Sure, but the Intel committees on either house had a right to see it.

---

Executive privilege covers some activities, but not political activities.  Executive privilege extends only as far as the third branch, the courts, will allow.  And it's part of the legal framework.  The president must comply with the law, even though it gives him many more privileges and responsibilities than anyone else.

---

There was no opinion in my post.  Just a question.  Did the president abuse his power?

---

No, Office responsibility (not political), and once again no (DOJ, statutory authority, treaties, and Constitution even say as much).

There are actually U.S. Supreme Court decisions related to the matter of temporarily withholding arms, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the President broad powers. Pretty sure if arms are being sent to a country you'd like to know whether they are going to support a cause or support a historically corrupt government. But, that aid has already been released. Remember, the Obama administration blocked all loans and aid packages to Ukraine for a period due to corruption. So, all anyone (left) is grasping at is poor Joe Biden the political figure, not the alleged criminal citizen. Don't forget coke head Hunter. There is and has been lawbreaking but it isn't Trump, as you'll slowly learn. Just more exposing the other side and then silence until the new impeachment rally cry...rinse and repeat.

Dems want to push to impeach a President for exposing a crime and then try to elect the very guy who committed it! Can't make this up.

You're being extremely dense.
I already told you I know that the president has many powers.
He is not supposed to abuse any of his powers.
He tried to use some of his powers to hurt a rival's campaign.
Figuring out why a prosecutor in Ukraine was fired four years ago, whether it was a good thing or not, is not a national interest to the US at this time. It is only a political interest to the Republican party.

---

Sure, but the Intel committees on either house had a right to see it.

---

Executive privilege covers some activities, but not political activities.  Executive privilege extends only as far as the third branch, the courts, will allow.  And it's part of the legal framework.  The president must comply with the law, even though it gives him many more privileges and responsibilities than anyone else.

---

There was no opinion in my post.  Just a question.  Did the president abuse his power?

---

We haven't seen the direct evidence yet, but Biden will most certainly have acted with Obama's approval. I'm sure the media is champing at the bit to identify all the dirty dealings that connect the Obama White House and Clinton campaign to these activities, right?

Oh you! Never change, cutie pie! 

---

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

No, Office responsibility (not political), and once again no (DOJ, statutory authority, treaties, and Constitution even say as much).

There are actually U.S. Supreme Court decisions related to the matter of temporarily withholding arms, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the President broad powers. Pretty sure if arms are being sent to a country you'd like to know whether they are going to support a cause or support a historically corrupt government. But, that aid has already been released. Remember, the Obama administration blocked all loans and aid packages to Ukraine for a period due to corruption. So, all anyone (left) is grasping at is poor Joe Biden the political figure, not the alleged criminal citizen. Don't forget coke head Hunter. There is and has been lawbreaking but it isn't Trump, as you'll slowly learn. Just more exposing the other side and then silence until the new impeachment rally cry...rinse and repeat.

Dems want to push to impeach a President for exposing a crime and then try to elect the very guy who committed it! Can't make this up.

You're being extremely dense.
I already told you I know that the president has many powers.
He is not supposed to abuse any of his powers.
He tried to use some of his powers to hurt a rival's campaign.
Figuring out why a prosecutor in Ukraine was fired four years ago, whether it was a good thing or not, is not a national interest to the US at this time. It is only a political interest to the Republican party.

---

We haven't seen the direct evidence yet, but Biden will most certainly have acted with Obama's approval. I'm sure the media is champing at the bit to identify all the dirty dealings that connect the Obama White House and Clinton campaign to these activities, right?

Oh you! Never change, cutie pie! 

Lol. So extortion, fraud, abuse of power missallocation of billions of dollars in aid money...  that gets swept under the rug because joe biden has a d after his name.  

And its treason for Trump to use existing treaties on us ukraine legal cooperation to get to the bottom of it....  

