Biden should absolutely “prosecute the previous administration” if he is elected - All of them. The thing is, he won’t… that would leave his own posterior too vulnerable. The hope remains that the States will succeed in doing what’s right… It’s a slim, fragile hope but, it remains.
That answer is 1) provided in your cite and 2) not relevant.
There isn’t a single action of Joe Biden in the Ukraine that is anything other than 100% consistent with US foreign policy. Per your cites.
Even Trump didn’t think Biden actually did anything wrong.
“He had to announce the investigations. He didn’t actually have to do them, as I understood it.” - Gordon Sondland
To be clear. You posted, “Hunter Biden was hired by Burisma Holdings, a Ukraine natural gas company owned by a post-communism oligarch and also a politician turned money launderer, to act as a shield for the anti-corruption investigations being requested by the US.”
None of your cites back up that claim. Some of your cites refute that claim directly.
That claim, and everything that follows from it, is made up nonsense.
Here’s a direct simple question to you. What qualifications did Hunter Biden have that justified him being hired by Burisma Holdings on a contract worth hundreds of thousands of dollars?
That question has been answered in your cites. You should read them.
But let’s pretend for a minute that we don’t know the answer to this question. That’s not an excuse to make up a nonsensical conspiracy theory to fill the gap in our knowledge.
“He had to announce the investigations. He didn’t actually have to do them, as I understood it.” - Gordon Sondland
^ this needs to be repeated. It was all about trying to create dirt on Biden. That, and helping his buddy Putin by withholding monies to help Ukraine defend themselves from Russia. Trump likely owes Russia many millions (Trump Jr - “We get all our money from Russia”) American banks have abandoned Trumps ‘empire’ because he can’t be trusted.
And who knows what else what else Putin has on Trump. Trump actually asked the CIA if they had a ‘pee’ video. Trump has been a cheat, and crook his entire life. God only knows what involvement he had with Jeffery Epstein’s harem of young girls. Where did all those videos go? Why did it take 5 weeks between Epstein’s arrest and raiding his private island? FBI couldn’t find a boat? The entire thing stinks.
Pam Bondi Florida AG stopped investigations into Trumps fake university 4 days after she received a $25000 donation (bribe) from Trump (she was smart making sure the check cleared). Yeah, she should go down as well. How many others are there?
I don’t think Biden should investigate Trump directly though. I think every State agency should.
Like if that makes ok, it does not.
So you don’t have an actual answer to the question. That was pretty obvious beforehand, but your evasiveness from providing a direct answer has now confirmed it. You can not provide any reason why Hunter Biden was qualified to be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by Burisma besides his connections.
But let’s examine your response. You claim the question has been answered in my cites. You’re right. Hunter Biden himself acknowledged that he was hired by Burisma based on his connection to his father. Again from Politifact:
“When asked if he would have been invited onto the Burisma board if he’d had a different last name, he [Hunter Biden] said, ‘I don’t know. Probably not.’”
Every one of the cites I’ve posted has made clear that their was a conflict of interest in Hunter Biden accepting a contract from Burisma. That conflict of interest disturbed Hunter Biden’s business partners, US State Department officials, Obama administration officials, and Joe Biden’s own aides. Pretty much every person who was aware of the situation except for apparently Joe Biden.
So you’re acknowledging that you were wrong in your answer to the question:
as Trump did not request the manufacture of false evidence, correct?
Why do you keep derailing the topic with talk of Joe’s son? This discussion is about whether the current administration needs to be prosecuted once voted out of power - Hunter Biden is not part of the current administration so, why keep bringing him up?
Did Max S. lose his login?
I’ll repeat my answer from post #198.
A question which is within the scope of the thread title is whether Biden, should he be elected president, should pursue criminal bribery charges against Trump for withholding appropriation payments to Ukraine unless Ukraine opened up an investigation against Biden. In other words, should a Biden administration pursue the earlier impeachment charges through a criminal court. If the hypothetical President Biden does so, he’ll be exposing himself and his son Hunter to the question of if corruption actually existed, and if it was within the scope of Trump’s executive powers to request that Ukraine investigate that alleged corruption.
