Republicans Cannot Admit That Joe Biden Has Constitutional Privacy Rights

[OKTexas]

ABC Sunday morning always asks if guests approve of Trump inviting foreign interference in US Election, investigating opponents: Primarily Vice President Biden. Republicans invariably deflect noting that the White House cannot send monies into nest of corrupt activities--wherein intended outcome would not occur.

The actual conflict-of-interest in the Ukraine Phone Call--corruption--centers on Hunter Biden. No one denies that taking the lucrative Ukrainian lawfully provided stipend for the directorship was a conflict of interest. Hunter never advised the Vice President's Office of the new position.

Then there is the matter of how Hunter Biden may have been the subject of an investigation. There had been a widely notorious corrupt prosecutor of sordid reputation on entire continents. Hunter had no apparent qualifications for the high-paying position.

So many might wonder if the corrupt prosecutor was using a Ukrainian investigation against the son as an extortion tactic even. Nothing political or partisan had even to be alleged.

So no probable cause exists to infer that the Vice President--Biden--may have improperly used leverage to get the prosecutor fired. The Corruption Thing, same legal basis.

In the matter of the phone call, not even any references to allegations of wrong-doing are noted in requesting a Ukrainian investigation of the U. S. private citizen, former Vice-President Biden.

The failure of the White House is tantamount to a KGB assassination attempt, even: Creating an incident outside of applicable law of Soviet, or now-Russian federation.

The President of the United States was not upholding and defending the U. S. Constitution: In the matter of creating a warrant-free request of another nation--outside the usual extradition and legal proceeding rules--to violate the private citizen's constitutional rights.

The FBI even has way more experience at it.(?). . .the matter of corruption investigations.

Federal Investigations: What Everyone Should Know

The Republicans have no basis on which to allege a corruption investigation in the matter of the subject phone call transcript between the two Presidents: Especially as the additional details unfold. Joe Biden does have Constitutional protections. The Presidents is required to faithfully execute the laws of the United States: Clearly including the Constitutional protections.

Process stuff!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred"
(White Eyes imported even Great Fire Ant Mounds to assist in usual investigations on Lands of Many Nations--just maybe(?)!)

Wow, what the hell are you smoking. Your first sentence proves bias on the part of ABC. Also Bide is a public figure, he has no constitutional right to privacy. Nuff said.

.

 

[Lysistrata]

ABC Sunday morning always asks if guests approve of Trump inviting foreign interference in US Election, investigating opponents: Primarily Vice President Biden. Republicans invariably deflect noting that the White House cannot send monies into nest of corrupt activities--wherein intended outcome would not occur.

The actual conflict-of-interest in the Ukraine Phone Call--corruption--centers on Hunter Biden. No one denies that taking the lucrative Ukrainian lawfully provided stipend for the directorship was a conflict of interest. Hunter never advised the Vice President's Office of the new position.

Then there is the matter of how Hunter Biden may have been the subject of an investigation. There had been a widely notorious corrupt prosecutor of sordid reputation on entire continents. Hunter had no apparent qualifications for the high-paying position.

So many might wonder if the corrupt prosecutor was using a Ukrainian investigation against the son as an extortion tactic even. Nothing political or partisan had even to be alleged.

So no probable cause exists to infer that the Vice President--Biden--may have improperly used leverage to get the prosecutor fired. The Corruption Thing, same legal basis.

In the matter of the phone call, not even any references to allegations of wrong-doing are noted in requesting a Ukrainian investigation of the U. S. private citizen, former Vice-President Biden.

The failure of the White House is tantamount to a KGB assassination attempt, even: Creating an incident outside of applicable law of Soviet, or now-Russian federation.

The President of the United States was not upholding and defending the U. S. Constitution: In the matter of creating a warrant-free request of another nation--outside the usual extradition and legal proceeding rules--to violate the private citizen's constitutional rights.

The FBI even has way more experience at it.(?). . .the matter of corruption investigations.