Mikey the conservative.  Lolz

---

You're being extremely dense.
I already told you I know that the president has many powers.
He is not supposed to abuse any of his powers.
He tried to use some of his powers to hurt a rival's campaign.
Figuring out why a prosecutor in Ukraine was fired four years ago, whether it was a good thing or not, is not a national interest to the US at this time. It is only a political interest to the Republican party.

---

Oh you! Never change, cutie pie! 

Lol. So extortion, fraud, abuse of power missallocation of billions of dollars in aid money...  that gets swept under the rug because joe biden has a d after his name.  

And its treason for Trump to use existing treaties on us ukraine legal cooperation to get to the bottom of it....  

Mikey the conservative.  Lolz

When you talk about Joe Biden's actions, all you want to discuss are the motives and results.

When you talk about Trump's actions all you want to talk about are prerogatives and powers.

Now Joe was only the vice president so he only had powers that Obama chose to defer to him. that aside the question of prerogative and power is the same between the two of them; they both had it.

for both of them, you have to look at the motives and results to see if this was an abuse of power.

In Trump's case, the motives and results clearly point to trying to knee cap a legitimate political opponent. Trump  as POTUS has no legitimate reason to care if Hunter Biden received any punishment that he may have deserved under Ukrainian law.

to the extent he's supposed to care he's supposed to want to steer American citizens away from prosecution not towards it

---

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

Lol. So extortion, fraud, abuse of power missallocation of billions of dollars in aid money...  that gets swept under the rug because joe biden has a d after his name.  

And its treason for Trump to use existing treaties on us ukraine legal cooperation to get to the bottom of it....  

Mikey the conservative.  Lolz

When you talk about Joe Biden's actions, all you want to discuss are the motives and results.

When you talk about Trump's actions all you want to talk about are prerogatives and powers.

Now Joe was only the vice president so he only had powers that Obama chose to defer to him. that aside the question of prerogative and power is the same between the two of them; they both had it.

for both of them, you have to look at the motives and results to see if this was an abuse of power.

In Trump's case, the motives and results clearly point to trying to knee cap a legitimate political opponent. Trump  as POTUS has no legitimate reason to care if Hunter Biden received any punishment that he may have deserved under Ukrainian law.

to the extent he's supposed to care he's supposed to want to steer American citizens away from prosecution not towards it

Holy [BLEEP]! That might be the most direct evidence of trolling or serious mental deficiency portrayed on this board ever.  Everything you said is wrong and I cannot imagine how you can breathe after such intellectual contortions.

---

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

Lol. So extortion, fraud, abuse of power missallocation of billions of dollars in aid money...  that gets swept under the rug because joe biden has a d after his name.  

And its treason for Trump to use existing treaties on us ukraine legal cooperation to get to the bottom of it....  

Mikey the conservative.  Lolz

When you talk about Joe Biden's actions, all you want to discuss are the motives and results.

When you talk about Trump's actions all you want to talk about are prerogatives and powers.

Now Joe was only the vice president so he only had powers that Obama chose to defer to him. that aside the question of prerogative and power is the same between the two of them; they both had it.

for both of them, you have to look at the motives and results to see if this was an abuse of power.

In Trump's case, the motives and results clearly point to trying to knee cap a legitimate political opponent. Trump  as POTUS has no legitimate reason to care if Hunter Biden received any punishment that he may have deserved under Ukrainian law.

to the extent he's supposed to care he's supposed to want to steer American citizens away from prosecution not towards it

