Not coming to Mike's defense, but you can't simultaneously claim corruption on Biden's side while ignoring the illegality of what Trump is doing. Well, I guess you can, but it doesn't take away the fact that abuse of power is happening in plain sight, even though corruption exists elsewhere. The tactic is clear - normalize the behavior. DARVO, in black and white.

Regarding the parts in bold, what exactly is the "illegality of what Trump is doing"?  How are his comments an "abuse of power"?  To suggest that other heads of state investigate the possibility of corruption when there is evidence that it happened?

Soliciting foreign entities to investigate a political opponent is an impeachable offense. Normalizing it doesn't make it any less illegal.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

Regarding the parts in bold, what exactly is the "illegality of what Trump is doing"?  How are his comments an "abuse of power"?  To suggest that other heads of state investigate the possibility of corruption when there is evidence that it happened?

Soliciting foreign entities to investigate a political opponent is an impeachable offense. Normalizing it doesn't make it any less illegal.

Would you care to source your opinion on the matter?

And just for a chaser, he told the ChiComs to do the same thing. Guess what? Still not illegal!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The Ukraine prosecutor was fired in March 2016.
In February 2016, six US senators, three Republicans and three Democrats, wrote a letter asking Ukraine's President to "reform" the entire Ministry of Justice.
You're not going to argue these guys cared about Hunter Biden.
Were they on the take too?

---

Soliciting foreign entities to investigate a political opponent is an impeachable offense. Normalizing it doesn't make it any less illegal.

Would you care to source your opinion on the matter?

And just for a chaser, he told the ChiComs to do the same thing. Guess what? Still not illegal!

I wouldn't argue that it's illegal.
But I would definitely argue that it's impeachable.
The two words are not the same thing.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The Ukraine prosecutor was fired in March 2016.
In February 2016, six US senators, three Republicans and three Democrats, wrote a letter asking Ukraine's President to "reform" the entire Ministry of Justice.
You're not going to argue these guys cared about Hunter Biden.
Were they on the take too?

---

Would you care to source your opinion on the matter?

And just for a chaser, he told the ChiComs to do the same thing. Guess what? Still not illegal!

I wouldn't argue that it's illegal.
But I would definitely argue that it's impeachable.
The two words are not the same thing.

That's true, this case it's neither.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Regarding the parts in bold, what exactly is the "illegality of what Trump is doing"?  How are his comments an "abuse of power"?  To suggest that other heads of state investigate the possibility of corruption when there is evidence that it happened?

Soliciting foreign entities to investigate a political opponent is an impeachable offense. Normalizing it doesn't make it any less illegal.

Stating your opinion over and over may normalize it in your head but with the information that is known, you are just flat wrong at this point. You cannot impeach a POTUS just because you don't like him or he's an [BLEEP]. Even the House recognizes this or they'd actually put a resolution to vote. His actions in this matter are fully supported by the Constitution, Federal Statutes, Foreign Policy directives, Congressional Authorizations, and ratified treaties.

---

Regarding the parts in bold, what exactly is the "illegality of what Trump is doing"?  How are his comments an "abuse of power"?  To suggest that other heads of state investigate the possibility of corruption when there is evidence that it happened?

Soliciting foreign entities to investigate a political opponent is an impeachable offense. Normalizing it doesn't make it any less illegal.

First of all, there is nothing illegal about it and it is not an "impeachable offense".  Suggesting that a foreign government should investigate possible corruption is not "soliciting".  The fact that it involves a potential political opponent doesn't really have anything to do with it.

The fact of the matter is that this is once again blowing up in the democrats' face because there actually was corruption under the previous administration, and it is getting exposed.

The far left media is playing on the "he is influencing foreign governments against a 'political opponent'" when in fact he is exposing the corruption in "the swamp".  It was certainly no coincidence that Hunter Biden or LLC's that he was involved in got lucrative deals within weeks of the then Vice President (Biden) visiting both China and Ukraine.

Do the research rather than relying on what the MSM tells you.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

The key term is "High Crimes and Misdemeanors..." While this term is subject to interpretation, Wikipedia describes it as the following:

"The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as dishonesty, negligence, perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of public funds or assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, including such offenses as tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crime...sdemeanors

Maybe we should post a poll.

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato

Soliciting foreign entities to investigate a political opponent is an impeachable offense. Normalizing it doesn't make it any less illegal.

