• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Biden had no conflict of interest

Wait, wut?

Are you saying that Trump's action is definitely a criminal thing and that Biden's action is definitely not a criminal thing?

No, we are saying that trump’s actions are very very probably an abuse of power and definitely a conflict of interest.
And we are saying that there is no justification the joe biden had the appearance of a conflict since there was no connection between the prosecutor and Hunter.
 
And the campaign interference that came BEFORE Trump assumed the office? Was that "oversight" of the President as well?

Puh-lease.
If you are referring to the FISA warrant. The IG report comes out on Dec 8. And as i have already mentioned it is expected to show that there was no significant misconduct. There is some question about an email address that was changed on one page (out of 500?) but we still dont know the story behind that. Calling it interference sounds like the unfounded speculation from right wing media that was only meant to keep the base’s blood boiling during the election off season. If the IG report comes in as expected then we can conclude that you and many other people have been duped by the right wing elite again. Not blaming you. I blame the leaders that you follow.

What if the complaint is determined to be incredible and not urgent by whomever it is doing the review? I assumed that merely filling out the form correctly prompted the forwarding of the form.

Why would our system prescribe a process by which complaints against the in-power administration could be dismissed by the same in-power administration?

Seems very Democrat in a party kind of way.
 
Last edited:
There isn't.

It's the vital aid being contingent on a public announcement by name of investigations being made that is at issue.
If im being honest i can understand why that raises a red flag for people. Its fair to be skeptical of the motives behind that.

Whats unfair is to jump to the conclusion that the motive was for political gain when it can just as easily be deduced that it was asked for as an assurance thst what was said in private would be fillowed through on.

It could of been for either reason and absence of proof everyone gets the benefit of doubt.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
With the greatest respect, any president can fire anyone in the Executive Branch at any time for any reason. Or, for no reason. They all serve at the pleasure of the president.
Thank you for the respect! :)

What you said is true.
But there is more to the story.
After he fires those people, Congress can examine his behaviour. If they decide he is abusing his power they can take appropriate action against him.

So yes, he can fire who he wants, for whatever reason he wants but only if he doesn't care about pissing off Congress.

Mueller was investigating a person- not a crime. That's not how our justice system is designed to work.
I am not sure what the mandate of the mueller probe was. But if a person is exhibiting suspicious and possibly criminal behaviour, shouldn't they be investigated? Comey was not investigating the president. It was when only after Trump fired him that the president came under suspicion.

When a crime is committed, we are supposed to investigate to find out whodunnit. In this case, there's a hated individual being pursued with the intent to justify prescribed punishment against that hated individual. If the latter description sounds familiar, it should. It's the process employed by every Lynch Mob ever formed and by the Mueller Gang.


Both the FBI investigation and the Mueller probe have come under scrutiny by official bodies more than once. To my knowledge there has never been any finding of wrongdoing.

I should tell you my bias: I have always maintained that the right has a well oiled machine working overtime to discredit/minimize any and all findings of malfeasance by this president. FoxNews and conservative media being a central part of that machine. If you are consuming only news from right, you are more likely to think that the FBI is crooked as it applies to Trump, that Trump only lies occasionally, the mainstream media is fake, and that you should only assimilate information from sources that Trump approves of.

Since you probably have been bullied into not trusting the NYT or CNN, maybe the only things you can trust are non-partisan official reports from well-respected IGs. So why don't you wait for the latest to come out. Read the summary first hand and ignore conservative media reviews for 48 hours. And if after that you want accuse the probe of being biased or fake or whatever, then at least you will know it is YOU who came to that conclusion and not Fox n Friends.

If you can't drag yourself away from the news. Then the next best thing would be to give equal time to reading NYT and the Drudge report. Or Rachel Maddow/Chris Cuomo and... and... H- Ha- Hannity. ok wait. Not Hannity. Never him. Any other Fox host. but not Hannity.
 
Last edited:
Do we actually know that this was Obamas position? Or was Biden winging it?

We know that Biden said it and that Obama offered no correction.

"Qui tacet consentit" (silence implies consent).
 
for Trump, I believe it was criminal

for Biden, I honestly don't know and part of me would like to see more investigation on that because enough info isn't out yet.

However, I don't think what may have happened with the Bidens is an excuse for Trump to do what he did. I don't believe that we should excuse bad behavior because someone else did something wrong on general principle.

Is that really the question?

I don't care if this behavior is always excused or always reprimanded, but the reaction to the action should be the same, regardless of who initiated the action.

Either any particular action is ALWAYS a crime or it's NEVER a crime. This seems pretty basic to any interpretation of fairness.