Lol, The President of the United States is the chief law enforcement office of the United States.  All lines of prosecutorial discretion terminate at his office.  When it comes to the pursuit of justice on an international level, he is tasked with maintaining the diplomatic relationships that facilitate legal cooperation to pursue charges he deems in the public interest.  Simply pursuing potential crimes committed by someone who doesn't share his political ideology or party doesn't rise to the level of impropriety.  If you want to establish that he acted with corrupt intent you are going to have to demonstrate that his request for an investigation wasn't properly predicated and falls well below any reasonable application of the Probable cause or Reasonable suspicion Standard.  In the case of Joe & Hunter Biden you're talking about 1.8 billion dollars in US aid, The normalization of relations with a Ukrainian Oligarch that was previously banned from entry into this country and the poster of international corruption, and the potential bribery of the Vice President of the United States in the form of illicit payments of millions of dollars to his Son and the Son of then Secretary of State John Kerry.  The assertion that those sort of allegations of public corruption fall below the national interest is absurd on its face!  If you want to talk about probable cause, Hunter Biden had no previous experience in Ukraine, the natural Gas sector, and structured his payments in a manner that can be interpreted as seeking to evade detection.  As the potential recipient of illicit payments he's a potential accomplice in high Crimes and misdemeanors on behalf of the last administration.  In the case of Biden, he has openly bragged about the fact that he pressured for the Prosecutor to be fired.  He justified this by saying that the entire world was in agreement that the prosecutor was corrupt, the memo posted by B2 casts doubt on that.  He said he didn't know that his son was under investigation.  That has been proven false.  It's been alleged that the investigations were over.  That's been proven to be false.  And after this incident the prosecutor that Biden helped appoint was responsible for facilitating the leaks of information negative to the TRUMP CAMPAIGN that eventually resulted in the incarceration of his former Campaign manager.  

Based on that fact pattern and set of allegations it is the responsibility of the chief executive to make sure that 1.8 billion dollars in US aid (Deposited in the bank owned by the former Vice Presidents son' employer) was allocated in good faith and not as a part of an illicit quid pro quo to privately enrich the former Vice President.

---

When you talk about Joe Biden's actions, all you want to discuss are the motives and results.

When you talk about Trump's actions all you want to talk about are prerogatives and powers.

Now Joe was only the vice president so he only had powers that Obama chose to defer to him. that aside the question of prerogative and power is the same between the two of them; they both had it.

for both of them, you have to look at the motives and results to see if this was an abuse of power.

In Trump's case, the motives and results clearly point to trying to knee cap a legitimate political opponent. Trump  as POTUS has no legitimate reason to care if Hunter Biden received any punishment that he may have deserved under Ukrainian law.

to the extent he's supposed to care he's supposed to want to steer American citizens away from prosecution not towards it

Holy [BLEEP]! That might be the most direct evidence of trolling or serious mental deficiency portrayed on this board ever.  Everything you said is wrong and I cannot imagine how you can breathe after such intellectual contortions.

that too

---

Btw. Ukraine wasn't aware the funds were withheld until a month later... so much 4 quid pro quo....

---

When you talk about Joe Biden's actions, all you want to discuss are the motives and results.

When you talk about Trump's actions all you want to talk about are prerogatives and powers.

Now Joe was only the vice president so he only had powers that Obama chose to defer to him. that aside the question of prerogative and power is the same between the two of them; they both had it.

for both of them, you have to look at the motives and results to see if this was an abuse of power.

In Trump's case, the motives and results clearly point to trying to knee cap a legitimate political opponent. Trump  as POTUS has no legitimate reason to care if Hunter Biden received any punishment that he may have deserved under Ukrainian law.

to the extent he's supposed to care he's supposed to want to steer American citizens away from prosecution not towards it

Holy [BLEEP]! That might be the most direct evidence of trolling or serious mental deficiency portrayed on this board ever.  Everything you said is wrong and I cannot imagine how you can breathe after such intellectual contortions.

If it weren't so sad, I'd be laughing. It hurts to think there are more people like this out there that are blinded by the grandeur (lol) of that Big-D! Facts be damned. It's nuts.

---

Interesting Sesame Street-like break-down of events.

https://www.facebook.com/GlennBeck/video...682029969/

---

Holy [BLEEP]! That might be the most direct evidence of trolling or serious mental deficiency portrayed on this board ever.  Everything you said is wrong and I cannot imagine how you can breathe after such intellectual contortions.

If it weren't so sad, I'd be laughing. It hurts to think there are more people like this out there that are blinded by the grandeur (lol) of that Big-D! Facts be damned. It's nuts.

