The impeachment inquiry

[Black Orchid]

Trump's followers seem afraid of any investigation for some unfathomable reason.

Actually, there's a very fathomable reason: Trump supporters know B.S. when they see it.

Maybe so, maybe not. You appear 100% converted to support el Presidente' Trump, right or wrong. What happens if it discovers he is in the wrong? Will your allegiance change?

Tell me, did you support Nixon before he was (nearly) impeached? How about Clinton? Oops, of course not, such a silly question, right, 4E?

Whats you point Brian, Impeachment at best is a TUT TUT , It has no rear legal standing , If the Dems get it through the house , it wont go any further they would be better putting their time and efforts into finding a good candidate to challenge Trump

They can't. They have been doing this for 3 years now with nothing to show for it. They have nothing else and the desperation is at an all new level.

Then the obsolete and unbalanced Hillary runs out with her "Russian Asset" false accusations aimed at the one potential candidate they have who has any sense or balance. Not a good look for the Dems.

They have no-one who can beat Trump and they look like fools.

[Bogan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pezDM174TQ

[BigP]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pezDM174TQ

Im sure its giving you are hard on Bogan, But you will end up shooting blanks mate, It will never get through the senate

[brian ross]

Trump's followers seem afraid of any investigation for some unfathomable reason.

Actually, there's a very fathomable reason: Trump supporters know B.S. when they see it.

Maybe so, maybe not. You appear 100% converted to support el Presidente' Trump, right or wrong. What happens if it discovers he is in the wrong? Will your allegiance change?

Tell me, did you support Nixon before he was (nearly) impeached? How about Clinton? Oops, of course not, such a silly question, right, 4E?

Whats you point Brian, Impeachment at best is a TUT TUT , It has no rear legal standing , If the Dems get it through the house , it wont go any further they would be better putting their time and efforts into finding a good candidate to challenge Trump

Well, it all depends upon what penalty the Senate hands down. It can force the resignation of el Presidente'. I agree that it is not the best course of action for the Democrats to take but the Trumpards refusal to even countenance any investigation smacks heavily of cover-up to me. It also smacks of the Nixonian (is that a word?) view that the position of el Presidente' cannot be investigated or charged with any crime that el Presidente' might have committed while in office. However, the Democrats have decided on this course and they deserve the right to have their case heard.

[Fred]

Investigated by whom? Ever notice that when it comes to Trump, left-wing media like the New York Times throw everything they've got into looking for something, anything to nail him on ... but when it comes to Biden, they simply shrug and say, "There's no evidence that Biden did anything wrong."

By Ukraine, twice. You can complain about how those investigations were handled and question the outcome. OR America can investigate itself the allegations of influencing foreign investigations.

Here, I'll cite a report by Reuters, which isn't exactly known for being a Trump fan club:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hunt ... SKBN1WX1P7

According to payment records reviewed by Reuters that two former Ukrainian law enforcement officials say are Burisma’s, the company paid about $3.4 million to a company that was controlled by Archer called Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC between April 2014 and November 2015.

Specifically, the records show 18 months in which two payments of $83,333 per month were paid to Rosemont Seneca Bohai for “consulting services.” The two sources said that one of those monthly payments was intended for Biden and one for Archer ...

Oleksandr Onyshchenko, a businessman and former member of the Ukrainian parliament who knows the Burisma founder, said it had been [founder] Zlochevsky’s idea to appoint Biden as a director. “It was to protect (the company)” at a time when it was facing investigations, said Onyshchenko, who left the country in 2016.

So it's pretty clear that Hunter Biden wasn't hired for his expertise. Even he has admitted that "It is impossible for me to be on any of the boards that I just mentioned without saying that I’m the son of the vice president of the United States.”

Did he or his Vice President dad do anything illegal? I don't know -- that's what investigations are for.

But it's striking to me how many resources the New York Times and fellow mainstream media threw at covering the Russian collusion investigation against Trump, which we're now learning was a set-up, and how little curiosity they have about the Bidens' conduct, which at best was unethical for a sitting Vice President.

Even this from your article is simply innuendo that two sources say…

Biden himself could be investigated by US for interference into another investigation, but the question has already been posed to Ukraine and in investigation of Boden Jr.

Well, I wish that were true, but the fact is that U.S. media outlets have been making unfounded accusations against Trump since he was sworn in as president. Consider the Time magazine cover with the caption "Red-Handed," a reference to Trump's son's meeting with a Russian attorney in Trump Tower.

