Just because I can't name something happening doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
So you're just shooting in the dark. Figured.
And just because something hasn't been done before, like punishing previous administrations for war crimes, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
So a POTUS should leverage foreign military aid in order to target a political opponent?
You can't see the obvious conflict of interest here and why it's highly unethical?
BTW it's also garbage:
Trump and Giuliani allege, contrary to evidence, that Biden improperly pressured the Ukrainian government in 2016 to fire then-Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin in the midst of a corruption investigation of one of Ukraine's biggest gas companies, Burisma Group. Biden's youngest son, Hunter, was serving on the company's board at the time.
But the prosecutor, in fact, was the target of pressure by Ukrainian anti-corruption advocates and a host of international supporters of Ukraine, who argued he should be fired for failing to pursue major cases of corruption. And it was the widely known and publicly espoused position of the U.S. government, across a half dozen agencies, that the prosecutor's ouster was among crucial anti-corruption measures that the Ukrainian government needed to take to move forward economically and politically. As President Barack Obama's point man on Ukraine, Biden dutifully relayed those messages at every opportunity.
Yet Trump and Giuliani have turned that real-life scenario on its head, falsely alleging that Biden sought to corruptly influence a Ukrainian prosecutor's decisions in his son's favor.
Neither of those make your false assertion of rationalizing true
#10 | Posted by Avigdore
You're pulling an opinion out of thin air, contrary to norms in every professional setting I'm aware of.
Your refusal to investigate at least a little bit for supporting info suggests you know how thin your argument is and hope that by avoiding any real challenge with side steps and ignorance you'll trick people into not seeing how thin your argument is.