---

Interesting Sesame Street-like break-down of events.

https://www.facebook.com/GlennBeck/video...682029969/

Great post

---

US Ambassador to Ukraine resigns. Crazy week

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

Holy [BLEEP]! That might be the most direct evidence of trolling or serious mental deficiency portrayed on this board ever.  Everything you said is wrong and I cannot imagine how you can breathe after such intellectual contortions.

If it weren't so sad, I'd be laughing. It hurts to think there are more people like this out there that are blinded by the grandeur (lol) of that Big-D! Facts be damned. It's nuts.

---

Interesting Sesame Street-like break-down of events.

https://www.facebook.com/GlennBeck/video...682029969/

It's a good video.
I see clear and credible allegations of nepotism, and exchanging closeness to US government decision makers for seats on boards.  But this could just as easily be the story of Chelsea Clinton, Dick Cheney, or George W Bush or Jeb Bush. 
As a country, we decided a long time ago that we were okay with nepotism, and we decided even longer before that that we were okay with people profiting off of executing our policy. Now I don't like either decision, and I'm fine to go back on both now, but let's at least apply it evenly.
Trump has also gotten in on nepotism while executing foreign policy. His son-in-law and his two sons have profited off of Trump's visits to the middle East at a minimum, and there are probably other relationships that we don't know about yet.
But what Bush, Clinton and Biden never did was try to divert foreign policy into damaging the other political party. Skim a little profit, no one's gotten in trouble for 30+ years. No one seems to care if Chelsea gets to collect a 10% finder's fee as long as the other 90% went to the US foreign policy objective. But letting a sitting president use his foreign policy powers to hurt the other party is unprecedented.  You will not find another example.

---

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

If it weren't so sad, I'd be laughing. It hurts to think there are more people like this out there that are blinded by the grandeur (lol) of that Big-D! Facts be damned. It's nuts.

---

Interesting Sesame Street-like break-down of events.

https://www.facebook.com/GlennBeck/video...682029969/

It's a good video.
I see clear and credible allegations of nepotism, and exchanging closeness to US government decision makers for seats on boards.  But this could just as easily be the story of Chelsea Clinton, Dick Cheney, or George W Bush or Jeb Bush. 
As a country, we decided a long time ago that we were okay with nepotism, and we decided even longer before that that we were okay with people profiting off of executing our policy. Now I don't like either decision, and I'm fine to go back on both now, but let's at least apply it evenly.
Trump has also gotten in on nepotism while executing foreign policy. His son-in-law and his two sons have profited off of Trump's visits to the middle East at a minimum, and there are probably other relationships that we don't know about yet.
But what Bush, Clinton and Biden never did was try to divert foreign policy into damaging the other political party. Skim a little profit, no one's gotten in trouble for 30+ years. No one seems to care if Chelsea gets to collect a 10% finder's fee as long as the other 90% went to the US foreign policy objective. But letting a sitting president use his foreign policy powers to hurt the other party is unprecedented.  You will not find another example.

And as much as you squirm now, you still will not find your example. Idiotic to ignore the actual crime because one of the the individuals WAS running for Dem nomination. Ya'll grasped at Don jr. for less. What hurt does the other party suffer at the hands of Trump in all this? Joe was not getting the nod over Warren anyways. Little brain exercise for ya...remove Joe Biden from the equation altogether and concentrate on Hunter. I know the answer but humor us...How do ya feel?

---

It's a good video.
I see clear and credible allegations of nepotism, and exchanging closeness to US government decision makers for seats on boards.  But this could just as easily be the story of Chelsea Clinton, Dick Cheney, or George W Bush or Jeb Bush. 
As a country, we decided a long time ago that we were okay with nepotism, and we decided even longer before that that we were okay with people profiting off of executing our policy. Now I don't like either decision, and I'm fine to go back on both now, but let's at least apply it evenly.
Trump has also gotten in on nepotism while executing foreign policy. His son-in-law and his two sons have profited off of Trump's visits to the middle East at a minimum, and there are probably other relationships that we don't know about yet.
But what Bush, Clinton and Biden never did was try to divert foreign policy into damaging the other political party. Skim a little profit, no one's gotten in trouble for 30+ years. No one seems to care if Chelsea gets to collect a 10% finder's fee as long as the other 90% went to the US foreign policy objective. But letting a sitting president use his foreign policy powers to hurt the other party is unprecedented.  You will not find another example.

