What Trump supporters would like the rest of us to believe.

The President is over those agencies and the DOJ has an investigation going so again:

What if there is probable cause the opposing candidate committed a crime? Can a the opposing candidate be investigated? Did you hold the same view with the opening of a counter intelligence investigation against candidate Trump?

 

So far no evidence of the dem clown shows narrative, including a transcript.

 

It wasn't a criminal investigation it was a counterintelligence investigation and yes the President is alerted to all counterintelligence investigations and it was his staff which started. Are you REALLY going to assert that a counterintelligence investigation was started on a candidate for President in the opposing party of the President and he WASN'T informed? Didn't give a sign off?

 

The Democrats have their impeachment, where are the articles of impeachment based on anything in the Mueller report? What happened to that inquiry?

 

You had your investigations into to Trump and they turned up zelch for an impeachment. Now do YOU care about corruption and the probable cause there was corruption between the Bidens and Ukraine oligarchs?

 

Who opened the investigation into Trump? If you say Obama, do you have any evidence to support the claim? I have yet to find proof that Obama ordered it. If you have proof I would like to see it.

 

Thanks. Like your avatar also.

Just as Trump supporters only see things that support negativity towards the Democrats. That is how tribalism works. Each side can clearly see the negatives of the other while being oblivious to like negatives within themselves and the party they support. Tribalism makes partisans predictable.

 

You made a general statement of fact about a hypothetical call a candidate for president being investigated saying they should never be investigated. I'm asking you what if there is probable cause that person committed a crime?

 

Reports I have seen say that for the sake of expediency they are only focusing on the Ukraine fiasco. If they added other articles of impeachment then they risk said investigation going into next year which they would like to avoid.

 

I had no investigation into Trump as I am not a Democrat nor a member of the left. I could care less if the Biden’s are investigated yet say it is unethical for Trump to play a part in it as he has a vested interest in the outcome of the investigation. He should have recused himself.

 

Please quote where I claimed a fact in this thread. A hypothetical is not a fact. If there is probibal cause then there should be an investigation. Yet those with a vested interest in the outcome of an investigation should not have any part in said investigation as to do otherwise is to openly invite bias into the investigation.

 

There it's an investigation into suspicious activity.

I'm not saying that Republicans would act any differently than Democrats do because essentially they're the same thing. But in this case the investigation is legitimate.

 

There has been absolutely no demonstrable corruption by Trump, just endless baseless liberal accusations...

 

The reason why Republicans are claiming that is because politicians have (and do) investigate their political rivals and export that investigation to foreign powers. There are early examples of the Clinton Campaign working with foreign nations to gather dirt on her political rivals (namely Trump). If we've being objective, no one really cares that it's being done; they only care that Trump is doing it.

There are a lot of really pithy, snarky Democrats who will use, "Yeah, but he's the President" as a response. Either we agree that getting dirt on a political opponents from foreign sources is bad, or we don't. Any attempt to explain, "this is different" is merely mental gymnastics.

There is a weird hive mind going on where if you don't agree with impeachment on these specific grounds you're somehow weak on Trump. When in reality, the argument revolves around strengthening him because you're running your weakest play against him. Imagine an impeachment process where Democrat's main argument is that Trump violated the norms by fishing for dirt and the entire time Trump's counterargument is screaming from the top of his lungs, "THERE IS DIRT!!!," while giving examples of it.

There are obviously more solid examples of impeachable offensives because, in absence of sane political terms, it's the worse thing ever to lack evidence that your political rivals are scum...

 

The president is presiding over the foreign policy. He is in charge of tariffs. He is commander of the armed forces. He presides over 15 departments, and 17 intelligence agencies. To make the case that he personally needs to involve himself to get a specific investigation started as if there was no one else who could make that call who does not have a vested interest in the outcome is absurd. If there is evidence for it, the agencies should be empowered to perform the investigation without his personal involvement.

Doesn't matter, he needs to be recused. Let the agencies / departments / whoever you want tasked with doing the investigations do it independent of his personal involvement.

Yes - but not by the person they are running against. There is simply no way their opponent can be trusted to be unbiased, or will not abuse their office in the pursuit of such an investigation.

Again, I never followed it that closely. I am undecided as to the morality of that. If you have hard evidence (such as a call transcript) that Obama personally pushed for criminal investigation of candidate Trump, I would be categorically against it.

 

From the transcript:

I remember reading this the day it came out and was really hoping there would be nothing controversial in the call. I really didn't want to believe the office of the POTUS could be weaponized to instigate a criminal investigation into a election opponent. Up until this point, I thought it was fine - and I was mostly relieved.

However, when I read this part, my hopes were shattered. The president is right there basically saying he wants this guy to work with the AG to investigate Biden and his son. That crosses a huge line for me.

