Quid Pro Quo? Yes. It was.

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 89
#61
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ILikePie5
Laws are not magical barriers that prevent any and all described behaviour. Laws may be bypassed, challenged or ignored. Case in point, the funds were successfully blocked for a time.

Moreover even if you go down the line of argumentation, it completely ignores the ethical and moral concerns. Intent matters.

#62
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@ILikePie5
I mean.... assuming that there is a civil war - perhaps the side that won last time? The unradicalists that is. 
#63
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@ILikePie5
I think there is an issue with your screen/monitor.

I posted a detailed and systematic disproof of everything you said, but you seem to have missed it.... 

I mean, such a rational, coherent, correct human being would never have simply ignored an argument that shows they’re completely wrong... so must be a technology issue.


To answer your question: it only benefits one side - because you ignore all the cases where it doesn’t benefit one side.


For example - the reporting on Hillarys emails before the election; her passing out - didn’t help Democrats.

Requesting and publishing Faucis emails Didn’t help one side. Publishing claims about Cunningham, Northam, Cuomo - didn’t Simply help only one side.

I’m terms of political supremacy, I think that assuredly applies to both sides. 

Court packing is a Knee jerk reaction to the Republicans brazenly using their power to deny a valid democratic pick; then force through their own in similar circumstances. It would not be under discussion had McConnel not forced through ACB.

Statehood did DC, PR, expanding voting rights is indeed an attempt to gain power. The same way “anti-voter-fraud” legislation, is almost surgically targeted to make it harder for Democrats to vote.

The Democrats way of gaining political supremacy right now seems to be to a) allow everyone to vote, b) remove barriers to vote, c) enfranchise a bunch of people. D.) prevent people’s vote by being diluted through partisan gerrymandering.

This is not to say that Democrats can’t be voting right hypocrites At times: but the main proposals are basically “if more people can vote we win”, if you’re against that you do have to ask yourself “are we the baddies”?
Topic's author
#64
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
What incentive did Ukraine have to “announce” an investigation. None.
They were in the middle of a war and their military aid was being withheld.  Zelensky had also been asking for a meeting at the White House as a show of US support for Ukraine against Russia, something Ukraine valued very much yet only Trump could give them.

You don’t think these give Ukraine incentive? 

So at the very best it’s a request for an investigation into corruption. Don’t see what’s wrong with that.
Because you are blatantly ignoring everything that is.

These points have already been made in this thread but perhaps you haven’t read through it, so I’ll list them again. In this example we have:

- A US president asking a foreign nation to investigate his political opponent

- No legitimate predicate for the investigation

- The request for this investigation focusing more on the announcement of the investigation than the investigation itself

- The campaign for this investigation being led not by the justice department, but by the presidents  personal attorney

- Foreign aid withheld until this request was satisfied

- All of this done without the knowledge of anyone in the US government

- The aid resumed and the entire episode covered up once the story became public.

Not one of these things would have been acceptable to you if this were Obama, Hillary, or Biden. But Trump does it so it’s ok. And you guys call us hypocrites? Orangeman bad. The projection is staggering.

And since you’re really into this corruption excuse, can you please give me one example of Trump fighting back against corruption anywhere, ever? Occam’s razor makes this very clear to anyone who actually cares about reality.

Oh so you’re at Zelensky’s advisors. I have Zelensky  saying there was no blackmail. So who should we believe. An advisor or the President himself?
We believe the person who doesn’t have motivation to lie. That’s common sense.

Just ask yourself, if Ukraine was being blackmailed and Zelensky publicly admitted it… what would have happened? You don’t think this would have made headlines world wide? You don’t think Trump would have lost his shit and taken it out on Ukraine in every way he could think of? Ukraine needs the US, there was no upside to admitting this and huge downsides. To expect that Zelensky would have admitted it is ludicrous.

Meanwhile, Navikov has no incentive whatsoever to lie about this. And when Cuomo asked him “why are you the only one going on the record about what happened” his answer was simple… “because I’m the only one involved who is no longer in government”.

This isn’t complicated



Topic's author
#65
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
I wonder why it only benefits one side.
Because of the vast majority of the nonsense and brazen hypocrisy comes from the right. When you have one side focusing on infrastructure and COVID relief, and the other side focusing on making it harder for people to vote, making it easier to overturn people’s votes, “auditing” the previous election 8 months out, and worshiping the former president, it turns out the latter party will attract more negative coverage. Who knew?