In actuality, the meeting amounted to nothing, aside from the fact that a relative of the president happened to hold a single short meeting with an attorney who happened to be from Russia.

But hey, who needs proof of collusion when you can sell magazines with innuendo?

Well, Yes. but my point of the Russian collusion is that it demonstrates how serious Americans take such matters. Clearly some people considered fervently to have foreigners interfere in the elections, two have been charged. Now don’t complain about how this is for other reasons, again, it is not about Trump.

Sure, and the truth is that after a 2-year investigation that cost the American taxpayers $35 million, we wound up with no evidence of any Russian collusion by Trump and his campaign ... because there was never any evidence of it from the start.

And that's what Attorney General Barr and lead investigator Durham are unraveling right now -- an apparent attempt by the Hillary campaign and Obama administration officials to destroy Trump's candidacy and then his presidency. It just went from an administrative review to a criminal investigation.

A fair media would be interested in such a development and at least consider the possibility of its legitimacy, but then, we're talking about the American media, which is essentially a branch of the Democratic Party. Here's a typical example of the coverage you can expect to see (granted, Reuters is not headquartered in the U.S.):
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1X420J

Of course there's no evidence ... that's what investigations are for! But there's plenty to be suspicious about when a Vice President flies his ne'er'-do-well son to China and Junior winds up with a billion-dollar investment from the Chinese government.

…
It's not illegal to invest with the help of an American firm. But Biden's firm was a small-potatoes operation that, according to financial pundits I've heard, would never have attracted a billion-dollar Chinese investment if one of its principals hadn't been related to the Vice President.

It has all the appearance of political influence buying, and deserves at least as much attention as the Russia collusion hoax.

I have no doubt Biden sold his investment to China through his father’s position. So what is the complaint??? Don’t you think more business is done this way than you know of??? Trump is busy doing the same thing himself his children are still running the company while working in the White House. I know there is complaints about such but frankly, it isn’t illegal. Maybe it should be, but it isn’t.

Appearances of influence and so on is one thing, asking other nations to investigate an appearance is simply wrong. The US can investigate such matters themselves, Why doesn’t he??? Is that because the appearance is nothing more than innuendo??? Me thinks so, just as the Russian interference in Clinton, even though it was unfounded slandered Clinton Trump wanted to have an investigation to use as propaganda against Biden.

Well, there's always been foreign interference by the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, etc. -- it's just that nobody before now has attempted to connect it to an American presidential candidate/president in hopes of gaining a political advantage.

I mean, when you think about it, what's the essential difference between the Russia collusion hoax and Watergate? In both cases, you have a sitting president who instructs his underlings to use illegal means to undermine a presidential candidate from a rival party.

It was the way it was carried out. Trump used the interference to great effect, so much so, nobody can believe he didn’t have prior knowledge. Ergo, Trump colluded with Russia.

The issue really is the way it was handled. I said when it went down, The US interferes in other nations all the time and they want to complain now. But the fact the FBI announced an investigation into letters AGAIN at crucial moment while a presidential candidate is calling her criminal and telling the nation HE would charge her and jail her for this… guilt by association. Easy to sell to a cynical America. So waste of plenty money to sway the public opinion.

We're already beginning to see. Here's a surprisingly balanced opinion piece from the Washington Post that covers the nuts and bolts of the Barr probe and the fact that it's now described as a criminal investigation:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... s-nervous/

Actually, it is only rumoured that the investigation has moved to criminal investigation. I am little perplexed though, I am not sure that this is good for Trump in any way. I guess he could spin it to suite, but I think the people are getting really sick of that.

It's not illegal for an American president to request that a foreign government investigate what he perceives as corruption. In fact, that's what a president should do -- try to stamp out corruption that affects the U.S., especially when it comes to presidential elections.

actually NO that is not correct. It should be important for US to investigate its own, for corruption. Asking other nations to investigate US citizens for what America perceives as corruption is actually fraudulent and fake. It is highly unethical but impeachment investigation and enquire will decide the criminal matter or just constitution validity.
It is clear that Trump is using said matter as a propaganda matter because if he thought any crime or even impropriety could be shown, he would have made it matter for US to investigate the Biden’s. Clearly he has advice that it would not only be a failure in matter but a political failure as well.

