Well apparently they can investigate anybody for anything (that’s sarcasm)Ibanez wrote:The DoJ can't investigate an American citizen?CID1990 wrote:
The DoJ doesn’t have jurisdiction. Everybody please stop pissing up this rope. DoJ can’t really mess with it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Interesting. Reasonable suspicion a crime was committed.CID1990 wrote:Well apparently they can investigate anybody for anything (that’s sarcasm)Ibanez wrote: The DoJ can't investigate an American citizen?
DoJ doesn’t investigate people based on who they are - they need reasonable suspicion of a US crime committed within the jurisdiction of US law
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/arti ... ssion=trueRudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, is being investigated by federal prosecutors for possible campaign finance violations and a failure to register as a foreign agent as part of an active investigation into his financial dealings, according to three U.S. officials.
The probe of Giuliani, which one official said could also include possible charges on violating laws against bribing foreign officials or conspiracy, presents a serious threat to Trump’s presidency from a man that former national security adviser John Bolton has called a “hand grenade.”
A second official said Giuliani’s activities raise counterintelligence concerns as well, although there probably wouldn’t be a criminal charge related to that. The officials, who asked for anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter, provided the first indication of the potential charges under investigation.
Giuliani is a central figure in the U.S. House impeachment inquiry, which focuses on an effort led by the former New York City mayor to pressure Ukraine’s government to investigate the president’s political rivals. If Giuliani is charged or indicted, he could expose Trump to a new level of legal and political jeopardy, especially if he’s accused of committing a crime on the president’s behalf.
You do see what I am talking about here, right?Ibanez wrote:Interesting. Reasonable suspicion a crime was committed.CID1990 wrote:
Well apparently they can investigate anybody for anything (that’s sarcasm)
DoJ doesn’t investigate people based on who they are - they need reasonable suspicion of a US crime committed within the jurisdiction of US law
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's still relevant. Now where's your proof?Ibanez wrote:That's from 20 years ago. I thought this was more recent.SeattleGriz wrote:
https://www.congress.gov/treaty-documen ... ument-text
Joe Biden admitted a quid quo pro. He must be investigated.
Why should he have to prove that, when there has been no proof that the POTUS requested foreign interference in our elections?Ibanez wrote:SeattleGriz wrote:
Can you provide any backup to your claim of Trump's corruption or is that just your personal opinion?
I've admitted I felt Trump was your typical businessman in the fact he used his wealth to bury people via lawyers.
I’ll back up my claim when you prove that a POTUS requesting foreign interference in our elections isn’t a problem.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I got what you're saying. I guess my thought is that a sitting VP (sitting in the USA) uses his power and office to do something illegal then that should be investigated. Maybe that's the disconnect. If there were a crime, is it safe to assume that Trump would've already had his gov't investigate?CID1990 wrote:You do see what I am talking about here, right?Ibanez wrote: Interesting. Reasonable suspicion a crime was committed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If an American goes to Hong Kong and commits a crime, say, a murder, the US DoJ has no reason to investigate that outside of perhaps a bilateral treaty (besides the fact that murder in and of itself is not a Federal crime anyway). The same would apply to Hunter Biden. The only circumstance where the DoJ would look at him were if there were suspicion that he had violated US law in such a way that gave the government jurisdiction. It could happen (for example, he could be laundering money through a US bank), but I have not seen anything yet that would fall within DoJ's purview.
B/c Trump did. It's obvious when he requested a foreign government to investigate a Democratic candidate for President.BDKJMU wrote:Why should he have to prove that, when there has been no proof that the POTUS requested foreign interference in our elections?Ibanez wrote:
I’ll back up my claim when you prove that a POTUS requesting foreign interference in our elections isn’t a problem.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We're talking about proof that he pressured the Ukrainians into firing some guy during the Obama Presidency. You have nothing.SeattleGriz wrote:It's still relevant. Now where's your proof?Ibanez wrote:
That's from 20 years ago. I thought this was more recent.
"Quid pro quo" is exactly what a negotiation is. Foreign Aid is condition based, " this for that". It should be. Stop doing X and we'll help you fight back the Russians. X is usually something humanitarian or in the interest of the US (an ally, the world, etc..). And that's fine.SeattleGriz wrote:It's still relevant. Now where's your proof?Ibanez wrote:
That's from 20 years ago. I thought this was more recent.
Ok, you’re talking about the VP himselfIbanez wrote:I got what you're saying. I guess my thought is that a sitting VP (sitting in the USA) uses his power and office to do something illegal then that should be investigated. Maybe that's the disconnect. If there were a crime, is it safe to assume that Trump would've already had his gov't investigate?CID1990 wrote:
You do see what I am talking about here, right?
If an American goes to Hong Kong and commits a crime, say, a murder, the US DoJ has no reason to investigate that outside of perhaps a bilateral treaty (besides the fact that murder in and of itself is not a Federal crime anyway). The same would apply to Hunter Biden. The only circumstance where the DoJ would look at him were if there were suspicion that he had violated US law in such a way that gave the government jurisdiction. It could happen (for example, he could be laundering money through a US bank), but I have not seen anything yet that would fall within DoJ's purview.
But, is pressuring a country to fire someone an illegal act? Is nepotism/cronyism an illegal act? I'm sure there's not a politician in DC that hasn't engaged in nepotism or cronyism.
Sidebar:
A Republican argument is that Hunter was in no way qualified to sit on that board and only got there b/c of Daddy.