If it's a crime when Trump does it, then it's a crime when Obama does it. If it's not a crime when Obama does it, then it's not a crime when Trump does it.

Isn't that the way it's supposed to work.

Excusing something because someone else did it is not the issue. Excusing or not excusing based on how you "feel" about the accused is the issue. This is inequality before the law.

The criminal is identified because he committed the crime, not because you really hate that/those guy(s). That's the whole problem with the ongoing attacks on Trump. There is no crime. Never was. They just hate Trump. Period.
 
the IG report coming out on Dec 8 is expected to show that the russia investigation was not improper. The fact that mueller couldn't find enough evidence to prove collusion is not proof that democrats are unfair monsters. Democrats didn't start the investigation. The system did when trump confessed to Lester Holt about why he fired Comey.

Your understanding will be greatly helped when you answer these two question:

1. When was the first of four FISA Warrants requested?

2. When was the interview you cite conducted?
 
The process that you are mischaracterizing is called “oversight”. Congress is obliged to conduct oversight of the president to make sure he does not become a tyrant. This is one of the primary functions of congress. Oversight is especially necessary when the intelligence IG determines a whistleblower complaint is “credible” and “urgent”. This is our system.

Our system is a good one when followed as it should be.

The whistle blower relayed what he wanted people to believe were his understandings of the understandings of people who had beliefs that colored their perception of whatever it is they thought they heard.

What they heard is apparently not what was actually discussed between Zelensky and Trump.

When the transcript was released, any additional follow up should have been dropped as being ridiculous.

Unfortunately, when ridiculous people are doing ridiculous things and are so far out on the limb sawing it off, either they admit they were lying or keep sawing.

We know what choice Schiff and Pelosi have made. At this point, hearing the testimony above the laughter should be becoming challenging.

All things considered, Swalwell's "background" comments provide more value than Schiff's verbal comments. They're certainly more easily proven and identifiable.
 
Under the IG's purview is the process of receiving the complaint and determining whether the complaint is credible, which he did as was stated in the IG's letter along with the claim being an "urgent concern". The IG doesn't make judgements beyond that; the investigation which follows will either prove or disprove the substance of the complaint.

If the investigation is an honestly conducted investigation, I have no problem. Who helped the whistle blower write the complaint and why did they help?

When the transcript of the call in question was released, any questions regarding the call should have been dismissed by any rational reviewer.

In light of the Schiff dramatic interpretation of the transcript lied into the Congressional Record, we know with absolute certainty that the investigation is NOT be conducted honestly.

I hope that the impeachment proceeds and that Schiff is called as a witness in the Senate Trial and then jailed for his crimes. Schiff is a dirty, lying crook with no ethics, morals or regard for justice.
 
Did you edit the words you present as the transcript or did politico?

Either way, what you present is a lie and intentionally deceptive and dishonest.

Are you the one who is lying or is it Politico?

Neither. The transcript from political seems to have some character errors, but thats minor and you can look at the PDF if you want. However, that PDF was not able to be copied and pasted.
 
Is that really the question?

I don't care if this behavior is always excused or always reprimanded, but the reaction to the action should be the same, regardless of who initiated the action.

Either any particular action is ALWAYS a crime or it's NEVER a crime. This seems pretty basic to any interpretation of fairness.

If it's a crime when Trump does it, then it's a crime when Obama does it. If it's not a crime when Obama does it, then it's not a crime when Trump does it.

Isn't that the way it's supposed to work.

Excusing something because someone else did it is not the issue. Excusing or not excusing based on how you "feel" about the accused is the issue. This is inequality before the law.

The criminal is identified because he committed the crime, not because you really hate that/those guy(s). That's the whole problem with the ongoing attacks on Trump. There is no crime. Never was. They just hate Trump. Period.

Ok, that part isn't up to debate for me. If people cross lines, it does not matter who they are.

You are making a pretty bold assumption that I am doing this based on ideology or who the person is, which is a straw man.
 
Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are two massive liars and they had to come up with something. So they pushed this story in hopes that they could cover for the corrupt president that they support each day.

It's actually worked on some of the rubes.
 
No. Two completely different things. One is a bull**** conspiracy theory with no facts that was created after the fact when it was politically convenient. The trump investigations have been rooted in reality and we're solid when you looked at the evidence and the staggering dishonesty coming from the trump campaign and administration. Not to mention that a number of people went to jail and we're indicted due to those investigations. Two completely different things.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

The highlighted part of your comment is surprisingly accurate.

They went to jail EXCLUSIVELY due to those investigations. If the investigations never happened, then the indictments and convictions for process crimes like lying to the FBI would never have been committed.