But here's the interesting part: Ukraine actually tried to help the Democrats win the 2016 election, according to Politico, an anything-but-right-wing website. Read it for yourself: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ ... ire-233446

So Trump had ample reason to ask Ukraine's president to look into election influence and other corruption involving America.

But the bottom line is, if you read the transcript of Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian president, there's nothing in it that implies Ukraine won't get military aid unless it investigates the Bidens. In fact, Ukrainian officials have stated that they felt no pressure to investigate Biden -- and weren't even aware that military aid had been withheld (Trump says that was because he didn't want to hand over U.S. aid to a corrupt country).

Now that is the issue, isn’t it??? Did Trump use US aid as persuasion??? As I said, the point of the Russian collusion is that it was considered such a serious matter that criminal investigation of a sitting president was made. Make no mistake, while you want to attack the investigation, or support the outcome, the point is that the issue itself is the most important.

And here, there is one fact nobody denies (including yourself) that Trump requested that Ukraine commence criminal investigation on Biden’s. That is Trump colluding with Ukraine president to investigate a political opponent. THAT is corruption at it’s most basic.

In fact, it would be better for Trump if he did try use persuasion to force the investigation, as it would not be collusion but pressure for advantage. BUT that is not what I am saying.

But your opinion has been shaped by reports from left-wing media who are bent on disparaging Trump. Try getting a more balanced view -- especially when it comes to the Barr investigation into the original of the Russia collusion investigation.

And consider the possibility of what I'm telling you: That "Russian collusion" was a hoax from day one, a political dirty trick carried out by the upper echelon of the Obama administration, with help from foreign intelligence services including Australia's.

If that proves to be true, it's as bad or worse than Watergate.

Oh, I can consider Russian collusion was a hoax. As I said before, it all fell into place. I don’t like Trump as a man, but I have never considered he actually did collude with anybody, until now. Again, I only consider the Russian interference as a demonstration as to how serious America takes such matters.
I do think this is worse than Watergate, because it has become clearer that America has turned a blind eye to what their political machine has done, does now and will do in the future.

[Fred]

Whats you point Brian, Impeachment at best is a TUT TUT , It has no rear legal standing , If the Dems get it through the house , it wont go any further they would be better putting their time and efforts into finding a good candidate to challenge Trump

That is my point, it is simply a propaganda exercise of tossing mud and trying to convince the people it was wrong... well not just wrong but a crime against the government, law and people... they are making the point of being so serious Trump should be sent to court to defend charges of legality.

Reality is it is nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

[BigP]

Whats you point Brian, Impeachment at best is a TUT TUT , It has no rear legal standing , If the Dems get it through the house , it wont go any further they would be better putting their time and efforts into finding a good candidate to challenge Trump

That is my point, it is simply a propaganda exercise of tossing mud and trying to convince the people it was wrong... well not just wrong but a crime against the government, law and people... they are making the point of being so serious Trump should be sent to court to defend charges of legality.

Reality is it is nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

Rite said Fred

[The4thEstate]

Trump's followers seem afraid of any investigation for some unfathomable reason.

Actually, there's a very fathomable reason: Trump supporters know B.S. when they see it.

Maybe so, maybe not. You appear 100% converted to support el Presidente' Trump, right or wrong. What happens if it discovers he is in the wrong? Will your allegiance change?

The Democrats had 2 years to prove that Trump did something wrong -- and just as I knew from the start, Russia collusion proved to be a hoax.

Now Attorney General Barr is investigating whether the Obama administration and Hillary campaign conspired to initiated a bogus investigation bent on pulling a coup on the legitimate winner of the 2016 election.

It'll be entertaining to hear your reaction if, in fact, Barr proves -- with documents, interviews, indictments and convictions -- that Trump was the victim of an illegal set-up. Gosh, that would be at least the biggest political scandal since Watergate!

Tell me, did you support Nixon before he was (nearly) impeached? How about Clinton? Oops, of course not, such a silly question, right, 4E?

Actually, I once supported Hubert H. Humphrey (Nixon's 1968 opponent), and I voted once for Clinton. I would have voted for Ross Perot if he hadn't dropped out.

I grew up in a family of Democrats; it was the political correctness of the 1980s that drove me away from the donkey party. Of course, today's crop of Dems are so far left, they make Karl Marx look wishy-washy.

I've said it before -- I'm an independent, not a Republican. See, not all of our politics are as predictable as yours are!

