Acts20.com

I thought to post a thread asking this question after seeing this video: twitter.com/JoeStGeorge/status/1182355369001013248?s=19I'm looking for a very simple yes or no to the subject question.

Yes, but just as asking for a yes or no answer is inappropriate if I asked you if you'd stopped beating your wife, so, too, is it here.If there was actual corruption, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHOM WAS THE SUBJECT. That is, Biden is not off-limits if there was corruption (and to be paid $50,000/month...yeah, something ain't right). He doesn't get a pass.Nor does he get a pass just because it was a foreign country. There is no rule that all corruption evidence must be locally-sourced or American made. NO! If someone did wrong, then it's wrong no matter who gives us the evidence.Don't you find it odd, David, that the Democrats have no problem trying to get the British or the Russians to testify against THEIR chief political rival (all in the interest, of course, of getting to the bottom of the matter!), but if Trump does it, it's suddenly off-limits? NO WAY.If we found out from another nation that a political player acted corruptly, I'm not going to automatically discount it, nor automatically believe it. However, I would WEIGH IT. And you have to admit that the optics on the whole Biden thing are terrible--a making $50,000/month--without, apparently, any particular skill in the subject area; a foreign prosecutor that is pulled off the case, etc. Things that make you go hmmmm.....Now, is it advantageous that Biden happens to be a political rival? SURE! But, again, that's not a free pass on this. For that matter, Trump has been trying to get people like Hillary investigated, even though she is not a political rival any longer. So, YES, it's acceptable to try to get to the bottom of the matter. Should we put it off until after, say, Biden is elected? Is it off-limits? Should Trump continue with his policy of just making unjustified statements about rivals...or should he have evidence to back up his statements?The optics on BOTH--Biden and Trump--are not good. But while one can be seen as self-seeking, the other can be seen as criminally corrupt.

Aaron, I'm specifically not asking about Trump, Biden, or anyone else. I thought I had made that clear. I'm not asking if anyone stopped beating their wife. I'm not trying to gotcha anyone. From my perspective within the walls of this thread, the assumptions I listed above are the absolute, indisputable truth.

What Dave seems to be overlooking is Trump's reference to investigation crowd strike in his phone conversation with the Ukrainian President. Trump's conversation had more to do with trying to get to the bottom of the Obama/Biden/ Hillary attempt to use Ukraine to go after HIM as a political rival.Trump has the right to find out who was doing what to HIM. The fact that Biden MIGHT have been running for President (which was not yet a certainty) is irrelevant.There are 2 concurrent and competing investigations going on. One is the phony impeachment, and the other is the Democrats using foreign powers against candidate Trump. The Dems know time is running out and that their charade is about to be exposed. Thus, a phony impeachment inquiry is used a distraction. But Never-Trumpers could not care less

Great! Let's talk about this.Assuming the above is true, do you think it was appropriate for President Obama to ask foreign leaders to investigate/act against one of his political rivals?Would you consider it an impeachable abuse of power?Assuming the above is true, my answer would be

Sorry Dave. This isn't a no or yes answer - but if I had to take a side - I would say yes.It is entirely appropriate to ask a friendly nation to shed some light on shady undertakings of American citizens. We share military intel - we should also be able to receive intel on shady things citizens are doing to our country.Even more so if that person has political influence.Even more so if that person might be a politician holding office - or might potentially hold one of our offices.Wouldn't it be best to stop corruption, if possible? I think so. That person should still get his/her day in court - but we have got to start getting to the bottom of shady deals/influence peddling going on.Thank goodness Trump is there to help clean this up.And let's face it - how do we usually find criminals? Someone in the know turns them in

Granted. What I should have said was a yes or no focused on the issue in an abstract way. But you're absolutely right that an explanation of why yes or why no should be expected.I appreciate you interacting with the question and giving a thoughtful response.

Granted. What I should have said was a yes or no focused on the issue in an abstract way. But you're absolutely right that an explanation of why yes or why no should be expected.I appreciate you interacting with the question and giving a thoughtful response.I agree with the gist of your view about the necessity of sharing information for the sake of catching bad guys. I'd only say that going through proper channels shines light on the action, brings more people into it, creates additional transparency and accountability, etc. I think that is the proper way to achieving the necessary ends you mention, rather than a leader asking another leader one-on-one. And if Trump had gotten Pence or someone else to do the asking, you'd still object. Biden is exempt from being investigated by the Trump ADMINISTRATION for his crimes and corruption because he was a potential political rival. Got it. Well heck, then. The way to avoid scrutiny is to hint as a possible candidacy. Hillary is making such hints. Thus it would be wrong for the Trump ADMINISTRATION to continue any investigation of her by your logic

Re: Question: Is it appropriate for the president of the US to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival?

I'll have to go by precedent and say YES. Thanks Obama.