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

From the link: "... officials at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, including then-Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch ..."

 

When the prosecutor was fired, Burisma was under investigation. Yovanovitch expresses surprise the investigation was halted. Burisma was known to be corrupt.

 

Is there valid supposition to believe:

a. Burisma is/was corrupt
b. Hunter Biden did not come by his position through merit?

If the answers to those are yes, then it is a valid investigation to have REGARDLESS of who may be involved.

If "investigating a political opponent" was wrong, only Democrats could investigate Democrats and vice versa. It's worth noting that even one Democrat could be another Democrat's political rival in an election year, though.

That presents a far more partisan problem than what is currently happening.

There is a cosmic difference between investigating something that would be considered possibly corrupt IRRESPECTIVE of who was doing something, and targeting a person to find out if they did anything wrong.

The latter is what the Democrats, the Obama administration, and the un-elected bureaucrats have been doing to Trump for the last 4 years.

 

I asked myself that question when Hillary destroyed her subpoenaed e-mails.

 

How dare you speak the truth?

 

Of course he did.

That's why everything Obama did in office is being shredded by the POTUS.

 

Someone in the Medical Field with quite a portfolio such as Dr. Ben Carson surely has a level of expertise that could apply to the social intelligence of managing HUD here in America. As far as Hunter biden..... does he speak Ukranian? Has he any background in the energy field? I know he does have an expertise in "bong" related endeavors and he does hold a dishonorable discharge from the United States Navy. Does that give him the credentials to make decisions for a foreign energy company?
If I was a good liberal, I could pull the race card on your reference and implication towards Dr. Ben Carson!

 

Very true, but that can only be the fault of the politicians that preceded Trump.

 

Indeed as we are all tribal which includes Democrats.

 

I have yet to see a shred of evidence to prove that Hunter has done anything wrong. I stand against frivolous investigations based upon nothing more than partisan suspicion, and yes, that includes frivolous investigations started by democrats. Investigations need to be based upon objective and real evidence, not biased partisan driven suspicion. I make no claims of the guilt or innocence of Biden and say that he is innocent until proven guilty in in a court of law.

 

Donald Trump was being investigated by a Republican in the FBI, who concealed the investigation from the public and blabbed about the Hillary investigation

Obama had nothing to do with it, see the difference

had Trump's FBI investigated Bieden, this would not even be a issue - in fact Trump people did investigate the Bieden's and found the story Bogus, thus proving the point

it was only when Trump held up aid to get a foreign country to get them to announce they were starting an investigation against the Biedn's that Trump crossed the line

 

His legacy did...

 

The fatal flaw in you post is you think Joe Biden is "prominent" bwahaha!

 

Interestingly enough, in the transcript, in reference to Biden, Trump requested Zelensky speak to the attorney general. We already knew that there was a DoJ investigation on the origins of the Trump counter intelligence probe (hence the "Crowdstrike" reference). There may be an unannounced DoJ investigation into Burisma too, so it looks like you are going to get your wish.

 

Are you referring to the FISA warrants? Probably the most stringent criteria for getting one approved. Multiple reviews by multiple judges.

 

I am referring to Trump’s claims that Obama spyed on him. Trump supporters tend to use the Trump claim to justify what Trump has done. So what I am trying to figure out is if Tump supporters are hypocrites or if they were OK with what Obama did too? I understand that there are differences between the two situations yet it is a common justification for what Trump did in asking the Biden’s to be investigated.

 

The only president who ran a rigged campaign in the US was the Russian president, and he'll do it again.

 

You either misunderstand or mischaracterize the basis for my objection. I would certainly be opposed to a specific police officer investigating his ex-wife due to the obvious potential for bias. For that same reason, I would object to a politician investigating (or advocating) investigations into the opposing candidate when they have the power to effectively command said investigations and directly influence the people performing the investigation.

As for your later statement, do you contend that if we see obvious problems with the system that we should remain silent, or instead that the system is perfect as is?

 

If you read my previous comments, you would know that I do not object to an investigation outright. It is only the involvement of someone who has a clear interest in the outcome of the investigation that I object to. It introduces at best a perception of bias (real or imagined), and at worst the possibility of outright meddling with the process.

 

Well, that certainly describes the dem clown show since they would have to face Trump in 2020.

 

Given your comments on democrats investigating Trump, you should understand that liberals similarly feel the investigation into the Bidens are based on "targeting a person" rather than "something that could possibly be corrupt". That is of course not because of the evidence in the case, it is because Trump is connected to the investigation.

I find your assumption that only partisan people could possibly be involved in investigations bizarre. There are over 30 million unaffiliated voters, with around 38% of the population identifying as independent. Likewise, it's pretty implausible to imply that all registered democrats and all registered republicans are so partisan that they would be incapable of performing an investigation.

My only objection is that a candidate for president in 2020 is party to (or attempting to create) what sounds like a criminal investigation into another candidate for president in 2020. Is it such a significant request to find some people out of the literally almost everyone else in the country that is not running for president in 2020 to be involved, and to keep other 2020 candidates uninvolved?

 

I assume you're referring to the impeachment by "dem clown show"? I would certainly agree there is no question that the democrats are using it as a means to attempt to harm Trump's reelection campaign.

 

My wish? Where did I indicate that I have any belief in either of these long debunked theories, either the one about Joe getting a prosecutor fired for investigating Burisma (pure bull pucky) or the ridiculous notion that it was Ukraine and not Russia that muddied our election? Dunno where you got that idea. I don't give a hoot whether Barr investigates this nonsense or not ... there's no there there.

There is a congressionally mandated process for our DOJ to follow when investigating in a foreign country and soliciting the help or cooperation of that country, which involves the FBI and many meetings, formal documents/contracts, etc. AG Barr can use this already established protocol to investigate the Bidens to his heart's content. If Trump really wants Ukraine's help investigating the Bidens, why hasn't Barr done this?

The reason is simple: both Barr and Trump already know there's no corruption to be found and their intent is not to uncover the truth, but to get Ukraine to gin something up that Trump can use against Joe. Same goes for the tin foil hat conspiracy theory about Ukraine, and Crowdstrike, and the DNC being the real culprits behind interference in 2016, a tale that originated with Putin. A DNC server in Ukraine? Ridiculous.

It is precisely because Barr has not used this mandated protocol that Trump is in this impeacghment mess, trying to do a run around of the usual foreign policy protocols to get Ukraine to do some dirty work for for him, personally.

 

You said you were in favor of an investigation, "If Barr wants to investigate Joe and/or Hunter Biden, he's free to do so. I wish he would..."

I'm unclear what protocol you are referring to and why you think Barr hasn't followed it. What rules is he in violation of?

 

I know. I'm a registered Independent.

An investigation into a corrupt company that has been investigated many times, who can give no answer as to how Hunter Biden got his job, implicates Joe Biden only if the corruption investigation leads to him.

Investigating Hunter Biden is not investigating Joe Biden. Joe Biden implicated HIMSELF when he bragged about withholding aid for the firing of their prosecutor.

Democrats literally want to elect the man who did on tape what they're trying to impeach Trump for.

The reason Democrats associate an investigation into Burisma corruption with Joe Biden, is that they already know what he did was corrupt.