#66
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
I mean.... assuming that there is a civil war - perhaps the side that won last time? The unradicalists that is. 
Nah it’s the side with the most guns. Aka Conservatives rather than the furries on your side 🤷‍♂️
#67
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Yes, because the average american, from either side, is totally capable enough to use it militarily in a war. (The answer is no - no they aren't) - you are quite literally more likely to shoot yourself or one of your allies than you are an enemy as a civilian regardless of politics. 
#68
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yes, because the average american, from either side, is totally capable enough to use it militarily in a war. (The answer is no - no they aren't) - you are quite literally more likely to shoot yourself or one of your allies than you are an enemy as a civilian regardless of politics. 

There’s a reason why NRA members haven’t committed a mass shooting lol. Gun owners know how to use their firearm. After that it’s just simple military training which ex armed forces (those who quit the liberal side) will teach as well. Plus most of the military is conservative. DC wouldn’t last a day
#69
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@ILikePie5
LMAO - that's why the military literally called MAGA a sign of white supremacist sympathy?

And again no - police officers have a terrible aim, muchless the average civilian - on average - civilians are more likely to shoot themselves or their allies than any enemies, are more likely to esculate a situation where violence is involved, the whole shebang - the facts of the case are that even people who are trained how to shoot a gun do not know the tactics behind shooting a gun. 

In other words- even people skilled enough to shoot guns, don't typically know how to shoot guns in an actual combat situation. No. The army isn't conservative and conservatives are more likely to literally kill themselves than others. 
#70
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,038
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Military also called Blacks inferior soldiers at one point in history.

I would seriously not put too much stock in political institutions like the Pentagon and the military.
#71
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Double_R
No, a president asking for his political opponent to be investigated is blatantly inappropriate.

Turns out that when you restate someone else’s comment and leave out the important part, it’s easy to make their statement sound dumb.

But back to the point; Why is this so difficult for you guys? If Obama in 2012 called China and asked them to investigate Mitt Romney would you really have a hard time understanding why that is at the very least, inappropriate?
There is a conflict of interest there, but that doesn't mean it isn't in our interest to know. Let's say there are credible rumors and some surface-level information going around suggesting that Romney is taking bribes from the mob, but the justice department doesn't do anything about it. No investigations.

At that point, I would say that it is good that we know whether or not the potential future president is corrupt. It isn't the ideal way to get that information to light because of the conflict of interest, but it is better than potentially vital information not being known at all.

 That’s why we have a justice department, and a free press.

A free press that gets banned from Twitter when they start digging into these corruption stories, eh?

This just isn’t serious. First of all, a private citizen getting a job at a private company is of no interest to the United States
It matters when someone seemingly highly unqualified is paid tons of money.... oh yeah, and the private citizen that you mentioned just so happens to be the vice president's son. The very same vice president that was put in charge of Ukraine policy. Crazy, and calling Hunter "just a private citizen" right after you criticize me for: "Turns out that when you restate someone else’s comment and leave out the important part, it’s easy to make their statement sound dumb"
 Second, the misunderstandings Rudy was talking about were the foreign aid that Trump stopped, and the meeting at the White House Ukraine was asking for that Trump was not responding to
And you think what? That Ukraine would do a false investigation fit with false evidence of some corruption? Biden threatened to not give them a loan unless they fired a prosecutor. You use leverage to get things done.
#72
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
I don’t think you bothered reading what I said lol. It’s easier to train someone who has a gone because they know the basics against people who believe guns are the sign of the devil. Your average redneck army could destroy a furry army easily lol
#73
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Um.... most liberals don't associate negative things with the devil (that's a conservative thing bud) - furthermore.... no - that would be average capacity for learning - and liberals are a lot better at that than conservatives... so.....
#74
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Um.... most liberals don't associate negative things with the devil (that's a conservative thing bud) - furthermore.... no - that would be average capacity for learning - and liberals are a lot better at that than conservatives... so.....
It was supposed to be a euphemism but ok? It takes more than learning. War has many factors. Your population is centered in urban areas. To win you’d have to occupy all the rural areas which y’all don’t know about. Ironically it’s why the Taliban has been  such a thorn. You also have to consider resources. Your oil will be cut off from the South. You won’t have millions of guns to train like we do.
Topic's author
#75
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
Let's say there are credible rumors and some surface-level information going around suggesting that Romney is taking bribes from the mob, but the justice department doesn't do anything about it. No investigations.
Then no investigations. That’s what the justice department is there for, and we rely on them because that’s where we have our actual experts who understand things like what counts as a valid predicate for an investigation, what is ethical, what is legal, and are bound by these principals. You know who fits none of that? Guys like level Lev Parnez who held no position in government and yet Trump tells him to remove the US ambassador. Or Rudy Giuliani who is not employed by any government agency and yet leading the way on investigating Biden. It’s absurd to claim this, on its face if nothing else, appears perfectly legit.

