• 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!

What's wrong with Trump investigating Biden corruption? Isn't that his job?

SonOfDaedalus

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Messages
14,616
Reaction score
9,966
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
What's wrong with Trump investigating Biden corruption? Isn't that his job?


The Ukranian president needs military aid to defend his country. He's in the midst of a civil war with Russian backed separatists.

Trump will give him aid. Now Trump asks him for a small favor. He wants him to investigate Biden. So what does he need to do to make Trump happy?

Can he come back to Trump and say, "We investigated Biden and found no wrongdoing?" Would that make Trump happy? Would Trump keep sending aid if that were the result of the "investigation"? Of course not.

So, his job would be to investigate but if he could find no evidence of wrongdoing he would need to manufacture some. He would need to convince people to give false testimony against Biden and indict Biden in Ukraine. That's what would make Trump happy.

So, I hope this makes it clear why it's wrong for the president to ask a foreign government to investigate his political opponents.

God help us if we are foolish enough to give presidents this power.
 

Sigh.

It "makes it clear" about as clear as a window caked in mud after a mud-slinging contest. :roll:

First of all, it is a stretch to interpret the reported conversation in the declassified memorandum as any kind of quid pro quo. There is no "do me a favor or nothing for you," appearing at any point.

Second, Trump asked for several things regarding past corruption because they were both talking about the issue of wasted funding due to corruption. Among those issues was the issue of Hunter Biden's role in investments back when his father was VP. There was also the open admission by Joe Biden himself, bragging how he gave the Ukrainian government "six hours to fire that prosecutor or no aid!"

That is a FACT, and something that if Trump had actually done in this conversation, your side would be calling evidence of abuse of power, corruption, and interference in a foreign government's business.

Finally, you are arguing affirming the consequent with that "what if Ukraine did investigate but could find no wrongdoing, they would have to lie" fallacious point.

You assume Trump would not accept it, and that the threat of withholding aid you and others are projecting is factual rather than your assumed consequence.

Finally, the argument is that this is all about the 2020 election. That by extension even if there might be malfeasance on the part of Mr. Biden of the sort your side regularly attributes as misconduct on the part of the current President, that should make it off limits because of "candidate immunity." Well no one on the Left side seemed to think Trump was immune from investigation by the Obama Administration for "Russian conspiracy" despite HIS running for election.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
God help us if we are foolish enough to give presidents this power.
Click to expand...

Your thesis is all assumptions and conjecture. You have tried this is a dozen post. It didn't fly then and it doesn't fly now.

On top of which you are lacking in your understanding of the Executive powers of the President of the United States. The mot powerful man in the world and the head of all US law enforcement.

He can ask any government to investigate what ever he wants. If you don't think a US president has this power you are way way out of your league on this one.
 

I wonder how long until this lie dies...

Who the hell am I kidding. If the "very fine people" lie that the left keeps kicking around is still running. Then this one will be around for just as long possibly.

This is the kind of BS that makes being at least politically minded in this day and age, a complete chore.
 

Suspect that your premise is exactly what The Donald will put forward as a defense.

Trump fans will buy in. Trump haters will reject. Either way i'm thinking that Nancy Pelosi and crew are going to have to come up with more than just the Ukraine scandal before she will submit any articles of impeachment.


We are are still at the "political food fight" stage of this circus. But it's certainly going to get worse before it gets better.


..
 

I never mentioned quid pro quo in my post. All I assumed is that the Ukranian president desperately needed the aid.


It's also a FACT that the prosecutor REFUSED to cooperate with the UK when they froze $23M during their money-laundering investigation into the oligarch owned company Hunter worked for.

Moreover, nothing you said has anything to do with my argument. I never assumed Trump had any corrupt intent. I only assumed the Ukrainian president wanted to please Trump. I think that's a fair assumption given that he needs the aid.


I didn't mean to imply that he would be required to lie if he could find no corruption. I'm only assuming he would want to please Trump. You cannot deny that Trump would be most pleased if the investigation found corruption by Biden.

Why wouldn't I assume Trump would accept it. He accepted that Obama's birth certificate was fake. He accepted that Ted Cruz' father had a role in JFK's assassination. You can't seriously tell me Trump is too honorable to accept manufactured charges against Biden.


This is irrelevant to my argument. You're making a false equivalency. That's your own fallacious argument and it has nothing to do with anything I said. I don't remember transcripts of Obama asking Putin to investigate Trump. That would be an accurate equivallancy instead of your false equivalence. And I doubt you would be defending Obama if he had.
 
Condor060 said:
Your thesis is all assumptions and conjecture. You have tried this is a dozen post. It didn't fly then and it doesn't fly now.
Click to expand...

You say it's all "conjecture and assumption" but you don't state what those assumptions are. There's no content to statement.