First of all, there is nothing illegal about it and it is not an "impeachable offense".  Suggesting that a foreign government should investigate possible corruption is not "soliciting".  The fact that it involves a potential political opponent doesn't really have anything to do with it.

The fact of the matter is that this is once again blowing up in the democrats' face because there actually was corruption under the previous administration, and it is getting exposed.

The far left media is playing on the "he is influencing foreign governments against a 'political opponent'" when in fact he is exposing the corruption in "the swamp".  It was certainly no coincidence that Hunter Biden or LLC's that he was involved in got lucrative deals within weeks of the then Vice President (Biden) visiting both China and Ukraine.

Do the research rather than relying on what the MSM tells you.

I'm not pulling from MSM. This is from the Chairperson of the FEC. 

https://twitter.com/EllenLWeintraub/stat...96768?s=19

The fact that it involves a potential political opponent, according to Ellen Weintraub - Trump's own chairperson, does matter.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

Soliciting foreign entities to investigate a political opponent is an impeachable offense. Normalizing it doesn't make it any less illegal.

First of all, there is nothing illegal about it and it is not an "impeachable offense".  Suggesting that a foreign government should investigate possible corruption is not "soliciting".  The fact that it involves a potential political opponent doesn't really have anything to do with it.

The fact of the matter is that this is once again blowing up in the democrats' face because there actually was corruption under the previous administration, and it is getting exposed.

The far left media is playing on the "he is influencing foreign governments against a 'political opponent'" when in fact he is exposing the corruption in "the swamp".  It was certainly no coincidence that Hunter Biden or LLC's that he was involved in got lucrative deals within weeks of the then Vice President (Biden) visiting both China and Ukraine.

Do the research rather than relying on what the MSM tells you.

The man literally rambled on about how he could pressure China to do it and they had a lot of pressure points.
He literally thinks he's allowed to make hurting American political parties an objective of American foreign policy.
I don't know if you're sharp enough to understand why that's a big problem or if you're just willfully refusing to see that this is what he's doing.
if he's really concerned about corruption in the opposing party, he should try to get his own prosecutors on the case.  However prosecutors in this country have a legal obligation to only go where the evidence leads, not to follow what the boss says or what the political party says. Maybe that's why he's asking foreign prosecutors first. You be the judge.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

If you defend the Biden's in this scenario and aren't trolling, you should do some soul searching.

---

If you defend the Biden's in this scenario and aren't trolling, you should do some soul searching.

Is this a rhetorical statement?

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

First of all, there is nothing illegal about it and it is not an "impeachable offense".  Suggesting that a foreign government should investigate possible corruption is not "soliciting".  The fact that it involves a potential political opponent doesn't really have anything to do with it.

The fact of the matter is that this is once again blowing up in the democrats' face because there actually was corruption under the previous administration, and it is getting exposed.

The far left media is playing on the "he is influencing foreign governments against a 'political opponent'" when in fact he is exposing the corruption in "the swamp".  It was certainly no coincidence that Hunter Biden or LLC's that he was involved in got lucrative deals within weeks of the then Vice President (Biden) visiting both China and Ukraine.

Do the research rather than relying on what the MSM tells you.

I'm not pulling from MSM. This is from the Chairperson of the FEC. 

https://twitter.com/EllenLWeintraub/stat...96768?s=19

The fact that it involves a potential political opponent, according to Ellen Weintraub - Trump's own chairperson, does matter.

Well then, yes, Biden, Pelosi, Schiff, and AOC are in big trouble! In any case, this is not an elections matter as it pertains to Trump.

---

First of all, there is nothing illegal about it and it is not an "impeachable offense".  Suggesting that a foreign government should investigate possible corruption is not "soliciting".  The fact that it involves a potential political opponent doesn't really have anything to do with it.

The fact of the matter is that this is once again blowing up in the democrats' face because there actually was corruption under the previous administration, and it is getting exposed.

The far left media is playing on the "he is influencing foreign governments against a 'political opponent'" when in fact he is exposing the corruption in "the swamp".  It was certainly no coincidence that Hunter Biden or LLC's that he was involved in got lucrative deals within weeks of the then Vice President (Biden) visiting both China and Ukraine.

Do the research rather than relying on what the MSM tells you.

The man literally rambled on about how he could pressure China to do it and they had a lot of pressure points.
He literally thinks he's allowed to make hurting American political parties an objective of American foreign policy.
I don't know if you're sharp enough to understand why that's a big problem or if you're just willfully refusing to see that this is what he's doing.
if he's really concerned about corruption in the opposing party, he should try to get his own prosecutors on the case.  However prosecutors in this country have a legal obligation to only go where the evidence leads, not to follow what the boss says or what the political party says. Maybe that's why he's asking foreign prosecutors first. You be the judge.