[The4thEstate]

Investigated by whom? Ever notice that when it comes to Trump, left-wing media like the New York Times throw everything they've got into looking for something, anything to nail him on ... but when it comes to Biden, they simply shrug and say, "There's no evidence that Biden did anything wrong."

By Ukraine, twice. You can complain about how those investigations were handled and question the outcome. OR America can investigate itself the allegations of influencing foreign investigations.

Well, Ukraine is generally known as a hotbed of corruption. But even if you buy into the results of the Ukrainian investigations, who has investigated Hunter Biden getting a $1.5 billion investment from China shortly after riding there with Daddy on Air Force 2?

My point is that up to now, the U.S. media has been throwing the kitchen sink into investigating Trump ... whereas Biden has gotten a free pass.

Even so, the allegations are beginning to tarnish Quid Pro Joe's claims of being a blue-collar man of the people. A new poll shows him running 4th in Iowa.

Here, I'll cite a report by Reuters, which isn't exactly known for being a Trump fan club:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hunt ... SKBN1WX1P7

According to payment records reviewed by Reuters that two former Ukrainian law enforcement officials say are Burisma’s, the company paid about $3.4 million to a company that was controlled by Archer called Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC between April 2014 and November 2015.

Specifically, the records show 18 months in which two payments of $83,333 per month were paid to Rosemont Seneca Bohai for “consulting services.” The two sources said that one of those monthly payments was intended for Biden and one for Archer ...

Oleksandr Onyshchenko, a businessman and former member of the Ukrainian parliament who knows the Burisma founder, said it had been [founder] Zlochevsky’s idea to appoint Biden as a director. “It was to protect (the company)” at a time when it was facing investigations, said Onyshchenko, who left the country in 2016.

So it's pretty clear that Hunter Biden wasn't hired for his expertise. Even he has admitted that "It is impossible for me to be on any of the boards that I just mentioned without saying that I’m the son of the vice president of the United States.”

Did he or his Vice President dad do anything illegal? I don't know -- that's what investigations are for.

But it's striking to me how many resources the New York Times and fellow mainstream media threw at covering the Russian collusion investigation against Trump, which we're now learning was a set-up, and how little curiosity they have about the Bidens' conduct, which at best was unethical for a sitting Vice President.

Even this from your article is simply innuendo that two sources say…

Biden himself could be investigated by US for interference into another investigation, but the question has already been posed to Ukraine and in investigation of Boden Jr.

Well, sources are what fuel investigations and often lead to criminal charges.

Again, since you like to believe Ukraine findings, you should love this Politico story detailing the way the Ukraine government helped the Hillary campaign: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ ... ire-233446

And yet, the leftist U.S. media wants to paint Trump as the guy who collaborates with foreign governments. Anything to avoid having to admit that he beat Hillary fair and square, all by himself.

Well, I wish that were true, but the fact is that U.S. media outlets have been making unfounded accusations against Trump since he was sworn in as president. Consider the Time magazine cover with the caption "Red-Handed," a reference to Trump's son's meeting with a Russian attorney in Trump Tower.

In actuality, the meeting amounted to nothing, aside from the fact that a relative of the president happened to hold a single short meeting with an attorney who happened to be from Russia.

But hey, who needs proof of collusion when you can sell magazines with innuendo?

Well, Yes. but my point of the Russian collusion is that it demonstrates how serious Americans take such matters. Clearly some people considered fervently to have foreigners interfere in the elections, two have been charged. Now don’t complain about how this is for other reasons, again, it is not about Trump.

Americans tend to take foreign interference in elections seriously -- assuming it had any measurable effect on the outcome.

I haven't seen any evidence of that yet.

Sure, and the truth is that after a 2-year investigation that cost the American taxpayers $35 million, we wound up with no evidence of any Russian collusion by Trump and his campaign ... because there was never any evidence of it from the start.

And that's what Attorney General Barr and lead investigator Durham are unraveling right now -- an apparent attempt by the Hillary campaign and Obama administration officials to destroy Trump's candidacy and then his presidency. It just went from an administrative review to a criminal investigation.

A fair media would be interested in such a development and at least consider the possibility of its legitimacy, but then, we're talking about the American media, which is essentially a branch of the Democratic Party. Here's a typical example of the coverage you can expect to see (granted, Reuters is not headquartered in the U.S.):
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1X420J

Of course there's no evidence ... that's what investigations are for! But there's plenty to be suspicious about when a Vice President flies his ne'er'-do-well son to China and Junior winds up with a billion-dollar investment from the Chinese government.