Well, what are the qualifications of Kushner that make Trump think he can run foreign policy? Sounds the "pot calling the kettle black."
Yes, I was talking about Joe. Sorry for the confusion.CID1990 wrote:Ok, you’re talking about the VP himselfIbanez wrote:
I got what you're saying. I guess my thought is that a sitting VP (sitting in the USA) uses his power and office to do something illegal then that should be investigated. Maybe that's the disconnect. If there were a crime, is it safe to assume that Trump would've already had his gov't investigate?
But, is pressuring a country to fire someone an illegal act? Is nepotism/cronyism an illegal act? I'm sure there's not a politician in DC that hasn't engaged in nepotism or cronyism.
Sidebar:
A Republican argument is that Hunter was in no way qualified to sit on that board and only got there b/c of Daddy.
Well, what are the qualifications of Kushner that make Trump think he can run foreign policy? Sounds the "pot calling the kettle black."
I don’t think you can pursue Biden himself without showing that his son was up to no good first. Hence the call for an investigation into Burisma.
I have read where Biden cast some raised eyebrows at his son for working at Burisma... so I think he would be as teflon as Trump right now
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So some of the regular snouts can rotate out. Maybe hold ourselves back to one war at a time.CAA Flagship wrote:Maybe you should do the math on that. Those "other snouts" are massively bigger.houndawg wrote:
The only people getting free shit are the war pigs - "free shit for all" is just letting some other snouts into the trough
That would be a"No, I don't have an explanation for why somebody with nothing to hide fights so hard keep the truth from coming ou"?SeattleGriz wrote:Are you talking about the DOJ and FBI?houndawg wrote:
Do you have an explanation for why somebody with nothing to hide has fought so hard to keep the truth from coming out?
Where there is smoke there is fire.
So...just because it's the first phone call it's more important than the one where he (allegedly) pressures Zelenskiy into investigating Biden? I'm not quite sure of that logic.According to U.S. diplomats who have testified to House investigators about the call, it was arranged so that Trump could congratulate the newly elected Zelenskiy on his victory, a fairly standard practice among leaders of allied countries.
Ibanez wrote:"Quid pro quo" is exactly what a negotiation is. Foreign Aid is condition based, " this for that". It should be. Stop doing X and we'll help you fight back the Russians. X is usually something humanitarian or in the interest of the US (an ally, the world, etc..). And that's fine.SeattleGriz wrote:
It's still relevant. Now where's your proof?
It's not ok when it's to the personal/political benefit of the President.
I think we can agree on that.
And I understand that we disagree on if the " i'd like you to do me a favor, though" and then Trump talking about Biden. You see it one way, I see it another.
BRAWK!houndawg wrote:So some of the regular snouts can rotate out. Maybe hold ourselves back to one war at a time.CAA Flagship wrote: Maybe you should do the math on that. Those "other snouts" are massively bigger.
Or maybe it's that keeping Biden from becoming president IS in the US national interest.kalm wrote:Ibanez wrote: "Quid pro quo" is exactly what a negotiation is. Foreign Aid is condition based, " this for that". It should be. Stop doing X and we'll help you fight back the Russians. X is usually something humanitarian or in the interest of the US (an ally, the world, etc..). And that's fine.
It's not ok when it's to the personal/political benefit of the President.
I think we can agree on that.
And I understand that we disagree on if the " i'd like you to do me a favor, though" and then Trump talking about Biden. You see it one way, I see it another.
The Trump supporter’s strongest arguments are procedural and The Biden kid.
1) That is your opinion. I don't have animosity against Biden but I think it's time for him (and Bernie, Warren, Booker, Harris) to give up on becoming POTUS.AZGrizFan wrote:Or maybe it's that keeping Biden from becoming president IS in the US national interest.kalm wrote:
The Trump supporter’s strongest arguments are procedural and The Biden kid.
6) Wawa > Sheets/RoFar/Quik TripIbanez wrote:1) That is your opinion. I don't have animosity against Biden but I think it's time for him (and Bernie, Warren, Booker, Harris) to give up on becoming POTUS.AZGrizFan wrote:
Or maybe it's that keeping Biden from becoming president IS in the US national interest.
2) That doesn't excuse requesting a foreign govt to interfere
3) Trump said he didn't need Russian interference in 2016 but now he needs Ukrainian help?
4) The Biden Kid has nothing to do with American foreign policy.
5) Epstein didn't kill himself
7) Harris Teeter > Publix > Food Lion > Walmart MarketCAA Flagship wrote:6) Wawa > Sheets/RoFar/Quik TripIbanez wrote:
1) That is your opinion. I don't have animosity against Biden but I think it's time for him (and Bernie, Warren, Booker, Harris) to give up on becoming POTUS.
2) That doesn't excuse requesting a foreign govt to interfere
3) Trump said he didn't need Russian interference in 2016 but now he needs Ukrainian help?
4) The Biden Kid has nothing to do with American foreign policy.
5) Epstein didn't kill himself
CAA Flagship wrote:6) Wawa > Sheets/RoFar/Quik TripIbanez wrote:
1) That is your opinion. I don't have animosity against Biden but I think it's time for him (and Bernie, Warren, Booker, Harris) to give up on becoming POTUS.
2) That doesn't excuse requesting a foreign govt to interfere
3) Trump said he didn't need Russian interference in 2016 but now he needs Ukrainian help?
4) The Biden Kid has nothing to do with American foreign policy.
5) Epstein didn't kill himself
7) The Taj > WaWa