How hypocritical and obtuse of you! Rich that you would be grasping at straws and then question whether someone else is "sharp enough" to understand. There have been document after document posted for your viewing pleasure unless you wish to "willfully see what is going on."

---

First of all, there is nothing illegal about it and it is not an "impeachable offense".  Suggesting that a foreign government should investigate possible corruption is not "soliciting".  The fact that it involves a potential political opponent doesn't really have anything to do with it.

The fact of the matter is that this is once again blowing up in the democrats' face because there actually was corruption under the previous administration, and it is getting exposed.

The far left media is playing on the "he is influencing foreign governments against a 'political opponent'" when in fact he is exposing the corruption in "the swamp".  It was certainly no coincidence that Hunter Biden or LLC's that he was involved in got lucrative deals within weeks of the then Vice President (Biden) visiting both China and Ukraine.

Do the research rather than relying on what the MSM tells you.

I'm not pulling from MSM. This is from the Chairperson of the FEC. 

https://twitter.com/EllenLWeintraub/stat...96768?s=19

The fact that it involves a potential political opponent, according to Ellen Weintraub - Trump's own chairperson, does matter.

She was elected by members of the FEC. She was not appointed by Trump. She is a prime example of the deep state attempting to overrule the electorate. 

And "involves a political opponent" is a huge loophole. Based on that, anyone could cut a deal with a foreign government and then find immunity by running for office against the person trying to investigate him.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Handsy Uncle Joe was surely unaware that he was acting in his son's best interest now wasn't he?


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine...ment-files

FTA: “Mr. Shokin attempted to continue the investigations but on or around June or July of 2015, the U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with white gloves, which according to Mr. Shokin, that implied do nothing,” the notes from the interview stated. The notes also claimed Shokin was told Biden had held up U.S. aid to Ukraine over the investigation."

It says right there in the article that the founder of the gas company was the target of the investigation, not Hunter Biden. The article does not say why the founder was under investigation.

Hunter was appointed to the Burisma board in 2014.
Shokin reports that he was told to "do nothing" against Burisma in 2015, and he followed this advice.
Joe Biden did not withhold money from Ukraine until 2016.

It is more likely than not that this natural gas company hired Hunter Biden mainly to protect itself from prosecution.

That's not all, but what you just described is a text book summary of probable cause to suspect bribery, violation of the foreign services act, emoluments, etc.  

And if that was the case, it is more likely than not that Joe and Hunter understood their role.

But it was not illegal in either country for Hunter biden to simply accept the position.

And it's not clear if Joe did anything overt to make the investigation shut down in 2015. It could simply be that the president and prosecutor of Ukraine were afraid of him, or maybe they were afraid of someone else in the company creating trouble for them.

When Joe finally makes his move in 2016, it appears to have nothing to do with his son's role at Burisma.

Not true, prosecutors notes and sworn testimony proves that their was an ongoing investigation and that Hunter was about to be interviewed.  His legal team then apologized to the prosecutors replacement about the false smear campaign.  Further evidence of criminal wrongdoing.  

Even if that's not true, Joe's actions would have been an abuse of power but not a violation of law.

LOL

And the motive would simply be to enrich himself.

bribe
/brīb/

verb
verb: bribe; 3rd person present: bribes; past tense: bribed; past participle: bribed; gerund or present participle: bribing

1. persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement.
   

Whereas Trump's abuse of power was motivated by a desire to harm the other political party, or manipulate the press during elections, or simply settle a personal vendetta.  

Each of these possible motives is more corrosive to domestic representative democracy than grifting a foreign country.

If Biden was in office now, it would be worth investigating him for possible impeachment based on what we know today. Presidents or vice presidents should be impeached for abusing their power whether or not they did anything technically illegal.

But Biden is not in office now. Anyone who wants to is free to try to investigate him, but they cannot and should not deploy the tools of US foreign policy to aid investigation, because there's no probable cause that he violated any part of US criminal code.

Trump is in office now, and he must be punished for abusing his power.

Asking a state to investigate based on probable cause or reasonable suspicion isn't an abuse of power.  You can try to explain away bribery because a politician has a D after their name, but it doesn't make it any less of a crime.

