It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hypothetical: Read this and respond as if you had no political affiliation

page: 2
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:23 AM
link   
nice deflection. what are you trying to say?

Biden got his son the job? have proof?

Is it illegal for him to take that job? or was it?

bored today?

Why not make an anti John McCain thread so you can talk # about him next???

You know, cus trump told you too...

bozo mfrs ....




posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: network dude

Joe should go to jail, and share a cell with the President who violated the constitution by asking Venezuela to dig up dirt on his political opponent.

Can we agree?



But the laws of the US don't apply to another country. So if smoking marijuana or coc aine (etc) is legal there, the US can't pounce and shriek "Prosecute him!" unless the action took place on a piece of land considered US soil (like a military base.)



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I think (hypothetically) that if Trump used his political clout and threatened sanctions against another nation for entirely personal reasons that he should be prosecuted for serious political corruption and that if a political opponent asked for said country's assistance in investigating such corruption (without coercion) he would be within his rights and doing the American public a huge favor.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude
Crimes should be investigated, always. Fullstop. That is, if there is actual evidence and not hearsay over three corners.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Hypothetically it would be unethical for an elected official of the United States to use his position as clout to arrange for a cushy job anywhere. I think.

Hypothetically it would be unethical for an elected official of the United States to use his position as clout to shut down an investigation on his sons activities. I think

Hypothetically, a private American citizen hears about this and wants to inquire into the unethical use of clout by an elected official of the US government. This I would think should be ok.

Hypothetically, this private citizen with no ability to investigate this himself, hires investigators to do it for him. This I also think would be ok...

But hypothetically, should this private citizen be running for that elected officials position would it be ethical for him to hire investigators to work with a foreign government for information. I don't know. Possibly not. I don' know.

And hypothetically this private citizen has no leverage. This private citizen cannot use government phones and resources to find this information. This private citizen cannot use the power of the Presidency to achieve his personal goals. Or his political goals.

Hypothetically, can you see the difference here?



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk
a reply to: network dude

I think (hypothetically) that if Trump used his political clout and threatened sanctions against another nation for entirely personal reasons that he should be prosecuted for serious political corruption and that if a political opponent asked for said country's assistance in investigating such corruption (without coercion) he would be within his rights and doing the American public a huge favor.



thanks for being the one person who can follow directions. I agree with you completely.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

And if the laws of that country are being thwarted by an American diplomat, like just for argument sake, the VICE PRESIDENT of the US, and he claims the PRESIDENT is on board, you feel that interfering with that countries justice system is OK, you know, since they were looking into the company that the VICE PRESIDENT's son worked for, on the board, making $50,000 a month.

I look forward to your well thought out ethical morally superior reply.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Almost pulled a Schiff with this one OP.
Good save being up front about the hypothetical, so the lax readers missed the uptake.

Hypothetically, I think it likely that the turmoil over this mess will result in
[self censored]
and we'll just have to deal with it - wonder how that turns out?

ganjoa



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Byrd

And if the laws of that country are being thwarted by an American diplomat, like just for argument sake, the VICE PRESIDENT of the US, and he claims the PRESIDENT is on board, you feel that interfering with that countries justice system is OK, you know, since they were looking into the company that the VICE PRESIDENT's son worked for, on the board, making $50,000 a month.

I look forward to your well thought out ethical morally superior reply.


You've got two different arguments here.

Some diplomats have "diplomatic immunity" for certain offenses. I have no idea what this covers, but it does happen.

If the laws of that country are being thwarted, then it is up to that country to investigate and prosecute. You should probably state which laws (and relevant links to those laws) that were broken that are prosecuteable under the laws of that country.

I don't know enough about international law, the laws of Venezuela (your hypothetical example) or the Ukraine to comment on them. There are law libraries devoted to them and a lot of courts and international courts that deal with them. The people who know them best are diplomats in the State Department, scholars of foreign affairs who specialize in those countries, and lawyers who argue cases of international law.

As to your second statement, you probably misread me. I believe that we have no jurisdiction and no right to say "investigate this guy." When we suspect that there's a crime (taking place in another nation) involving another nation, the usual process (which I feel is appropriate) is to have our international investigative agency (CIA, I believe) hand over the information from the investigation and the evidence to the judicial system of the foreign country (this is the way it's done.) And then we let them investigate.

But you don't have one politician call up another and say "hey, squirrelly dealings... look into it".

It needs to be done through the system already in place.
edit on 29-9-2019 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Byrd

And if the laws of that country are being thwarted by an American diplomat, like just for argument sake, the VICE PRESIDENT of the US, and he claims the PRESIDENT is on board, you feel that interfering with that countries justice system is OK, you know, since they were looking into the company that the VICE PRESIDENT's son worked for, on the board, making $50,000 a month.

I look forward to your well thought out ethical morally superior reply.


You've got two different arguments here.

Some diplomats have "diplomatic immunity" for certain offenses. I have no idea what this covers, but it does happen.

If the laws of that country are being thwarted, then it is up to that country to investigate and prosecute. You should probably state which laws (and relevant links to those laws) that were broken that are prosecuteable under the laws of that country.

I don't know enough about international law, the laws of Venezuela (your hypothetical example) or the Ukraine to comment on them. There are law libraries devoted to them and a lot of courts and international courts that deal with them. The people who know them best are diplomats in the State Department, scholars of foreign affairs who specialize in those countries, and lawyers who argue cases of international law.

As to your second statement, you probably misread me. I believe that we have no jurisdiction and no right to say "investigate this guy." When we suspect that there's a crime (taking place in another nation) involving another nation, the usual process (which I feel is appropriate) is to have our international investigative agency (CIA, I believe) hand over the information from the investigation and the evidence to the judicial system of the foreign country (this is the way it's done.) And then we let them investigate.

But you don't have one politician call up another and say "hey, squirrelly dealings... look into it".

It needs to be done through the system already in place.


we could agree on procedural error, much quicker than and "Impeach the MFER!", But I don't think that's an option in the narrative.

If it was Trump and it sounded this shady, I'd want it looked into. And as for his fate, that's a House issue now.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

we could agree on procedural error, much quicker than and "Impeach the MFER!", But I don't think that's an option in the narrative.

If it was Trump and it sounded this shady, I'd want it looked into. And as for his fate, that's a House issue now.


The question is "is it against the laws of that country?"

For example, in Saudi Arabia it is (or was until last year) illegal for women to drive. Yet when they come to America, they can drive. Saudi women can't be prosecuted for driving in America, even if they are citizens of Saudi Arabia. It's not a crime in the US.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Shaking down the energy company for $50,000 a month, doesn't exactly sound like something that would fall into the "not a crime"box, but then, I can't say for sure.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 09:46 PM
link   
My question for this hypothetical would be,
"Was that company under investigation for corruption prior to Don Jr. being taken on the board of directors?"

If so, then his placement there could be construed as a payoff for ending the investigation. Or, a very stupid decision for someone who has close family in a very high political position for the most powerful nation on the planet.


edit on 9/29/2019 by Krakatoa because: fixed spelling errors




top topics



 
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join