It calls into question whether or not such an investigation is even going to be based on evidence, or just some sham investigation designed to

1. Discredit the opponent
2. Get Biden to withdraw by virtue of threatening his family
3. Have Biden arrested during an election cycle (annihilating any chance at a fair election)

 

You misinterpret my position. I do not care if the President is informed or has to sign off on such a thing (such as giving the investigators access to resources they need, documents, authorization to see classified materials, etc). But if that investigation is initiated or advocated for by the incumbent, it calls into question the validity of the investigation.

Is this a fishing expedition or a sense of real concern? Is the evidence solid or dubious? Are the investigators seeking truth or favor with their leader? Such questions will plague an investigation initiated or advocated by an incumbent against those that directly present a political threat to them. If tolerated as common practice, it will only invite those who would abuse such an investigation to do so.

 

It's interesting to me that you started a thread with a very similar theme just a week ago. Apparently you didn't like the results and are trying a reboot.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/when-assessing-trump’s-guilt-or-innocence.564003/

In 2016 a Democratic President investigated a Republican campaign candidate. Are you fine with it?

 

As Yovanovitch testified Burisma was under investigation when Biden threatened Ukraine to fire the prosecutor. During her confirmation hearing the dems were concerned enough to grill her on it. As Kent testified it was a big concern.

The compliant media keeps repeating that this has been all debunked yet there has never been an investigation.

If they were so worried about it and Biden bragged about it, why should it be swept under the rug?

 

OK the Trump investigation was started based on a false dossier paid for by the Clinton Campaign, you know Trump was their political opposition and Obama is the titular head of the Democrat party as President and Clinton was his Secstate. We actually have a probable cause far more with Joe and Hunter Biden and Ukraine oligarchs and corrupt businesses. What more do you need for the "validity" of investigating why Hunter Biden was getting paid HUGE sums of money far more than a typical member of the board in a foreign country where he knew nothing about it and it's economy and did not even speak or read the language in an industry he knew nothing about and did not even have a lick of experience in corporate governance.

The Biden thing or the impeachment thing. The Biden thing we have all sorts of red flags and records, John Solomon has printed the bank transfers, the person receiving the money unable to give a reason they were getting the money other than his name, access arraigned for persons in those country. Are the Bidens above the law? Was Trump being warned about corruption in the Ukraince, yes. Had there been meetings about what the Bidens were up during the Obama administration, yes. Did they do anything in light of these warnings, no. Did they give cover to what was going on, appears they did. Do we need Ukraine cooperation in investigating, yes. Trump was well within his duties as President and you can't impeach a President for properly executing their Constitution authority simply because you don't like it or it hurt a former ambassadors feelings.

 

And he is over the DOJ, the DNI, the FBI, the CIA and is responsible for national security and has the fiduciary responsibility to insure taxpayer dollars are used for their intended purposes and safeguard it from corruption. And he sits at the head of the table if he so sees fit. It is his Constitutional and statutory authority.

Presidents don't recuse themselves, we elect them to do exactly what Trump was doing.

What do you mean not by, the PRESIDENT is over all such investigation and can't "recuse themselves" although there is nothing to make one believe Trump would be running the investigation.

Well here you are making the comments above but now say you never really paid attention to it. And again the Trump investigation was a COUNTER INTELLIGENCE investigation. It they were going to have one it SHOULD have been criminal but by declaring it a counter-intelligence investigation they were able to do more surreptitious things and keep it under a FISA warrant so they could surveil the campaign.

 

ROFLMAO ...............OH they are just going to ignore those "impeachable offenses". How absurd where have you seen that and if they want to impeach why expediently??? It this is so important and he should be removed then do it completely, we had a two year investigation and they are going to now say oh well forget that?
Come they have their impeachment where are all the Russian spy and obstruction of justice articles the House Judiciary held their hearings bring their Articles.

 

"To tolerate our leaders opening investigations into their opposing candidate during an election is to invite corruption with open arms."

I take it you posted that in disfavor of an opposition candidate to a sitting President being investigated.

So again, what it there is probable cause of a crime or corrupt actions?

 

And you opposed the Trump investigations and did not support them or thought they should have occurred?

Presidents don't recuse themselves especially in matters of foreign policy and spending our dollars in foreign countries where corruption is rampant. If anyone it was Biden who should have recused himself being the pointman in Ukraine and demanding Ukraine take internal domestic actions that may have benefitted his son.

 

I am not advocating it be swept under the rug. I am advocating Trump not be personally involved. His involvement invites questions as to the intentions of such an investigation and any evidence it turns up. The validity of the evidence is independent of his involvement. Thus he should not seek to taint its results by personal involvement. Will the next president who seeks such an investigation also do so under such solid evidence? I do not trust _anyone_ to be so impartial.