A free press that gets banned from Twitter when they start digging into these corruption stories, eh?
It speaks to the level of desperation required to defend the indefensible when you have to portray, as your argument, the idea that the free press of this country is beholden to Twitter.

the private citizen that you mentioned just so happens to be the vice president's son. The very same vice president that was put in charge of Ukraine policy.
Your point?

This just isn’t serious. First of all, a private citizen getting a job at a private company is of no interest to the United States
…Crazy, and calling Hunter "just a private citizen" right after you criticize me for: "Turns out that when you restate someone else’s comment and leave out the important part, it’s easy to make their statement sound dumb"
Crazy how you continue to make shit up about my argument just so you can accuse me of doing the misrepresenting. I never used the word “just”, you did.

And you think what? That Ukraine would do a false investigation fit with false evidence of some corruption? Biden threatened to not give them a loan unless they fired a prosecutor. You use leverage to get things done.
Thankfully, Ukraine never needed to worry about that since the story became public and the Trump administration tried to go along as if it never happened.

Using leverage to get things done for the country is fine,  that’s what people in power are supposed to do. Using that leverage for your own personal gain is not, that’s the literal definition of corruption. Do you not understand the difference?
#76
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Do you think that Texas is Red? It's purple, Rural is being more and more blue - maybe 10 or 5 years ago you'd be right - but not today. 
#77
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Do you think that Texas is Red? It's purple, Rural is being more and more blue - maybe 10 or 5 years ago you'd be right - but not today. 
Texas is becoming purple because of the growth of inner cities not because Republicans are losing margins in rural areas. If anything they are gaining in the exurbs and rural areas. I’m a Texan, trust me.
#78
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Double_R
Then no investigations.
Well then that’s just a fundamental disagreement.

It speaks to the level of desperation required to defend the indefensible when you have to portray, as your argument, the idea that the free press of this country is beholden to Twitter.
Well the free press loses contact with millions of people for all of their stories when they post one the tech companies don’t like. But I don’t think that the free press is beholden to Twitter. However a large portion of them waited until after the election to report on the story. There are the ones who prefer that candidate to win and won’t report on it and there is backlash against companies that do report on it. That is exactly what happened. One of the biggest news papers in the nation was blocked from speaking to their millions of Twitter followers for reporting factual evidence about a candidate’s son.

point?
I think it is quite clear what the point is. A guy who is in charge of the most powerful country in the world’s diplomacy has a crack-addict son that speaks no Ukrainian making absurd amounts of money in a field he knows nothing about.

But I guess that is nothing, eh? Just business as usual.

Crazy how you continue to make shit up about my argument just so you can accuse me of doing the misrepresenting. I never used the word “just”, you did.
Fine just “a private citizen”. What does making that pointless correction have to do with anything? You say nothing other than he is a private citizen: quite clearly you think there is nothing special about his relationship to the Vice President and that he is just an average private citizen, unless you were purposely being deceptive in your phrasing.

You said a private citizen getting a job is of no interest to us.

Using leverage to get things done for the country is fine,  that’s what people in power are supposed to do. Using that leverage for your own personal gain is not, that’s the literal definition of corruption. Do you not understand the difference?
I do, but this is a gray area where it is both in Trump’s interest and ours to know if Biden is corrupt or not.

If he is, then it helps Trump and voters. If he isn’t, then nobody is helped, except maybe Biden getting cleared.
#79
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@ILikePie5
I'm also a Texas, who lives in a rural community, cool bud. 
Topic's author
#80
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
I think it is quite clear what the point is. A guy who is in charge of the most powerful country in the world’s diplomacy has a crack-addict son that speaks no Ukrainian making absurd amounts of money in a field he knows nothing about.
Still waiting for the part where you explain why any of this matters. 

The fact that Hunter was battling a crack addiction - irrelevant

The fact that he doesn’t speak Ukrainian - irrelevant

My tax dollars were not paying Hunter’s salary, and Hunter had no authority within the US government. The absurd amount of money he was being paid came from a private company who has every right to pay their employees whatever they want.