…
It's not illegal to invest with the help of an American firm. But Biden's firm was a small-potatoes operation that, according to financial pundits I've heard, would never have attracted a billion-dollar Chinese investment if one of its principals hadn't been related to the Vice President.

It has all the appearance of political influence buying, and deserves at least as much attention as the Russia collusion hoax.

I have no doubt Biden sold his investment to China through his father’s position. So what is the complaint??? Don’t you think more business is done this way than you know of??? Trump is busy doing the same thing himself his children are still running the company while working in the White House. I know there is complaints about such but frankly, it isn’t illegal. Maybe it should be, but it isn’t.

The complaint is that when foreign governments throw money at the children of a sitting Vice President, it has all the appearance of trying to buy influence. You do recognize that elected officials shouldn't personally take millions of dollars from foreign governments -- even if it's through close relatives -- yes?

As for Trump, there's no allegation that he or his family took payoffs from foreign governments. It's not surprising that the businesses owned by a businessman who becomes president will continue to operate during his term -- and there's nothing wrong with that as long as the business doesn't influence national policy and vice versa.

Appearances of influence and so on is one thing, asking other nations to investigate an appearance is simply wrong. The US can investigate such matters themselves, Why doesn’t he??? Is that because the appearance is nothing more than innuendo??? Me thinks so, just as the Russian interference in Clinton, even though it was unfounded slandered Clinton Trump wanted to have an investigation to use as propaganda against Biden.

There's plenty of evidence that the Hillary campaign hired Christopher Steele to prepare what has proved to be a phony dossier on Trump, so there's nothing "unfounded" about saying that they gathered their unsubstantiated material from Russia.

Again, keep an eye on the Barr investigation, which should uncover the origins of the failed Hillary-Obama Russian collusion conspiracy to bring down Trump.

Well, there's always been foreign interference by the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, etc. -- it's just that nobody before now has attempted to connect it to an American presidential candidate/president in hopes of gaining a political advantage.

I mean, when you think about it, what's the essential difference between the Russia collusion hoax and Watergate? In both cases, you have a sitting president who instructs his underlings to use illegal means to undermine a presidential candidate from a rival party.

It was the way it was carried out. Trump used the interference to great effect, so much so, nobody can believe he didn’t have prior knowledge. Ergo, Trump colluded with Russia.

What "interference" are you talking about? The Mueller investigation, conducted by a team of angry Democrats, couldn't find any evidence of the Trump campaign colluding or coordinating with Russians. And it's not as if the Russian Interference amounted to anything substantial. You don't seem to be updated on this matter.

The issue really is the way it was handled. I said when it went down, The US interferes in other nations all the time and they want to complain now. But the fact the FBI announced an investigation into letters AGAIN at crucial moment while a presidential candidate is calling her criminal and telling the nation HE would charge her and jail her for this… guilt by association. Easy to sell to a cynical America. So waste of plenty money to sway the public opinion.

It's not simply an FBI investigation into Hillary's letters. It's an investigation designed to determine whether the Hillary campaign and the Obama administration collaborated to illegally spy on an opposing candidate in hopes of rigging a victory in a presidential election. Not much different from Watergate.

And there's plenty more evidence that this actually occurred than the supposed "evidence" that Trump colluded with the Russians.

Surely you can acknowledge that this sort of thing is worth investigating. I mean, using government intelligence agencies to win an election is banana republic stuff.

We're already beginning to see. Here's a surprisingly balanced opinion piece from the Washington Post that covers the nuts and bolts of the Barr probe and the fact that it's now described as a criminal investigation:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... s-nervous/

Actually, it is only rumoured that the investigation has moved to criminal investigation. I am little perplexed though, I am not sure that this is good for Trump in any way. I guess he could spin it to suite, but I think the people are getting really sick of that.

It's great for Trump if officials from the Obama administration and/or Hillary campaign are indicted and convicted for engineering a bogus investigation designed to paint Trump as a Russian collaborator.