And as much as you squirm now, you still will not find your example. Idiotic to ignore the actual crime because one of the the individuals WAS running for Dem nomination. Ya'll grasped at Don jr. for less. What hurt does the other party suffer at the hands of Trump in all this? Joe was not getting the nod over Warren anyways. Little brain exercise for ya...remove Joe Biden from the equation altogether and concentrate on Hunter. I know the answer but humor us...How do ya feel?

I'm not saying Trump should have ignored the alleged crime.  If he really wanted to punish Hunter Biden and steer our government away from nepotism, 

1) lead by example.  Stop enriching your own children.
2) get the people who actually properly answer to you, the DoJ, on the case.  See if they find evidence that US law was violated.  Remember, even if Ukraine's laws were broken, doesn't mean US laws were, and vice-versa. 
3) if there is probable cause that US laws were broken, have a DoJ spokesperson announce an investigation. get a warrant.
4) ask for Ukraine's help to execute the warrant.

What Trump did, though, was clearly aimed at bamboozling a novice Ukrainian president, and hopefully inducing him to drafting a press release complaining about how corrupt Biden and Obama were.  Fortunately the Ukrainian President didn't take the bait and is trying to stay out of it.  He's only said that he's going to investigate *everything* that went on with prosecutions around 2015, not Biden specifically.  

Consider that a man who was a comedian only two years ago, and still doesn't have his cabinet in place, has a better understanding of how to be discreet as the president of a country, than Trump does after 3 years and near 100% turnover in his cabinet.

---

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

And as much as you squirm now, you still will not find your example. Idiotic to ignore the actual crime because one of the the individuals WAS running for Dem nomination. Ya'll grasped at Don jr. for less. What hurt does the other party suffer at the hands of Trump in all this? Joe was not getting the nod over Warren anyways. Little brain exercise for ya...remove Joe Biden from the equation altogether and concentrate on Hunter. I know the answer but humor us...How do ya feel?

I'm not saying Trump should have ignored the alleged crime.  If he really wanted to punish Hunter Biden and steer our government away from nepotism, 

1) lead by example.  Stop enriching your own children.
2) get the people who actually properly answer to you, the DoJ, on the case.  See if they find evidence that US law was violated.  Remember, even if Ukraine's laws were broken, doesn't mean US laws were, and vice-versa. 
3) if there is probable cause that US laws were broken, have a DoJ spokesperson announce an investigation. get a warrant.
4) ask for Ukraine's help to execute the warrant.

What Trump did, though, was clearly aimed at bamboozling a novice Ukrainian president, and hopefully inducing him to drafting a press release complaining about how corrupt Biden and Obama were.  Fortunately the Ukrainian President didn't take the bait and is trying to stay out of it.  He's only said that he's going to investigate *everything* that went on with prosecutions around 2015, not Biden specifically.  

Consider that a man who was a comedian only two years ago, and still doesn't have his cabinet in place, has a better understanding of how to be discreet as the president of a country, than Trump does after 3 years and near 100% turnover in his cabinet.

1. How exactly are Trump's children being enriched by Trump's actions WRT foreign governments?
2. The DoJ was on the case. Trump asked Ukraine to provide Barr with any information they had.
3. Does the DoJ need to "announce" every investigation? That would result in 2nd hand punishment of a lot of innocent people. "You're under investigation by the DoJ. Therefore you're fired!"
4. An agency doesn't need a warrant to request information. A warrant is only issued if the subject of the warrant refuses to turn over information the agency suspects he has.

