Was Hunter Biden qualified to serve on the Board of a Ukraine gas Company?

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Hillary Clinton was a private citizen when she hired Steele to dig up possibly damaging information on Trump. And she did not hold up Congress approved funding from Russia as a quid pro quo. I have no problem with her doing what she did. That is politics today.

If Trump held up funds from the Ukraine unless they agreed to investigate the Bidens that is WRONG, no matter how you look at it. Why didn't he do it as soon as he took office? Maybe because the next presidential election was, at the time, a little more than a year away and Biden was the leading candidate to oppose him. No, Biden is not immune from investigation. If he did something wrong he should be held accountable. The timing was rather suspect though.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...under-scrutiny.

I agree with you that Trump holding up funds to the Ukraine for 55 days is something that is legally permissible. I also agree that there is no problem with Trump asking the Ukraine to investigate an American citizen, no matter who that person is.

But when you combine the 2 actions that is where an impeachable offense may come into play. As I said, it is most certainly wrong to do it in my opinion and the opinion of many others. I don't think Trump has ever said it was right to do. Instead he said he didn't do it.

One more comment. You said even though Hillary broke the law, you have no problem with her doing what she did. That's politics today.


Then it should be easy to understand that even though Trump may have violated the letter of the law, all things considered, I have no problem with what he did. You are right, that is politics today.


Let the people decide. What's the left afraid of, that he might win again? I mean it will make more room for immigrants with all the people that say they will leave if Trump is re-elected. The mass suicides might be un-pleasant but again, more room for those immigrants.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

One more comment. You said even though Hillary broke the law, you have no problem with her doing what she did. That's politics today.


Then it should be easy to understand that even though Trump may have violated the letter of the law, all things considered, I have no problem with what he did. You are right, that is politics today.


Let the people decide. What's the left afraid of, that he might win again? I mean it will make more room for immigrants with all the people that say they will leave if Trump is re-elected. The mass suicides might be un-pleasant but again, more room for those immigrants.

Nobody thinks Trump is going to get thrown out of office. The people will decide. Nobody was going to jail for Benghazi...it was political show.

Just roll withit and wait until Nov 2020. Then we can see if this had any effect.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

One more comment. You said even though Hillary broke the law, you have no problem with her doing what she did. That's politics today.

Then it should be easy to understand that even though Trump may have violated the letter of the law, all things considered, I have no problem with what he did. You are right, that is politics today.

Let the people decide. What's the left afraid of, that he might win again? I mean it will make more room for immigrants with all the people that say they will leave if Trump is re-elected. The mass suicides might be un-pleasant but again, more room for those immigrants.

Where did I say Hillary Clinton broke the law? What law do you think she broke regarding asking Steele to dig up possible damaging information on Trump? If she in fact did break the law then I do have a problem with that.

And I agree with WTF's comments. Even if Trump is impeached he will not be convicted. Then the voters will decide in November 2020.

[bill sins]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

huh? I didn't grow up in a Whore-mongering household, but that doesn't mean I'm not qualified to post 200+ reviews on a Hooker Board, LOL.

can you be a little more insightful?

You are a bit of a fraud, like Hunter, actually. Vast majority of your reviews are Spa ladies not actually considered hookers. You are not in same league as Abe or the other big hitters on site. Just a pretender.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Where did I say Hillary Clinton broke the law? What law do you think she broke regarding asking Steele to dig up possible damaging information on Trump? If she in fact did break the law then I do have a problem with that.

And I agree with WTF's comments. Even if Trump is impeached he will not be convicted. Then the voters will decide in November 2020.

Steele being a British citizen for purposes of the law, that makes him a foreign national even if he is a retired MI6 operative that worked with our Intelligence agencies in the past.


You'll also notice that the law makes no distinction between a private citizen and a President.


https://www.fec.gov/regulations/110-...110#110-20-c-2


Solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of contributions and donations from foreign nationals.

No person shall

knowinglysolicit

, accept, or receive from a

foreign national

any contribution or

donation

prohibited by paragraphs

(b)

through

(d)

of this section.



Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections.

A

foreign national

shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a

donation

of money or other thing of value, or expressly or implicitly promise to make a contribution or a

donation

, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

In plain English, when Hillary Clinton paid through a law firm and an opposition research firm Fusion GPS and hired Christopher Steele, a foreign national to investigate ( dig up dirt if you prefer since it is the language Democrats seem to prefer ) and worse yet, Steele got that information from Russians, who I thought we weren't suppose to trust and talk to, she broke the law.