I never said anything about what he can and cannot do. I only pointed out why it should not be done and the POSSIBLE consequences of such actions. Are you saying that it's impossible for the president of a deeply corrupt country to do something corrupt to please the U.S. president for the sake of their national security?
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
God help us if we don't allow the leader of this country to even ask about corruption.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that Obama should have asked Putin and Comey to look into the allegations against Trump.

And if this request was made after Obama agreed to remove Russian sanctions, there would be nothing wrong with that.

Is that what you're saying?
 
Investigations are not supposed to be politically motivated or conflicted. It is necessary that they originate from credible leads, where politics has no relation to the evidence.

When a President is out asking for his political rivals to be investigated because he desires a cloud over their campaign to defeat him, that is presidential harassment, pure and simple.

It is fair to say that Hunter Biden's lucrative job in the Ukraine was due to his name, but there is no evidence of illegal behavior at all. I don't like it at all. However, it is Trump supporters who have set a standard that says so long as something isn't illegal, it's a non-story we should all forget about.

It's also fair to say that Trump's family has engaged in outright influence peddling and public corruption, where they have illegally profited off their Inaugural, solicited financing from foreign nationals for real estate deals, used illegal schemes to stifle stories, and we've seen foreign nationals and military staying at their resorts.

Hell, Trump says he wants to hold summits at Mar-a-Lago, and yet here we are pretending this Hunter Biden story is a big scandal. It might have been four years ago, but not after all the corruption Trump's fanboys have demanded the public accept.

Ukraine already investigated this and they found no wrongdoing, so that's all there is to it. Trump wanting a do-over and holding foreign aid as leverage to get it, is an abuse of his office that rivals Watergate, and he should be impeached for both it and the cover-up.
 
Last edited:
That's actually a very charitable analogy.

A more direct comparison would be if Obama pushed the US attorney in Massachusetts to investigate Bain Capital and Romney in 2012.

Anybody want to pretend that if Obama was caught making that request that Republicans wouldn't have been assembling a cross and looking for a hill? Anyone want to try that with a straight face?
 

Trump doesn't believe Biden or his son are guilty of crimes and/or Trump is totally incompetent.

Because Trump could simply have hired honest and independent people to work at the department of justice and let them to their job without interference. That those people would have investigated and found any real wrongdoings by the Democrats if they had existed. Also Trump then wouldn't have had made a secret call to the Ukrainian president. Instead he could presented the evidence in the independent investigation and demand bipartisan support to encourage the Ukrainians to do their part in the investigation. That now will both independents and Democrat mistrust any investigation into Biden and his son.

The same goes with Hillary that if she truly was guilty of any crimes, Trump also in that case could have hired honest and independent people and let them to their job without interference. Instead there are still no investigation against Hillary. That at the same time any investigation against Hillary will be mistrusted because Trump campaigned on looking Hillary up instead of campaigning on creating a better and more independent judicial system.
 
Last edited:
So many untruths, so little time.

1. There was no quid pro quo. Trump was extorting the Ukraine, pure and simple. All we need to know that is the fact that he put a hold on the aid to Ukraine just a few days before the call. What makes matters worse is that the WH released the foreign aid they were holding, when they became aware of the IG report going to Congress, which gives away that they understood their actions as being evidence of public corruption and abuse of power.

2. Trump has made it clear the only "corruption" he wants investigated is a perfectly legal job that HUNTER Biden had, for which no evidence exists was obtained through influence peddling.

3. The whole international community and US intelligence wanted the Ukrainian prosecutor gone, and when he was dismissed a fair and thorough investigation took place, which never even came close to implicating Hunter Biden in any kind of wrongdoing.

4. Our side has seen you turn a blind eye to all of the following, outright public corruption by Trump's family, so cut the **** that you care about corruption.

  • Trump's DC Hotel illegally overcharging for the Inaugural.
  • Kushner's family business soliciting money from Chinese immigrants, via use of WH status.
  • Kushner attempting to get financing from Qatar and Russia.
  • Trump seeking out financing for a hotel in Moscow.
  • The Trump Org raking in the cash from foreign nationals visiting their resorts.
  • Trump pushing the Air Force to stay at his resorts.


5. Obama never directed the FBI to investigate a single person in Trump's orbit.

Alright, my head hurts from addressing all these lies.
 
Last edited:
PIPEWRENCH said:
God help us if we don't allow the leader of this country to even ask about corruption.
Click to expand...
We have other people who do not withhold funds as a veiled threat, and who are not likely political opponents of the target of a possible investigation, do that asking. They work for various professional agencies of our government, that focus on that enforcing our statutes. President Trump is not among their number.