There was no "bamboozle." Trump was more interested in the actions of CrowdStrike, and Hunter Biden was only mentioned in passing. In spite of no response from Ukraine, the military aid was still given, so no Quid Pro Quo, unlike the DIRECT THREAT that Joe Biden made.

As far as "damaging the other political party," are you saying that one can escape investigation of a crime by being a member of the other party? That sure didn't work for Flynn, Manafort, or Page (or Trump for that matter).

Your arguments are ridiculous, but not surprising since they are probably talking points from far Left websites.

---

                                                                          

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

I'm not saying Trump should have ignored the alleged crime.  If he really wanted to punish Hunter Biden and steer our government away from nepotism, 

1) lead by example.  Stop enriching your own children.
2) get the people who actually properly answer to you, the DoJ, on the case.  See if they find evidence that US law was violated.  Remember, even if Ukraine's laws were broken, doesn't mean US laws were, and vice-versa. 
3) if there is probable cause that US laws were broken, have a DoJ spokesperson announce an investigation. get a warrant.
4) ask for Ukraine's help to execute the warrant.

What Trump did, though, was clearly aimed at bamboozling a novice Ukrainian president, and hopefully inducing him to drafting a press release complaining about how corrupt Biden and Obama were.  Fortunately the Ukrainian President didn't take the bait and is trying to stay out of it.  He's only said that he's going to investigate *everything* that went on with prosecutions around 2015, not Biden specifically.  

Consider that a man who was a comedian only two years ago, and still doesn't have his cabinet in place, has a better understanding of how to be discreet as the president of a country, than Trump does after 3 years and near 100% turnover in his cabinet.

1. How exactly are Trump's children being enriched by Trump's actions WRT foreign governments?
2. The DoJ was on the case. Trump asked Ukraine to provide Barr with any information they had.
3. Does the DoJ need to "announce" every investigation? That would result in 2nd hand punishment of a lot of innocent people. "You're under investigation by the DoJ. Therefore you're fired!"
4. An agency doesn't need a warrant to request information. A warrant is only issued if the subject of the warrant refuses to turn over information the agency suspects he has.

There was no "bamboozle." Trump was more interested in the actions of CrowdStrike, and Hunter Biden was only mentioned in passing. In spite of no response from Ukraine, the military aid was still given, so no Quid Pro Quo, unlike the DIRECT THREAT that Joe Biden made.

As far as "damaging the other political party," are you saying that one can escape investigation of a crime by being a member of the other party? That sure didn't work for Flynn, Manafort, or Page (or Trump for that matter).

Your arguments are ridiculous, but not surprising since they are probably talking points from far Left websites.

1) Qataris are extending loans to Kushner, and elites in Saudi and UAE have suddenly started staying at Trump properties more frequently.

2) No, Trump tried to loop his personal attorney in on everything.  It is not appropriate for the President to know the details of these types of matters, and it's definitely not appropriate for the personal attorney to know.  The President is just supposed to just have a general sense of what DoJ is up to, rarely ever names of the accused or suspected, and the personal attorney is not supposed to be looped in unless it's his client that's under investigation.  I agree that it would be appropriate for Barr to be involved, if he is.

3) no, it would be bad for DoJ to announce all of their goings-on for the reasons you state.  But, as 2016 taught us, we deserve to know if public officials or candidates are under investigation.

4) true, but sometimes the feeling is that if they request and wait, the evidence will be destroyed.  So sometimes a warrant and a seizure happens first.

5) he detained the aid with no official statement why.  He didn't tell the press why, he didn't tell the congress why, and he doesn't appear to have told the ukrainians why, at least not directly.  That's suspicious, but not necessarily wrong, on its own.  But within the pattern of facts, they were trying to spook the Ukrainians without too many people in the US noticing.

6) I am by no means saying that party affiliation should play any role in who gets investigated or indicted. It is commendable that guys like Flynn and Manafort got in big trouble for what they did. if Hunter Biden really did things bad enough to believe the next person under the looking glass, they should definitely go through the process with him. They should be very careful with their PR because he is famous, but they should investigate.

personally involving the president and the president's personal lawyer is not what being careful with your PR looks like.