If you want to argue that the US has a vested interest in this you need to link this to US affairs. Baseless speculation is not a link.

Moreover, it’s breathtakingly hypocritical for you to argue that this warrants a federal investigation while apparently not giving a rats ass about Ivanka, an actual federal employee, who dad is the sitting president, receiving patents from multiple foreign governments, many of which were approved right after Ivanka met with their prime ministers. It seems quite obvious what this is really about.

quite clearly you think there is nothing special about his relationship to the Vice President and that he is just an average private citizen, unless you were purposely being deceptive in your phrasing.
There is nothing special about his relationship from a law enforcement standpoint. Hunter has no authority  and swore no oath, so he is not obliged to the same ethics that actual office holders and federal employees are.

This was supposed to be about Joe Biden. Show me what evidence Trump had on Joe Biden at the time of the phone call to Ukraine.

I do, but this is a gray area where it is both in Trump’s interest and ours to know if Biden is corrupt or not.

If he is, then it helps Trump and voters. If he isn’t, then nobody is helped, except maybe Biden getting cleared.
There are grey areas here but it really isn’t that  complicated. There fact that an argument can be made for some hypothetical benefit to the US is an absurd standard. Nixon could have easily made the same argument; “duh I was spying on them to see if they are corrupt because if they are the US needs to know!”.  Any president can invent a reason why the country would benefit.

That’s why we ask what the primary intention was. To argue that Trump was primarily concerned about corruption in Ukraine is laughable. None of the context surrounding this situation supports that narrative and all of it contradicts it. And have you ever seen Trump fight back against corruption anywhere? Ever?

To argue that Biden would have benefited from “being cleared” is equally absurd. Investigations require a valid predicate. Because of this fact, we have all developed a strong skepticism towards someone’s innocence when we learn they are under investigation. The mere announcement of that investigation would have hurt Biden’s credibility and therefor weakened him politically. That’s common sense. Trump did not have that predicate, so what he was really trying to do was to steal that credibility from real investigative bodies in order to smear his opponent.

Well then that’s just a fundamental disagreement.
I’m not convinced of that. I don’t buy for a second that you would see it the same way if this were Biden, Clinton, or Obama. I don’t buy for a second that you really don’t see an issue with a US president going around the justice department to investigate his own political rival, and use US foreign aid to do it. Some things are just so obvious they shouldn’t need explaining.
#81
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm also a Texas, who lives in a rural community, cool bud. 

I’m willing to bet good money your county is red af. Or you just live along the border
#82
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,038
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Mexican ex-pats are furious.
#83
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Oh it is - however I don't base my conclusions on my immediate experiences. 
#84
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Oh it is - however I don't base my conclusions on my immediate experiences. 
I don’t see your point lol. It’s pretty much fact that Texas is changing because of the suburbs; though now the border is shifting to the right
#85
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Yes, the suburbs is definitely a big part of it, but they've been blue for a decade - so the new purple is not just suburbs - its also rural. 
#86
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yes, the suburbs is definitely a big part of it, but they've been blue for a decade - so the new purple is not just suburbs - its also rural. 
I think you’re mistaken. Suburbs have been ruby red for more than a decade. Now the margins are very close in suburbs like Collin County, Denton County, Hays County, Williamson County, and Fort Bend County, with the latter 3 going blue 2020.
#87
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,038
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
It remains to be seen how the California ex-pats behave.

It's my hope that they are more of the Boston tea party type furious over totalitarianist taxation and not  the 1984 Orwellian "2 minutes of hate" types.
#88
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Double_R
Still waiting for the part where you explain why any of this matters. 

The fact that Hunter was battling a crack addiction - irrelevant

The fact that he doesn’t speak Ukrainian - irrelevant

My tax dollars were not paying Hunter’s salary, and Hunter had no authority within the US government. The absurd amount of money he was being paid came from a private company who has every right to pay their employees whatever they want.

If you want to argue that the US has a vested interest in this you need to link this to US affairs. Baseless speculation is not a link.

Moreover, it’s breathtakingly hypocritical for you to argue that this warrants a federal investigation while apparently not giving a rats ass about Ivanka, an actual federal employee, who dad is the sitting president, receiving patents from multiple foreign governments, many of which were approved right after Ivanka met with their prime ministers. It seems quite obvious what this is really about.


