Should There Be A Hunter Biden Probe?

Post Reply New Topic

Being Polish-Canadian I couldn't vote in the 2020 US presidential elections. That being said the point is moot. I despise both candidates with a passion.

Trump is a cruel arrogant buffoon, and Biden... is a senile old guy who would be better placed in a retirement home.

I feel Biden will have a lot to answer for. There is more evidence then ever now that Hunter Biden (his son) made unethical business dealings in the energy sector and Republicans are pushing towards a special counsel probe.

Should it proceed? If yes, what do you anticipate the outcome to be? If not, why so?

There probably will be.

Hunter Biden is a grown man. What he did should not transfer over to his father if his father had nothing to do with (Hunter’s) business dealings.

Yes. If he did the crime(s) he should do the time.

There already is a "Hunter Biden probe". (See CNN editorial here, for example.) Let's wait and see if it turns up anything.

Bill Barr apparently hasn't yet decided whether there's enough evidence to warrant appointing a special counsel, according to this Reuters story today.

It doesn't seem like the Justice Department is taking Hunter Biden very seriously at this point.

So now that they realized that Hunter Biden should be investigated, does it mean that they are gong to say that Trump shouldn't have been impeached (since that is the very thing he was impeached for)? Are they going to try to retract his impeachment?

Trump was acquitted. There's nothing to "retract."

But he is still impeached though. As Pelosi said, impeached means "forever impeached". So they need to retract it that way it won't be "forever impeached".

I mean lets compare him to Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was acquited too. But Bill Clinton was still impeached -- despite the fact that he finished his term. Now, is there a way to make it so that Donald Trump is "better off" than Bill Clinton in a sense that Bill Clinton is still impeached while Donald Trump isn't?

Probe.... yes... that's what he needs...

He was impeached (indicted). He was acquitted. His impeachment is part of history.

Just like Clinton's impeachment cannot be "retracted."

What makes Trump better than Clinton? Why should Trump's impeachment be "retracted," and not Clinton's, too?

Trump is too hung up over the election. He has provided very little actual leadership after the election was over. All he does, it seems, is tweet, and think of crazy ways to overturn the election.

Better only in the sense that Trump isn't guilty of what he was originally accused of and Clinton is.

When they start to investigate Hunter Biden this should, logically, imply that Trump did the right thing when he called for that investigation.

On the other hand Clinton didn't come around and say that he was just kidding and he didn't have sex with Monica.

YOU think Trump isn't guilty; other people don't share your impression.

Clinton didn't have "full intercourse" with Monica.

I don't understand why people like a President with the attention span of a toddler, and just as thinskinned as a toddler.

Clinton, for all you conservatives out there, was the last President to present us with a balanced budget.

The fact that they are investigating Hunter Biden shows that they do share my impression.

Basically, yes or not: should Hunter Biden be investigated or not? If the answer is yes, then Trump is not guilty. If the answer is no, then they shouldn't be investigating Hunter Biden right now either. They can't have it both ways.

There’s more pressing issues than investigating Hunter Biden.

Attorney General Barr was a staunch Trump ally. Even he now can discern Trump’s craziness.

Yeah, but you aren't saying that investigating Hunter Biden is wrong. Yet you believe that Trump should be impeached for doing it. Don't you see the inconsistency here?



Whether or not Trump is "crazy" is irrelevant. We are talking as to whether or not he should be impeached for something "specific" -- namely, asking Zelensky to investigate Biden. So you are basically saying that the fact that he is crazy justifies impeaching him even for something he isn't guilty of since the end justifies the means. Is this what you are saying?

There were two articles of impeachment.