167: thanks! I will have to check it out. I need more information. I appreciate that.

160. Not absolutely nothing... Tangential, sure... But not zero.

...It shouldn't have been done....

Damn phone.

But what do you do when the prosecutor in their attorney general office is corrupt? How can you bring weight to bear buy not involving the president.

I am but saying the president wasn't self serving at all, but this seems like a do the right thing and I benefit, more than a do this for me and only me, scenario.

If the investigation was good then yes, open and shut it sitting have been done. I guess I need to know much more about the initial investigation and more about the corrupt prosecutor.

The second one is what I meant. If it was another high profile American citizen, and his dad wasn't running for president. Would it be a good use of our political pressure to ask as foreign country to fire a corrupt prosecutor and reopen an investigation that on its face looks like it was closed improperly.

Under the assumption....

153. That's fair and why I was asking. It seems like I am missing something. I was under the unless the investigation was conducted and scuttled by the corrupt prosecutor. If there were others involved in the investigation not deemed corrupt, and they concurred with closing the investigation, that's something else. If it was just on the prosecutor and he scuttled it, then the investigation was a sham and it's not improper to revisit it, I wouldn't think.

144: again. The investigation was ended by a horribly corrupt prosecutor. Is it not in our best interest to revisit that after requesting they get rid of the prosecutor?

142: But that's the rub. His main political opponent. Would the request have been proper if it was any other American citizen? Is the act of his dad running for president enough to shield him from investigation? It seems like everyone is okay with shutting the investigation down. The investigation was scuttled by a prosecutor that has been deemed by the international community to be wildly corrupt. It's not okay to try and revisit that, regardless of whether his dad is running?

I am honestly asking, because all of the information I have seen about the initial investigation is that it was done by someone known to beer horribly corrupt, and his recommendations dubious at best.

Okay I have an honest question about these hearings. I didn't vote for trump and won't this time, so I hate how this will sound, but I am really curious about the answers:

1) is it okay for the President of the United States to ask for contingencies based upon the issuance of OUR money as aid?

2) is asking For investigations into possibly corrupt business practices involving American citizens, and firing corrupt prosecutors stonewalling said investigations, in America's best interest?

3) let's say Obama is still president and there is a guy, let's call him Grump, is running for president, and his son, let's call him Grump Junior, had been appointed in what appears to be in a corrupt way to a foreign business. Would it be okay for Obama to ask that an investigation be conducted before we turn over our money to the country?

4) is the act of running for president enough to shield you from investigation?

lastly:

5) Do we as Americans not believe that every president every day asks for returns on its 100s of millions of dollars in aid? Is that not WHY we give that aid out? So that we can advance our own self interest at the same time we are helping those countries? I get it that the involvement of Biden's son murky's the water, but does it really mean that Biden's can't be investigated because they are running, and the president may benefit? You still can't release money without contingencies, and that's as pretty good one.

Honestly, if I am missing something about the investigation into Biden's son and he is as pure as the driven snow, and the request is a sham, I am open to hearing about it. But on its face the case seems to raise valid concerns that need to be addressed.

But she's hot. I thought that made everything okay?

Let me know when your supplements help you when you encounter Polio, or some other horribly strong disease that has otherwise been eradicated except by morons that don't vaccinate besides the flu you are super excited about not catching.

Oh. So ray is a moron. Got it.

Vaccines are worthless. Jesus Christ. You can't be serious.

It's fascinating to me. This is the only time a "conspiracy theory" doesn't feel like one. You read the litany of real problems and it's almost laughable. The guy was a piece of crap and no one will miss him, but that doesn't mean someone gets to murder him without punishment.

Pretty unimpeachable source saying this. Thousands of autopsies, and says he has never seen one where the suicide by hanging victim had the three broken bones in their neck that Epstein had, or the comedy of terrors happened at the jail: Two broken cameras, two guards asleep, and his cell mate moved a few minutes before he died, and etc....

Definitely deserves a serious investigation.

Risk management is what the secret service does. obviously, they came to the determination that using the emergency vehicle exception.... Which every vehicle the secret service uses is... That bringing the vehicles was a priority. If you have ever seen a motorcade (i lived in DC for ten years before moving to Houston)... There are usually DOZENS of vehicles. This is a very small footprint comparatively.

#55 do you think armored cars raise or lower the safety risk to the person they are protecting.....AND the agents themselves? And you want to deny them the use of them, even though there are exceptions for emergency vehicles, because???

That you can't differentiate between a level of security necessary for the CURRENT vice president and a former president is laughable. They don't require near the assets. You really want the VP, who had on his staff a military aide who carries "the football" everywhere in case of emergency, to not have protection is hilarious.

You want any jerkwad with a free afternoon and a.22 to be able to capture our launch codes and throw the country into chaos?

You can't actually mean the secret service isn't necessary.

#33 because the consequences of one of our vips getting harmed in anyway is complex and far reaching. Not only would it leave a power vacuum causing chaos, it would also cause economic and political damage. Unstable markets, and etc...

Because of that the country decided it was in its best interest to create an agency that protects it's important leaders, and has laws mandating it.

It would be the utmost foolishness to expect their protection to ever be dropped.

#32 and because he is so much higher of a public official, his level of protection increases as well. It's not rocket surgery.

Plenty of things to criticize about. This isn't one of them.

Tremaine, you couldn't be more wrong. See, I was actually attending the event with the mother of my brother in law. There were over 60,000 seats and 53000 people crossed the gates and into the stadium. (You know the venues can take down the individual counts of how many come in.

The numbers of protesters outside on westridge and Kirby didn't even reach 10,000. It was much closer to 7k. Which is still an impressively large protest. No need to lie about it, though.

Just to see if I have this right. The island allows exceptions for emergency vehicles. The secret service brought 8 emergency vehicles over to the island. The vehicles are part of the security protection provided by policies and laws of the country.

But because they didn't ignore those policies and laws and used the afforded exception for emergency vehicles, everyone should freak out?