Federal Investigations: What Everyone Should Know

The Republicans have no basis on which to allege a corruption investigation in the matter of the subject phone call transcript between the two Presidents: Especially as the additional details unfold. Joe Biden does have Constitutional protections. The Presidents is required to faithfully execute the laws of the United States: Clearly including the Constitutional protections.

Process stuff!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred"
(White Eyes imported even Great Fire Ant Mounds to assist in usual investigations on Lands of Many Nations--just maybe(?)!)

The whole history of the current republicans shows that they do not believe that Americans have any right to privacy. From Americans' bodies to our finances to our personal relationships and sexual relationships, to our religious beliefs, they believe that they can just barge in at any time. This is one, and I repeat one, of the chief reasons that I will never vote for a republican. Much too primitive for me.

 

[mascale]

So the one basis answer is that since before the Civil War, the Executive has to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, here and there(?). There in fact may include even Mars, walking in space, or on the moon. Ukraine would generally be said included.

PROTECTION OF AMERICAN RIGHTS OF PERSON AND PROPERTY ABROAD

The White House claims it did not collude with the Russians, for example, in 2016. No one seems to suggest that it is following the laws of the United States--Amendments 4, 5, and 6--in the matter of the quid pro quo of the Ukraine Presidential phone call. Holding up defensive capability of an impacted strategic partner could be thought by some an Act of War, even(?).

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(US Republicans and Fire Ant mounds: Two things that seem to go together well(?)--starting at the top!)

 

[Olde Europe]

The whole history of the current republicans shows that they do not believe that Americans have any right to privacy. From Americans' bodies to our finances to our personal relationships and sexual relationships, to our religious beliefs, they believe that they can just barge in at any time. This is one, and I repeat one, of the chief reasons that I will never vote for a republican. Much too primitive for me.

I mostly agree with the above. Well, there are two issues with it. First, Democrats also do not have much to brag about concerning the plutocrats' infringement on individual privacy, resulting in privacy protections in the U.S. lagging far, far behind pretty much the entire rest of the developed world.

Secondly, the argument that Biden has an expectation of privacy is eminently weak, considering that he is a public person, and held public office at the time of the much-maligned behavior in Ukraine. Citizens' right to know what their public officials are doing in their name supersedes, by far, that official's privacy rights, particularly so since that behavior was in his official capacity.

That said, there is enough do demonstrate that the accusations against Joe are ludicrous, ranging from his executing official U.S. foreign policy at the direction of President Obama (no, Joe did not withhold the billion dollar loan guarantee on his own volition), to the entire developed world and the World Bank and the IMF all urging Ukraine to boot that so-called prosecutor, not to mention the complete absence of any evidence for corrupt behavior on Joe's part.

 

[BluesLegend]

Republicans Cannot Admit That Joe Biden Has Constitutional Privacy Rights

Exactly!!

Joe's corruption must remain private.

Americans have no right to know about any Dem corruption......it says so in the Constitution.

But Trump must give up a privacy right guaranteed by law and let everyone have access to his tax returns. These liberals are assholes.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

OP translation: Biden and son are corrupt but I'll deflect it to trump.

 

[Oldstyle]

The Constitution is a written document, and case-law volumes fill up entire buildings all over the USA.

1. The conflict of interest is not the subject of the phone call.
2. Vice-President Biden's office was not apprised of the new Hunter Biden employment.
3. The subject of the Russian annexation of Crimea does appear in the background.
4. The USA and entire continents had further condemned also that.
5. The Republicans are trapped into acknowledging that the Vice-President had widespread concurrence--and even on advice from the Obama White House: To proceed with the anti-corruption demand in that matter.
6. The President of the Ukraine--Merkel and the other named leadership--were not cited as having created allegations against Joe Biden.
7. That by itself weighs in too heavily.
8. An entire range of officials all over--on-board or not with the Crimean Annexation--were mentioned, and in the context of being replaced.
9. No ties to Vice-President Biden were alleged.
10. The aid became an outcome of the phone call, but was only legal due to the Congressional appropriation.
11. The Faithful Execution of the Laws gap is significant--many would say--way beyond just a breach of the law.

