What foreign entanglements for what position?
Is it disqualifying for a president to have relatives with foreign business interests?
It’s well that you put “crime” in scare quotes, because it still assumes some nebulous bad act.
Surely it’s not a crime for Biden, especially when he was a private citizen, to meet people from foreign countries. And he certainly maintained relationships with foreign heads of state established when he was VP.
If “foreign entanglements” is what we hang our hats on, we still (ISTM) need to establish what specific crime occurred, or was likely to have occurred. (For anyone inclined to jump on that last phrase, “was likely to have occurred” does NOT equal “could possibly have occurred.”)
I know I’m repeating myself, but either I’m not making myself clear or there’s something I’m missing.
A trigger for a criminal investigation must surely require the commission (or likely commission) of, well, a crime. The GOP has consistently failed to articulate one supported by evidence, unless the definition of evidence is so loose that it can be applied to assumed, but yet to be determined, “crimes.”
It’s circular conspiracy theory logic. Yes, if we assume a crime was committed and concealed (and we don’t yet know exactly what crime), then all kinds of things can become “evidence.”
Not to worry. Sam’s been asked over and over and over and over again to specify exactly what crime Joe is accused of doing. I’m sure we’ll hear back about this after his supper.
I think he’s talking about Jared Kushner and his close personal relationships with oligarch Roman Abramovich and his wife (who is one of Ivanka’s closest personal friends), Saudi crown prince MBS and corrupt (convicted in Switzerland) Israeli mining magnate Beny Steinmetz. Kushner’s funding of Israeli West Bank settlements pre-2017 is also troubling.
Of course we have checks and balances, so I’m sure someone with so many troubling associations with shady international figures could never get a security clearance.
…….
Yeah, that’s a pretty good comparison.
Or, if we’re lucky, he could take another 3-month supper.
Not that it matters, but a more literal translation would be “give me a man/person, and a paragraph [section of law] will be found (or even more literally “will find itself,” as the reflexive się is in the Polish)” I think there’s a slight nuance of meaning lost by not translating it as “will be found” or “will find itself” as “znajdzie” is a form of the verb “to find” and indicates more willful action than the verb “to be.”
You kick all kinds of linguistic ass.
But I imagine you know that.
He was in town when it happened. That’s not proof but it is evidence.
Ah yes, it all fits. We have evidence that he is a murderer because he was in town when we have evidence of a murder, and the evidence we have of the murder is that there was a person in town who we have evidence is a murderer. Not proof but a whole lot of evidence all leading conistently to the same conclusion and tied in a neat little bow.
If you have to establish that it happened before you can collect evidence then I feel like you’re at a catch-22 because there’s no way to establish that it happened minus collecting evidence and asking questions.
If you’re investigating someone for Top Secret clearance, it’s not accusatorial to ask questions and follow up on loose aspersions. It’s just how the process works.
Granting someone security clearance is by design a fishing expedition. As you say, there’s no other way it could work.
Investigating a crime is the opposite. A crime has occurred! That’s what you start from.
- A driver caused an accident and fled? Who was it, where are they? Someone got a partial plate! Check that out!
- Someone in a mask robbed a bank! Who were they? Where’s the ill gotten goods? Check cameras! Witnesses in the bank?
- Someone burned down a house! The owner for insurance? Some random asshole?
Cui bono?
You start from a crime then figure out the rest. There’s no crime here. There’s not even a theory of a crime.
I believe the crime is “Biden stole the election “. I’m not kidding; this is what these numb-nuts think.
I really don’t have anything to add to what squeegee posted. Investigating a crime kinda, sorta requires…a crime. Calling something evidence of a crime in the absence of a crime is circular nonsense, the stuff of conspiracy theories.
Don’t forget Biden Crime Family. It’s right there in the name, how could you question the family didn’t commit crimes? If they didn’t commit crimes, they wouldn’t be the Biden Crime Family.
And anything that you discover would, later, become evidence put into the documentation for why you were rejected.
Are you under the impression Joe Biden is under review for some level of security clearance?
I wouldn’t be. He’s UCP scum. Being honest about it wouldn’t change anything.