Remember when the Democrats just knew that Don Jr. would be guilty of breaking this same law when he agreed to meet a Russian lawyer in Trump Tower who told him she had dirt on Hillary and Jr. said he would love to see that? Even when no such dirt was given to Jr. he still technically violated the law because he solicited such information. Mueller decided that Don Jr. didn't have the intent to break the law because he probably didn't know the law.When Hillary hired Steele to solicit information from the Russians to be used against Trump, she broke the law but Democrats didn't give a wit about it and still don't to this day.

I think it was WTF who told me that I know darn well that if Hillary had been elected, she would have under gone the same impeachment inquiry for the very same reason Trump is. I said, I believe that to be true but since she was never charged much less prosecuted for breaking the same law that Democrats now want to impeach Trump over "asking a foreign national to "dig up dirt" I prefer investigate, on a political opponent they could be facing in an up coming election, then I'm not going to get excited about Trump doing the very same thing.

My position is Yes, Trump "could be" seen to have broken this law but as President, as I have explained before, he had an obligation ( or so it could be argued ) not to send money to a possible corrupt government until they investigated what on it's surface looked like corruption by Hunter and possibly Joe Biden when Joe told the Ukrainians that if they don't fire their prosecutor, they wouldn't be getting a billion dollars, the very definition of a quid pro quo. "If you don't do this for me, I'm not giving you a billion dollars". You have seen the video, right? Now the excuse is that everybody and their brother wanted that prosecutor fired. Pretty sure the law regarding quid pro quo does not say if you have the right number of people agreeing with you, that makes it OK. It is offering money for an official act.

My position is, if we are not going to hold Hillary and Joe Biden accountable, then I'm not going to hold Trump accountable. Simple as that.


And if we all agree that Trump will never be convicted, what was the point of this other than to try and make his re-election less likely which seems to be an abrogation of the oath Dems took to do what's right for the country, not what's right for their party which is again, exactly what Democrats say Republicans are doing, putting party over country.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Steele being a British citizen for purposes of the law, that makes him a foreign national even if he is a retired MI6 operative that worked with our Intelligence agencies in the past.


You'll also notice that the law makes no distinction between a private citizen and a President.


https://www.fec.gov/regulations/110-...110#110-20-c-2


Solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of contributions and donations from foreign nationals.

No person shall

knowinglysolicit

, accept, or receive from a

foreign national

any contribution or

donation

prohibited by paragraphs

(b)

through

(d)

of this section.



Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections.

A

foreign national

shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a

donation

of money or other thing of value, or expressly or implicitly promise to make a contribution or a

donation

, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

In plain English, when Hillary Clinton paid through a law firm and an opposition research firm Fusion GPS and hired Christopher Steele, a foreign national to investigate ( dig up dirt if you prefer since it is the language Democrats seem to prefer ) and worse yet, Steele got that information from Russians, who I thought we weren't suppose to trust and talk to, she broke the law.

Remember when the Democrats just knew that Don Jr. would be guilty of breaking this same law when he agreed to meet a Russian lawyer in Trump Tower who told him she had dirt on Hillary and Jr. said he would love to see that? Even when no such dirt was given to Jr. he still technically violated the law because he solicited such information. Mueller decided that Don Jr. didn't have the intent to break the law because he probably didn't know the law.When Hillary hired Steele to solicit information from the Russians to be used against Trump, she broke the law but Democrats didn't give a wit about it and still don't to this day.

I think it was WTF who told me that I know darn well that if Hillary had been elected, she would have under gone the same impeachment inquiry for the very same reason Trump is. I said, I believe that to be true but since she was never charged much less prosecuted for breaking the same law that Democrats now want to impeach Trump over "asking a foreign national to "dig up dirt" I prefer investigate, on a political opponent they could be facing in an up coming election, then I'm not going to get excited about Trump doing the very same thing.