The Republicans are even stuck with the problem that the Crimean Annextion was actually a basis to not meet with Vladimir Putin.

So any traveler from the USA does not lose US Constitutional protections--on that basis--even airlines can believe in. . .and then it's on the Cruise Lines, the fishing tours, the train companies: And the circus dog acts.

What Poochie can believe in: So can . . . .voters. Citizenship applies internationally, even to Blacks(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Need more Fire Ant Mounds.. . .For France(?!))

Are you claiming that Joe Biden didn't know that his son was given the position on that board? Really, Mascale? That Joe Biden...who was put in charge of handling the Ukrainian situation by Barack Obama...didn't know that Hunter Biden was given a very lucrative job for which he had zero qualifications other than being the son of a US Vice President?

 

[Muhammed]

ABC Sunday morning always asks if guests approve of Trump inviting foreign interference in US Election, investigating opponents: Primarily Vice President Biden.

Bullshit. Investigating opponents does not constitute interference in the election you stupid motherfucking idiot. Running for political office does not grant Joe Biden and his family members immunity from prosecution or investigation, jackass. Otherwise every murderer in the country would simply put his name on the ballot to avoid prosecution.

Furthermore, the US and Ukraine have a Mutual Legal Aid Treaty. The MLAT requires us to cooperate with each other in criminal matters. Under Article VI of the US Constitution, Trump is required to honor that treaty. Therefore it would be a violation of his oath of office to refuse to do that to the best of his ability.

 

[M14 Shooter]

ABC Sunday morning always asks if guests approve of Trump inviting foreign interference in US Election, investigating opponents: Primarily Vice President Biden....

Why do you think people running against an incumbent white house are immune to federal investigations into their past acts while in federal office?
Why do you think asking the government of another country to help investigate the possible corrupt actions of a VPotUS with regard to that country is immoral, illegal or impeachable?

 

[blackhawk]

That is rather interesting given how much time and effort the Democrats have put into getting hold of Donald Trumps tax returns even though everyones tax returns are private.

 

[iceberg]

democrats can't admit trump didn't collude with russia
that he doesn't have to show his taxes
that he is allowed however much ice cream he wishes

and lots of other things.

 

[Olde Europe]

Aw, there's the rightarded bawling again on behalf of, and in subservience to, the poor widdle Dear Leader.

No, Trump is not being asked to give up any "right", and also not his "right to privacy". He is being asked to demonstrate that he is not beholden to any interests that would be detrimental to the nation's. That's why every president during the last 40 something years released his tax returns so as to earn the citizens' informed trust. Their rights remained intact.

Trump doesn't need that informed trust. He knows his good Trumpletons are with him no matter whose interests he serves. And they are proud of their... service.

Also of note, the Dear Leader promised to release his tax returns. Also of note, that would be yet another broken promise Trumpletons, in their subservience, do not care about.

 

[iceberg]

Aw, there's the rightarded bawling again on behalf of, and in subservience to, the poor widdle Dear Leader.

No, Trump is not being asked to give up any "right", and also not his "right to privacy". He is being asked to demonstrate that he is not beholden to any interests that would be detrimental to the nation's. That's why every president during the last 40 something years released his tax returns so as to earn the citizens' informed trust. Their rights remained intact.

Trump doesn't need that informed trust. He knows his good Trumpletons are with him no matter whose interests he serves. And they are proud of their... service.

Also of note, the Dear Leader promised to release his tax returns. Also of note, that would be yet another broken promise Trumpletons, in their subservience, do not care about.

funny. and the left is being asked to prove any or all of their allegations are TRUE and that they themselves are not guilty of doing what they accuse others of doing.

politicians promise things all the time. obama promised transparency. didn't get you twist up when that went nowhere.

 

[Olde Europe]

funny. and the left is being asked to prove any or all of their allegations are TRUE and that they themselves are not guilty of doing what they accuse others of doing.

Yep, and Democrats are in the process of doing exactly that. Of course, you are bawling about that, too.

