Sorry but it's actually fascination that you would consider that the President would have to be totally upfront of what his true intentions were with the Russians talking to Russians. You can't imagine that he wouldn't with good reason be totally candid with them in this regard?
So, perhaps you can show me where the President has done anything -- at least that he wasn't forced to do by Congress (such as sanctions) -- against Russia for the 2016 elections. What protections has he proposed or passed to help safeguard our elections?
I mention what he said to the Russians because those comments are completely consistent with what he has done -- nothing. His intelligence services, as well as the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee report released a couple of weeks ago, clearly talk about major Russian efforts to attempt to influence and hack the 2016 elections. Yet Trump, rather than try and take actions to protect against further Russian interference, is trying to prove that Ukraine influenced the 2016 elections -- and in most ways is trying to prove Ukraine was behind it all and managed to scapegoat the Russians.
Yes I would suggest you should consider it. 2019 is only 1 years from the next election and it wouldn't be strange to consider he wanted to start working on this issue now to ensure it doesn't happen again. Now even if you struggle to accept this the basics of law have it one is innocent unless proven guilty. So are you really in favour of seeing a President impeached on that which is obscure and speculative? Who will be the next President who is found guilty of such low bar evidence and do you really think that's good for the country?
Again, all the investigations show it was Russia -- no investigation shows it is Ukraine. So why, three years after the fact, is he not acting on recommendations from the other investigations and instead is trying to prove Ukraine "did it?"
As I keep trying to explain, there are right and wrong ways. It's kind of like the difference between hiring a private investigator to investigate someone or hiring a "mobster" to kidnap the person to interrogate them; one is legal, one is very illegal.
Candidates, and their political campaigns, are not allowed to hire or get "things of value" (which would include information from investigations) from foreign citizens -- much less foreign governments. Yes, Hillary had her campaign's law firm hire Fusion GPS, a US company, to do candidate research -- and it is handled similarly in pretty much any major US campaign. There is no issue with a private investigator, working for the US company that was hired, going to foreign countries to investigate; or even for that firm to hire a foreign investigator. It is illegal for the campaign to hire a foreign investigator directly -- that may seem stupid to you but that is the law, to prevent foreign interference in US elections.
If someone holds office, and uses that office to get foreign investigations done into political opponents, that is not just against the law but an abuse of power -- using the power of one's office for personal gain.
Obama wire tapped Trump -- digging up dirt?
No, the records that have been released are that Trump was never wiretapped; that appears to be a Trump falsehood. There were investigations into members of the Trump campaign, after evidence was received that they may have broken the law.
Now, I understand there are allegations that at least one of those investigations was "politically motivated," and some Republicans claim that they were wiretapped to get information about the Trump campaign -- though that only claims it was "deep state" individuals and does not directly tie back to Obama.
Regardless, that is one of the reasons for Durham's appointment and, if there were irregularities or misuse of office to get the wiretaps, I'll trust Durham will find it.
Whole impeachment process simultaneously interferes in both the 2016 election (by challenging the results) and the 2020 election
And this would be false. Impeachment is to investigate the actions of the current president that appear to be improper -- the investigation is to find if it was. If the Democrats are honest, they want this done by the end of the year -- though we'll have to see what both they and the Republican controlled Senate does.
Regardless, without wrongdoing by Trump (which would cause Republicans to want to impeach him), it won't undo the 2016 election -- and even if Trump is removed, it merely makes Pence President. I know there is this conspiracy theory about how Democrats will get rid of Pence and Trump, with no new VP installed; yet the simple fact is the Republican Senate will not allow that to happen.
that would only happen after something substantive was acquired, yes?
so, by all appearances, despite all this looking into things, nothing which can be officially formally at law pinned on Biden has been found?
And has the President made any specific allegations?
IOW:
- where there's smoke there's fire
- there's obvious smoke around the Biden-Burisma connection
- some digging's been done
- nothing actionable has been found
- nothing specific has been alleged
- no official filing with the AG has been bothered to be made
No harm no foul?
You cannot accuse the President of bypassing AG Barr, when he hasn't done anything that "only AG Barr is allowed to do",
e.g. formally charge Biden with crimes
no bypassing of Barr
You accept, that the POTUS is allowed to have his own trusted "eyes & ears", yes?
(However, the intense reaction to even informal, preliminary investigation makes it look like Biden & Democrats have a lot to hide ??
Shouldn't everyone be suspicious and look there instead ???)
This would be false. AG Barr does not just "formally charge Biden with crimes." AG Barr has the FBI or even the power to appoint an Independent Prosecutor at his disposal to investigate "obvious smoke." It isn't the President's job to try and find the "dirt" that AG Barr would then use to prosecute -- that is literally Barr's job.
The issue here is that Trump never went to Barr, never told Barr to "do his job" and investigate. Instead, the President is doing the investigation himself along with his personal attorney (who has not been appointed as any type of envoy). But even if Giuliani had been appointed as a Presidential envoy, you would still need the official US investigation opened.
What Trump has done is completely bypassed the DoJ in investigating a political opponent, asking a foreign government to help him with that private investigation.
right, the POTUS has "eyes & ears" which do the investigations for the POTUS, correct ?
you're not saying that the POTUS should be "deaf & blind" and have no clue what's going on, are you ?
right, yes, exactly
and how would the "President feel Biden needed to be investigated" ?
By sending in his own "eyes & ears" (like Giuliani) to "sniff around" and see if there was anything actionable to bring to the AG's attention ?
Or, are you saying, that the POTUS should pester the AG on a whim with no evidence?
Then you seriously would be having an absolute field day!
"In the news today! Extra extra hear all about it! President calls AG on whim to investigate Biden on no evidence!"
So basically, you are saying the President is conducting a "witch hunt" on Biden? If there isn't enough evidence to go to AG Barr and ask him to open an investigation, then there isn't enough evidence for Trump to do his own investigation -- and there is clearly not enough evidence for him to ask a foreign government for assistance in his private investigation.
You are contradicting yourself here -- if there is enough evidence for any investigation, then he can go to the AG to say he feels an investigation should be opened. Democrats may have complained a bit but so long as Barr did things the right way, likely appointing an Independent Prosecutor who is seen as fair and honest, the Democrats would have had no legal basis to complain or cry of improprieties. Then Independent Prosecutor, or Barr (depending on how he handled it) could then easily use the treaty we have with Ukraine to get their assistance to investigate there.
Instead, the President is having his personal attorney investigate, asking a foreign government to help; even doing a quid pro quo (at least
per many Republicans now) to "force" them to help his private investigation. Can you not see how corrupt that looks?
You are putting
every cart before every horse, on the names "POTUS" and "AGOTUS"
You are throwing the President into the Chesapeake, saying:
- "he was innocent if he drowns [he should call the AG, before he has any evidence so he can be accused of abusing AG power]...
- if he floats he is guilty [if he sends his "eyes & ears" in to fact-find first before bothering the AG then he's accused of abusing his own power]"
Again, you can't have it both ways -- if there isn't enough evidence to open an official US investigation, there is not enough evidence for the President to do a "private" investigation to dig up enough "dirt" so he can open a US investigation. Instead, what you are describing appears to be a textbook definition of "witch hunt."
. Would you have loved it had he been a party hack loyal to Donald?
Do you really believe he had a plan ready to go? 