You don't think that a guy making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year despite not speaking their language and being a crack addict is suspicious? A country Biden was in charge of diplomacy with. A country that has the second worst corruption score in Europe probably doesn't have "private companies" the way you try to portray them.

So absolutely his complete incompetence would be obviously relevant if you at least attempted to connect these facts.

If government officials are potentially using their power and changing their diplomacy to get their kids jobs, I'd say something is amiss there.

And I don't even know about this Ivanka story, so I don't understand how anything I am saying is "breathtakingly hypocritical". You never made any mention of it until now, and I have yet to express an opinion on it.

I'm sure you're highly distorting facts, but if that is the case, investigate that too.

This was supposed to be about Joe Biden. Show me what evidence Trump had on Joe Biden at the time of the phone call to Ukraine.
I don't know what evidence Trump and Giuliani were referring to. But they have more access to government intel than either of us.

Nixon could have easily made the same argument; “duh I was spying on them to see if they are corrupt because if they are the US needs to know!”
Nixon did nothing wrong. Not even once.

To argue that Biden would have benefited from “being cleared” is equally absurd. Investigations require a valid predicate. Because of this fact, we have all developed a strong skepticism towards someone’s innocence when we learn they are under investigation. The mere announcement of that investigation would have hurt Biden’s credibility and therefor weakened him politically. That’s common sense. Trump did not have that predicate, so what he was really trying to do was to steal that credibility from real investigative bodies in order to smear his opponent.
So did the baseless Russian collusion investigation unnecessarily hurt Trump's reputation?

Also, Clinton and Trump both had increased approval ratings after impeachment acquittals, so I'd say it is hard to argue that being cleared doesn't help you.

I’m not convinced of that. I don’t buy for a second that you would see it the same way if this were Biden, Clinton, or Obama. I don’t buy for a second that you really don’t see an issue with a US president going around the justice department to investigate his own political rival, and use US foreign aid to do it. Some things are just so obvious they shouldn’t need explaining.

Obama's FBI investigated the Trump campaign with FISA warrants that lacked probable cause. But now you have a problem with investigating political opponents. (Throw a lil whataboutism right back at ya)
Topic's author
#89
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
You don't think that a guy making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year despite not speaking their language and being a crack addict is suspicious?
Does this whole situation reek? Yes. It reeks of privilege. It reeks of a private company trying to curry favor by hiring a VP’s kid. It reeks of a private company trying to use that favor for political influence.

Key word here: *trying*

We don’t investigate someone because someone else *tried* to influence them. If we did we’d be investigating every congressman and Senator every time they sit down with a lobbyist.

You need a valid predicate, that is, an actual link between the efforts of the alleged influencer and the actions of the alleged influencee. Trump had no link. There was nothing here other than baseless speculation centered entirely on what Burisma was *trying* to do.

Baseless speculation is not a valid predicate to launch an investigation.

And I don't even know about this Ivanka story
Here’s a link, in case you actually care about corruption involving politicians being influenced by favors to their kids


I don't know what evidence Trump and Giuliani were referring to. But they have more access to government intel than either of us.
So in other words, you just believe whatever Trump says. A proven pathological liar. Wow.

I promise you, if they had any more to this they would have used it during the impeachment trial and certainly made sure it went public before the election.

Nixon did nothing wrong. Not even once.
You cannot be serious.

Also, Clinton and Trump both had increased approval ratings after impeachment acquittals, so I'd say it is hard to argue that being cleared doesn't help you.
Irrelevant. Impeachment trials are political, so they push everyone into their partisan corners making it easy for sitting presidents to play the victim (especially when your crime against humanity is lying about a blow job). That is an entirely different thing than being under investigation for corruption by a federal authority.

Obama's FBI investigated the Trump campaign with FISA warrants that lacked probable cause. But now you have a problem with investigating political opponents. 
Irrelevant for so many reasons.

The warrants lacked probable cause. That requires a much higher bar than opening in investigation. 

No one ever said I don’t have a problem with this.

Obama had no personal involvement. This was done by the justice department, the actual authority responsible for investigating impropriety.

The FBI did not disclose even the fact that this investigation was taking place till well after the election, contrasting entirely with Trump who only wanted the announcement while showing no real interest in the actual investigation.

And the big one… nothing was sought after in exchange for the investigation. The FBI was interested in the facts, that’s all, even if they were wrong for the methods they used.