(12-26-2019, 08:46 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(12-26-2019, 07:43 PM)mikesez Wrote: How did Trump interfere with an election where 0 votes have been cast and Biden is one of 37 candidates? 


Trump did not interfere. He asked Ukraine to interfere. but election interference can involve publishing propaganda before votes are cast.

What "propaganda" did he ask Ukraine to publish? I must have missed that part of the phone transcript.

You must have missed the testimony during the house hearings.  It was a recurring thing.  Trump didn't care about any specifics of Ukraine's corruption and didn't even know what an investigation should look like.  He wanted an announcement of an investigation, in the American media, nothing more.  That's propaganda.

---

(12-26-2019, 09:50 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote:

(12-26-2019, 07:43 PM)mikesez Wrote: How did Trump interfere with an election where 0 votes have been cast and Biden is one of 37 candidates? 


Trump did not interfere. He asked Ukraine to interfere. but election interference can involve publishing propaganda before votes are cast.

Does Biden's son also get a free pass?  If Hunter Biden had taxpayer dollars funneled back into his personal account, who should investigate and prosecute that crime if not the people and agencies tasked with doing it?

Nobody gets a free pass. Prosecutors should not be investigating people unless there is reasonable suspicion that a violation of their laws took place within their jurisdiction. Presidents should remain detached from this kind of thing. It's well below their paygrade.  Politicians need to be investigated from time to time, but it needs to be handled delicately.  People who work on campaigns should recuse themselves from investigating. at the end, the politician should either be indicted, or a report should be released explaining why the politician was suspected of wrongdoing, and how insufficient evidence was found. The President should not be involved in any of this, beyond making sure that the person doing it is competent and has enough help. Other than that, he should just stay out of the way. Think about how the investigation into Andrew gillum was handled. DeSantis stayed out of it. Scott stayed out of it. Obama stayed out of it. It was left to the professionals.

Notice how much I'm saying "should." Our Constitution is vague, and the office of attorney general or district attorney is not even mentioned. The president "can" be more involved, but he "should" not, because if he gets too involved, it looks like an abuse of power.

So he should be impeached because he didn't do what somebody thought he should do, even though he has complete and total discretion in these matters and they have none?  

He didn't do what every other President in living memory would have done in the situation.  Including Nixon. So "somebody" is an awful lot of people.

---