---

The man literally rambled on about how he could pressure China to do it and they had a lot of pressure points.
He literally thinks he's allowed to make hurting American political parties an objective of American foreign policy.
I don't know if you're sharp enough to understand why that's a big problem or if you're just willfully refusing to see that this is what he's doing.
if he's really concerned about corruption in the opposing party, he should try to get his own prosecutors on the case.  However prosecutors in this country have a legal obligation to only go where the evidence leads, not to follow what the boss says or what the political party says. Maybe that's why he's asking foreign prosecutors first. You be the judge.

How hypocritical and obtuse of you! Rich that you would be grasping at straws and then question whether someone else is "sharp enough" to understand. There have been document after document posted for your viewing pleasure unless you wish to "willfully see what is going on."

OK.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

First of all, there is nothing illegal about it and it is not an "impeachable offense".  Suggesting that a foreign government should investigate possible corruption is not "soliciting".  The fact that it involves a potential political opponent doesn't really have anything to do with it.

The fact of the matter is that this is once again blowing up in the democrats' face because there actually was corruption under the previous administration, and it is getting exposed.

The far left media is playing on the "he is influencing foreign governments against a 'political opponent'" when in fact he is exposing the corruption in "the swamp".  It was certainly no coincidence that Hunter Biden or LLC's that he was involved in got lucrative deals within weeks of the then Vice President (Biden) visiting both China and Ukraine.

Do the research rather than relying on what the MSM tells you.

I'm not pulling from MSM. This is from the Chairperson of the FEC. 

https://twitter.com/EllenLWeintraub/stat...96768?s=19

The fact that it involves a potential political opponent, according to Ellen Weintraub - Trump's own chairperson, does matter.

An investigation preficated on evidence that supports reasonable suspicion isnt a "thing of value" under the statute.  Try again.

---

I'm not pulling from MSM. This is from the Chairperson of the FEC. 

https://twitter.com/EllenLWeintraub/stat...96768?s=19

The fact that it involves a potential political opponent, according to Ellen Weintraub - Trump's own chairperson, does matter.

An investigation preficated on evidence that supports reasonable suspicion isnt a "thing of value" under the statute.  Try again.

Why ask for something if it isn't a "thing of value"?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

An investigation preficated on evidence that supports reasonable suspicion isnt a "thing of value" under the statute.  Try again.

Why ask for something if it isn't a "thing of value"?

Thing of value has a slecific meaning under the statute and does not cover normal interactions with foreign officials in the course of their business.  For instance, it wasnt an in kind donation "thing of value" when the presidents of mexico signed the usmca trade agreement or when a foreign leader comes in gor a state dinner.  These all could have direst, indirect or terciary affects that boost the presidents political standing, but all fall within his natural duties as President of the United States.  Likewise, the president is the chief law enforcement officer in the United States. It is his constitutional obligation to ensure that the laws of this country are Faithfully executed. And under the conditions of certain treaties it is his obligation to expose corruption in this country would certain allies. As such requesting investigation of anyone if proven successful could have a direct indirect or tertiary political benefit for the president. The question as to whether or not it represents a corrupt intent is the presence or lack thereof of probable cause to justify the investigation.

---

Why ask for something if it isn't a "thing of value"?

Thing of value has a slecific meaning under the statute and does not cover normal interactions with foreign officials in the course of their business.  For instance, it wasnt an in kind donation "thing of value" when the presidents of mexico signed the usmca trade agreement or when a foreign leader comes in gor a state dinner.  These all could have direst, indirect or terciary affects that boost the presidents political standing, but all fall within his natural duties as President of the United States.  Likewise, the president is the chief law enforcement officer in the United States. It is his constitutional obligation to ensure that the laws of this country are Faithfully executed. And under the conditions of certain treaties it is his obligation to expose corruption in this country would certain allies. As such requesting investigation of anyone if proven successful could have a direct indirect or tertiary political benefit for the president. The question as to whether or not it represents a corrupt intent is the presence or lack thereof of probable cause to justify the investigation.

Exactly.
A president's objectives as he enters a negotiation with another country must arise out of and agree with the national interest.  From all accounts, our trade negotiations with Canada and Mexico had good objectives and results.
And having more accountable prosecutors in Ukraine is also justifiable as a national interest. 
But having Ukraine go after one specific US citizen is a personal interest.
When the President of one country talks with the President of another, and they're not already personal friends, they both have to be scrupulous to only bring up matters of their own national interest.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.