Forget the IRS, imagine if the President himself were to withhold American resources promised to foreign governments in exchange for dirt on his political opponents.
and then force the country to fire the top prosecutor who was investigating his son's illegal activities, truly imagine if such person would do something like that and then have the audacity to publicly brag about it knowing full well the media would cover for him due to his political party.
> Among other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma and, according to Zlochevsky's allies, using the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team
Weird choice to fire the guy slow-walking the investigation if you want to cover up illegal activities.
> [Archer] has also said, including under oath, that he was told Burisma’s allies in Washington didn’t want Shokin fired. “No, we were told that it was bad, and we don’t want a new prosecutor, and Shokin was taken care of,” Archer recently told former Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
Anyway, I guess the EU, IMF, World Bank, Germany, France, and the Ukrainian Parliament were all also colluding to save this guy's son from scrutiny back in 2015.
Cool narrative, unfortunately it isn't true. "Biden did want Shokin fired, but western leaders had widely criticized the prosecutor general as corrupt and ineffective. Biden was leading a widespread consensus in asking for removal. Secondly, a former Ukrainian official said the investigation into Burisma was dormant under Shokin."
I think history shows it pays to be friends with the party in power. As for the IRS it is complicated by the fact that the branches of government can be split along party lines. This should be considered a feature as the branches are intended to check the power of each other.
What do you mean by "the third world" in this case? It's a geographic descriptor (non-Nato / Warsaw Pact countries), not one about how a country treats its people or its developmental state.
Interesting, didn't even know about it's roots on the cold war and its politics. I think by the time I studied history it had already lost it's original meaning.
The more modern view I was referring to, is that third world countries are lesser, developing countries where things that are given elsewhere, like water, food, electricity, education, healthcare or internet access are a luxury.
I guess a more accurate term is "a developing country"
Access to water and medical attention are human rights, no matter how awful the humans may be according to the acting officers.