It's not illegal for an American president to request that a foreign government investigate what he perceives as corruption. In fact, that's what a president should do -- try to stamp out corruption that affects the U.S., especially when it comes to presidential elections.

actually NO that is not correct. It should be important for US to investigate its own, for corruption. Asking other nations to investigate US citizens for what America perceives as corruption is actually fraudulent and fake. It is highly unethical but impeachment investigation and enquire will decide the criminal matter or just constitution validity.

Really? Then why did Mueller's team talk to the Ukrainians during their bogus investigation of Russian collusion?

It is clear that Trump is using said matter as a propaganda matter because if he thought any crime or even impropriety could be shown, he would have made it matter for US to investigate the Biden’s. Clearly he has advice that it would not only be a failure in matter but a political failure as well.

If the Bidens were involved in influence peddling, they deserve to be investigated. You have to admit that it looks suspicious for Biden's son to be receiving $83,000 a month from a company located in the same nation for which his father serves as the U.S. administration's point man.

The fact that Biden is running for president doesn't make him immune to investigation. If that were so, every American criminal under investigation would run for president.

But here's the interesting part: Ukraine actually tried to help the Democrats win the 2016 election, according to Politico, an anything-but-right-wing website. Read it for yourself: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ ... ire-233446

So Trump had ample reason to ask Ukraine's president to look into election influence and other corruption involving America.

But the bottom line is, if you read the transcript of Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian president, there's nothing in it that implies Ukraine won't get military aid unless it investigates the Bidens. In fact, Ukrainian officials have stated that they felt no pressure to investigate Biden -- and weren't even aware that military aid had been withheld (Trump says that was because he didn't want to hand over U.S. aid to a corrupt country).

Now that is the issue, isn’t it??? Did Trump use US aid as persuasion??? As I said, the point of the Russian collusion is that it was considered such a serious matter that criminal investigation of a sitting president was made. Make no mistake, while you want to attack the investigation, or support the outcome, the point is that the issue itself is the most important.

Wrong. If the issue itself is the most important, than every president could face an investigation simply by someone accusing them of a horrendous crime. ("Hey, I once saw Obama sawing a lady's body in half!")

A presidential administration shouldn't be needlessly bogged down by endless investigations for which little, if any, evidence exists.

And here, there is one fact nobody denies (including yourself) that Trump requested that Ukraine commence criminal investigation on Biden’s. That is Trump colluding with Ukraine president to investigate a political opponent. THAT is corruption at it’s most basic.

No it's not. Are you seriously trying to claim that a president has no right to ask another country for information on possible corruption involving a U.S. citizen?

And where's your outrage over the Hillary campaign and Obama administration actually soliciting information from foreign governments -- from Russia, Italy, the U.K., Australia -- in hopes of linking Trump (a political candidate) to Russian collusion?

In fact, it would be better for Trump if he did try use persuasion to force the investigation, as it would not be collusion but pressure for advantage. BUT that is not what I am saying.

The Ukrainian president has stated that he was not pressured by Trump, nor was he even aware that U.S. military aid had been withheld when he was talking to Trump. Kind of tough to call that a quid pro quo when there's no "quo."

But your opinion has been shaped by reports from left-wing media who are bent on disparaging Trump. Try getting a more balanced view -- especially when it comes to the Barr investigation into the original of the Russia collusion investigation.

And consider the possibility of what I'm telling you: That "Russian collusion" was a hoax from day one, a political dirty trick carried out by the upper echelon of the Obama administration, with help from foreign intelligence services including Australia's.

If that proves to be true, it's as bad or worse than Watergate.

Oh, I can consider Russian collusion was a hoax. As I said before, it all fell into place. I don’t like Trump as a man, but I have never considered he actually did collude with anybody, until now. Again, I only consider the Russian interference as a demonstration as to how serious America takes such matters.
I do think this is worse than Watergate, because it has become clearer that America has turned a blind eye to what their political machine has done, does now and will do in the future.

America won't have turned a blind eye to political corruption if the Barr investigation -- and the Inspector General's report -- reveal how the Russian collusion hoax really started.

[Fred]

Well, Ukraine is generally known as a hotbed of corruption. But even if you buy into the results of the Ukrainian investigations, who has investigated Hunter Biden getting a $1.5 billion investment from China shortly after riding there with Daddy on Air Force 2?

My point is that up to now, the U.S. media has been throwing the kitchen sink into investigating Trump ... whereas Biden has gotten a free pass.

And you have a great point on bias.

