Why did nobody tell Trump that it would be a bad idea to get Ukraine to investigate Biden?

At least Fabian socialism left.

 

In the eyes of the extreme, anything towards the center is considered far in the other direction.
NPR’s assessment:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr/?amp
BBC’s assessment:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/?amp
AP assessment:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/associated-press/?amp

There’s three of the least biased sources available. Happy hunting.

 

I issue you the same challenge issued to Robert. Show me any reputable news source saying Biden’s actions were to pressure Ukraine to end investigations into Burisma and were not in accordance with an initiative championed by the majority of the western world.

 

I am not extreme, i am very slightly right..

 

Then I don’t see where your issue arises with the supplied sources. You can provide your own assuming it falls to neither extreme. Happy hunting.

 

as i have stated many times before Media fact check bias is likewise a left wing organization

 

Many Democrats are losing enthusiasm for Biden quickly, if they ever had it. Many Democrats were holding their nose voting for Hillary in 2016.

Many Republicans are ecstatic putting their vote in for Trump, maybe because he is corrupt and doesn't follow rules?

 

Then I will issue a second challenge. Provide evidence backing up this assessment of Media Fact Check’s reporting.
Note, you’ve still yet to offer any non-biased reporting m, or any reporting for that matter, indicating Biden’s actions were meant to pressure Ukraine into ending investigations into Burisma and were not the actions championed by the majority of the western world.
Maybe you believe Biden convinced the US, UN, and IMF to join in on his dirty deeds?

 

That would be because investigating how an unqualified son of the VP in charge of Ukraine working for a corrupt company in a corrupt country is not a bad idea.

 

Assuming that to be the case, and an investigation should be conducted, why would Trump think it a good idea to pursue investigations through unofficial channels in the form of his personal lawyer? Is it because he assumed his personal lawyer to be the best avenue of approach for furthering his personal interests? Should official channels like Trump’s DOJ have been used? If so, why weren’t they?

 

Yeah why would Trump want someone he trusts, with a gigantic amount of experience dealing with organized crime, helping him sort out the situation in Ukraine.

That's real difficult to figure out.

The POTUS is the official channel, despite your desires for Democrats to stamp their approval on his foreign policy decisions.

 

He didn't. You've being brainwashed. He wanted to get to the bottom of Ukraine meddling in the 2016 election and corruption at Burisma. Which one spells Biden?

 

The POTUS using unofficial channels makes the methods unofficial. Do you believe any unsecured line the president speaks on to now be an official channel of communication when dealing with government business?

 

He probably has deep state operatives telling him that its a bad idea to do his job every day. Trumps biggest failure has been keeping those globalist establishment shills around.

He should've fired every never-Trumper day 1.

 

The POTUS is official foreign policy.

He doesn't work for the ambassadors, although I'm sure you wish that was true.

Oh no, if the POTUS calls someone on an unsecured line the person on the other end of the phone is free to disregard anything he might say.

 

Sure, it would have been very wise to have even more positions he’s unable/unwilling to fill. More than 500 positions unaddressed as of September last year.

 

The POTUS sets foreign policy. It is still he’s job to act through official avenues. No way to have a consistent foreign policy when our allies have no way of knowing in what way that policy will be enacted or pursued.

So it is up to the person speaking with the president to determine what orders are to be followed and which are to be ignored?

 

Look, it doesn't really matter if you don't like how the POTUS handled the situation.

I was hoping you could recognize sarcasm. Clearly that didn't pan out.

If the POTUS calls someone and gives them an instruction it doesn't matter if it's a "secured" channel. I'm not even sure you understand what "secure" channel means in the context you used it.

 

Sarcasm in text is a poor strategy. Intonation plays a crucial role.
I worked in communications security my entire military career. I know what a secured channel is.

 

trump is an eight year old that throws a temper tantrum when he doesn't get his way. He was going to do it, come Hell or High Water. No one, including the spineless repubs have the guts to tell trump, "You are wrong and are a dumb ass." But they all know he is wrong and he is a dumb ass....

 

Then you know if the POTUS called you on an unsecured line you could not ignore him.

 

Irony.

 

Because it needs to be investigated?

 

He had the authorization to demand the corrupt persecutor be replaced. Other countries were doing the same thing. trump shook down the Ukrainians in order to get an investigation into the Bidens announced.

DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE? Doing one's job verses Extortion....

 

LMFAO