That looks like something else, that has nothing to do with getting to the bottom of if a crime was committed or not.

---

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

1. How exactly are Trump's children being enriched by Trump's actions WRT foreign governments?
2. The DoJ was on the case. Trump asked Ukraine to provide Barr with any information they had.
3. Does the DoJ need to "announce" every investigation? That would result in 2nd hand punishment of a lot of innocent people. "You're under investigation by the DoJ. Therefore you're fired!"
4. An agency doesn't need a warrant to request information. A warrant is only issued if the subject of the warrant refuses to turn over information the agency suspects he has.

There was no "bamboozle." Trump was more interested in the actions of CrowdStrike, and Hunter Biden was only mentioned in passing. In spite of no response from Ukraine, the military aid was still given, so no Quid Pro Quo, unlike the DIRECT THREAT that Joe Biden made.

As far as "damaging the other political party," are you saying that one can escape investigation of a crime by being a member of the other party? That sure didn't work for Flynn, Manafort, or Page (or Trump for that matter).

Your arguments are ridiculous, but not surprising since they are probably talking points from far Left websites.

1) Qataris are extending loans to Kushner, and elites in Saudi and UAE have suddenly started staying at Trump properties more frequently.

2) No, Trump tried to loop his personal attorney in on everything.  It is not appropriate for the President to know the details of these types of matters, and it's definitely not appropriate for the personal attorney to know.  The President is just supposed to just have a general sense of what DoJ is up to, rarely ever names of the accused or suspected, and the personal attorney is not supposed to be looped in unless it's his client that's under investigation.  I agree that it would be appropriate for Barr to be involved, if he is.

3) no, it would be bad for DoJ to announce all of their goings-on for the reasons you state.  But, as 2016 taught us, we deserve to know if public officials or candidates are under investigation.

4) true, but sometimes the feeling is that if they request and wait, the evidence will be destroyed.  So sometimes a warrant and a seizure happens first.

5) he detained the aid with no official statement why.  He didn't tell the press why, he didn't tell the congress why, and he doesn't appear to have told the ukrainians why, at least not directly.  That's suspicious, but not necessarily wrong, on its own.  But within the pattern of facts, they were trying to spook the Ukrainians without too many people in the US noticing.

6) I am by no means saying that party affiliation should play any role in who gets investigated or indicted. It is commendable that guys like Flynn and Manafort got in big trouble for what they did. if Hunter Biden really did things bad enough to believe the next person under the looking glass, they should definitely go through the process with him. They should be very careful with their PR because he is famous, but they should investigate.

personally involving the president and the president's personal lawyer is not what being careful with your PR looks like.

That looks like something else, that has nothing to do with getting to the bottom of if a crime was committed or not.

1. Wow! Staying in a hotel they formerly also stayed in? That's exactly the same as Hunter Biden getting a fat paycheck for sitting on the board of a company in a business for which he has ZERO EXPERIENCE.

2. Trump does not have a law degree. Of course he would need his attorney with political experience to explain the ramifications of any info they received (and they didn't receive any). This is an utterly insane argument (sorry, that comparison is an insult to insane people).

3. Hunter is not a public official or a candidate. Joe is. Was he the one under investigation? I guess he should have been, since he was the one who threatened to withhold aid if Ukraine didn't fire the  guy who was investigation his son.

4. Fortunately for Zelensky's wife, US jackboots can't break in at 6AM (after informing CNN) to search a foreign country's headquarters.

5. Wow. The aid was detained a WHOLE MONTH (and it was already late). I'm sure foreign military aid has never ever been late before. You are so sucked into the Leftist narrative it's pathetic. Ignore the facts and just go with the worst possible interpretation.

6. If you believe that Flynn deserved a prison sentence for a process crime he was trapped into, then you have lost all credibility.

