Not necessarily but it’s worth scrutiny, right? Blood is deeper than votes, and if someone who is running for office has a family member with a drug problem - that’s funded by shady deals with a country that’s openly hostile to the country in which that person is running for office - is makes sense to ask questions. The illegal activities are mostly around guns, drugs, hookers, perhaps some bank and tax fraud but I haven’t seen primary sources on the latter.
If you or even a family member has a drug problem, financial problems, a sex addiction, etc...all of that stuff is VERY easily exploitable by State-level espionage professionals. Since the potential for damage to the nation is high if certain information were to fall into the wrong hands, the first step in Risk Mitigation is to limit the access of the at-risk persons so they don't have the information in the first place. This is basic Security Clearance 101 stuff. It's strict because real people have lost their lives due to exploited agents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen
I'm curious - does that also apply to Donald Trump who himself had dealings with those countries as well as several of his children, and removed classified documents to his own house where foreign agents were known to frequent?
Everyone should be held to the same standard. That means me, that means Reality Winner[1], that means Hillary Clinton, that means Hunter Biden, and yes, that means Donald Trump.
But what we are seeing from what SHOULD BE our impartial law enforcement agencies is that small fish get the hammer, and Donald Trump gets his house raided. Why wasn't there a raid on the Clinton residence after the server scandal? Why hasn't Hunter been indicted if the FBI has known for years of how he's been a conduit for foreigners to buy access to his father? [2][3] Why haven't Ivanka and Jared been indicted for their suspicious overseas deals? [4] Why hasn't Obama been indicted for killing an American citizen without due process? [5]
Why are we forced to chose between two geriatrics for President, one with dementia, and the other an ignoramus blowhard? What do we have to fix so I can get a coalition government, with say Allen West (R) for President, Tulsi Gabbard (D) for Vice President, and a cross-party mix to flesh out the Department Heads and other executive staff? I feel like we are just observing a shadow war between two factions of barely-competent kleptocrats, who are so busy destabilizing the system that they aren't paying sufficient attention while China, the greatest adversary we've faced since 1945, rises. Xi Jingping is sharpening his dadao [6] and we're still arguing over who is the bigger threat to democracy, the NY real-estate charlatan/buffoon who enables his businesswoman daughter, and who thinks rules don't apply to him, or the cognitively-impaired lifelong politician who protects his "businessman"/crackhead son, who also thinks rules don't apply to him.
Cui bono? Either way...probably not the American people in the long run.
Election laws are at the State level. State election law typically has a minor/major party designation which tends to create only two viable parties. It's designed this way and you can talk to your State reps about it.
I wonder what it would look like if the FBI was impartial? Is it possible that perhaps each situation is individual and the consequences meted out to each person would be different?
We had already proved with Trump's kids that, no actually, we don't give a shit as a society about leaders having close family members (even when they're actively working in the Whitehouse) involved in shady deals.
When you're running for president of the US and your son is in an overall shady bed with China and Russia it should matter. If Joe knew, it should at least be fair news, same if he didn't know.
Do we really have to pretend that anyone cares about this any more? Like sorry, but Trump proved that the right wing doesn't give one shit if one of their boys does it. That's why your faux outrage falls on deaf ears now - no one believes that you have any standards.
> Like sorry, but Trump proved that the right wing doesn't give one shit if one of their boys does it
And Democrats just proved they don't either. So maybe Democrats should take this opportunity to prove they aren't hypocrites instead of acting just like the other side they're criticizing.
Which party claims to be all about individual responsibility and law and order? Perhaps the conservatives’ embrace of post modernist nihilism has consequences beyond themselves?
I could just as easily ask you which party claims to be about justice, fairness and democracy?
Let's not mince words, politicians of all stripes are largely opportunistic and self-serving, and that's what the evidence is suggesting. There is not as much difference between either side on that point.
Define "better". Do you mean, "the clearly preferable option in any election", or "acting on issues most citizens care about", or perhaps even just "more trustworthy"? Because these are all different and they don't all break in the Democrats' favour in every election.
The abortion issue is a perfect example. They talked a big game for decades about codifying Roe, and did absolutely nothing every time they got into power, and just cynically used that as a lever in any election to pressure people into into electing them through scare tactics. Is that trustworthy? They seem to have gotten a boost in recent polls because of abortion, but oh boy if they don't follow through this time it will be a bloodbath in 2024, and rightly so.
Believe me, the Democrats are not above trying to subvert democracy to win either. They actually do it every election in a legal way, and recently tried to do it illegally and a judge smacked them down.
I get it, you hate the tactics both sides employ, but you at least agree with what the Democrats claim to stand for. Maybe ask yourself whether they actually stand for those principles or if that's just more cynical opportunism.
If that illegal activity was connected to the person in public office, absolutely. The actions around the US forcing the firing of a prosecutor going after a company with whom Hunter has signifiant financial interests — that’s a pretty big deal.
