Biased media claim investigating opposition is “illegal” and “unethical.” Yet, the Obama administration investigated Trump, a political opponent. That would also make Nancy Pelosi and democratic representatives unethical for investigating Trump for impeachment. If investigating political opposition is illegal, Obama and Pelosi are also guilty.
It is not not illegal to investigate individuals accused of illegal acts. As the Speaker points out, it is their job to hold the president accountable. It is also the executive branch’s job to investigate allegations of bribery even involving political opponents. Supporters claim impeachment proves that nobody is above the law. However, preventing politicians you support from being investigated for crimes shields them from accountability. Biden is free from investigation into whether or not the relationship constitutes bribery. Trump may not be above the law but, democrats are.
There are several differences between the Obama and Trump initiated investigations. The thing that sparked accusation against Trump was unverified opposition research. The initial “evidence” against Trump should have been investigated but wasn’t. It was then used to expand the scope of the investigation too widely. The thing that sparked accusation against Biden was visibly apparent. Recent college graduates with no experience do not get such high paying jobs. There should be a narrowly defined investigation into whether or not Biden’s son’s job constitutes bribery. The second difference is that Obama/Clinton supporters in the FBI leaked unverified rumors to the press to undermine the president elect. So far, if the DOJ/FBI has investigated Biden, we do not know the findings. We only know of the investigation because “whistleblowers” believed it was unethical.
The third difference is purposely being overlooked. Obama used resources for the investigation he had direct power and control over. Trump requested an impartial third party, in the form of another autonomous independent government, in whose jurisdiction the scenario occurred. Ukrainian investigatory resources are directly accountable to that government only, not the US president. Trump had no control over how an investigation be performed. He could not force the Ukrainian government to leak false information to the press to undermine opponents. He could not broaden the scope of Ukrainian investigation outside the initial purpose to gather intelligence or punish supporters. Trump did not demand a result. He requested an investigation for a behavior that could constitute bribery, an illegal act. He was acting in his capacity as president.