My view is that neither of the Bidens were acting honourably when Hunter Biden was employed by Burisma, and therefore the hypothetical President Biden should stay away from this issue. However, going by this thread, that’s apparently the best shot for convicting Trump of a crime committed while in office. So the dilemma is whether the hypothetical President Biden should instigate negative focus against himself and his son in order to instigate vengeance against Trump. If the Bidens are totally innocent of any malfeasance, then there is no dilemma. However, Hunter Biden clearly was hired by Burisma solely on the basis of his connections. That’s a clear signal of a corrupt situation. Joe Biden did nothing to mitigate that situation. That’s a further signal of corruption. So we’re debating whether there’s a case for the Bidens to answer to (there is), how strong that case is (probably worthy of investigation, doubtfully worthy of criminal prosecution), and whether the alleged corruption on the Bidens’ behalf should give pause to a hypothetical Biden administration pursuing a criminal bribery case against Trump.
Nonsense.
Read your cites.
He has a JD from Yale and elite corporate governance experience from his time as the vice chair of the board Amtrak.
But even if we ignore that, people get hired based on their their connections or their name all the time. It’s incredibly common and not signal of corruption.
Furthermore, this is quite distant from your original (nonsensical) claim, “Hunter Biden was hired by Burisma Holdings, a Ukraine natural gas company owned by a post-communism oligarch and also a politician turned money launderer, to act as a shield for the anti-corruption investigations being requested by the US.” This simply didn’t happen. Nothing close to this happened.
There is a huge leap from, “He was hired for his connections,” to, “He was hired as a shield for investigations.” You have not justified making that leap in any way whatsoever.
Finally, there isn’t a single act done by Joe Biden in Ukraine that was not 100% consistent with US foreign policy. There is literally nothing to investigate.
The investigation was not true, the opposite of this is…
A word that you have trouble mentioning it seems.
Simple question for Wrenching_Spanners…
Was Nikki Haley’s election to the board of Boeing a signal of corruption?
No, my guess it’s just a reward for Nikki’s union busting tactics.
How about if Biden says, “Look, President Trump was impeached over the Ukraine thing, and the Senate found him not guilty. That settles the matter as far as I’m concerned. Yet there is reliable evidence of corruption relating to many other activities, and it’s in the best interests of the nation that they be investigated thoroughly.”
That eliminates the prospect of dragging us all through the same Ukrainian muck we slogged through last year – while at the same time not slamming the door or another investigation that turns up new Ukrainian muck. (And also, yes, shuts down the “but Hunter Biden” bullshit.)
Nope. Impeachment =/= indictment. Impeachment is a political act, judged on political grounds by a political jury. Impeachment does not require a crime in the true technical sense, but it’s surely a stronger case if there is evidence that a crime was committed.
None of that makes any difference except to history books. After Trump leaves office, should Biden pursue indictment on criminal charges? I’d say yes but no. Yes, criminal activity should be investigated and the accused should be indicted if there is sufficient evidence. No, I don’t think Biden should announce that he’s going after the previous administration. The second is not a requirement to do the first.
Is there evidence of criminal acts? I believe there is, and I believe it was laid out in the Impeachment, plus in supplementary materials we haven’t seen yet. A federal judge and jury would be a much different audience than the Senate.
I agree that a judge and jury might well convict on the Ukraine charges, especially given new evidence that might come out. But I’m looking at this as a political question, and I think prosecuting this case will just trigger a massive round of “here we go again” – and not just from Republicans.
I also suspect, if an unbiased DOJ is turned loose to investigate this administration, that much bigger crimes may come to light – stuff that makes the Ukraine story look trifling.
Agreed. The Ukraine stuff was just the most immediate and clear cut case of abuse of office. I’m sure there’s worse. My hope is that any “here we go again” rhetoric is simply that - rhetoric - and is seen as such in an actual DOJ proceeding.
I know it’s all hopes and dreams and puppies and rainbows and such. Still.