3 ms·
> That's a really low bar, and does not even rise to the level of preponderance of evidence. Really low bar for what? You’re saying “preponderance of evidence”
by jakelazaroff 7y ago
> That's a really low bar, and does not even rise to the level of preponderance of evidence.
Really low bar for what? You’re saying “preponderance of evidence” to allude to a burden of proof required for a courtroom verdict. But a whistleblower complaint is basically an allegation; can you name a single legal process where one is required to meet a burden of proof in order to allege wrongdoing?
> We have Senators Leahy, Menendez, and Durbin leaning on the prosecutor in Ukraine.
They were asking the prosecutor to cooperate with an already ongoing FBI investigation. Whereas Trump is asking the Ukranain President to work with the State Department and his personal attorney to investigate a political rival.
> We have President Obama doing the exact same thing, leaning on Ukraine.
This has been misrepresented: the prosecutor the Obama administration (including Biden) pressured Ukraine to oust wasn’t actually investigating his Burisma, the company with which Hunter Biden was involved. In addition, other Western countries wanted that prosecutor removed. [1]
> And then there is the behavior of the Bidens, enriching themselves by selling foreign influence.
Sure, let’s hold Biden accountable for this. But you really want to step into this ring? Trump has repeatedly and flagrantly used the presidency to enrich himself since day 1.
Edit, responded to other unrelated points.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/us/politics/biden-ukraine-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/us/politics/biden-ukraine...
- tomohawk 7y agoHonest, officer, I heard at the supermarket that my neighbor was engaged in activity that other people have publicly engaged in but I happen to think is illegal. To prove my seriousness, here is a brief prepared by lawyers about my hearsay allegations! Did you see it? No, but I heard at the supermarket...
- jakelazaroff 7y agoIf I inform an officer that someone at the supermarket told me they witnessed a murder, I really hope the officer would investigate further even though I didn’t witness it myself.
- andy_ppp 7y agoNo, if you have names of people and evidence as to who said what, fine. You can’t expect the police to investigate every overheard conversation, the “murder” for all you know is probably in Grand Theft Auto.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago> No, if you have names of people and evidence as to who said what, fine. The whistleblower went so far as to name the alleged perpetrators. Surely that warrants additional investigation.
- andy_ppp 7y agoWe were talking about a hypothetical murder, overheard in a super market not the case in question which obviously must be investigated.
- jakelazaroff 7y agoSure. So in our hypothetical scenario — as in the whistleblower complaint — let's assume that our secondhand informant is able to name the alleged perpetrators and details of the crime, conveying information given to them by six firsthand witnesses. What police officer wouldn't follow up on that?
- andy_ppp 7y agoI really think you might want to reread my previous comment because it clearly states the things you’ve said but disagrees that something overheard in supermarket is evidence worth investigating as context is all important. Thanks!
- abofh 7y agoHonest officer, they just showed me the evidence, admitted to it on television, and gave me an autographed copy of the tape.