 

[mascale]

The application of US law in the matter of Trump's tax returns is that he is USA President. Amendments 4, 5, and 6 apply. The House is not leveling charges regarding the release of tax returns.

So in the matter of Hunter Biden--there is further the public record of both parties that the Office of the Vice President was not informed of the new job, and so in the application of treaties and other US law: Then the presumption of innocence applies.

In the matter of Treaty Obligations, then likely even the Ukrainian President would have had to consult with Ukraine legal scholars about violating the Civil Rights of a US National, especially since the request was further a violation of US law regarding the Executive fully and faithfully executing the Law in the matter of US nationals, even travelling abroad.

The phone call raised no allegations of a warrant having been created, of any FBI or other report or allegations having been created. There are legal constraints on Executive abilities in the Law.

So since the Executive invited foreign intervention in violation of US law--alleging as a defense that US Law doesn't even exist: Could even be construed an Act of War--an illegal agreement with a foreign power.

More to the point: It is known that the President lies, even in matters pertaining to North Korea.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Fire Ants like even Mira Lago resort event better(?)!)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The application of US law in the matter of Trump's tax returns is that he is USA President. Amendments 4, 5, and 6 apply. The House is not leveling charges regarding the release of tax returns.

So in the matter of Hunter Biden--there is further the public record of both parties that the Office of the Vice President was not informed of the new job, and so in the application of treaties and other US law: Then the presumption of innocence applies.

In the matter of Treaty Obligations, then likely even the Ukrainian President would have had to consult with Ukraine legal scholars about violating the Civil Rights of a US National, especially since the request was further a violation of US law regarding the Executive fully and faithfully executing the Law in the matter of US nationals, even travelling abroad.

The phone call raised no allegations of a warrant having been created, of any FBI or other report or allegations having been created. There are legal constraints on Executive abilities in the Law.

So since the Executive invited foreign intervention in violation of US law--alleging as a defense that US Law doesn't even exist: Could even be construed an Act of War--an illegal agreement with a foreign power.

More to the point: It is known that the President lies, even in matters pertaining to North Korea.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Fire Ants like even Mira Lago resort event better(?)!)

The phone call raised no allegations of a warrant having been created,

Of course no warrant is ever needed for a phone call.

So since the Executive invited foreign intervention in violation of US law-

You're lying.

Could even be construed an Act of War-

Dude!

an illegal agreement with a foreign power.

Like the Paris Accord?

 

[Olde Europe]

So in the matter of Hunter Biden--there is further the public record of both parties that the Office of the Vice President was not informed of the new job, and so in the application of treaties and other US law: Then the presumption of innocence applies.

Heavens. According to both Joe and Hunter the latter told the former about the job on the Burisma board. Hence, your claim that the "Office of the Vice President" was not informed about it is scurrilous at best. The presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it either way.

 

[iceberg]

funny. and the left is being asked to prove any or all of their allegations are TRUE and that they themselves are not guilty of doing what they accuse others of doing.

Yep, and Democrats are in the process of doing exactly that. Of course, you are bawling about that, too.

dramaqueenie? not bawling about much of anything unless someone tells me i'd have to spend my lunch hour talking to you. that would do it.

the dems have been "in process" for any reason they could muster since trump was elected. they keep stepping on the rake in the yard and bonking their face with the handle and go off looking for something else to hit him with.

 

[mascale]

There is no report that Hunter Biden ever told the Office of the Vice President, or even dad, about the Ukraine job. The reports are that Joe Biden, at the time, learned about it from media reports.

Media, and the reports have rights, too--clearly opposed by Olde Europe loving poster: In US Law, famously known even worldwide. See toward the bottom of the link.

The phone call, in active context, alleged no warrant or investigation in process regarding Joe Biden. More criminal civil rights violations arise--going even to the matter of conspiracy to violate civil rights, and directed interference, per request, with the foreign invasion in the matter of the violation of civil rights--expected to be honored, even treaty.
Joe Biden & Ukraine: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great mounds created from shovels: Don't Lie!)

 

[The Purge]

Pictures worth a thousand words!

exactly...