My position is Yes, Trump "could be" seen to have broken this law but as President, as I have explained before, he had an obligation ( or so it could be argued ) not to send money to a possible corrupt government until they investigated what on it's surface looked like corruption by Hunter and possibly Joe Biden when Joe told the Ukrainians that if they don't fire their prosecutor, they wouldn't be getting a billion dollars, the very definition of a quid pro quo. "If you don't do this for me, I'm not giving you a billion dollars". You have seen the video, right? Now the excuse is that everybody and their brother wanted that prosecutor fired. Pretty sure the law regarding quid pro quo does not say if you have the right number of people agreeing with you, that makes it OK. It is offering money for an official act.

My position is, if we are not going to hold Hillary and Joe Biden accountable, then I'm not going to hold Trump accountable. Simple as that.

First, I like the way you present your arguments.

In the two "definitions" you supplied, I see nothing in there stating that is illegal for someone like me to hire someone from another country in order to gather information regarding an opponent in an election. Since the word "donation" is highlighted and paragraphs d through e are not spelled out, I don't call the dossier Steele submitted to Clinton to be a "donation". This was a paid-for work product, not a donation. The source of the information is irrelevant. So again I ask what law did Hillary Clinton break? There has been a great deal of discussion about the Steele dossier and those who attack Clinton say she should not have accepted the information without checking it out, but I don't believe anyone questioned whether or not she broke the law by simply obtaining it. And to support my opinion:

Speaking of opposition research, what’s the deal with Steele dossier?

In 2016, lawyers for Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid a company named Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump and his campaign. Fusion GPS then hired a former British spy named Christopher Steele to compile information about Trump’s ties to Russia, all of which ended up in a dossier.

Republicans have long had an issue with the dossier, but this week, Republicans, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), used it to deflect from Trump’s comments. Graham said that all public officials should contact the FBI if approached by a foreign government, but added that “this has not been a recent practice and we saw that come to a head during the 2016 presidential campaign.”

But Graham pointed to the Clinton campaign as his example. “During that race, we had a major American political party hire a foreign national, Christopher Steele, to dig up dirt on an American presidential candidate,” he tweeted.

Experts told me that when it comes to campaign finance law, hiring or contracting a foreigner to do services for a campaign is allowed. “You can pay a foreign national to provide you with services, so a campaign, for instance, could have a campaign attorney who is a Canadian citizen,” Levinson said. “As long as you pay fair market rates for those services, that’s not what the federal campaign act says is prohibited. That’s just a fair exchange of money for services.”

If this kind of seems like a loophole, experts pointed out that it would be really hard to run a campaign otherwise. It would mean having to worry if the campaign signs you printed came from a foreign company, or if the catering firm you hired had foreign workers.

If a campaign is paying someone for work or services, they’re being compensated. But where that doesn’t happen, and a campaign is accepting a contribution — or “thing of value” — from a foreign government, the question then is what’s in it for them?


https://www.vox.com/2019/6/14/186776...ec-illegal-fbi

So based on that I do not believe Clinton broke any laws regarding obtaining the Steele dossier. And I never said Trump broke any laws. The POTUS does not have to break a law to be impeached. What he is alleged to have done is to me highly unethical. Whether it is unethical enough to warrant impeachment I'll let the House decide that. And if they do decide to impeach, I'll abide by the Senate's decision as to guilty or not. Yes, Joe Biden did a quid pro quo with the Ukraine but his quid pro quo had no impact on a future election in this country. Earlier this year Trump withheld funds from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador until they agreed to stop the flow of immigrants from their countries to the U.S. A quid pro quo with which no one had any problems..

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Hillary Clinton was a private citizen when she hired Steele to dig up possibly damaging information on Trump. And she did not hold up Congress approved funding from Russia as a quid pro quo. I have no problem with her doing what she did. That is politics today.

If Trump held up funds from the Ukraine unless they agreed to investigate the Bidens that is WRONG, no matter how you look at it. Why didn't he do it as soon as he took office? Maybe because the next presidential election was, at the time, a little more than a year away and Biden was the leading candidate to oppose him. No, Biden is not immune from investigation. If he did something wrong he should be held accountable. The timing was rather suspect though.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...under-scrutiny.

I agree with you that Trump holding up funds to the Ukraine for 55 days is something that is legally permissible. I also agree that there is no problem with Trump asking the Ukraine to investigate an American citizen, no matter who that person is.

But when you combine the 2 actions that is where an impeachable offense may come into play. As I said, it is most certainly wrong to do it in my opinion and the opinion of many others. I don't think Trump has ever said it was right to do. Instead he said he didn't do it.