I haven't heard of any indictments, convictions or pleas connected to any of the Collusion BS or anything else the raving lunatics in the Lynch mobs keep raving about.

Have there been any? Seems more like just three plus years of police-state harassment, selective enforcement of wildly exaggerated trivialities and wide ranging election interference by the Democrat-Socialists so far.
 
If the investigation is an honestly conducted investigation, I have no problem. Who helped the whistle blower write the complaint and why did they help?

When the transcript of the call in question was released, any questions regarding the call should have been dismissed by any rational reviewer.

In light of the Schiff dramatic interpretation of the transcript lied into the Congressional Record, we know with absolute certainty that the investigation is NOT be conducted honestly.

I hope that the impeachment proceeds and that Schiff is called as a witness in the Senate Trial and then jailed for his crimes. Schiff is a dirty, lying crook with no ethics, morals or regard for justice.


Well the problem is in this time of hyper partisanship, the assumption is that the other side is never acting in good faith so there seem to be endless rabbit holes as it relates to the recent investigation being "honest". For starters what was released was not a transcript, and anyone conducting an investigation isn't going to stop because one item is presented; and one which isn't even a verbatim version of the call. The refusal by the administration to release other documents and preventing key officials from testifying raises other questions as well, since they could have cleared all of this up if this was indeed a sham. I can't help but think that there's more going on in the administration that they didn't want exposed through testimony. I'm not quite sure how one comes to a conclusion of one side not being honest when the other continues to obstruct.
 
If the investigation is an honestly conducted investigation, I have no problem. Who helped the whistle blower write the complaint and why did they help?
It doesn't matter. It just does not matter. I don't care if George Soros, adam schiff, Barack Obama, the chinese, the russians and the entirety of democratic candidates helped him write it. It doesn't change the facts that we have learned since then. Get over it! The whistle blower is no longer relevant unless you are looking to make an example of what happens to people who produce incriminating evidence against the president.



When the transcript of the call in question was released, any questions regarding the call should have been dismissed by any rational reviewer.
I am rational. In that call, I saw with my very own eyes the president call for an investigation of his primary political rival. That fact alone is enough to prove illegal activity. He used the influence of his presidency to solicit something of value from foreign nationals in connection with a US election, which according to the chair of the FEC is a against the law. The kindest thing that a "rational reviewer" could say about that is that it has the "appearance of a conflict of interest" which is also against the law. But thats being kind. Yet you have deluded yourselves into thinking that it's all completely cool. No. You are not thinking straight from the facts before us. The power of wishful thinking helps you cling to "the call was perfect" narrative. In other words, you are part of the intransigent, immovable, impenetrable Trump base. A recent poll shows that 70% (CNN) of Americans can also see that the president did something wrong. 50% of americans want him removed (vs. 43% saying no).



In light of the Schiff dramatic interpretation of the transcript lied into the Congressional Record, we know with absolute certainty that the investigation is NOT be conducted honestly.
Schiff made it clear in real time that his recount was interpretive, not literal. Republicans pounced on his performance and pretended that he attempted to straight up lie. I will admit it was a little cheap on Schiff's part. But as usual, republicans seized upon this opportunity to blow things way out of proportion. They will do the same with the IG report email blip too. Masters of spin. Masters!



I hope that the impeachment proceeds and that Schiff is called as a witness in the Senate Trial and then jailed for his crimes. Schiff is a dirty, lying crook with no ethics, morals or regard for justice.
And his crimes are exactly what?
Republican accuse dems of being angry, lawless, irrational, and suppressive of freedom of speech. Why do you think Schiff should be in jail?
 
The highlighted part of your comment is surprisingly accurate.

They went to jail EXCLUSIVELY due to those investigations. If the investigations never happened, then the indictments and convictions for process crimes like lying to the FBI would never have been committed.

I haven't heard of any indictments, convictions or pleas connected to any of the Collusion BS or anything else the raving lunatics in the Lynch mobs keep raving about.

Have there been any? Seems more like just three plus years of police-state harassment, selective enforcement of wildly exaggerated trivialities and wide ranging election interference by the Democrat-Socialists so far.
If you for some reason think it's ok for people to lie to the FBI just to protect the piece of **** president then that's your problem. Manafort was charged with other crimes also. And Flynn likely would have been charged with other crimes like failing to register as a foreign agent but took a guilty plea.

There is no such thing as a process crime in US law. It's just a crime. The "process crime" claim is horse**** by desperate trump supporters. I pity them.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
Joe Biden did nothing wrong by pressuring Ukraine to fire their prosecutor.

The prosecutor was not investigating Burisma, or much else for that matter. And there was no indication that would change in the future. This is why the international community and the US wanted him gone. He was doing nothing to stop corruption.