However, this should never be an excuse for anybody to act unethical, illegally or unconstitutionally. Trump was elected president even though he is not a very well-liked person. I don’t believe it was due to his methods or bias, but the patients of the American people not wanting to put up with more of the same from the good old boys group.

So when a sitting president acts in such a matter, just because you can justify deplorable actions by pointing at other deplorable actions does not mean you should. Because the behaviour you willing to ignore is the standard you will accept.

Even so, the allegations are beginning to tarnish Quid Pro Joe's claims of being a blue-collar man of the people. A new poll shows him running 4th in Iowa.

Well, as I said earlier, I don’t think Biden was a serious contender to Trump. Even at the beginning of this stoush, he was third in line. Perhaps he was destine to be top, but I don’t think so. Still does not excuse Trumps actions.

Well, sources are what fuel investigations and often lead to criminal charges.

They do, but while they are “someone said” they remain rumour. While people report that rumour as fact they remain innuendo…

Again, since you like to believe Ukraine findings, you should love this Politico story detailing the way the Ukraine government helped the Hillary campaign: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ ... ire-233446

And yet, the leftist U.S. media wants to paint Trump as the guy who collaborates with foreign governments. Anything to avoid having to admit that he beat Hillary fair and square, all by himself.

Well, Forgetting the fact he was elected President (as obviously he was) the fact is, they don’t have to paint him as a collaborator. He even admits to asking Ukraine to investigate a US citizen for acts that have already been investigated. No matter how you spin it, that IS collaborating with a foreign body. The Motive for such action can only be for political purposes.

I don’t see the argument here except your saying, it is justified because of Media bias and the fact Many Trump detractors don’t accept Clinton was not popular (or policies doesn’t matter) to be elected.

I do believe this debacle is actually harming Trump more than anybody thinks. Due entirely to the fact, the man Trump is not a popular person, but he provided an alternative to the same old same old. If he actually ignored the fact he is not liked and just got on with the job, I think he would have won the next election by landslide.

Americans tend to take foreign interference in elections seriously -- assuming it had any measurable effect on the outcome.

I haven't seen any evidence of that yet.

Well, I think it probably did, but it doesn’t matter. Since Clinton put herself into such a precarious position through choice, she cannot complain (even though they do).

The point is simple, this Russia matter is still drawing criticism and allegations. It Is obviously considered serious matter. Honestly, while there seemed to be some smoke, it should have been investigated. But since, no smoking gun, no definitive evidence. Should something come up later jail him, but otherwise, just get on with it.

The complaint is that when foreign governments throw money at the children of a sitting Vice President, it has all the appearance of trying to buy influence. You do recognize that elected officials shouldn't personally take millions of dollars from foreign governments -- even if it's through close relatives -- yes?

I agree with the foreign investment point, but that is why it is paid to the family.

Yes, I agree it has the appearance because that is exactly WHY it is done. They are trying to buy influence and the ear of sitting members. Unfortunately it isn’t illegal, and making it so would only drive the activity to another method.

Highlighting the facts you say, is very legitimate campaigning, grandstanding little less favourable. BUT colluding with foreign governments to create bogus investigations is unethical and possibly criminal…

As for Trump, there's no allegation that he or his family took payoffs from foreign governments. It's not surprising that the businesses owned by a businessman who becomes president will continue to operate during his term -- and there's nothing wrong with that as long as the business doesn't influence national policy and vice versa.

As I said, it was only through acts or timing that created the innuendo of collusion. I don’t believe anybody is claiming payoffs, but I don’t live in America. And you rightly point out that there is nothing wrong with political leaders operating their business while in office. BUT this provides the appearance of favour of influence for business partners just as you point to Biden Jr’s investment from China, except, Jr is not in office.

There's plenty of evidence that the Hillary campaign hired Christopher Steele to prepare what has proved to be a phony dossier on Trump, so there's nothing "unfounded" about saying that they gathered their unsubstantiated material from Russia.

Oh I don’t think it is clear that Clinton did. After all, when Americans support things they do so with great fervour. It is obvious to all that Russia would have a dossier on anybody who is considered to be any influence on Russian interests. It would be stupid to think only America does such. BUT it is clear Steele lied about what that dossier contained. Stupid allegations created years ago, to tarnish Trump as a person. Motive was clearly to promote Clinton, the question is was he paid (I would suggest) and by whom.

Clearly, the Russian collusion was unsubstantiated.