You don't know what you are talking about. Hillary Clinton certainly conspired with a foreign Government which is treason and that's a crime. It's also against our foreign policy to give financial aid to a corrupt country Biden violated that policy. Trump only withheld military aid to Ukraine to determine there status on corruption. Once Trump realized the new Ukrainian President was determined to combat corruption the Military aid was released. Investigating the Biden's was never a condition for Military aid. I don't care what media reports or how you want to interpret Adam Schiff's words or the testimony of the so called witnesses in the "Shampeachment Hearing" It's all a ridiculous cluster fuck. But it's ok, because the Democrats are going to get what's coming to them.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

First, I like the way you present your arguments.

In the two "definitions" you supplied, I see nothing in there stating that is illegal for someone like me to hire someone from another country in order to gather information regarding an opponent in an election. Since the word "donation" is highlighted and paragraphs d through e are not spelled out, I don't call the dossier Steele submitted to Clinton to be a "donation". This was a paid-for work product, not a donation. The source of the information is irrelevant. So again I ask what law did Hillary Clinton break? There has been a great deal of discussion about the Steele dossier and those who attack Clinton say she should not have accepted the information without checking it out, but I don't believe anyone questioned whether or not she broke the law by simply obtaining it. And to support my opinion:

Speaking of opposition research, what’s the deal with Steele dossier?

In 2016, lawyers for Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid a company named Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump and his campaign. Fusion GPS then hired a former British spy named Christopher Steele to compile information about Trump’s ties to Russia, all of which ended up in a dossier.

Republicans have long had an issue with the dossier, but this week, Republicans, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), used it to deflect from Trump’s comments. Graham said that all public officials should contact the FBI if approached by a foreign government, but added that “this has not been a recent practice and we saw that come to a head during the 2016 presidential campaign.”

But Graham pointed to the Clinton campaign as his example. “During that race, we had a major American political party hire a foreign national, Christopher Steele, to dig up dirt on an American presidential candidate,” he tweeted.

Experts told me that when it comes to campaign finance law, hiring or contracting a foreigner to do services for a campaign is allowed. “You can pay a foreign national to provide you with services, so a campaign, for instance, could have a campaign attorney who is a Canadian citizen,” Levinson said. “As long as you pay fair market rates for those services, that’s not what the federal campaign act says is prohibited. That’s just a fair exchange of money for services.”

If this kind of seems like a loophole, experts pointed out that it would be really hard to run a campaign otherwise. It would mean having to worry if the campaign signs you printed came from a foreign company, or if the catering firm you hired had foreign workers.

If a campaign is paying someone for work or services, they’re being compensated. But where that doesn’t happen, and a campaign is accepting a contribution — or “thing of value” — from a foreign government, the question then is what’s in it for them?


https://www.vox.com/2019/6/14/186776...ec-illegal-fbi

So based on that I do not believe Clinton broke any laws regarding obtaining the Steele dossier. And I never said Trump broke any laws. The POTUS does not have to break a law to be impeached. What he is alleged to have done is to me highly unethical. Whether it is unethical enough to warrant impeachment I'll let the House decide that. And if they do decide to impeach, I'll abide by the Senate's decision as to guilty or not. Yes, Joe Biden did a quid pro quo with the Ukraine but his quid pro quo had no impact on a future election in this country. Earlier this year Trump withheld funds from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador until they agreed to stop the flow of immigrants from their countries to the U.S. A quid pro quo with which no one had any problems..

I'll return the compliment and say I appreciate you doing the research to back up your argument. I'm very familiar with the source you used and as with most of these issues, different legal scholars present different arguments. That's why we see 5 to 4 decisions on the SC. I ask myself, these are supposed to be the brightest of the brightest, the people who know the law the best and 5 see it one way and 4 the other, how can that be?



Let me take a few of your comments and give my reply. I'll put your comments in blue to keep your comments distinct from mine



Since the word "donation" is highlighted and paragraphs d through e are not spelled out, I don't call the dossier Steele submitted to Clinton to be a "donation".


