(10-09-2019, 07:40 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(10-09-2019, 07:18 PM)jj82284 Wrote: Ill say it again....  what part of contact the attorney general do u not understand?  What part of the investigation WAS ALREADYNINITIATED by the ukrainian ag equivelant do u not understand?  What part of evidentiary findings during a seperate legal proceeding do u not understand?  Am i talking too fast for u?  I have time.  I wanna help!

Oh and btw, the ag is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of POTUS.  if the presiswnt has reason to believe a crime was committed by an american citizen he can direct the ag to initiate an investigation.  If that investigation encompassrs activity with or in foreign countries theb he can solicit the cooperation of foreign heads of state.  

U wanna claim corrupt intent?  Have at it.  Its incumbent on u to demonstratw that there was no such reasonable suspicion.  Thats based on the fact pattern and the underlying evidence.   But u dont wanna deal with that, u want to talk about "well he should have said it nicer... he should have been more vague" and other platitudes.

You are correct that the president can ask the AG to initiate a new investigation.
However the AG may not do so if he finds no reasonable suspicion or probable cause for a specific violation of US law. But if he does find probable cause or reasonable suspicion, watch out! He now has the tools of state at his disposal- to compel testimony, or even negotiate with other countries to compel testimony from their citizens.

not true.  The cooperation between countries is a function of diplomacy and foreign policy which rests solely at the feet of the chief executive.  As is the case with the entirety of the investigation into the origins of the Mueller probe, we are talking about multiple countries of interest.  The AG asked the president to make the necessary introductions to facilitate cooperation with other nations, their justice departments, his counterparts etc.  The idea that the president should be completely removed from the process is incorrect.  

And the president can also ask his personal attorney to look into things. the president and the personal attorney may just want to know the facts for their own sake - it doesn't have to involve a possible violation of the law. But in this case, the president can not deploy the tools of state.

Okay, in all seriousness I will go through this again.  Giuliani has two roles in this situation.  First, he was solicited by the former special envoy to the UKRAINE in order to build relations with the prospective administration and report back tot he state department on his assessment of the incoming team.  Also, obviously, he is the presidents personal attorney with intimate knowledge of the Ukraine corruption scandal because of his investigative work to exonerate the president during the Mueller probe.  His name coming up in a general conversation between the two leaders as either a go between for their administrations or someone who can ad insight to the players involved in the Biden scandal makes perfect sense.  

Moreover, the president didn't mention Brad Paschale his campaign manager, Kelly Anne Conway, or any political operative.  Nor did he mention anything about political ramifications of investigations, coordinating leaks, fabrication of a narrative, or anything to do with the 2020 elections.  That's all fantasy projected by the left.

---