Since there was no connection between the prosecutor and Hunter, there was no conflict of interest when Joe pushed for the firing the prosecutor.

So whats all the commotion about?
The thing is, everybody knows hunter got those millions as a way to influence his dad, and it smells pretty bad. So many are willing to assume the worst about Biden’s firing stunt, whether there is proof or not of a connection.
 
The thing is, everybody knows hunter got those millions as a way to influence his dad, and it smells pretty bad. So many are willing to assume the worst about Biden’s firing stunt, whether there is proof or not of a connection.

I haven't seen any evidence of why hunter got those millions (millions? I thought it was tens of thousands. is it millions now?)
 
Joe Biden did nothing wrong by pressuring Ukraine to fire their prosecutor.

The prosecutor was not investigating Burisma, or much else for that matter. And there was no indication that would change in the future. This is why the international community and the US wanted him gone. He was doing nothing to stop corruption.

Since there was no connection between the prosecutor and Hunter, there was no conflict of interest when Joe pushed for the firing the prosecutor.

So whats all the commotion about?

Dunno for sure, but might have something to do with this:

Ukrainian to US prosecutors: Why don't you want our evidence on Democrats?

Ukrainian law enforcement officials believe they have evidence of wrongdoing by American Democrats and their allies in Kiev, ranging from 2016 election interference to obstructing criminal probes. But, they say, they’ve been thwarted in trying to get the Trump Justice Department to act.

Kostiantyn Kulyk, deputy head of the Prosecutor General’s International Legal Cooperation Department, told me he and other senior law enforcement officials tried unsuccessfully since last year to get visas from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev to deliver their evidence to Washington.

“We were supposed to share this information during a working trip to the United States,” Kulyk told me in a wide-ranging interview. “However, the [U.S.] ambassador blocked us from obtaining a visa. She didn’t explicitly deny our visa, but also didn’t give it to us.”

One focus of Ukrainian investigators, Kulyk said, has been money spirited unlawfully out of Ukraine and moved to the United States by businessmen friendly to the prior, pro-Russia regime of Viktor Yanukovych.

Ukrainian businessmen “authorized payments for lobbying efforts directed at the U.S. government,” he told me. “In addition, these payments were made from funds that were acquired during the money-laundering operation. We have information that a U.S. company was involved in these payments.” That company is tied to one or more prominent Democrats, Ukrainian officials insist.

In another instance, he said, Ukrainian authorities gathered evidence that money paid to an American Democrat allegedly was hidden by Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) during the 2016 election under pressure from U.S. officials. “In the course of this investigation, we found that there was a situation during which influence was exerted on the NABU, so that the name of [the American] would not be mentioned,” he said.

Ukrainian Prosecutor General Claims U.S. Ambassador Gave him ‘Do Not Prosecute’ List
On March 20, Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yurii Lutsenko did an interview with the U.S. publication The Hill, during which he claimed, among other things, that when he first met U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, she “gave” him a list of people who should not be prosecuted by his office. According to The Hill, Lutsenko said that he replied by telling the ambassador: “My response of that is it is inadmissible. Nobody in this country, neither our president nor our parliament nor our ambassador, will stop me from prosecuting whether there is a crime.” Lutsenko did not name anyone from this alleged list.

Meh. Smells like there's something there, and would certainly warrant a close investigation to determine the facts.
 
I haven't seen any evidence of why hunter got those millions (millions? I thought it was tens of thousands. is it millions now?)

$88,000 per month adds up quickly when no one is there to prosecute the Burisma CEO.

"Well, son of a B, he was fired."

Said Joe Biden to an assembled audience on camera.
 
Dunno for sure, but might have something to do with this:





Meh. Smells like there's something there, and would certainly warrant a close investigation to determine the facts.

If there was something there Bill Barr would have welcomed the evidence with open arms. There can't be anything there. Unless Bill Barr is now a democratic operative. Hmm... Y' think?
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen any evidence of why hunter got those millions (millions? I thought it was tens of thousands. is it millions now?)

The evidence is in the circumstance.


A poor 17 year girl marries a rich 80 year old man. There is no evidence of gold digging, yet we all know that is likely the case. It smells bad.
 
Joe Biden did nothing wrong by pressuring Ukraine to fire their prosecutor.

The prosecutor was not investigating Burisma, or much else for that matter. And there was no indication that would change in the future. This is why the international community and the US wanted him gone. He was doing nothing to stop corruption.

Since there was no connection between the prosecutor and Hunter, there was no conflict of interest when Joe pushed for the firing the prosecutor.

So whats all the commotion about?

Is your discussion actually troll bait?
 
Back
Top Bottom