I've been making this argument for years. A little back story. I was on another board for 15 years until it was recently taken down and I had to find a new place to debate. This is always part of the argument. It doesn't have to be a "donation" which is why I posted the second section. It says one may not make a donation of money or "other thing of value". This was discussed in the Mueller consideration of what Don Jr. did. Jr. solicited a "thing of value" which if one reads the whole law sees that "information is a thing of value". One may not receive a thing of value, information from a foreign national. Notice that no where in the law does it give an exception that if you pay for it, it's OK. Like most other things, there are two ways of looking at this too. Some say that unless the words give an exception, an exception can not be assumed while others say if it doesn't say you can't, then you can. Being a literalist when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, my position has always been, if the exception isn't there in the words, it can not be assumed.


This was a paid-for work product, not a donation.


It was "something of value" and it was given by a foreign national. No where does it say if you pay the foreign national, it's OK the idea being that foreign nationals should play no part in opposition research.

or if the catering firm you hired had foreign workers.



Come on now, surely you can see the fallacy in that argument. You can have a foreign worker do all kinds of jobs for you or some think but opposition research isn't one of them because a foreign country could be providing disinformation which according to Dr. Hill, is exactly what Russia did to Steele who passed it to Hillary to be used against her opponent and that's why the law says unequivocally that information from a foreign source may not be used, period. Would it surprise you to find out that Bernie Sanders was fined for a federal election campaign violation for using foreign workers on his campaign something you just told me was OK by law?


https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/collusion-complaint-says-sanders-violated-federal-election-laws-by-hiring-non-american-campaign-advisers/

It noted that three members of the Sanders campaign are foreign nationals, and that’s a clear violation of federal election laws that prohibit foreign interference.

The source of the information is irrelevant


It most certainly is not as I just explained. Ask yourself knowing what we now know, "do we want information from Russia used in our elections"? Isn't that exactly what we are now trying to prevent so diligently?



There has been a great deal of discussion about the Steele dossier and those who attack Clinton say she should not have accepted the information without checking it out, but I don't believe anyone questioned whether or not she broke the law by simply obtaining it.


As you can clearly see, there are a great number of people questioning whether she broke the law or not and it doesn't matter whether she accepted it or not, she "solicited it" and she hired a foreign national to do that and to get it from Russia. When The Dems were calling for Don Jr. to be prosecuted, the right was making the same argument. "He didn't actually receive any information" they said. Doesn't matter, the law says you may not solicit it whether you get it or not. Much like if you broke into a house to steal something but you found nothing, you still broke the law. If you shot at somebody but missed, you still broke the law. The act doesn't have to be completed. Isn't that the argument that Repubs are making about Trump not getting his speech from Valensky in order to get his money? Republicans are saying that since he got his money and never gave the speech, there was no quid pro quo but the fact that he asked for it "technically" violates the law or so say the Dem's.



“You can pay a foreign national to provide you with services


Again, ( although the fine against Sanders would seem to invalidate that theory ) agreed like catering or making those signs you talked about but services is not the same as oppo research, information, "dirt" for the sole purpose of using it against your political opponent. That is what the law forbids and trying to conflate the two is easily IMHO distinguishable but partisans will conflate the two to advance their narrative IMHO.



The POTUS does not have to break a law to be impeached.


That's why I posted the article by Johnathan Turly a respected Constitutional scholar who said that phrase is incorrect. The House should base an impeachment on the law otherwise any President could be impeached for anything the other party didn't like including his policies they disagree with. And when this gets to the Senate and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is presiding, do you think he thinks a President can be impeached without presenting a legal argument with defined laws ( statutes ) given? Why should the House be any different? Pelosi is said to have conducted a focus group and asked what was the best word to use since quid pro quo didn't seem to be doing the trick and guess what word was agreed upon as being the best? Bribery which by definition is a legal term and must have a legal argument to prove it and Bribery is not what ever the House says it is, it is defined by law and if you can't prove that law, you can't prove bribery.



Yes, Joe Biden did a quid pro quo with the Ukraine but his quid pro quo had no impact on a future election in this country.


Again, IMHO, you are conflating two arguments. The law says that a quid pro quo is "I'll give you something if you give me something", an official act are the exact words used in the law. Firing the prosecutor of another country is asking for an official act for which I will give you money. The classic definition of a quid pro quo and the law says nothing about how it must have something to do with an election. Those are added words that do not appear in the definition of a quid pro quo but do appear in the federal election law I quoted. Remember at best, this is a federal election law violation which is usually punishable with a fine, not impeachment.


Hillary through Steele, asked a foreign government to provide dirt on he opponent in a federal election.


