potential of a problem with the POTUS soliciting an investigation of his political rival.
#42 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS
Carter Page, Crossfire Hurricane, Mueller, etc.
#44 | POSTED BY JEFFJ
As background... I have already posted a few times saying how I don't think it is necessarily inappropriate for Barr to contact foreign governments in pursuit of his inquiry over the Russian investigation. I question his motives, but just the actions are not enough to say he is acting inappropriately. But, that is mainly because he is acting within the framework of our system to do so. An inquiry has been opened (I assume) and he is just doing his job to further the inquiry. The inquiry brings with it transparency and limits (oversight, warrants, subpoenas) that ensures that he acts within the bounds of the law and that it is documented so that his actions can be reviewed in the future.
Contrast that with Trump. Where is the inquiry? Where is the investigation? Where are the protections on the civil rights of private citizens (which is what Hunter Biden is)? Where is the oversight?
All of your examples listed for comparison are ACTUAL FBI investigations. Performed within the framework of the system, meaning that there are checks in place to ensure that rights are not abused (too much) and that there are oversight mechanisms in place to bring to light and deal with anyone going outside the bounds of the system.
If you can show where the appropriate US investigating authority (FBI, DOJ, State, ...) REQUESTED that Trump or his administration assist them in procuring information or cooperation from Ukraine, then I would grant that impeachment would be shaky. Still justified because Trump should not be getting involved AT ALL, but conservatives are pretty good at playing the "we were too stupid to know any better" card because you have given people reason to believe you are that stupid. But I would not support impeachment because I think there would be too much doubt about whether Trump actually INTENDED to go after his opponent as opposed to fulfill the duties of his office.
But, without that, he is ONLY going after his opponent because there is no "fulfull the duties of his office" in this situation.
If Obama did this, Republicans would be crying bloody murder. They were ALREADY crying bloody murder over the examples you cited above, in which cases he did EVERYTHING above board and by the book.
Is this behavior you want to set in precedent as "acceptable"? Because that is what you are saying. That is what you are building. Do you want the next Democratic president to be able to call up foreign leaders and basically say "Open an investigation within your country into my Republican opponents"?