answer to your question is that even when you know they committed the crime, it still gets investigated.

That's why a man who shoots someone in front of 9 police officers, 2 detectives, and a police chief would still have to be investigated and convicted in a court.

You do it to determine things you don't know: why it happened, did anyone help, have they killed anyone else in an unsolved case, etc etc.

"practicing attorney".

 

The answer to your question is no. I have no problem with the biden’s being investigated, it is just that the White House should not be involved in any way. It is unethical by my measure of ethics for a President to use the Office of the President to play a part in investigating a political opponent. Investigations of political opponents of a sitting President should be left to the NSA, CIA, DOJ, and the State Department.

 

Divide the country up, I think that's the only way to get away from the left.