---

                                                                          

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

Also, as trumps personal attorney giuliani has a professional interest in quashing allegations or his clients interest. Crowd strike and the conclusions they presented to the state department played a critical role in the narrative that drove the russia probe and cost Trump & his associates millions of dollars in legal fees.

Also, rudys not just a personal attorney, hes a former federal prosecutor! Thats why some at the state department thought he would be useful as a go between to the incoming ukranian administration and he debriefed them on all his communications and thanked him for his cooperation.

---

Also, as trumps personal attorney giuliani has a professional interest in quashing allegations or his clients interest.  Crowd strike and the conclusions they presented to the state department played a critical role in the narrative that drove the russia probe and cost Trump & his associates millions of dollars in legal fees.  

Also, rudys not just a personal attorney, hes a former federal prosecutor!  Thats why some at the state department thought he would be useful as a go between to the incoming ukranian administration and he debriefed them on all his communications and thanked him for his cooperation.

We're all wasting our time with this dude. No matter what the Constitution states, enacted laws, foreign policy legislation or Congressional Budget Act verbiage delegates, he still believes what CNN tells him.

Bottom line, the POTUS is lawfully supported in this particular phone call even if he stated he was going to hold funding. It has been done by previous administration multiple times to include the Ukraine. The POTUS owns foreign policy. When it comes to monetary support, Congress has delegated authority over loans to the POTUS, Congress has delegated sanctions power to the POTUS, Congress has delegated budget rescission authority, Congress has delegated deferral authority, and the list goes on. This is more of the House weiners attempting to change the rules mid-game and blind ordinary citizens from documented fact. I would ignore all subpoenas related to this matter and force the courts to review authority and when they back that up request immediate resignation from committee leads and speaker.

---

Congressional Research report relating to Ukraine if anyone is interested. It quite clearly shows Ukraine has been on the radar and troublesome for some time. Congressional aides, members, staff positions, President, Vice President, and ordinary citizens have been influences for some time as well. There are a ton of U.S political heads that have gotten rich off the energy and import/export sanctions and ban releases. Heck, I think there is another Congressional party heading there soon (trying to get their piece of the pie). Their trip was scheduled 4-months ago. It's okay for congressional leaders to interfere in foreign policy, as well as ask a foreign government to look into a sitting President during a Special Counsel Investigation (see previously May 2018 Dem memo) but the POTUS can't utter a word on corruption or possible crimes to ensure monetary relief will go to where it is needed, not to line pockets.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33460.pdf

---

LOL.  Mikey the republican democrat trying to speak regarding things that he doesn't have a clue about.

It reminds me of a quote from President Reagan (paraphrasing).  "The problem with liberals is that they know so much about what isn't so".

---

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

Also, as trumps personal attorney giuliani has a professional interest in quashing allegations or his clients interest.  Crowd strike and the conclusions they presented to the state department played a critical role in the narrative that drove the russia probe and cost Trump & his associates millions of dollars in legal fees.  

Also, rudys not just a personal attorney, hes a former federal prosecutor!  Thats why some at the state department thought he would be useful as a go between to the incoming ukranian administration and he debriefed them on all his communications and thanked him for his cooperation.

We're all wasting our time with this dude. No matter what the Constitution states, enacted laws, foreign policy legislation or Congressional Budget Act verbiage delegates, he still believes what CNN tells him.

Bottom line, the POTUS is lawfully supported in this particular phone call even if he stated he was going to hold funding. It has been done by previous administration multiple times to include the Ukraine. The POTUS owns foreign policy. When it comes to monetary support, Congress has delegated authority over loans to the POTUS, Congress has delegated sanctions power to the POTUS, Congress has delegated budget rescission authority, Congress has delegated deferral authority, and the list goes on. This is more of the House weiners attempting to change the rules mid-game and blind ordinary citizens from documented fact. I would ignore all subpoenas related to this matter and force the courts to review authority and when they back that up request immediate resignation from committee leads and speaker.

Youre probably right, but for me shooting down his points is more about the lurkers who read the thread thank mikey himself.

---