Again, keep an eye on the Barr investigation, which should uncover the origins of the failed Hillary-Obama Russian collusion conspiracy to bring down Trump.

Oh, I don’t think anything more than the obscure Trump Russia investigation produced. In other words, I think Barr is beating a dead horse here to show something that simply will justify spending countless amount of money for political purpose, not running the country.

What "interference" are you talking about? The Mueller investigation, conducted by a team of angry Democrats, couldn't find any evidence of the Trump campaign colluding or coordinating with Russians. And it's not as if the Russian Interference amounted to anything substantial. You don't seem to be updated on this matter.

As I said, simply Trump worked it well. The Innuendo seems to be justified and was investigated. Clearly, nothing could be found.

As said, all appearance was that he had prior knowledge. Maybe he did and planned to work it, after all they were told of some smoking information, which turned out to nothing not already known. Meetings held was to the point of having detrimental information on Clinton election. It wouldn’t be a large leap to consider that something was coming. NOTHING saying he actually colluded with Russia, just the point it could well have been known prior.

It's not simply an FBI investigation into Hillary's letters. It's an investigation designed to determine whether the Hillary campaign and the Obama administration collaborated to illegally spy on an opposing candidate in hopes of rigging a victory in a presidential election. Not much different from Watergate.

And there's plenty more evidence that this actually occurred than the supposed "evidence" that Trump colluded with the Russians.

Surely you can acknowledge that this sort of thing is worth investigating. I mean, using government intelligence agencies to win an election is banana republic stuff.

Yes it is worth investigation, but again, I don’t think anything will come of it. Also, it is America investigating itself, not the head of state asking foreign governments to investigate for him.

It's great for Trump if officials from the Obama administration and/or Hillary campaign are indicted and convicted for engineering a bogus investigation designed to paint Trump as a Russian collaborator.

I don’t think it will come to such. Maybe somebody will fall on their sword. But it won’t be Clinton or Obama.

Really? Then why did Mueller's team talk to the Ukrainians during their bogus investigation of Russian collusion?

Why not??? They were not asking them to investigate, they were attempting to gather evidence for THEIR investigation. As stated, they are investigating their own.

If the Bidens were involved in influence peddling, they deserve to be investigated. You have to admit that it looks suspicious for Biden's son to be receiving $83,000 a month from a company located in the same nation for which his father serves as the U.S. administration's point man.

The fact that Biden is running for president doesn't make him immune to investigation. If that were so, every American criminal under investigation would run for president.

So investigate him, don’t expect other nations to continually spend money investigating and procuring evidence for what purpose??? Oh yeah, make the appearance of impropriety more real. Of course, asking your own Attorney general (correct title???) to investigate the actions of your own citizens AND your own homeland security to investigate corruption both perceived or real of potential presidential candidates would find what??? The appearance is just that.

Wrong. If the issue itself is the most important, than every president could face an investigation simply by someone accusing them of a horrendous crime. ("Hey, I once saw Obama sawing a lady's body in half!")

A presidential administration shouldn't be needlessly bogged down by endless investigations for which little, if any, evidence exists.

That is the crux, while Trump ran around attacking Obama over his birth certificate, that is OK. But consider the appearance of impropriety over the Russia, it was more than he said, she said. There were meetings, regardless of outcome.
Unlike other presidencies, Trump has allowed this to bog down his administration over his need to be liked.

No it's not. Are you seriously trying to claim that a president has no right to ask another country for information on possible corruption involving a U.S. citizen?

And where's your outrage over the Hillary campaign and Obama administration actually soliciting information from foreign governments -- from Russia, Italy, the U.K., Australia -- in hopes of linking Trump (a political candidate) to Russian collusion?

again, no problem with requesting information. The problem is that is not all that is happening.

As for Obama and Clinton, it is simply innuendo at present. Outrage comes forth after rumour finds some fact.

The Ukrainian president has stated that he was not pressured by Trump, nor was he even aware that U.S. military aid had been withheld when he was talking to Trump. Kind of tough to call that a quid pro quo when there's no "quo."

Yes it is. But does not mean it isn’t. However, I don’t consider it as being important information in collusion. He has already admitted asking.

America won't have turned a blind eye to political corruption if the Barr investigation -- and the Inspector General's report -- reveal how the Russian collusion hoax really started.

I would hope not, but allowing this acts to get to this point is rather pointedly as to the importance Americans make.