Even if he were among their number, he would be the very last one among their number allowed to make enquiries about investigation someone who is professional or personal rival. They call that a 'conflict of interest' and whether it is a meter maid, a cop or the AG in charge of the Dept of Justice, those with a potential conflict of interest stay off the ****ing phone!
 
Last edited:


Good point. During the last election if you heard Trump, you heard his concern about Ukrainian corruption. He was al over it.

Stop It.

If you want to judge Trump, the one thing he has made perfectly clear, never err on the side of integrity
 

Ignoring the fact that this is a blemish on Joe Biden and not his son, though I can see why you'd omit that simple notion. Does not dissuade from the knowledge that Joe even bragged about doing such himself, only adds more weight to he issue.

In this case, those on the left who keep trying to push this as "quid pro quo" are easily discernible as being lies. Despite the fact that Trump has just as much right to ask that corruption be investigated as anyone else.

Also, on the point of saying that they could host summits are Mar-a-Lago. I take it that you didn't look into the specifics of what would be done and why such a thing was being suggested on Trumps part?
 
Oborosen said:
Ignoring the fact that this is a blemish on Joe Biden and not his son, though I can see why you'd omit that simple notion.
Click to expand...
Anybody that is going to forgive Trump's financial conflicts that are WAY more blatant, but hold this against Biden, was always going to vote for Trump, so it's no loss.

Just like you guys "don't care" about Trump's major financial conflicts, most people aren't going to care about this one with Biden.

The irony is that if Trump had left well enough alone, this might have been a story next year, but his actions will now always be seen as the corrupt story.

In this case, those on the left who keep trying to push this as "quid pro quo" are easily discernible as being lies.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a quid pro quo, but clear cut extortion, and the record of his actions proves it.

Those on the right pretending they don't know this are just pretending to be stupid, so they don't have to be straight about supporting fascism for their political ends.
Despite the fact that Trump has just as much right to ask that corruption be investigated as anyone else.
Click to expand...
That's for the congress to decide.
Also, on the point of saying that they could host summits are Mar-a-Lago. I take it that you didn't look into the specifics of what would be done and why such a thing was being suggested on Trumps part?
Click to expand...
God, it's pathetic how you think you can do such a blatant moral 180 like that and get away with it. :lamo
 

These are gray areas to sort out. But trump is incompetent at crime so he makes it pretty clear what he's doing. If he had not withheld the aid (he's not the one giving it, the American people and Congress are), if he had not talked about the aid and the 'favor' so close together on the same call, if he had only had subordinates discuss it with Ukraine, etc., he might have made it less easy to prove what he's doing.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
God help us if we don't allow the leader of this country to even ask about corruption.
Click to expand...

Ya, that's like the mob's concern about a business it wants protection money from being altruistic about the business.
 

It's pretty pathetic how you can just keep lying out your own ass on subjects that you obviously don't really care to read up on. But it's not like I'm going to stop you from making a fool of yourself.

The transcript proves no such extortion is even going on. Once again another lie that just keeps refusing to die.
 

Go see what Xi did in China, to see what happens when a politician gets to investigate his opponents.
 

Putting aside the numerous spin, speculation, innuendo and hyperbole in this post and only looking at the part I highlighted, this post fails from the get go.

No where in the conversation between Trump and Zelenskiy did Trump say he wants Zelenskiy to investigate Biden. That contention simply isn't in the transcript. It's not there and and Trump didn't say it. Trump didn't even imply it. The only thing Trump said was this:

(Paraphrasing, since y'all like that so much...) "Biden has been shooting off his mouth about some pretty horrible stuff. If you have any information, please help. Talk to Barr."
 

More trump apologist bs that is irrelevant to this discussion. Also the appeal to hypocrisy is a logical fallacy.

You ought to know better.

You also ought to know trump doesn't need to break a law to be impeached. You also ought to know it's not acceptable to ask for political dirt on a political opponent from a foreign nation. It's not alright to talk to them like a mob boss.
 

I thought the job of POTUS is defined in Article II of the US Constitution? And his oath of office?

I guess I am a hopeless romantic. :2razz:
 

Too many examples already of Trump doing this.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck!

Remember one thing Trump's right hand man for 20 years Cohen stated. Trump never says anything straight on but you always know what he wants and if you do not do it, you are out. Sessions? Sanders? etc.

Trump clearly states "Do me a favor". He does not say "Do the United States a favor". This was in relation to Biden and his son. Since when does a foreign leader supposed to do a president a personal favor that has to do with a political opponent? Corruption in the Ukraine was the topic? How come Corruption has not been the topic regarding Russia? North Korea? or a hundred of other places in the world where Corruption is rampant and much more important to the United States? Especially when arms are important to Ukraine and Trump has the power to grant or not grant the sale to them. Why get Biden involved with an arms sale.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

Captain, you are smarter than this but this post says different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…