Trump asked a foreign government to provide an investigation an investigation that I think even Democrats are now starting to believe is necessary to find out if their candidate actually was involved in a corrupt act.


This notion that a President is not above the law isn't true either. There are a number of things a President can do that an ordinary citizen can't do and I believe that a President may ask a foreign country to investigate a political opponent if that political opponent participated in a quid pro quo whether it was for a personal matter or not. If there was an obvious ( which there was ) appearance of impropriety. The President had a duty to find out if Ukraine was finally going to investigate corruption and Burisma was corrupt and who better to ask what he knew about corruption than a member of the board of Burisma.


Tonight Biden is really pissed that Graham is asking for information on Hunter to be used in any Senate trial. I Think Dem's will rue the day they started this and I can't wait to put Adam Schiff before the camera's and swear under oath he didn't know who the whistle blower was like he has said and if he continues with his lie IMHO, his staff will be called and asked under penalty if that's true. Imagine if they say, it's not true and Schiff is prosecuted for lying to Congress. The perfect ending IMHO.

[dilbert firestorm]

what laws did Hillary break?

let see...

running an illegal mail server
improperly mis-classifying classified email
destruction of govt. property
obstuction of justice

did I miss anything else?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

First, I like the way you present your arguments.

In the two "definitions" you supplied, I see nothing in there stating that is illegal for someone like me to hire someone from another country in order to gather information regarding an opponent in an election.

#1: You're not qualified to "see ... in there"!

#2: If you are, you might want to inform Rep. ShitFace!

[oeb11]

HF and SR - thank you for a reasoned debate - well written.

a thought - SR- "Yes, Joe Biden did a quid pro quo with the Ukraine but his quid pro quo had no impact on a future election in this country."
i agree Biden committed a quid pro quo in Ukraine - and admitted it on tape. The same "bribery" the DPST's are desperate to tar Trump with - but terrified of forwarding to the Senate for open, bi-partisan testimony and rules of evidence. They know it is a failure from the get go.


If "no effect" is the standard for exoneration of criminal action by the DPST's - and Republicans - we have a non-viable criminal code - everyone gets off by pleading "no effect" on an outcome.



Disagree strongly with that argument, SR. It is being an apologist for the DPST side, and hypocritical toward what the DPST House is doing to Trump in Schiff's faux impeachment show. It is a slanted partisan effort, and it stinks.



I think you are smarter and better than that - SR - You have shown it many times in cogent arguments.

That rationale does not fly, IMHO.

Respectfully, SR.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

what laws did Hillary break?

let see...

running an illegal mail server
improperly mis-classifying classified email
destruction of govt. property
obstuction of justice

did I miss anything else?

That is why I tried to limit the discussion to a specific charge rather than go down several unproven rabbit holes. The discussion of possible breaking of the law regarding Clinton and Steele. The other items you mentioned have been discussed ad infinitum on this forum. Trump has had almost 3 years in office to push for an investigation of Clinton and has failed to do so.

"What law do you think she broke regarding asking Steele to dig up possible damaging information on Trump?"

[oeb11]

3 years in office - does not mean H... is not responsible for criminal activity under the law.

I do not know what the statute of limitations for those types of offenses - listed by DF - or when that might kick in to protect H....
The DOJ appears loathe to prosecute any former POTUS or POTUS candidate unless it is major crime and air-tight non-debatable - and perhaps that is as it should be.

Same as prosecuting for crimes after exiting office- see Ford's pardon of Nixon.



I decry the hypocrisy of the DPST;s for attempting to criminalize Trump for behavior they exhibit themselves. Hypocrites.

[nevergaveitathought]

i would submit that anything trump might have been interested in, in Ukraine, was substantially moré about righting ills that had been wrought during and for the 2016 election process than some future election

and about crimes that might have been committed during the obama/biden era

of course the effect of the past on the future is unavoidable but since when does running for office insulate someone from investigation? witness trump and his campaign in 2016

to me the argument that trump might have been all about merely taking down a current "front runner" adversary falls completely flat

[oeb11]

NGIT-"of course the effect of the past on the future is unavoidable but since when does running for office insulate someone from investigation?"


DPST's are convinced that running for office confers absolute immunity on all their candidates.
They are desperate to cover up for Biden as the only semi-viable non-socialist demagogue candidate they have.