 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Question: Is it appropriate for the president of the US to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival? |
Dave Dorsey |
I thought to post a thread asking this question after seeing this video: https://twitter.com/JoeStGeorge/status/1182355369001013248?s=19
I'm looking for a very simple "yes" or "no" to the subject question.
Let's assume:
- Trump's call with Ukraine was fine, he was not asking them to investigate Biden
- The current impeachment inquiry is a groundless partisan circus
- It is appropriate for the president to ask or order US law enforcement to investigate a political rival
- Even if it is inappropriate to ask this of a foreign leader, that doesn't mean it's impeachable
So don't argue Trump. Don't tell me about Obama and Medvedev.
Just answer the question in a straightforward way, divorced from the context of any particular president or situation.
Question: Is it appropriate for the president of the United States to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival?
My answer is absolutely no. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/11/19 8:05 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| YES |
Aaron Scott |
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.
YES. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6039
10/11/19 10:38 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: YES |
Dave Dorsey |
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.
So ignoring your multiple paragraphs about Trump and Biden and getting back to the subject question, am I correct in reading that your answer is "YES", it is appropriate for a US president to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival?
Note: You don't have to spend seventy paragraphs contextualizing your answer. I'm not going to read it. I'm not interested in discussing or debating Trump's Ukraine call. I'm just curious, at a basic level, devoid of any specific context relating to any specific person or scenario, whether folks view the subject action is appropriate or inappropriate.
No "gotcha" is possible, because so far as I am concerned within the walls of this thread, Trump is as pure as the driven snow. I am only asking about perspectives concerning the subject question itself.
I am happy to participate in discussion about the question. For instance, my position is that it is not okay to do this regardless of the merits of the underlying action, and that even if a political rival committed a huge crime that required the investigative assistance of a foreign nation, that request would be appropriate only through the proper law enforcement channels on both sides.
But I'm not looking to "gotcha" anyone about Trump and I'm not going to interact with discussion about him. I'm just looking for an abstract discussion about the underlying question. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/11/19 10:47 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
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.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
10/11/19 10:51 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | | 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 blah blah blah blah... |
*banging head against desk* |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/11/19 10:52 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | | 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. |
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 no it is not appropriate, and yes it is an impeachable abuse of power.
If you say yes, I'm not going to turn it around on you and say the Ukraine call is exactly the same and Trump should be impeached. 
Let's talk about the underlying question of US presidents (or Congresspeople, political parties, etc.) engaging with foreign powers for assistance in dealing with, investigating, or otherwise hindering political rivals.
Really, seriously not trying to get you guys. Just wondering where people stand on the involvement of foreign leaders/powers in the American political process, since right now both sides in US politics are making this accusation against their opponents. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/11/19 11:02 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Nature Boy Florida |
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.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16641
10/11/19 11:28 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| Nature Boy Florida wrote: | | Sorry Dave. This isn't a no or yes answer |
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. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/11/19 11:30 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | | Nature Boy Florida wrote: | | Sorry Dave. This isn't a no or yes answer |
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.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Last edited by Resident Skeptic on 10/11/19 8:09 pm; edited 2 times in total |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
10/11/19 12:59 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | | 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 hunt 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. |
My son is homeschooled and we have found some really great elementary reading programs. Would you like me to PM you some links? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/11/19 1:23 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Question: Is it appropriate for the president of the US to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival? |
UncleJD |
| Dave Dorsey wrote: |
Question: Is it appropriate for the president of the United States to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival?
|
I'll have to go by precedent and say YES. Thanks Obama.
Meanwhile EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT is the president's "political rival", so I guess they can be corrupt as the day is long and never worry about anything in your happy world. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3145
10/11/19 3:45 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Question: Is it appropriate for the president of the US to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival? |
Dave Dorsey |
| UncleJD wrote: | | Meanwhile EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT is the president's "political rival", so I guess they can be corrupt as the day is long and never worry about anything in your happy world. |
This is an incredibly thoughtless and bad faith summary of the question I am asking.
Asking if it's appropriate for the president to ask a foreign head of state, one on one, to investigate a rival on the president's behalf in no way precludes a lawful, above board investigation of a political rival of the president's who is a criminal or corrupt. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/11/19 4:04 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Yes |
Aaron Scott |
Dave,
Yes.
Sorry for previous. Just felt it needed context...since you are a godless communist.
(SMILE)
Not really. You're just a plain communist. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6039
10/11/19 4:28 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
I will say Yes.
If this should ever happen in our government, I would think a 'request' by letter should be delivered via the Ambassador or Sec of State. It also would not hurt to notify a foreign relations committee (if there is one) that it is being done.
Also if it should happen in our nation, wisdom would be to do it BEFORE a person is an active candidate in competition for the presidency, to ensure there is no finger pointing.
Well, the answer is still YES, but using some wisdom. A president usually attracts a lot of curves and fast balls, sometimes a president seems to attract more than others. 
If we ever had a president to do this, it would be nice if he watched his timing. just sayin'.
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24283
10/11/19 4:56 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Question: Is it appropriate for the president of the US to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival? |
UncleJD |
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | | UncleJD wrote: | | Meanwhile EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT is the president's "political rival", so I guess they can be corrupt as the day is long and never worry about anything in your happy world. |
This is an incredibly thoughtless and bad faith summary of the question I am asking.
Asking if it's appropriate for the president to ask a foreign head of state, one on one, to investigate a rival on the president's behalf in no way precludes a lawful, above board investigation of a political rival of the president's who is a criminal or corrupt. |
Since we all know the context in which you asked the question, then how are we supposed to divorce that context from our answers. But since you want a simple answer and no defense of that answer, then "yes". But its pretty boring if there is no discussion of the context of the answer don't you think? |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3145
10/11/19 5:55 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
No, I think it's useless and pointless to trade partisan barbs about the Ukraine situation. But the underlying question of what is it isn't appropriate between heads of state in an abstract sense (separated from the frothing need to defend or attack Trump for whatever he did or didn't do), is an interesting ethical question IMO.
And for sure I am looking for a defense of the answer to the ethical question. Just not a defense of or attack against Trump. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/11/19 6:58 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Change Agent |
| I will say yes. Doesn't matter which party. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1449
10/11/19 8:01 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
UncleJD |
| You should have made it a poll, then a discussion, but I'll say why I believe "yes". As long as there is not a false story and that is used to obtain further surveillance on the opponent (which absolutely was done by the previous president). It is ALWAYS appropriate to ask if a government has participated in corruption with an American politician. The fact that the opposition is always going to be a "potential opponent" makes it a moot point in my opinion, and even enhances the level of corruption when that person or party chooses to hide behind that as an obvious excuse. So, yes, the President should be free to ask if there was corruption and what the nature of that was, at any time, its immaterial what party affiliation there was. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3145
10/11/19 8:16 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
diakoneo |
Should he be allowed to ask to investigate actions of any US citizen?
Yes...he is the chief law officer of the US. If he feels there have some unlawful activity going on. Yes. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3382
10/11/19 9:05 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| diakoneo wrote: | | Yes...he is the chief law officer of the US. If he feels there have some unlawful activity going on. Yes. |
Well -- that's not true. That's the Attorney General, which has not traditionally been the "protector of the president" that it became under Holder/Lynch/Barr. I think this question demonstrates why it's important that the chief law enforcement responsibilities are (supposed to be) vested in a Senate-confirmed position that is appointed by the president but upholds the law separate from him. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
10/12/19 1:49 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
